diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69480-0.txt | 6296 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69480-0.zip | bin | 124885 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69480-h.zip | bin | 1715311 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69480-h/69480-h.htm | 7877 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69480-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 1564207 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69480-h/images/i_copyright.jpg | bin | 4337 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69480-h/images/i_title.jpg | bin | 26220 -> 0 bytes |
10 files changed, 17 insertions, 14173 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..003a494 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #69480 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69480) diff --git a/old/69480-0.txt b/old/69480-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1e41741..0000000 --- a/old/69480-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,6296 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The truth about socialism, by Allan L. -Benson - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The truth about socialism - -Author: Allan L. Benson - -Release Date: December 5, 2022 [eBook #69480] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Richard Tonsing and the Online Distributed Proofreading - Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from - images generously made available by The Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRUTH ABOUT -SOCIALISM *** - - - - - - THE TRUTH ABOUT SOCIALISM - - - BY - ALLAN L. BENSON - - Author of “The Usurped Power of the Courts,” “The Growing Grocery Bill,” - “Socialism Made Plain,” etc. - -[Illustration] - - NEW YORK - B. W. HUEBSCH - 1913 - - - - - Copyright, 1912 - BY THE PEARSON PUBLISHING CO. - - Copyright, 1913 - BY ALLAN L. BENSON - -[Illustration] - - First printing, February, 1913 - Second printing, March, 1913 - Third printing, May, 1913 - - - - - CONTENTS - - - PAGE - I TO THE DISINHERITED 1 - II WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHY IT IS 4 - III THE VIRTUOUS GRAFTERS AND THEIR GRAVE OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM 24 - IV WHY SOCIALISTS PREACH DISCONTENT 43 - V HOW THE PEOPLE MAY ACQUIRE THE TRUSTS 63 - VI THE “PRIVATE PROPERTY” BOGEY-MAN 81 - VII SOCIALISM THE LONE FOE OF WAR 99 - VIII WHY SOCIALISTS OPPOSE “RADICAL POLITICIANS” 120 - IX THE TRUTH ABOUT THE COAL QUESTION 139 - X DEATHBEDS AND DIVIDENDS 153 - XI IF NOT SOCIALISM—WHAT? 166 - APPENDIX 183 - - - - - The Truth About Socialism - - - - - CHAPTER I - TO THE DISINHERITED - - -I am going to put a new heart into you. I am going to put your shoulders -back and your head up. Behind your tongue I shall put words, and behind -your words I shall put power. Your dead hopes I shall drag back from the -grave and make them live. Your live fears I shall put into the grave and -make them die. I shall do all of these things and more by becoming your -voice. I shall say what you have always thought, but did not say. And, -when your own unspoken words come back to you, they will come back like -rolling thunder. - -This country belongs to the people who live in it. - -The power that made the Rocky Mountains did not so make them that, -viewed from aloft, they spell “Rockefeller.” - -The monogram of Morgan is nowhere worked out in the course of the Hudson -River. - -Nothing above ground or below ground indicates that this country was -made for anybody in particular. - -Everything above ground and below ground indicates that it was made for -everybody. - -Yet, this country, as it stands to-day, is not for everybody. Everybody -has not an equal opportunity in it. A few do nothing and have -everything. The rest do everything and have nothing. - -A great many gentlemen are engaged in the occupation of trying to make -these wrongs seem right. They write political platforms to make them -seem right. They make political speeches to make them seem right. They -go to Congress to make them seem right. Some go even to the White House -to make them seem right. But no mere words, however fine, can make these -wrongs right. - -The conditions that exist in this country to-day are indefensible and -intolerable. This should be a happy country. It should be a happy -country because it contains an abundance of every element that is -required to make happiness. The pangs of hunger should never come to a -single human being, because we already produce as much food as we need, -and with more intelligent effort could easily produce enough to supply a -population ten times as great. - -Yet, instead of this happy land, we have a land in which the task of -making a living is constantly becoming greater and more uncertain. -Everything seems to be tied up in a knot that is becoming tighter. - -You do not know what is the matter. - -Your neighbor does not know what is the matter. - -Why should you know what is the matter? - -You never listen to anybody who wants you to find out. You listen only -to men who want to squeeze you out. Their word is good with you every -time. You may not think it is good, but it is good. You may not take -advice from Mr. Morgan, but you take advice from Mr. Morgan’s -Presidents, Congressmen, writers, and speakers. You may not take advice -from Mr. Ryan, but you take advice from the men whom Mr. Ryan controls. -If you should go straight to Mr. Ryan you would get the same advice. -What these men say to you, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Ryan say to them. You -listen as they speak. You vote as they vote. They get what they want. -You don’t get what you want. But you stick together. You seem never to -grow tired. You were with them at the last election. Many of you will be -with them at the next election. But you will not be with them for a -while after the next election. They will go to their fine homes, while -you go to your poor ones. They will take no fear with them, save the -fear that some day you will wake up; that some day you will listen to -men who talk to you as I am talking to you. But you will take the fear -of poverty with you, and it will hang like a pall over your happiness. - -If you have lost your hope of happiness, get it back. This can be a -happy nation in your time. This country is for you. It is big. It is -rich. It is all you need. But you will have to take it, and the easiest -way to take it is with ballots. - - - - - CHAPTER II - WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHY IT IS - - -The occupation of the scarlet woman is said to be “the oldest -profession.” If so, the robbery of man by man is the oldest trade. It is -as old as the human race. It had its origin in the difficulty of -producing enough of the material necessities of life. The earth was -lean. Man was weak. Never was there enough food for all. Many must -suffer. Some must starve. - -What wonder that man robbed man? Self-preservation is the first law of -nature. We have always fought and shall always fight for those things -that are scarce and without which we should die. If water were scarce, -we should all be fighting by the brookside. If air were scarce, we -should all be straining our lungs to take in as much as we could. - -But what wonder, also, that the robbed should resist those who robbed -them? The robbed, too, have the instinct of self-preservation. They, -too, want to live. All through the ages, they have fought for the right -to live. By the sheer force of numbers, they have driven their -exploiters from pillar to post. Again and again, they have compelled -their exploiters to abandon one method of robbery, only to see them take -up another. And, though some men no longer own other men’s bodies, some -men still live by the sweat of other men’s brows. - -The question is: Must this go on forever? Must a few always live so far -from poverty that they cannot see it, while the rest live so close to it -that they cannot see anything else? Must millions of women work in -factories at men’s work, while millions of men walk the streets unable -to get any work? Must the cry of child-labor forever sound to high -heaven above the rumble of the mills that grind their bodies into -dividends? Must the pinched faces of underfed children always make some -places hideous? - -No man in his senses will say that this situation must always exist. -Human nature revolts at it. The wrong of it rouses the feelings even -before it touches the intellect. Something within us tells us to cry out -and to keep crying out until we find relief. We have tried almost every -remedy that has been offered to us, but every remedy we have tried has -failed. The hungry children are still with us. The hungry women are -still with us. The hungry men are still with us. Never before was it so -hard for most people to live. Yet, we live at a time when men, working -with machinery, could make enough of everything for everybody. - -Your radical Republican recognizes these facts and says something is the -matter. Your Democratic radical recognizes these facts and says -something is the matter. Your Rooseveltian Progressive also recognizes -these facts and says something is the matter. But if you will carefully -listen to these gentlemen, you will observe that none of them believes -much is the matter. None of them believes much need be done to make -everything right. One wants to loosen the tariff screw a little. The -others want to put a new little wheel in the anti-trust machine. - -Socialists differ from each of these gentlemen. Socialists say much is -the matter with this country. Socialists say much is the matter with any -country, most of whose people are in want or in fear of want, and some -of whose people are where want never comes or can come. Some such -conditions might have been tolerated a thousand years ago. Socialists -will not tolerate them to-day. They say the time for poverty has passed. -They say the time for poverty passed when man substituted steam and -electricity for his muscles and machinery for his fingers. - -But poverty did not go out when steam and electricity came in. On the -contrary, the fear of want became intensified. Now, nobody who has not -capital can live unless he can get a job. In the days that preceded the -steam engine, nobody had to look for a job. Everybody owned his own job. -The shoemaker could make shoes for his neighbors. The weaver could weave -cloth. Each could work at his trade, without anybody’s permission, -because the tools of their trades were few and inexpensive. Now, neither -of them can work at his trade, because the tools of his trade have -become numerous and expensive. The tools of the shoemaker’s trade are in -the great factory that covers, perhaps, a dozen acres. The tools of the -weaver’s trade are in another enormous factory. Neither the shoemaker -nor the weaver can ever hope to own the tools of his trade. Nor, with -the little hand-tools of the past centuries, can either of them compete -with the modern factories. The shoe trust, with steam, electricity and -machinery, can make a pair of shoes at a price that no shoemaker, -working by hand, could touch. - -Thus the hand-workers have been driven to knock at the doors of the -factories that rich men own and ask for work. If the rich men can see a -profit in letting the poor men work, the poor men are permitted to work. -If the rich men cannot see a profit in letting the poor men work, then -the poor men may not work. Though there be the greatest need for shoes, -if those in need have no money, the rich men lock up their factories and -wave the workers away. The workers may starve, if they like. Their wives -and children may starve. The workers may become tramps, criminals or -maniacs; their wives and their little children may be driven into the -street—but the rich men who closed their factories because they could -see no profit in keeping them open—these rich men take no part of the -responsibility. They talk about the “laws of trade,” go to their clubs -and have a little smoke, and, perhaps, the next week give a few dollars -to “worthy charity” and forget all about the workers. - -Now, the Socialists are extremely tired of all this. Their remedy may be -all wrong, but they are tired of all this. Put the accent upon the -_tired_ all the time. They say it is all wrong. Not only do they say it -is all wrong, but they say they know how to make it all right. They do -not propose to do any small job of tinkering, because they say that if -small jobs of tinkering were enough to cure the great evil of poverty, -we should have cured it long ago. They say we have been tinkering with -tariffs, income taxes and the money question for a hundred years without -reducing either want or the fear of want. They say we have made no -progress, during the last hundred years, in reducing want and the fear -of want, because we have never hit the grafters where they live. By -this, they mean that we have never cut the tap root upon which robbery -grows. The serfs cut off the tap root when they threw off chattel -slavery, but another tap root has grown and we have not yet discovered -where to strike. - -The Socialists say they know where to strike. - -“_Strike at the machinery of the country_,” they say, “_by having the -people, through the government, own the machinery of the country_.” - -“_Cut out the profits of the private owners_,” they say. “_Let the -people own the trusts and make things because they want the things, -instead of because somebody else wants a profit, and there will never -again be in this country either want or the fear of want._” - -This sounds like a nice, man-made program, cooked up late at night by -some zealous gentleman intent upon saving his country. It may be a -foolish program, but if it is, it is not that kind of a foolish program. -It is not man-made, any more than Darwin’s theory of evolution is -man-made. Darwin observed present animal life and thereby explained the -past. Socialists observe past and present industrial life and thereby -forecast the future. Paradoxically, then, the Socialist remedy is not a -Socialist remedy. If it is anything, it is the remedy that evolution is -bringing to us. Socialists see what evolution is bringing and proclaim -it, much as a trainman announces the coming of a train that he already -sees rounding a curve. - -Let me tell a story to illustrate this point: - -Seventy years ago, Socialist writers predicted and accurately described -the trusts as they exist to-day. Nobody paid much attention to the -predictions or the descriptions. Nowhere in the world was there a single -trust. Nowhere in the world was any one thinking of forming one. The -first trust was not formed until almost forty years later. - -The trusts were predicted because the steam engine had been invented and -brought with it machinery. The invention did not mean much to most -people. It meant everything to these early Socialists. They saw its -significance. They saw that it meant a transformed world. Never again -would the world be as it had always been. Never again would the amount -of wealth that man could create be limited by his weak muscles. Steam -and machinery had come to do, not only what he had been doing, but what -he had never dreamed of doing. - -The only lesson that the rich men of the day learned from steam was that -it meant more money for them. The rich men of the day, by the way, were -in need of a new method of exploitation. Serfdom had just gone down in -the Napoleonic wars, and some men were no longer able to exploit other -men by claiming to own the other men’s bodies. Exploitation, through the -private ownership of land, still continued, it is true, but a man -working by hand cannot be much exploited because he cannot make much. -What I mean by this is that he cannot be exploited of many dollars. Of -course, he can be exploited of so great a percentage of his product that -he is left starving, but the man who exploits him will not be much -richer. That is why there were no great fortunes, as we now know them, -in the days before the machinery age. Wealth was too difficult to make. - -But, to return to our story. The invention of the steam engine gave the -rich men of the early eighteenth century the opportunity of which they -stood much in need. Factories cost money. The workers did not have any. -The rich men did. The rich men built factories. That is to say, they -thought they were only building factories. As a matter of fact, they -were taking over, from the hands of evolution, the poor man’s tools. -Never again were working men to own the tools of their trades. Their -tools had gone down in the struggle in which the survivors must be the -fittest. For centuries, the world had starved because of their old -hand-tools. They could not, for a moment, exist after steam and -machinery came. It was right that the hand-tools should go. It was -unfortunate for the workers only that the successors of hand-tools were -too expensive for individual ownership, and that they were also unsuited -to such ownership. No man can run a whole shoe factory, even if he owns -one. Many men are required to run many machines, and many machines are -required to make the labor of men most productive. - -All of this, the early Socialists saw or reasoned out. They saw the rich -men of the day building factories. They saw those who were not quite so -rich joining together to build factories. Little co-partnerships were -springing up all over the world. Everybody competed with everybody else -in his line. Manufactures multiplied, and it became the common belief -that “competition was the life of trade.” - -_Stick a pin here. The roots of Socialism go down somewhere near this -point._ - -The early Socialist writers who predicted the trusts did not believe -competition was the life of trade. They believed the inevitable tendency -of competition was to kill itself. Their reasoning took this form: - - _Manufacturers engage in business, not because they want to - supply goods to the public, but because they want to make - profits for themselves._ - - _Inasmuch as the question of who shall make the profits depends - upon who shall sell the goods, manufacturers will compete with - each other to sell goods._ - - _Manufacturers will be able to compete and still make a profit - so long as the demand for goods far exceeds the supply._ - - _But the demand for goods will not always far exceed the supply. - The opportunity to make profits will tempt other capitalists to - create manufacturing enterprises. The market will become glutted - with goods, because more will have been produced than the people - can pay for._ - - _Competition among manufacturers will then become so fierce that - profits will first shrink and eventually disappear._ - - _Manufacturers, to regain their profits, will then cease to - compete. The strongest will buy out or crush the weakest. - Monopolies will be formed, primarily to end competition and save - the competitors from themselves, but, having been formed, they - will also be used to rob the people._ - -Mind you—this reasoning is not new. It is seventy years old. It sounds -new only because it has so recently come true. Nobody whose eyes are -open now believes that competition is the life of trade. The phrase has -died upon the lips of the very men who used to speak it. The late -Senator Hanna was one of the many who used to believe that good trade -could not be where competition was not. But, when the great trust -movement of 1898 was under way, Senator Hanna said: “It is not a -question of whether business men do or do not believe in trusts. It is a -question only of whether business men want to be killed by competition -or saved by coöperation.” - -However, the existence of the trusts is ample verification of the -Socialist prophecy that they would come. And the trusts came in the way -that the early Socialists said they would come. - -We may now proceed to consider what those early Socialist writers -thought of the trusts that they so accurately described before they -came, what they believed would become of them and what they believed -would supplant them. - -No Socialist was ever heard finding fault with a trust simply for -existing. A Socialist would as soon find fault with a green apple -because it had been produced from a blossom. In fact, Socialists regard -the trusts as the green apples upon the tree of industrial evolution. -But they would no more destroy these industrial green apples that are -making the world sick than they would destroy the green apples that make -small boys sick. They pause, first because they are evolutionists, not -only in biology, but in everything; second, because they recall that the -green apples that make the boy sick will, if left to ripen, make the man -well. In short, Socialists regard trusts, or private monopolies, as a -necessary stage in industrial evolution; a stage that we could not have -avoided; a stage that in many respects, represents a great advance over -any phase of civilization that preceded it, yet a stage at which we -cannot stop unless civilization stops. Therefore, Socialists take this -position: - - _It is flying in the face of evolution itself to talk about - destroying, or even effectually regulating the trusts._ - - _Private monopolies cannot be destroyed except as green apples - can be destroyed—by crushing them and staying the evolutionary - processes that, if left alone, will yield good fruit._ - - _Private monopolies cannot be effectually regulated because, so - long as they are permitted to exist, they will regulate the - government instead of permitting the government to regulate - them. They will regulate the government because the great - profits at stake will give them the incentive to do so and the - enormous capital at their command will give them the power to do - so._ - -In other words, Socialists say that the processes of evolution should go -on. What do they mean by this? They mean that the good elements of the -trust principle should be preserved and the bad elements destroyed. What -are the good elements? The economies of large, well-ordered production, -and the avoidance of the waste due to haphazard, competitive production. -And the bad elements? The powers that private monopoly gives, through -control of market and governmental policies, to rob the consumer. - -Socialists contend that the good can be saved and the bad destroyed by -converting the private monopolies into public monopolies—in other words, -by letting the government own the trusts and the people own the -government. This may seem like what the foes of Socialism would call a -“patent nostrum.” It is nothing of the kind. It is no more a patent -nostrum than the trusts are patent nostrums. Socialists invented neither -private monopolies nor public monopolies. Socialists did not kill -competition. Competition killed itself. Socialists simply were able to -foresee that too much competition would end all competition and thus -give birth to private monopoly. - -And, having seen thus far, they looked a little further and saw that -private monopoly would not be an unmixed blessing. They saw that under -it, robbery would be practised in new, strange and colossal forms. They -knew the people would not like robbery in any form. They knew they would -cry out against it as they are crying out against the trusts to-day. And -they believed that after having tried to destroy the trusts and failed -at that; after having tried to regulate the trusts and failed at that, -that the people would cease trying to buck evolution, and get for -themselves the benefits of the trusts by owning them. - -This may be an absurd idea, but in part, at least, it has already been -verified. It has been demonstrated that private monopoly saves the -enormous sums that were spent in the competitive era to determine -whether this man or that man should get the profit upon the things you -buy. The consumer has absolutely no interest in the identity of the -capitalist who exploits him. But when capitalists were competing for -trade, the consumer was made to bear the whole cost of fighting for his -trade. - -Private monopoly has largely done away with the cost of selling trust -goods, by doing away with the individual competitors who were once -struggling to put their goods upon the market. Private monopoly has also -reduced the cost of production by introducing the innumerable economies -that accompany large production. - -What private monopoly has not done and will never do is to pass along -these savings to the consumers. The monopolists have passed along some -of the savings, but not many of them. What they have passed along bears -but a small proportion to what they have kept. That is what most of the -trouble is about now. The people find it increasingly difficult to live. -For a dozen years, it has been increasingly difficult to live. -Persistent and more persistent has been the demand that something be -done about the trusts. - -The first demand was that the trusts be destroyed. Now, Mr. Bryan is -about the only man in the country to whom the conviction has not been -borne home that the trusts cannot be destroyed. The rest of the people -want the trusts regulated, and the worst of the trust magnates sent to -jail. Up to date, not a single trust has been regulated, nor a single -trust magnate sent to jail. Officially, of course, the Standard Oil -Company, the American Tobacco Company and the Coal Trust have been -cleansed in the blue waters of the Supreme Court laundry and hung upon -the line as white as snow. But gentlemen who are not stone blind know -that this is not so. They know the Standard Oil Company, the American -Tobacco Company and the Coal Trust have merely put on masks and gone on -with the hold-up business. Therefore, the Socialist predictions of -seventy years ago have all been verified up to and including the -inability of any government either to destroy or regulate the trusts. - -So much for what Socialists believe Socialism, by reducing the prices of -commodities to cost, would do for the people as consumers. Socialists -believe Socialism would do even more for the people as workers. Behold -the present plight of the workingman. He has a right to live, but he has -not a right to the means by which he can live. He cannot live without -work, yet, ever he must seek work as a privilege—not as a right. The -coming of the age of machinery has made it impossible to work without -machinery. Yet the worker owns no machinery and can get access to no -machinery except upon such terms as he may be able to make with its -owners. - -Socialists urge the people to consider the results of this unprecedented -situation. First, there is great insecurity of employment. No one knows -how long his job is destined to last. It may not last another day. A -great variety of causes exist, any one of which may deprive the worker -of his opportunity to work. Wall Street gentlemen may put such a crimp -in the financial situation that industry cannot go on. Business may slow -down because more is being produced than the markets can absorb. A -greedy employer may precipitate a strike by trying to reduce the wages -of his employees. Any one of many causes may without notice step in -between the worker and the machinery without which he cannot work. - -But worse than the uncertainty of employment is the absolute certainty -that millions of men must always be out of work. Times are never so good -that there is work for everybody. Most persons do not know it, but in -the best of times there are always a million men out of work. In the -worst of times, the number of men out of work sometimes exceeds -5,000,000. The country cries for the things they might produce. There is -great need for shoes, flour, cloth, houses, furniture, and fuel. These -millions of men, if they could get in touch with machinery, could -produce enough of such staples to satisfy the public demand. If they -could but work, their earnings would vastly increase the amount of money -in circulation and thus increase the buying power of everybody. But they -cannot work, because they do not own the machinery without which they -cannot work, and the men who own it will not let it be used, because -they cannot see any profits for themselves in having it used. - -Socialists say this is an appalling situation. They are amazed that the -nation tolerates it. They believe the nation would not tolerate it if it -understood it. Some things are more easily understood than others. If -5,000,000 men were on a sinking ship within swimming distance of the -Atlantic shore and the employing class were to prevent them from -swimming ashore for no other reason than that the employing class had no -use for their services—the people would understand that. Socialists -believe the people will soon understand the present situation. - -Here is another thing that Socialists hope the people will soon -understand. The policy of permitting a few men to use the machinery with -which all other men must work or starve compels all other men to become -competitors for its use. If there were no more workers than the -capitalists must have, there would not be such competition. But there -must always be more workers than the capitalists can use. The fact that -the capitalist demands a profit upon the worker’s labor renders the -worker incapable of buying back the very thing he has made. Under -present conditions, trade must, therefore, always be smaller than the -natural requirements of the people for goods. And since, with machinery, -each worker can produce a vast volume of goods, it inevitably follows -that only a part of the workers are required to make all of the goods -that can be sold at a profit. That is why there is not always work for -all. - -With more workers than there are jobs, it thus comes about that the -workers are compelled to compete among themselves for jobs. Only part of -the workers can be employed and the struggle of each is to become one of -that part. The workers who are out of employment are always willing to -work, if they can get no more, for a wage that represents only the cost -of the poorest living upon which they will consent to exist. It -therefore follows that wages are always based upon the cost of living. -If the cost of living is high, wages are high. If the cost of living is -low, wages are low. In any event, the worker has nothing left after he -has paid for his living. - -Socialists say this is not just. They can understand the capitalist who -buys labor as he buys pig-iron, but they say labor is entitled to more -consideration than pig-iron. The price of labor, they declare, should be -gauged by the value of labor’s product, instead of by the direness of -labor’s needs. They say the present situation gives to the men who own -machinery most of its benefits and to the many who operate it none of -its hopes. Now. as of old, the average worker dare hope for no more than -enough to keep him alive. Again and again and again the census reports -have shown that the bulk of the people in this country are so poor that -they do not own even the roofs over their heads. - -The purpose of Socialism is to give the workers _all_ they produce. And, -when Socialists say “workers” they do not mean only those who wear -overalls and carry dinner pails. They mean everybody who does useful -labor. Socialists regard the general superintendent of a railroad as -quite as much of a worker as they do the man on the section. But they do -not regard the owners of railway stocks and bonds as workers. They -regard them as parasites who are living off the products of labor by -owning the locomotives, cars and other equipment with which the workers -work. And, since the ownership of machinery is the club with which -Socialists say capitalists commit their robberies, Socialists also -declare that the only way to stop the robberies is to take away the -club. It would do no good to take the club from the men who now hold it -and give it even to the individual workers, because, with the principle -of private ownership retained, ownership would soon gravitate into a few -hands and robbery would go on as ruthlessly as ever. Socialists believe -the only remedy is to destroy the club by vesting the ownership of the -great machinery of production and distribution in the people, through -the government. - -Such is the gist of Socialism—public ownership of the trusts, combined -with public ownership of the government. Gentlemen who are opposed to -Socialism—for what reasons it is now unnecessary to consider—lose no -opportunity to spread the belief that there are more kinds of Socialism -than there are varieties of the celebrated products of Mr. Heinz. This -is not so. There are more than 30,000,000 Socialists in the world. Not -one of them would refuse to write across this chapter: “That is -Socialism,” and sign his name to it. Every Socialist has his individual -conception of how mankind would advance if poverty were eliminated, but -all Socialists agree that the heart and soul of their philosophy lies in -the public ownership, under democratic government, of the means of life. -And, as compared with this belief, all other beliefs of Socialism are -minor and inconsequential. Public ownership is the rock upon which it is -determined to stand or fall. - -Socialists differ only with regard to the means by which public -ownership may be brought about. A handful of Socialists, for instance, -believe that in order to bring it about it is necessary to oppose the -labor unions. All other Socialists work hand in hand with the labor -unions. - -Also, there is a difference of opinion among Socialists as to how the -government should proceed to obtain ownership of the industrial trusts, -the railroads, telegraph, telephone and express companies and so forth. -Some Socialists are in favor of confiscating them, on the theory that -the people have a right to resort to such drastic action. In a way, they -have excellent authority for their position. Read what Benjamin Franklin -said about property at the convention that was called in 1776 to adopt a -new constitution for Pennsylvania: - - “Suppose one of our Indian nations should now agree to form a civil - society. Each individual would bring into the stock of the society - little more property than his gun and his blanket, for at present he - has no other. We know that when one of them has attempted to keep a - few swine he has not been able to maintain a property in them, his - neighbors thinking they have a right to kill and eat them whenever - they want provisions, it being one of their maxims that hunting is - free for all. The accumulation of property in such a society, and its - security to individuals in every society, must be an effect of the - protection afforded to it by the joint strength of the society in the - execution of its laws. - - “Private property is, therefore, a creature of society, and is subject - to the calls of that society whenever its necessities require it, - _even to the last farthing_.” - -But one need quote only the law of self-preservation to prove that if -any people shall ever become convinced that their lives depend upon the -confiscation of the trusts that such confiscation will be justified. -When men reach a certain stage of hunger and wretchedness they pay scant -attention to every law except the higher law that says they have a right -to live. - -I believe that most Socialists twenty years ago, were in favor of -confiscation. The trend now is all toward compensation. Not that -Socialists have changed their minds at all about the equities of the -matter. They have not. But they are coming to see that compensation is -the easier and quicker way. Victor Berger, the first Socialist -congressman, introduced in the House of Representatives an anti-trust -bill in which he proposed that the government should buy all of the -trusts that control more than forty per cent. of the business in their -respective lines, and pay therefor their full cash values—minus, of -course, wind, water and all forms of speculative inflation. In short the -differences in the Socialist party upon the question of compensation are -not unlike the differences which once existed with regard to the best -means by which the negroes might be emancipated. Years before the Civil -War, Henry Clay proposed that the government should buy the negroes at -double their market price and set them free. He said this would be the -cheapest and quickest way of settling the troubles between the North and -the South. The slave owners would not consent, and, eventually Lincoln -freed their slaves without paying for them. - -When Socialists speak of buying the trusts, they naturally invite the -inquiry as to where they expect to get the money to pay for them. They -expect to get the money out of the profits of the trusts. That is the -way that Representative Berger provided in his bill. It is a poor trust -that does not pay dividends upon stock and interest upon bonds that do -not aggregate at least ten per cent. of the capital actually invested. -Most of them pay more, and some of the express companies occasionally -spring a fifty or a 100 per cent. dividend. - -The Socialist proposal is that the government pay for the trusts with -two-per cent. bonds, and that each year, enough money be put into a -sinking fund to retire the bonds in not more than fifty years. The -burden of purchasing the trusts would thus be spread over a little more -than two generations, but Socialists say the burden would be a burden -only in name, since the prices of trust goods could be radically -reduced, even while the trusts were being paid for, and upon the -retirement of the bonds, all prices could be reduced to cost. - -Those who know little or nothing about Socialism believe that Socialists -also differ as to the advisability of using violence to bring about -Socialism. Never was there a greater mistake. Above all others, the -Socialist party is the party of peace. When Germany and England, in -1911, were ready to fly at each other’s throats, it was the Socialist -party of Germany that assembled 200,000 men in Berlin one Sunday -afternoon and declared that if there were a war, the Socialists of -Germany would not help fight it. It was generally admitted, at the time, -that the attitude of the German Socialists, more than anything else, was -responsible for the avoidance of war. - -Socialists are equally pacific when considering the best means by which -Socialism may be brought about. Socialists are, first, last and all the -time in favor only of political action and trade-union action. Wherever -there is a free ballot, they believe in using it, to the exclusion of -bombs and bullets. Socialists realize that they can win only by -converting a majority of the people to their belief. That is why they -begin one campaign the next morning after the closing of another. They -are busy with the printing press and their tongues all the while. For -them, there is no closed season. - -Socialists realize that Socialism can be reared only upon understanding, -and that the use of dynamite would turn the minds of the people against -them for a hundred years. Any Socialist who believes otherwise is the -same sort of a potential criminal that can be found in any other -party—and equally as rare. The Republican party had its Guiteau and its -Czolgosz, but it repudiated neither of them more quickly than the -Socialist party would repudiate one of its own members who should commit -a great crime. - -Socialists, as a party, stand for violence only in the same way that -Abraham Lincoln stood for it. If the Socialists should carry a national -election in this country, and, the capitalists, refusing to yield, -should turn the regular army at them, the Socialists would use all the -violence they could muster. While they are in a minority, they are -obeying the laws that the capitalists make, but when the Socialists -become a majority, they will insist, even with bullets, that the -capitalists obey the laws that the Socialists make. - - - - - CHAPTER III - THE VIRTUOUS GRAFTERS AND THEIR GRAVE OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM - - -It is an old saying that the tree that bears the best apples has the -most clubs under it. Enough clubs are under the tree of Socialism to -stock a wood-yard. Some of the clubs bear the imprints of honest men. -Some do not. The great grafters of the present day are the most -persistent foes of Socialism. The great grafters say, not only that -Socialism is anti-religious, but that it would destroy the family. The -grafters also say that Socialism stands for free love. - -It may be amusing to hear a grafter oppose Socialism on the ground that -it is against religion. It may be diverting to hear gentlemen with Reno -reputations charge that Socialism would establish free love and thus -destroy the family. But such charges cannot be dismissed by laughing at -those who make them. Honest men and women want to know the truth. - -The truth is that there is no truth in the charge that Socialism is -against religion. Socialism is purely an economic matter. It has no more -to do with religion than it has to do with astronomy. It is no more -against religion than it is against astronomy. Men of all religious -denominations are Socialists, and men of no religious denomination are -Socialists. Nor is there any reason why this should not be so. The very -pith and marrow of Socialism is the contention that the people, through -the government, should own and operate, for their exclusive benefit, the -great machinery of production and distribution that is now owned and -operated by the trusts. Either this contention is sound or it is not. -Whether it is sound or not, a man’s religious beliefs cannot possibly -have anything to do with what he thinks of it. - -But while Socialism is in no sense anti-religious, it is in one sense -pro-religious. So good an authority as the Encyclopedia Britannica -declares that “the ethics of Socialism and the ethics of Christianity -are identical.” One of the concerns of Christianity is to establish -justice upon earth. The only concern of Socialism is to establish -justice upon earth. Socialism seeks to establish justice by giving each -human being an equal opportunity to labor, while depriving each human -being of the power to appropriate any part of the product of another -human being’s labor. If the Socialist program contains a word of comfort -for either grafters or loafers, neither the grafters nor the loafers -have found it. - -Nor does the Socialist program contain a word of comfort for the Reno -gentlemen. Socialists beg leave frankly to doubt the sincerity of -certain wealthy men who profess to believe that Socialism would destroy -the family by bringing about free love. Socialists say the best proof -that these men believe nothing of the kind is that they do not make -application to join the Socialist party. The wives of some of them -certainly make enough applications for divorce. - -Addressing themselves to the members of the capitalist class, Socialists -therefore speak as follows: - -“If the preservation of the family depends upon you, God help the -family. If the preservation of womanly women depends upon you, God help -the women. You are not all bad, but you are all doing bad. Some of you -are doing bad without knowing it; some of you are doing bad though -knowing it. But, whether you know it or not, all of you are doing bad -because your capitalist system is bad. Your system makes those of you -who would do good do bad. It makes you fatten upon the labor of -children, because your competitors are fattening upon the labor of -children. It makes you fatten upon the labor of women, because your -competitors are fattening upon the labor of women. It makes you fatten -upon the labor of men because your competitors are fattening upon the -labor of men. It makes you keep men, women and children poor, because in -no other way could you become rich. - -“And you are the ones who are so fearful lest Socialism shall destroy -the home. Why do you not worry a little lest the poverty caused by -capitalism shall destroy the home? Why are you so slightly stirred by -the spectacle of little children torn from their firesides and their -schools to work for starvation wages in factories and department stores? -Why are you so well able to control your grief when the census reports -tell you that more than 5,000,000 women and girls have been compelled to -become wage earners because their husbands and fathers receive so little -wages that they cannot support their families? Why are you so well able -to bear up when the white-slave dealer gets the little girl from the -department store? - -“None of these facts, nor all of these facts seem to suggest to you -wealthy gentlemen who are opposing Socialism that the conditions under -which you have become rich are doing anything to disrupt the family or -to bring about free love. But you profess to be stunned to a stare when -Socialists present a program that is devoted to the single purpose of -preventing you, who do no useful labor, from robbing those who do it -all. If you have other grounds for opposing Socialism, state them. But -in the name of common decency, don’t come forward as the protectors of -women and children. Your hands are not clean.” - -Socialists contend that Socialism would do more to purify, glorify and -vivify the family than capitalism has ever done or can do. Their -reasoning takes this form: - -_Unless poverty is good for the family, capitalism is not good for the -family, because capitalism means poverty or the fear of poverty for all -but a few and can never mean anything else. Capitalism can never mean -anything else because capitalism is essentially parasitical in its -nature. It lives and can live only by preying upon the working class._ - -_If plenty for everybody, without too much or too little for anybody -will purify, glorify and vivify the family, Socialism will purify, -glorify and vivify it. Socialism will place all of the great machinery -of modern production in the hands of the people, to be used fully and -freely for nobody’s advantage but their own._ - -Of course, the family cannot be improved without changing it. Upon this -obvious fact is based the whole capitalist attack upon Socialism as a -destroyer of the home. Socialists believe that freedom from poverty -would have a profound effect upon domestic relationships. And Socialist -writers have tried to picture the world as it will be when all of the -hot hoops of want have been removed from the compact little group that -is called the family. - -They have pictured woman standing firmly upon her feet, with the ballot -in one hand and the power under the law to live from her labor with -comfort and self-respect, either inside or outside of her home. But no -Socialist has ever pictured a world in which woman would be compelled to -work outside her home if she did not want to. Such a picture is reserved -for capitalism in the present day. Socialists merely contend that -Socialism would make women economically independent, by guaranteeing to -them the full value of their labor. No woman would be compelled to marry -to get a home. No woman who had a home would be compelled by poverty to -stay in it if she were badly treated. For the sake of her children, she -might do so if she wished, but she could not be compelled to do so. She -would simply be free to act as her judgment might dictate—to profit from -a wise choice or to suffer from an unwise one. - -Briefly, such is the Socialist picture of the Socialist world for women. -No Socialist contends that it is a picture of a perfect world. A perfect -world could contain neither fools, hotheads, nor vicious persons. The -hard conditions of the present world, and the harder conditions of those -long past have created too many fools, hotheads and vicious persons to -justify the hope that all such persons can quickly be made wise, cool -and good. Socialists, with all their optimism, are not so optimistic as -that. They have absolutely no program, patented or otherwise, for making -people good. - -Their only contention is that they have a program under which people can -be good if they want to. They know, only too well, that with the coming -of Socialism, everybody will not suddenly want to be good. They expect -to have to deal with the bad man and the bad woman. But they do not -expect to have to deal with so many bad men and bad women as we now have -to deal with. They do not expect to have to deal with any men or women -who have been made bad by poverty or the fear of poverty. They do not -expect to have to deal with women who have been forced into prostitution -because there seemed to be no other way to keep soul and body together. -Socialists say that if there are any prostitutes under Socialism they -will be women who deliberately choose prostitution as a vocation. -Perhaps women, better than men, can judge how many such women there are -likely to be. - -It is this picture of economically independent womanhood that is hailed -by the wealthy detractors of Socialism as the sign that the Socialists -plan to destroy the home and supplant it with free love. Socialists say -that such conclusions can be based only upon these assumptions: - -That nothing but poverty keeps women from being “free-lovers.” - -That if women were given the power to support themselves decently and -comfortably outside of the home, they would at once desert their -children, their husbands and “destroy the family.” - -Socialists believe women can safely be trusted with enough money to live -on. Yet the word “trust,” as here used, is not quite the word. -Socialists do not believe it is within their province either to trust or -to distrust women. Socialists believe economic independence is a right -that women should demand and get, rather than a privilege that man -should grant or deny, as he may see fit. If women do well with economic -independence, well and good. If they do ill with it, still well and -good. If they have not yet learned to use economic independence, they -cannot begin learning too quickly, nor can they learn except by trying -to use it. - -In any event, Socialists do not claim the right of guardianship over -women. They do not believe any human being, regardless of sex, has a -right to coerce another when that other is not invading the rights of -some other. They believe that women to-day are being coerced. Coerced by -poverty. Coerced by fear of poverty. Coerced by men who presume upon -their own economic independence and the economic dependence of women. -They cite, as proof of their beliefs, the growing number of divorces, -together with the fact that women are the applicants for most of the -divorces. - -And, the astounding circumstance about all of this is that because -Socialists hold these views, they are denounced by rich grafters and -their retainers as “destroyers of the family,” and “free-lovers.” - -The Socialists have said no more than Herbert Spencer said about the -folly of trying to promote happiness with coercion. They say that -weakness pitted against strength and dependence against independence -invite coercion—no more in a family of nations than in a family of -individuals; that a woman whose economic dependence prevents her from -doing what all of her instincts call upon her to do is coerced. Here is -what Herbert Spencer says in _Social Statics_ (p. 76): - - “Command is a blight to the affections. Whatsoever of - beauty—whatsoever of poetry there is in the passion that unites the - sexes, withers up and dies in the cold atmosphere of authority. Native - as they are to such widely-separated regions of our nature, Love and - Coercion cannot possibly flourish together. Love is sympathetic; - Coercion is callous. Love is gentle; Coercion is harsh. Love is - self-sacrificing; Coercion is selfish. How then can they co-exist? It - is the property of the first to attract, while it is that of the last - to repel; and, conflicting as they do, it is the constant tendency of - each to destroy the other. Let whoever thinks the two compatible - imagine himself acting the master over his betrothed. Does he believe - that he could do this without any injury to the subsisting - relationship? Does he not know rather that a bad effect would be - produced upon the feelings of both by the assumption of such an - attitude? And, confessing this as he must, is he superstitious enough - to suppose that the going through of a form of word will render - harmless that use of command which was previously hurtful?” - -Nobody ever called Spencer a “destroyer of the home,” or a “free-lover” -for that. Yet, if Spencer meant anything, he meant that coercion is -primarily wrong because it deprives the individual of the right to be -guided by his own judgment. Socialists contend that women have a right -to be guided by their own judgment, even if they make mistakes. Men do -so. Women rebel against the denial of their equal right. They rebel -against the coercion that is worked against them by their inability to -earn decent, comfortable livings outside of their homes. Socialists say -the family can never be what it might be or what it should be so long as -this warfare continues. They say that since the weak never coerce the -strong, there should be no economically weak members of the community. -Men and women should both be economically independent. Each is likely to -treat the other better if they are so. - -Francis G. Peabody, Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard, has been -as fortunate as Spencer in escaping the charge of being a “destroyer of -the family” and a “free-lover.” The professor is quoted in the press as -follows: - - “One thing is certain, the family is rapidly becoming disorganized and - disintegrated.... Divorces are being granted at an ever-increasing - rate. It may be computed that if the present ratio of increase in - population and in separation is maintained, the number of separations - of marriage by death would at the end of the twentieth century be less - than the number of separations by divorce.... - - “Owing to industrial life, the importance of the family is already - enormously lessened. Once every form of industry went on within the - family circle, but as the methods of the great industry are - substituted for work done in the home, the economic usefulness of the - family is practically outgrown.” - -Then, painting a picture of the world to come, as he sees it, the -professor said: - - “Thus with the coming of the social state, family unity will be for a - higher end. The wife, being no longer doomed to household drudgery, - will have the greater blessing of economic equality. Children will be - cared for by the community under healthful and uniform conditions, and - we shall arrive at what has been called the happy time when continuity - of society no longer depends upon the private nursery.” - -But what Professor Peabody has said, or what Socialists have said with -regard to the next step in the evolution of the family is a little -beside the point, and is mentioned so at length only because the -detractors of Socialism make so much of it. The point is: _Ought the -world if it can, to get rid of poverty, and will Socialism do it?_ If -Socialism will rid the world of poverty, ought we to retain poverty to -keep women good? Who knows that economic independence would make women -bad? The grafters intimate that they know. But who believes the -grafters? The grafters say the present status of the family is so good -that we should be content to remain poor in order to preserve it. -Professor Peabody says the present status of the family is so bad that -it is falling to pieces. The professor has proof of his statement in -every divorce court. The grafters have proof of their statement in no -court, nor anywhere else. - -Besides, the testimony of the grafters is properly subject to suspicion. -If Socialism would remove poverty it would also remove the grafters. If -Socialism would not remove poverty or the grafters, but would bring -about free love, do you believe the grafters would oppose it? Is it not -more likely that the grafters believe Socialism would remove both -poverty and themselves and that they are trying to throw a scare into -the people by howling about the threatened destruction of the family? If -not, why do not the grafters themselves do something to stop their own -destruction of the family? A $100 bill will make more happiness in a -home than a sermon against Socialism. Why don’t they give up their -dividends and let the workers have what they produce? Why don’t they -drum Professor Peabody out of Harvard? If the Socialists are -free-lovers, Professor Peabody is a free-lover. Why don’t they put him -out? Is it because he does not also advocate Socialism? - -“Ah,” say the grafters, “but the lives of Socialists do not bear out -their protestations of devotion to the family. Look at the ‘affinities’ -that some of them have had.” - -“Quite true,” say the Socialists, “but one affinity does not make a -fire, nor do two make a forest. What if one or two Socialists of more or -less prominence have been divorced? Are affinities and divorces unknown -among Democrats and Republicans? Is the percentage of divorces greater -in Socialist families than it is in Democratic or Republican families? -Where is your proof? What have you got on Debs? What have you got on -Berger? What have you got on Seidel, the former Socialist Mayor of -Milwaukee? These men are in the limelight. If they should make a -mismove, you would blazon it. What do you know against them?” - -The foregoing pretty well sums up the situation, so far as the free-love -and destroying-the-family charges are concerned. There is nothing in -them. Socialists are trying to eradicate poverty _now_. They have no -other immediate concern. If the eradication of poverty should send the -world to hell, the Socialists, if they can, will send the world to hell. -They do not believe anything that can be kept only with poverty is worth -keeping. Their observation has taught them that poverty is always and -everywhere a curse. They believe no other curse is nearly so great -except the curse of excessive riches. - -Let us now pass to objections to Socialism that are both pertinent and -honest. It is the common belief of those who do not understand Socialism -that, under a Socialist form of government, the government would do -everything and the people could therefore do nothing; that “everybody -would be held down to a dead level,” and that as a consequence of the -individual’s inability to rise, nobody would have an incentive to work. - -Here are several kindred objections rolled into one. Let us pick them to -pieces and see what is in them. - -Let it be conceded that under Socialism the government would own and -operate all of the great industries. What of it? The people would do -precisely what they are doing now, except that they would do it through -the government for themselves, instead of through capitalists for -themselves and the capitalists. The people are now engaged in useful -labor. A small body of parasites are appropriating much that the people -produce. Under Socialism, the parasites will have to go to work. The -people will simply continue to work, though under better conditions and -for a greater return than they now receive. - -Now, let us see just what is meant by “keeping everybody upon a dead -level.” As the world stands to-day, people differ chiefly as to wealth -and to intellect. If one person is not on a “dead level” with another it -is because he is more intelligent or more stupid than that other, or -because he is richer or poorer. Nobody, of course, believes that -Socialism or anything else could put Edison on a dead level with the -boss of Tammany Hall. If Socialism is to establish a dead level, it must -therefore be by establishing equality as to wealth. - -Capitalism has pretty nearly done that already. The great bulk of the -world is poor, living from hand to mouth, worrying about the increased -cost of living, and going to the grave as empty-handed as when it came -into the world. Only a few have any money, beyond their immediate needs, -and as a rule that few is composed of men who perform no useful labor. -Here and there is a man who combines a little useful labor with a great -deal of cogitation as to how he can appropriate something that somebody -else has produced. He may have enough to cause him to mortgage his house -to buy an automobile, and to make a little pretence of affluence. But -financially he is a faker and he knows it. On the other hand, the men -who are not financial fakers are not workers. That is to say, either -they do no work that is useful to society, or the work they do that is -useful justifies but a small part of their incomes. - -To illustrate: The owner of a great industry devotes his time to the -management of that industry. So far as his managerial activities pertain -to the production and distribution of his product, they are socially -useful. So far as they pertain to obtaining a profit for himself upon -that product they are not socially useful. The value of the socially -useful part of his activities may be approximately measured by what he -would pay another man for managing the manufacturing and distributing -end of his business. The extent to which he is a parasite upon the -community may be approximately measured by the difference between his -net income from the industry and the sum he would pay another man to -manage the manufacturing and distributing end of his business. A hired -manager might receive $5,000 a year. The capitalist proprietor may -receive $50,000 a year or he may receive nothing—he is in a gambler’s -game and must take a gambler’s chances. If he receives $50,000 a year -$45,000 of it is because he owns the machinery. If he did not own the -machinery, he himself would be compelled to hire out as a manager at -$5,000 a year. In other words, $45,000 a year is the price that the -workers pay the capitalist for the privilege of working with his -machinery. Socialists therefore contend that we are already on a dead -level of wealth, except as to the fact that we have permitted a few who -do little or no useful labor to rise above those who do nothing else. - -Socialists, however, are not opposed in principle to the economic dead -level, and they do not believe anybody else is. If it were desirable -that each human being should have a billion dollars, and, by pressing a -button, each human being could have a billion dollars, Socialists do not -believe there would be an extended Alphonse and Gaston performance over -the ceremony of pressing the button. Socialists are opposed only to a -dead level that is so nearly level with the hunger line. They want to -raise the level to the point where it will comfort, not alone the -stomach, but the heart and the brain. - -Now, mind you, Socialists have no patented wage scales that they intend -to force upon the people. If Socialism stands for anything, it stands -for the expression of popular will, and therefore it will be for the -people to say, when Socialism comes, whether the manager of a railway -system shall receive greater compensation than a train conductor on that -system. I do not fear contradiction when I say almost every Socialist -believes extraordinary ability should be rewarded with extraordinary -compensation—not $10,000 a month for the manager of a railway system -that pays its conductors $100 a month, but enough more than the -conductor to show that the manager’s services are appreciated at their -worth. Socialists would also give garbage men and sewer diggers -extraordinary wages, on the theory that their work is vitally necessary -to everybody else and extremely disagreeable to themselves. - -But to satisfy those who want the dead level objection analyzed to the -bone, suppose everybody were to receive equal compensation? Should we -not have less injustice in the world than we have now? Should we have -any suffering from hunger and cold? Should we have so many crimes due to -poverty? Should we have any women forced into prostitution by poverty? -Should we have a single human being upon the face of the earth haunted -by the constant fear that he could not get work and could not get food? - -We have all of these evils now. Are they worth thinking about? Are they -serious enough to justify us in trying to be rid of them? Granted, for -the sake of argument, that we cannot get rid of them without doing an -injustice to the railroad manager who would be paid no more than a -conductor—is it not better to do injustice to an occasional person who -would still be treated as well as any of the others, than to compel all -the others to endure present conditions? If not, the “good of the -greatest number” is a fallacy, and majority rule is a crime. - -But would anyone question either the right or the expediency of such -action if the situation were reversed? Suppose that the present system -under which a few men own almost everything had made almost everybody -rich. Suppose the few who were not rich—corresponding in numbers to the -present capitalist class—were to demand that the rules of the game be so -changed that they could be made rich by making everyone else poor. Let -us suppose, even, that the few were to say that the present system, -while it worked satisfactorily for everybody else, worked an injustice -to them. Let us go farther and say that the mere handful of objectors -were right in such contention. Would the 95 per cent. of the people who -were prospering under the system nevertheless voluntarily overturn it -and impoverish themselves merely that 5 per cent. might become wealthy? - -But there is still another side to the “dead level” objection. Is not -enough enough? Who but a glutton wants more food than he should eat? Who -but a fop wants more clothing than he needs to wear? Who but a man who -has been pampered with riches, or spoiled by the envy that riches so -often produce, wants more than a comfortable, roomy, sanitary house in -which to live? Does the possession of more things than these make the -few who have them happier? - -Socialists doubt it. If they did not doubt it, they would still be -against conditions that give such advantages to a few who are not -socially useful while denying even ordinary comforts to everyone else. -And, right here, Socialists again ask these questions: “Even if such -luxuries be conceded as advantages, are we not paying too great a price -to give them to a few? Is it well that so many should have no home in -order that a few should have many homes? And, if there is to be any -difference in homes, ought not the difference to be in favor of those -who are most useful instead of those who are the most predatory?” - -Socialists contend that under Socialism, everybody could not only have -work all the time, but that everybody could live as well as now does the -man whose income is $5,000 a year. They point to the fact that the man -who now spends $5,000 a year on his living, does not consume the -products of very much human labor. He has a comfortable house, but -comfortable, sanitary houses are not hard to build. Machinery makes -almost all of the materials that go into them, and makes them cheaply. -And a house properly built lasts a lifetime. - -The $5,000–a-year man and his family also eat some food. But the flour -is made with machinery at low cost, as are also many other articles. The -raw materials come from the earth at the cost of human labor, but the -profits that are added to them by capitalists represent no sort of -labor. - -So is it with clothing, furniture and everything else that the -$5,000–a-year man and his family consume. Everything is made cheaply and -rapidly with machinery. The workers who make these things get little. -The consumer pays much. The difference between the cost of making and -the selling price is what eats up a large part of the $5,000. Socialists -believe that by cutting out all of this difference and cutting out -enforced idleness, everybody could live as well as the $5,000–man now -lives. This is only an approximation, of course. - -Now we come to the question of rising. What chance would a man have to -rise under Socialism? - -Let us see, first, what is meant by rising. A man can rise with his -fellows or he can rise without them. I am speaking now, of course, only -of rising in the financial scale. Habits of thought have been inculcated -in us which too often prevent us from thinking of rising in any other -way. When we think of bettering our condition, we usually think in terms -of money. We seldom think in terms of greater leisure and greater -freedom to do the things that make life really worth while; knowing that -rich men are usually the slaves of their money, we nevertheless want to -be slaves. - -Socialism is not intended to help the man who wants to rise financially -above his fellows. It throws out no bait to him. A few men will -undoubtedly rise a little above their fellows during the early stages of -Socialism, but they will not rise very much and there will not be very -many of them. Socialism is for all, not for a few. It is devoted to the -task of raising the financial standing of everybody who does useful -labor and lowering the financial standing of everybody who does not. -Socialists say that if Socialism were otherwise, it would be no better -than the lottery which is provided by the capitalist system. Socialists -do not believe in the lottery principle. They have observed that the -gentlemen who run lotteries, rather than the ones who play them, wear -the diamonds. Nor does the fact that an occasional washerwoman draws -$22,000 with which she knows not what to do, change their minds about -the game. - -See what a game it is that we are now playing. We teach our small boys -that this is a country of glorious opportunities. In picturing the -possibilities before them, we know no bounds. We go even to the brink of -the ultimate and look over. Away in the distance, we see the White -House, and point to it. “There,” we say to our boys, “there is where you -may some day be. Each of you has a chance to be President. And, if you -should not be President, each of you has a chance to be a Rockefeller or -a Carnegie. Carnegie began as a bobbin boy. Rockefeller began as a clerk -in an oil store. If you are honest and industrious, perhaps you can do -as much.” - -Now, what are the facts? Not one of those boys has much more chance of -becoming the President than a ring-tailed monkey has of becoming Caruso. -It is not that the boys are worthless—they may have in them better -timber than any past President ever contained. But unless we shorten the -Presidential term, and shorten it a good deal, we cannot accommodate -very many of the lads with the use of the White House. During the next -eighty years, even if no President shall serve more than one term, there -can be no more than twenty Presidents. During the same time—if we go on -repeating such foolishness—perhaps a billion boys will be solemnly -assured that each of them has a chance to be President, though, as a -matter of fact, only twenty boys can cash in on their chances. - -Do we never consider how ridiculous we make ourselves? Do we never fear -the crushing question that some bright boy some day will ask: “Dad, just -how much do you think twenty chances in a billion are worth?” - -I mention this only to show at what an early age we begin to hold out to -our boys false hopes of the future. I cannot attempt to explain the fact -that no boy asks his father why, in such a country of glorious -possibilities as this, he contents himself with driving a truck—but that -does not matter. The point is that we go on fooling the boys until they -are old enough to know better. They are not very old when this time -comes. The world teaches them young. It is the exceptionally stupid -young man who does not know, at the age of twenty-five, that the chances -against him in playing for a Presidency, a Rockefellership, or a -Carnegieship are infinitely greater than would have been the chances -against him, if he had lived two generations earlier and played the -Louisiana Lottery. Beside such a prospect, the chance of winning a -fortune at the race track looks like a certainty. Yet we drove the -Louisiana Lottery from the country because it was such a delusion that -it amounted to a swindle, and we are beginning to drive the race tracks -out of the country for the same reason. - -Socialists believe it would be better not to promise so much and to -perform more. They believe it would be better to promise each -industrious man approximately the present comfort-equivalent of $5,000 a -year _and give it to him_, than to hold out to him the hope of great -riches and give him, instead, great poverty or great uneasiness because -of the fear of poverty. - -The Socialists may be wrong in all of this, but they cheerfully place -the burden of proof that the world is well upon those who make the claim -that it is well. They ask the capitalists to find more than the -exceptional, rare man who has realized more than a fraction of the -promises that were held out to him in his youth. For every such man that -the capitalists may produce, the Socialists will undertake to find -twenty men who are living from hand to mouth, either in poverty or in -the fear of poverty. - -Such is the Socialist position with regard to “rising” in the world. So -far as Socialists are able to discover, all of the rising that most -persons do is done in the early morning—about an hour before the 7 -o’clock whistle blows. - -“Early to bed and early to rise” is not in violation of the Socialist -constitution, but Socialists respectfully contend that the rising should -be made worth while. And, they also contend that if the people must be -promised something to make them rise, it is better, in the long run, to -promise something and give it to them than to promise more and not give -it to them. The best that can be said for the latter plan is that it has -been a long time tried and until recently has worked satisfactorily for -those who made the promises they failed to keep. - - - - - CHAPTER IV - WHY SOCIALISTS PREACH DISCONTENT - - -Rich men tell poor men to beware of Socialism because Socialists preach -discontent. Rich men also tell poor men to beware of Socialism because -Socialists “preach the class struggle,” and try to “array class against -class,” politically. - -It is all true. Socialists do these things. They make no bones about -doing them. They say they would feel ashamed of themselves if they did -not do them. If they had a thousand times the power they have, they -would do these things a thousand times harder than they do. Just so -rapidly as they gain power, they are doing these things harder. - -What is it that they do? Let us see. - -Socialists preach discontent. Discontent with what? Discontent with -home? Discontent with children? Discontent with friends? Discontent with -honest labor? Discontent with ambition? Discontent with life as a whole? -Why, nothing of the kind. - -_Socialists preach discontent only with poverty that is made by robbery, -and the ills that follow in its wake._ - -The Hon. Charles Russell, of England, said in 1912 that 12,000,000 of -England’s 45,000,000 population were on the verge of starvation—shall we -be satisfied with that? - -A recent investigation into the causes of the shockingly high rate of -infant mortality in Germany[1] shows that “the children of poverty -hunger before they are born. They come into the world ill-developed, -weaker than the children of plenty, and with such low resistant powers -that infant mortality rages in their ranks like an epidemic.” Shall we -be satisfied with that? - -Footnote 1: - - “The Proletarian Child,” by Albert Langon, published in Berlin. - -Here in the United States millions of men cannot get work, while -millions of men, women and children are compelled to work for starvation -wages. Shall we be satisfied with that? - -The census reports show that most people do not own the roofs over their -heads, having nothing but the clothes upon their backs and their meager -furniture. Shall we be satisfied with that? - -We are creating wealth rapidly, but what we make is concentrating into -so few hands that a few men hold us as in the hollow of their hands, -telling us whether we may work, telling us what wages we shall receive -if we work, telling us how much we shall pay for meat, sugar, lumber, -clothing, salt and steel. Shall we be satisfied with that? - -The Stanley Steel Committee’s investigations showed that, by a system of -interlocking directorates, eighteen men control thirty-five billions of -industrial property—a third of the entire national wealth. Shall we be -satisfied with that? - -In times of industrial depression more than 5,000,000 men who want to -work are refused the right to do so, because the few men who control -everything cannot see a profit for themselves in letting 5,000,000 men -work to support themselves. Shall we be satisfied with that? - -The cost of living, mounting higher and higher, is crowding an -increasing number of unorganized workers into the bottomless pit in -which men, women and children suffer the tortures of hell. Shall we be -satisfied with that? - -Mr. Morgan, with the tremendous money-power that is behind him, is a -greater power in this country than the President of the United States, -or the Congress of the United States. Shall we be satisfied with that? - -Some gentlemen are satisfied with these facts, but Socialists are not. -They are preaching discontent. Should we not be worthy of your scorn and -contempt if we did not preach discontent? If such discontent is wrong, -contentment with the facts against which Socialists cry out must be -right. Who has both the candor and the effrontery to say that -contentment with such facts is right? Should we be contented with the -woolen mill owners of New England who, fattening upon high Republican -tariffs, starve men, women and little children with low wages? Should we -be contented with the cotton-mill owners of the South, who, under the -protection of Democratic state administrations, fill both their mills -and the graveyards with little children? Should we be contented with a -world in which a few own everything and the rest do everything—a world -in which the worker is but a fleeing fugitive from inevitable fate, -owning neither his job, nor the roof over his head? - -The cry of this wronged worker has come down through the ages, but never -was his hold upon the means of life so slight as it is to-day. - - “Every creature has a home home— - But thou, oh workingman, hast none.” - -So Shelley sang before machinery came. And, oh, the truth of it—the -truth of it still! And the pity of it! In these days the inexcusability -of it! Yet when we Socialists cry out against it—when we try to awaken -the workingman to a realization that a new world was born when the steam -engine was born, and that this new world may be and should be for him—we -are rebuked by the capitalists because we are “preaching discontent.” - -Of course we are preaching discontent. We are going to preach it, if -present conditions persist, so long as we have breath with which to -preach. We respectfully decline to permit capitalists, as such, to tell -us what we may or may not preach. We preach what we please without their -leave. They preach what they please without our leave. At intervals, -they preach a good deal, through some of the magazines, about religion. -Big capital is behind the “Men and Religion Forward” movement, and some -other similar movements. These gentlemen who are living in luxury off -what they take from us tell us to take religion from them in the -magazines and be happy. “In the sweet by and by” we are to get our own, -while they get their own now. Socialists are willing to stand in on all -of the sweet by and by they can get by and by, but they are also -determined to make a prodigious fight for the sweet here and now. - -Socialists regard poverty, in this day, as nothing less than a scandal. -Before the age of machinery there was reason for some poverty. Now there -is none. We can make all the wealth we need and more. We could cut our -workday in two and still make all we need. Yet poverty is scourging the -world as wars never scourged it. In Germany, England, the United -States—wherever capitalism has reached a high state of development—men, -women and children are pursued to the grave by poverty or the fear of -poverty. - -Some gentlemen believe this is all right. They believe this is as it -should be. With such gentlemen Socialists do not hope to make headway. -With such gentlemen Socialists do not seek to make headway. They belong -to the rich class who are grafting off the working class. From them -Socialists expect no quarter, nor will they give any. The conflict must -go to a finish. There will be no surrender upon the part of the -Socialists. The Socialist party will never fuse with any of their -parties. If the Socialist party were standing still, instead of going -ahead, it would stand still alone for a thousand years before it would -go a foot with any capitalist party. - -Make no mistake. This is all true. You saw the Greenback party wither -and blow away. You saw the Populist party swallowed by the Democratic -party. But you will never see the Socialist party wither, nor will you -ever see it swallowed. Its members are not composed of material that -withers or fuses. Right or wrong, they are actuated by the highest ideal -that can move a human being—the ideal of human justice. And they are -going down the line on their ideal, regardless of the length of the line -or of the obstructions that may be placed in their way. After a man has -seen Socialism, he can never thereafter defend capitalism. That is to -say, he cannot if he is honest. Two or three out of a million are not. -Such persons, not infrequently, are hired by capitalists to “expose” -Socialism. - -But while Socialists do not hope to make any progress among the rich, -they do hope to make progress among the working class. Again, I must -explain that Socialists do not consider the working class to be -exclusively composed of those who wear overalls. Socialists include in -the working class all of those who do useful labor. It matters not -whether such labor be done by the digger in the ditch or by the general -superintendent of a railroad. Socialists place all of those who do -useful labor in the working class. Workers are creators of wealth. -Creators of wealth differ from capitalists in this: workers make; -capitalists take. Capitalists are profit-seekers. The small merchant -takes a profit, but it is not the kind of a profit that the big -capitalist takes. The small merchant’s profit represents only his labor, -and is, therefore, really wages. The big capitalist’s profits represent -no sort of labor. It is such profits that set capitalists and workers at -war, because the profits come out of the workers. Socialists call this -war the class struggle. - -Socialists are opposed to class war. Socialists believe there should be -no classes. There would be no classes if everybody worked at useful -labor and took no more than belonged to him. But if some men will not -work at useful labor, choosing, instead, to make war upon those who are -working, who is to blame? Certainly not the workers. They are trying to -get nothing that belongs to anyone else. They have never yet been able -to keep what belonged to them. - -Socialists recognize these facts. They say a class struggle is in -progress. Anybody who denies their statement must necessarily know -nothing of the existence of trusts, labor unions, courts, lobbyists, -crooked legislators, millionaires, paupers, overworked workers, or men -who are underworked because they can get no work. Anyone who recognizes -the existence of these things cannot well deny either the existence of -classes or the existence of a struggle. The dead of this warfare are -upon every industrial battlefield, where the fierce desire for profits -sends workers to their doom for lack of the safeguards that would have -saved their lives. The wounded are in every poverty-stricken home. - -Either these statements are true or they are not. If they are true, is -it wiser to recognize their truth, or, ostrich-like, to stick our heads -in the sand and deny both the existence of classes and the class -struggle? Socialists believe it is wiser to recognize the existence of -the facts. They deplore the existence of the class struggle, but they -can see only harm in closing our eyes to it. If their contention is -correct a small body of capitalists are robbing the great working class. -If the working class has not found out who is robbing it it cannot find -out too quickly. Nor can the working class find out too quickly the -methods by which it is being robbed. - -It is the advocacy of these ideas that has caused the Socialists to be -censured by the rich for trying to “array class against class.” If one -class is being robbed by another ought not the class that is being -robbed to be politically arrayed against the class that is robbing it? -Do we not array those whose houses are broken into by burglars against -the burglars? Is not the existence of police forces sufficient proof -that we do? If capitalists, working through laws they have made, are -robbing the workers of thousands, where burglars take cents, why should -not the workers be politically arrayed against the capitalists even more -solidly than they are arrayed against burglars? - -The workers, either singly or collectively, as in their unions, are -already arrayed against the capitalists, so far as fighting for more -wages is concerned. Without any help from Socialists, we thus have here -class arrayed against class. Socialists seek only to extend this -conflict to the ballot-box. They ask the worker to remember when he -votes as well as when he strikes that he belongs to the working class. -They point out to him that he is robbed under the forms of law and that -the robbery cannot be stopped until the operations of capitalist laws -are stopped. The operations of capitalist laws cannot be stopped until -working men stop them. Working men can stop them only by uniting at the -ballot-box and wresting from the capitalist class the control of the -government. - -In this way only do Socialists try to “array class against class.” They -do not try to array men against men. They do not try to engender hatred -of Mr. Morgan, Mr. Rockefeller, or any other great capitalist. -Socialists have nothing against any rich man individually. They regard -all great capitalists as the natural and inevitable products of the -capitalist system. If the great capitalists are sometimes bad, it is -because the capitalist system makes them bad. If the particular -capitalists who are bad had never been born, the capitalist system would -have made others do the same bad acts. Therefore Socialists are opposed -to the system that makes man bad rather than to the men who have been -made bad by the system. If every capitalist in the world had gone down -with the _Titanic_, Socialists would have expected absolutely no -improvement in conditions, because the capitalist system would still -have remained. Other men would simply have taken their places, and the -wrongs would have gone on. Therefore, Socialists leave it to Democratic -and Republican politicians to point out “bad men” and say if this man or -that man were in jail we should have no more robbery. The slightest -reflection should reveal the fallacious character of such comment. Where -are all of the “bad men” of the last two generations? Where are William -H. Vanderbilt, Jay Gould, E. H. Harriman and the others? They are not -simply in jail—they are dead. But who noticed the slightest abatement of -robbery when they died? Who will note the slightest improvement of -conditions when the “bad men” of the present day are dead? Then how -ridiculous it is to say that if Mr. Morgan, Mr. Rockefeller and some -others were in jail we should have no more robbery. So long as we have a -system that makes men bad we shall have bad men. - -Let us now inquire what it is about the capitalist system that makes men -bad. We shall not have far to look. It is the private ownership and -control, for the sake of private profits, of the means of life. Think -how gigantic is this power! All of our food, clothing and shelter is -made with machinery. A few own the machinery. The others cannot use it -without permission. And, if permission be given, it can be used only -upon such terms as the owners offer. Those terms are always the lowest -wages for which anybody can be found to work. - -Is it any wonder that the few who control this machinery go mad with the -desire to accumulate wealth? Is it any wonder that they press their -advantage to the limit? Are you sure you would have done less if you had -been placed in the same circumstances? I am not sure I should have done -less. In fact, I am quite sure I should have done as much, or more, if I -could. I say this because I take into account the tremendous power of -habit and environment. - -An environment of money makes those whom it surrounds forget men. The -_Titanic_ was not raced through icebergs to her doom because her owners -were indifferent to the loss of human life. The _Titanic_ was raced to -her doom because her owners _forgot_ human life. They thought only of -the money that would come from the advertisement of a quick trip across -the Atlantic. If they had not been made mad by this thought they would -at least have remembered their ship, with its cost of $8,000,000. But in -their money-madness they forgot not only their passengers, but their own -ship. Yet, if the manager of the company had been sailing the ship for -the government, without thought of profit, he would have thought of the -passengers, the crew, the ship and the icebergs. And if the trusts were -owned by the government, the men in charge of them would think of the -workers when they fixed wages and of the consumers when they fixed the -prices of finished products. - -So easy is it to dispose of the argument that Socialism is impracticable -because it could not be made to work “without changing human nature.” -Some men believe we must forever go on grabbing, grabbing, grabbing, -while others go on starving, starving, starving. Human nature will -“change” just so rapidly as conditions are changed. If one sits on a -red-hot stove, it is “human nature” to arise. But if the stove be -permitted to cool, one who sits on it will not arise until other reasons -than heat have made him wish to do so. Yet, the human nature of the man -in each case is the same. It has in no wise changed. It is only the -stove that has changed. - -Precisely so will the actions of men change when the production of the -necessities of life by the government has demonstrated that no one need -ever fear the lack of the means with which to live. The very knowledge -that the stomach is taken for granted—that with free opportunity to -labor, the material necessities and comforts of life are as assured as -the air itself—will destroy the incentive to accumulate more wealth than -is needed. Even the richest now consume and waste but a fraction of the -wealth they possess. Yet they are spurred on to seek still further -accumulations, because it is only so recently, comparatively, that the -whole race was fighting for the means of life, that the madness for -money is still in the air. - -The madness for money will not always be in the air. Human nature is -wonderfully adaptive. As soon as the workers take control of the -government for the benefit of their class, and demonstrate the perfect -ease with which enough wealth can be produced to enable everybody to -live as well as the $5,000 a year man now lives, the scramble for wealth -will quickly subside. It will not subside instantly, but it will -subside. A few may grumble, as their industries are bought and taken -over by the government, but they will have to take it out in grumbling. -They will not even have to work if they don’t want to. They will have -enough money obtained from the sale of their plants to enable them to -live without working. But none of their successors will ever be able to -live without working, because no opportunity will exist for anyone to -obtain the products of another’s labor. Goods will be made and sold by -the government at cost. No capitalist will stand between producers and -consumers. The people will be their own capitalists, owning their own -industrial machinery and managing it through the government. - -Those who are opposed to Socialism ask what assurance we have that, -under Socialism, the people would be able to manage their government. -Others ask why we should not be as likely to have grafters in office -under Socialist government as we are now under Democratic or Republican -government? Still others believe that a Socialist government would -inevitably become tyrannical and despotic, destroying all individual -liberty and eventually bringing down civilization in a heap. - -Let us answer these objections one by one. And let us first inquire why -the people are not now able to manage and control their government. - -In the first place, our form of government does not permit the people to -control it. The rich men who made our constitution—and they were rich -for their day; not a working man among them—purposely made a -constitution under which nothing could be done to which the rich might -object. That is why the United States senate was created. It was frankly -declared in the constitutional convention that the senate was intended -to represent wealth. The house of representatives was to represent the -people, but the senate was to represent wealth, and the house of -representatives could enact no legislation without the consent of the -senate. Moreover, the United States supreme court, over which the people -have absolutely no control, was created to construe the laws made by -congress. - -That is the first reason why the people do not now control their -government—the framers of the constitution did not intend that they -should control it, and the rich men of our day are taking advantage of -their opportunity to control it themselves. The second reason is that -the capitalist system, based, as it is, upon private profits, makes it -highly profitable for the capitalist class to control the government. -The robberies of capitalism are committed through laws, and control of -the government is necessary to obtain and maintain the laws. - -Socialists would abolish the senate, thus vesting the entire legislative -power in the house of representatives. They would take from the -President the power to appoint justices of the supreme court, and give -the people the right to elect all judges. They would take from the -United States supreme court the usurped power to declare acts of -congress unconstitutional, and give to the people the power to say what -acts of congress should be set aside. They would make the constitution -of the United States amendable by majority vote, and they would make -every public official in the country, from President down, subject to -immediate recall at any time, by the vote of the people. - -Socialists respectfully offer these reasons, among others, for believing -that under Socialism, the people would be able to control their -government. Another reason is that, under Socialism, there would be no -trust senators or representatives, no representatives of great private -banking interests or other aggregations of private capital, because -there would be no such private interests. - -The reasons are equally plain why, under Socialism, we should not be as -certain to have Socialist grafters in office as we are now to have -Democratic and Republican grafters. But not one of these reasons is that -Socialists believe themselves to be more nearly honest than anyone else. -Socialists have no such delusion. Socialists simply point to the fact -that all of the present grafting is to secure private profits. When the -profit system is abolished, and goods are made for use instead of for -profit, nothing will be left to graft for. Public officials could still -steal, of course; they could falsify pay-rolls, and probably in many -other ways rob the people. But, in the first place, public officials now -do little of this sort of clumsy stealing, and, in the second place, -whatever stealing of this sort that may be done under Socialism will be -punished in precisely the same way that it now is, except more -vigorously. Moreover, Socialists do not believe there will be much such -stealing, or that it will long continue. And so far as grafting is -concerned, when the private profit system that makes grafting is -abolished, grafting will be abolished along with it. - -Let us now examine the charge that a Socialist government would become -tyrannical, despotic, destroy individual liberty, and thus destroy -civilization itself. - -With all legislative power vested in the house of representatives which -is elected by the people, all judges elected by the people and the -United States supreme court shorn of its usurped power to declare laws -unconstitutional, it is difficult to see how the government could become -tyrannical. It is still more difficult when it is considered that, under -the Socialist government, the people would have these additional powers: - -The power to recall, at any time, any official. - -The power to enact, by direct vote, any laws that their legislative -bodies might refuse to enact. - -The power, by direct vote, to repeal any law that their legislative -bodies had enacted. - -And the power, by direct vote, to amend their constitutions, both -federal and state, any time they wished to do so. - -If there could be any tyranny or despotism under such a form of -government, gentlemen who profess to believe so are entitled to make the -most of it. - -Many good persons believe, however, that if Socialism were to come, all -individual liberty would be lost. Such persons lack, not only a -knowledge of Socialist plans, but a sense of humor. They assume that we -now have individual liberty. They do not seem to realize that the -average boy, as soon as he is old enough to work, if not before, is -grabbed off by necessity and chucked into the nearest job at hand. The -boy may have preferred to work at something else; perhaps even he is -better fitted for something else. But the pinch of necessity both -compels him to work and to take what he can find. He may rattle around -in two or three occupations before he finds one in which he stays for -life, but the other occupations, like the first one, are not of his -choosing. He takes each of them simply because he must have work. - -If Socialism would enable the head of every family to earn as good a -living as the $5,000–a-year man now gets, the head of no family would be -compelled to send his children out to work until they had completed, at -least, the high school course. If boys were not compelled to go to work -so young, does it not seem likely that, with added years, they would be -better able to choose an occupation that would be more nearly suited -both to their tastes and their abilities? And if we should destroy the -power of poverty to push boys into the occupation nearest to them, -should we be justly subject to the charge that we had destroyed, or even -impaired, the boys’ individual liberty? - -Persons who derive their knowledge of Socialism from capitalist sources -have strange, and sometimes awful, ideas of what Socialism is setting -out to do. They are told, and many of them believe, that under -Socialism, the individual would be a mere puppet in the hands of the -government, not arising in the morning until the ringing of the -governmental alarm clock, doing during the day whatever odd jobs might -be assigned to him by a governmental boss, and going to bed at night -when the boss told him to. - -Suppose we shake up this trash and let the wind blow through it. - -Who would thus tyrannize over the people? “The Socialists,” it is -answered. But who, at that time, will the Socialists be? They will -constitute at least a majority of the people, will they not? The -Socialists will never gain control of the government until they become a -majority—the Milwaukee coalition plan of the old capitalist parties can -be depended upon to prevent that. Then what you are asked to believe is -that a majority of the people will deliberately go about it to create -and afterwards maintain a form of government and industry under which -the majority as well as the minority will be slaves. - -Remember this: Socialism will never do anything that at least a majority -of the people do not want done. This is not a promise, it is fact. A -Socialist administration could do nothing to which a majority of the -people objected. If such an act were attempted, the majority would -instantly recall the administration, wipe out its laws, and assert its -own will. - -And, also, remember this: If the Socialists, after the next election, -were to control every department of the government there would be no -upheaval, no paralysis of industry. Everybody would go to work the next -morning at his accustomed task. The business of socializing industry -would proceed in an orderly, deliberate manner. One industry at a time -would be taken over. Perhaps the railroads would be taken over first. A -year might be required to take them over. But not a wheel would stop -turning while the laws were being changed. - -Gentlemen who talk about the blotting out of individual liberty under a -Socialist government make this fatal mistake. They assume that a -minority would control a Socialist government, precisely as a minority -now controls this government. And having made this error they naturally -easily proceed to the next error—the assumption that if Socialists were -to establish such a crazy government, they would not suffer from it as -much as anyone else, and, therefore, would maintain it against the will -of the others. - -There is absolutely no foundation for this -“tyranny-loss-of-individual-liberty” charge. A government controlled by -the people cannot tyrannize over the people, nor can the abolition of -poverty curtail, under democratic government, the individual liberties -of the people. Who now has the most individual liberty—the man who is -poverty-stricken or the man who isn’t? - -Yet Socialists make no pretense of a purpose to create a world in which -the worker may blithely amble up to the governmental employment office -and demand a job picking a guitar. The worker may amble and demand, but -he will not get the job unless there is a guitar to pick. In other -words, Socialists expect to exercise ordinary common sense in the -conduct of industry. Broadly speaking, the man who is best fitted to do -certain work will be given that work to do. It would be absurd to plan -or promise anything else. At the same time, the destruction of poverty, -and the multiplication of the mass of manufactured goods that will -follow the satisfaction of all of the people’s needs, will give the -workers greater freedom in exercising their discretion in the choice of -an occupation. - -At this point in the proceedings somebody always inquires, “Who will do -the dirty work?” - -Socialists do not expect ever to make the cleaning of sewers as pleasant -as the packing of geraniums. They do expect, however, to offer such -extraordinarily good compensation for this extraordinarily unpleasant -work that the sewers will be cleaned. Why should anyone expect that plan -to fail, since the present plan does not fail? We now offer very poor -wages for this very unpleasant work, yet the sewers do not go uncleaned. -Is it to be supposed that the same men who are now doing this dirty work -for low wages would refuse to do it for high wages? Most certainly the -government would be compelled to offer wages high enough to get the -dirty, but important, work done. It is lack of work that now makes men -take dirty work at dirty wages. Under Socialism there can be no lack of -work, because the people will own their own industrial machinery and -will be free to use it. Furthermore, machinery is now doing much of the -dirty work, and, as time goes on, will do more of it. - -Socialists are often asked what they will do with the man who will not -work. If facetiously inclined, they usually reply that one thing they -will certainly not do with him is to make him a millionaire. But, -really, the question is absurd. What do the opponents of Socialism -believe a Socialist government would do with the man who would not work? -Do they believe such a man would be given a hero medal, or be pensioned -for life? What is there to do with such a man, but to let him starve? I -mean a man having the ability to work and having work offered to him, -who would nevertheless refuse to work. - -But, outside the ranks of criminals, there is no such man, nor will -there ever be. Socialists would punish thieves precisely as capitalists -punish them, except for the fact that Socialists would not discriminate -in favor of the biggest thieves. To answer the question in a single -sentence, Socialists would depend upon the spurs afforded by the desires -for food, clothing and shelter, to keep most of the people at work, and -the odd man who might choose to steal would be treated in the ordinary -way—imprisoned. - -But the question, “What will you do with the man who will not work?” -reveals a strange belief that is held by those who do not hold much of a -clutch upon the facts of life. I have a very dear old aunt who believes -from the bottom of her honest heart that the great mass of unemployed -are either drunkards or loafers. In discussing the problem of the -unemployed with gentlemen who are living upon the sunny side of the -street, they almost invariably fire this question, “Why don’t those -fellows get out into the country where the farmers are crying for help -and can’t get any?” - -I was brought up on a farm, and I still remember that not much farming -was done in winter. The great demand for extra help comes in mid-summer, -when the crops are harvested. During six or eight weeks there is a -demand from the farms for more help than they can get. But what man who -has a family in the tenements of New York or Chicago can afford to pay -his railroad fare to Iowa, Nebraska, or even Ohio, to get six weeks’ -work? - -In the first place, they have not the money with which to pay their -fare. These men live from hand to mouth in the city, running in debt -during the week, and paying their debt with the wages they receive -Saturday night. If their fares were advanced by the farmers who wanted -to hire them they would have little or nothing left from what they might -earn on the farms, and, in the meantime, their families in the cities -would be starving. Furthermore, farm-work is a trade of which these city -workers know nothing. They could learn the trade of farming, of course, -but they could not learn it in six weeks. At any rate, in panic times -there are more than 5,000,000 out of work in this country, and in no -conceivable circumstances is it possible that any considerable part of -this number could find work upon the farms even six weeks of the year. - -The fact is that the conditions of modern industrial life are so hard -that an increasing number of unorganized workers are barely able to -live, even when they work. The constantly increasing cost of living, -brought about by the trusts through their control of markets and prices, -robs these men to the limit, and they have no labor unions to increase -their wages. Still, they do not refuse to work, even for a bare, -miserable living. On the contrary, they are eager to work. So are the -great bulk of the unemployed eager to work for a miserable living. - -If, under these horrible conditions, men are willing to work, what -reason have we to suppose that any great number would refuse to work -under a Socialist government for compensation that would enable each of -them to live as well as the $5,000–a-year man now lives? Gentlemen who -want to worry about this may worry about it. Socialists are not -worrying. If, under Socialism, a few dyed-in-the-wool loafers should -appear, Socialists are prepared to deal with them. They do not propose -to cease their attempts to rid the world of poverty, merely because of -the possibility of the appearance of an occasional loafer. - - - - - CHAPTER V - HOW THE PEOPLE MAY ACQUIRE THE TRUSTS - - -Most men are not interested in private profits, because they don’t get -any. Profits are only for capitalists, and the number of capitalists -bears but an insignificant proportion to the whole number of people. -Most men are wage-workers, of one sort or another, or small farmers. - -Yet we are living under a system that makes private profits the basis of -business. If profits are good, business is good. If profits are only -fair, business is only fair. If profits are bad, business is bad. And, -when business is bad, the whole country suffers, though the country has -the men, the machinery and the land with which business might be made -good. - -Socialists liken the present business edifice to an inverted pyramid -resting upon its point—the point of private profits. Socialists have -observed that the steadiest pyramids do not rest upon their points. They -do not believe the pyramids of Egypt would have stood as long as they -have if they had not been right side up. Socialists therefore propose -that the pyramid of business shall be turned right side up. They believe -it would stand more nearly steady if placed upon the broad basis of the -people’s needs than it now does upon the pivot-point of private profits. - -That is all that Socialists mean when they talk about the -“revolutionary” character of their philosophy. They want to make a -revolutionary change in the basis of business. They want goods produced -solely to satisfy the public need for goods, rather than to satisfy any -man’s greed for profits. They do not see how business can be thus -revolutionized, so long as a few men own all of the great machinery with -which goods are produced. Socialists, therefore, propose that the -ownership of all the great machinery shall be acquired by the people, by -purchase, and thus transferred from a few to all. - -Those who are not in favor of this program may be divided into two -classes. One class, desiring to cling to the private profit system, is -opposed, upon principle, to the Socialist program. The other class, -while eager enough, perhaps, to be rid of present conditions, does not -believe the Socialist plan is practicable. The reason why so many men -believe the Socialist plan is impractical is because so many men do not -know what the Socialist plan is. The newspapers, owned as they are by -capitalists, do not take the pains to tell the people much about the -plans of Socialism. Even so great a trust lawyer as Samuel Untermyer of -New York, apparently did not know much about the plans of Socialism -until he debated Socialism in Carnegie Hall with Morris Hillquit. Mr. -Untermyer, in his opening statement, made the colossal mistake of -declaring that the Socialists had no definite plan for transferring the -industries of the country from private to public ownership; that no one -knew whether they meant to take over all industries, or whether they -meant to take over only the trusts, while leaving the small concerns -that are now fighting the trusts to compete with the government. In -short, Mr. Untermyer left the impression that in the matter of putting -their program into practice the Socialists were whirling around in a -fog. - -Let us see who was whirling around in a fog. - -Victor L. Berger, the Socialist congressman from Milwaukee, introduced -in the House of Representatives a bill embodying the following features: - - The government shall immediately proceed to take over the ownership of - all the trusts that control more than 40 per cent. of the business in - their respective lines. - - The price to be paid for these industries shall be fixed by a - commission of fifteen experts, whose duty it shall be to determine the - actual cash value of the physical properties. - - Payment for the properties shall be proffered in the form of United - States bonds, bearing 2 per cent. interest payable in 50 years, and a - sinking fund shall be established to retire the bonds at maturity. - - In the event of the refusal of any trust owner or owners to sell to - the government his or their properties at the price fixed by the - commission of experts, the President of the United States is - authorized to use such measures as may be necessary to gain and hold - possession of the properties. - - A Bureau of Industries is hereby created within the Department of - Commerce and Labor to operate all industries owned by the government. - -Mind you, this is but the barest skeleton of the Berger bill. The bill -itself may have no sense in it. But that is not the point. Samuel -Untermyer, great trust lawyer and presumably well-read man, said that -the Socialists had no definite plan for taking over the industries of -the country. He made this statement in Carnegie Hall before thousands of -people. And there was not one word of truth in it. If he had taken the -slightest pains to inform himself, he might easily have learned that the -Socialists have an exceedingly definite plan for taking over the -ownership of the nation’s industries. - -But Mr. Untermyer took no pains to inform himself. Ignorant as an Eskimo -of the Socialist program, he just went to Carnegie Hall and talked. What -he did not know, he guessed. What he could not guess right, he guessed -wrong. He could guess almost nothing right. Mr. Hillquit made him look -ridiculous. He was ridiculous. He was more than ridiculous. He was an -object for pity. A great lawyer, having a great reputation to sustain, -discussing a great subject of which he had only the most meager -knowledge! - -Mr. Hillquit riddled him, of course, but he did not riddle much because, -speaking Socialistically, Mr. Untermyer is not much. But, unfortunately, -only the 5,000 or 6,000 who heard the debate knew that Mr. Untermyer had -been riddled. Millions of New Yorkers who read the capitalist newspapers -the next morning received the impression from the headlines that -Untermyer had riddled not only Hillquit but Socialism. “Socialists have -no definite plans for doing the things they want to do” was the parroted -charge. The charge was not true, but the public did not know the charge -was not true. The capitalist newspapers would not let the public know. -The newspapers had good reasons for not letting the public know. The -newspapers are owned or backed by millionaires who are interested in -maintaining present conditions. Socialism would interfere with these -newspaper millionaires as much as it would interfere with any other -millionaires. Yet it is from such sources that the public receives most -of its information with regard to Socialism. It is because of this fact -that the public knows so much about Socialism that is not so. - -It emphatically is not so that the Socialists have no definite plan for -taking over the management and control of the industries of the country. -They know precisely what they are trying to do and how they are trying -to do it. They have not drafted all of the laws that would be required -under a Socialist republic for the next 500 years, but they have -formulated certain general principles that, once established, will -endure for centuries. I shall endeavor to make these general principles -plain. - -Socialists want to end class warfare. They want to prevent one class -from robbing any other class. They do not see how class warfare can be -ended so long as a small class controls the means of life of the great -class. The means of life is the machinery and materials with which men -work. Socialists, therefore, purpose that the means of life shall be -owned by all of the people, through the government. - -If this program be put into effect, a start must be made somewhere. -Socialists purpose that the start be made with the trusts. They propose -that the start be made with the trusts because the trusts have advanced -furthest along the road of evolution. The trusts have already sloughed -off the multitude of primitive, competitive managers. They are -concentrated. Only the slightest shift will be necessary to concentrate -the managements a little more and vest them in the government. Besides, -the trusts control the bulk of the production of the great necessaries -of life. Get the trusts and we shall have life. We shall have food. We -shall have clothing. We shall have shelter. We shall have all of these -things, because we shall have the machinery with which we may make all -of these things. - -Long before Congressman Berger’s bill was drafted, the cry of the -Socialists was “Let the nation own the trusts.” Among Socialists, this -cry was as insistent and as common as the cry of “Let us stand pat” was -insistent and common among the Hanna Republicans of 1896 and 1900. That -Socialist cry showed where the Socialists planned to begin. Congressman -Berger’s bill only echoed the cry and made it more definite. The -Socialist cry was “Let the nation own the trusts.” Congressman Berger’s -bill told what trusts were, within the meaning of Socialist demands, and -how to get them. Berger’s bill declared that a trust should be construed -to mean any industry or combination of industries that controlled 40 per -cent. or more of the national output of its product. And, Berger’s bill -also laid down the principle that the easiest way to acquire the trusts -is to buy them. Moreover, his bill also sought to provide the -governmental machinery and the money with which to do it. - -Never mind whether Berger’s bill was wise or foolish. Never mind whether -the Socialist program is wise or foolish. We are now considering the -charge that the Socialists have no definite program. That is what Mr. -Untermyer said. That is what a thousand others say. Is it not plain that -they are all wrong? Who can doubt that if the Berger bill were enacted -into law, the trusts could and would be taken over? The Berger bill is -plainer than any tariff bill that was ever written. Any man of common -sense can understand it. No man can understand a tariff law. Yet tariff -laws are administered. They are definite enough to accomplish what the -protected manufacturers really want accomplished. Even those who oppose -high tariff laws do not contend that they should be repealed because -they lack definiteness. - -The simple fact is that the Socialists want to take the trusts first, -because they are the most important and the best adapted to immediate -ownership by the people. For the time being, small competitive -manufacturers would be compelled to compete with the government. If the -Socialist theory of production is a fallacy, the small competitive -producers would demonstrate it by providing better working conditions -for their employees and selling goods more cheaply than the government. -In that event, Socialism would fall of its own weight and the nation -would restore present conditions. - -If the Socialist theory of production is not a fallacy, the competitive -producers would be driven out of business and sell their plants to the -government for what they were worth. They would be driven out of -business, because they could not afford to do business without a profit. -They could get no profit without appropriating part of the product of -their workers, and if they appropriated part of the product of their -workers, the workers would shift over to the national industries where -no products were appropriated. - -In short, if the national ownership of trusts were a success, the day of -the competitive manufacturer would be short. He could not afford to do -business with a competitor who sought no profits. And this is precisely -what Socialists believe would take place. They believe the national -ownership of the trusts would be quickly followed by the national -ownership of every industry that is now owned by some to skim a profit -from the labor of others. - -This does not mean, however, that peanut stands would be owned by the -government. It does not necessarily mean that farms would be owned by -the government. The Socialists are not fanatics over the mere principle -of government ownership. They appeal to the principle only to accomplish -an end. The end is the destruction of the power of some to rob others. -If there is no robbery, there is no occasion for the application of the -principle. The ownership of a peanut stand gives the owner no power to -rob anybody. A man who tills his own farm is robbing nobody. Neither the -ownership of the peanut stand nor the ownership of the farm gives the -owner the power to rob anybody, because neither owner profits from the -labor of an employee. But if tenant farming should ever become a serious -evil in this country—and it is increasing all the while—the Socialists, -if they were in power, would take over the ownership of all tenant farm -lands. They would take over the tenant farms for the same reason that -they now want to take over the trusts—because the landlords were using -the power of ownership to appropriate part of the products of the -tenants. - -Let this do for the critics who say that Socialists have no definite -program for taking over the ownership of the nation’s industries. There -is another set of critics who say that, if Socialists should ever take -over the industries, they could not run them. They say that the change -from private to public ownership would bring chaos, that the government, -as a manager of industry, would break down, that red revolution would -sweep the world and that civilization would probably go down with a -crash. - -I shall pause a moment to comment upon the lack of humor that these -gentlemen betray. They take themselves so seriously. If they were called -upon to attend a dog beset with fleas, they would doubtless counsel the -dog to prize the fleas as it prized its life. - -“Don’t bite off one of those fleas, my dear dog,” we can hear them say. -“You don’t know it, but they are doing you good. Each flea-bite -increases the speed with which you pursue game. If fleas were not biting -you all the time, you might become so comfortable that you would lie -down in the sun, go to sleep, forget to eat, and thus starve to death. -Remember, the fleas are your friends!” - -Of course, the great capitalists who are opposing Socialism are not to -be likened to fleas, except as to the facts that they are exceedingly -agile and are working at the same trade. But in a season of national -mourning over the high cost of living, is it not unseemly for these -gentlemen to provoke us to laughter by telling us that, if we were to -lose them, we ourselves should be lost? We who work can never save -ourselves. We can be saved only by those who work us. - -Let us get down to brass tacks. If the Socialists were to gain control -of this government to-morrow, probably the first thing they would do -toward carrying out their program would be to call a national convention -to draft a twentieth century constitution to replace our present -eighteenth century one. The convention would abolish the senate, vest -the entire legislative power in the house of representatives, destroy -the United States Supreme Court’s usurped power to declare acts of -congress unconstitutional, make all judges elective by the people and -establish the initiative, the referendum and recall. Socialists would -not attempt to establish Socialism without first clearing the ground so -that the people could control their government absolutely. - -The work of the convention having been approved by the people, perhaps -the first trust that would be taken over would be the railroad trust. It -would be a big job. It would be so big a job that no other similar job -would be undertaken until the completion of the railroad job was well -under way, and the railroad job might require a year or two. I mention -this fact to show that it would not be the purpose of a Socialist -administration to rip this country up from Maine to Southern California -within twenty-four hours from the fourth of March. In fact, there would -be no ripping or jarring, as I shall soon show. Everything would proceed -in an orderly, lawful manner. - -I say there would be no ripping or jarring, because there would be no -cessation of industry. Let us suppose, for instance, that the ownership -and control of the railroads had been transferred from the present -owners to the government. What would happen? Absolutely nothing in the -nature of a jar. What happens now when one group of capitalists sell a -railroad to another group of capitalists? Nothing, of course. The new -owners tell the general manager to keep on running trains, as usual, or -if they install a new general manager, they tell him to keep on running -trains. The trainmen, if they did not read the newspapers, would not -know the road had changed hands. - -The transition from private to public ownership would be accomplished -precisely as smoothly. The only change would be in the orders that a -Socialist administration would give to the chief executive officer of -the railroads. That order, in substance, would be: “Don’t try to make -any profits out of the railroads. Run them at cost. Give the men more -wages and shorter hours, and give the public the best possible service -at the lowest possible rate and with the least possible risk to human -life.” - -If you can manufacture a riot out of such ingredients, go to it. If you -can figure out how such a proceeding would disrupt civilization, proceed -at your leisure. - -The cards are all down. You now know what the Socialists want to do. -Where is the danger? - -“Oh,” the capitalist gentlemen say, “but you Socialists are not business -men, and business men are required to manage industries. A Socialist -government would therefore fail.” - -Mayor Gaynor expressed much the same thought in a statement about -Socialism that he prepared for the New York _Times_. Mr. Gaynor’s -attitude toward Socialism is tolerant—almost sympathetic—yet he asked: - - “Who would run your Socialistic government? Where would you get honest - and competent men? Would the human understanding and capacity be - larger then than it is now?” - -Wherever Socialism is discussed, such questions are asked. They are -evidently regarded as insuperable obstacles to Socialism. As a matter of -fact, they serve only to show how little the questioners know of -Socialism. - -Socialists do not purpose to establish hatcheries for the breeding by -special creation, of a class of super-men to administer government and -manage industry. They will depend upon the regular run of the human race -for material with which to work out their ideas. But they will approach -the subjects of government and industry from a different point of view. -The capitalist’s conception of honest and efficient government is that -sort of government that will best protect him in the enjoyment of the -unjust advantages that he has over the rest of the people. The -capitalist’s conception of honest and efficient business management is -that sort of business management that will yield him the most profits -upon the least capital. The Socialist’s conception of the best -government is that which gives no man an advantage over another, while -giving every man the greatest opportunity to exercise his faculties, -together with the greatest degree of personal liberty that is consistent -with the liberty of everybody else. And, the Socialist’s conception of -honest and efficient business management is that sort of management that -produces the most product under the best working conditions at the least -cost and distributes it among the people without profit. - -In answer to Mayor Gaynor and others, Socialists therefore make these -replies: - -Capitalists are now able to get honest men who are competent to -administer the government in the interest of the capitalist class. Why, -then, should you doubt that Socialists will be able to get honest men -who will be able to administer the government in the interest of the -working class? In either case, it is simply a matter of executing the -orders of the employer. Capitalism’s employees obey its orders. -Socialism’s employees will, for the same reason, obey its orders. You -tell your employees to maintain the advantage that the few have over the -many, and they obey you. We shall tell our employees to destroy the -advantage that the few have over the many. We believe they will obey us. -If they do not, we shall recall them. That is more than you can now do. - -Mayor Gaynor and others also ask if the “human understanding and -capacity” would be larger under Socialism than they are now. Positively -not. But we respectfully beg leave to suggest that it is not a matter of -understanding or capacity. It is a matter of purpose and intention. Men -“understand” what they are given to understand. If a man is told to -understand the problem of grinding human beings down to push dividends -up, he devotes his mind to this task and to no other. If the same man -were told to grind dividends down to the vanishing point and hoist human -beings high and dry above the poverty point, he would probably -understand that, too. And, so far as capacity is concerned, we already -have the capacity for great productive effort. We simply are not -permitted to exercise enough of it to keep us in comfort. Socialism -would not increase the capacity of the human mind, but it would give the -nation an opportunity to exercise the capacity it has. - -To simmer the whole matter into a few words, Socialism would endeavor to -place government and industry in the hands of men who would consider -every problem and every opportunity from the point of view of the -working class. It is the reverse of this method against which Socialists -complain. Capitalists are compelled to consider the working class last -in order that they may consider themselves first. The interests of the -capitalist class and the working class, instead of being “identical,” -are hostile. The capitalist class seeks a maximum of product for a -minimum of wages. The working class seeks a maximum of wages for a -minimum of product. The two classes are at war with each other for the -possession of the values that the working class creates. - -And, since capitalists control both government and industry, it is but -natural that the interests of capitalists should be considered first and -the interests of workingmen last. - -A little thought is enough to dissipate the fear that a Socialist -government would fail, “because Socialists are not business men, and -business men are required to manage industry.” Let us first inquire, -what is meant by a “business man”? Is he not, first and foremost, a man -who is expert in the squeezing out of profits? Of course, he is. If he -can produce enough profits to satisfy his stockholders, he need know -nothing about the mechanics of the business itself. And, so long as -business is conducted upon the basis of private profits, it is obvious -that the men in charge of it must be “business” men—men who understand -the business of extracting profits. - -But, with business established upon a basis of public usefulness, with -no thought of private profits, of what use would be such a business man? -His executive and organizing ability would be of the greatest value, but -his ability as a mere profit-getter would be of no value. - -For purposes of illustration, let us consider Judge Gary, the chief -executive official of the United States Steel Corporation. Judge Gary -probably knows about as much about making steel as you do about making -Stradivarius violins. He was educated as a lawyer, practised law and was -graduated to the bench. He knows a steel rail from a gas tank, but, to -save his life, he could not make either. He is a lawyer—plus. A lawyer -with a business man’s instinct for profits. A lawyer with a business -man’s instinct for organization and administration. - -Back of Judge Gary sits a cabinet of Wall Street directors who, in a -general way, tell him what to do. But, like Judge Gary, these Wall -street directors know nothing about the making of steel. They are expert -only in the making of profits. - -Now, a simple old person who had just dropped down here from another -planet might tell you that such men could not possibly manage a great -business like that of the steel trust. Such a simple old person might -tell you that, under the management of such men, the plants of the steel -trusts would be as likely to turn out bologna sausages or baled hay as -steel. But we know, as a matter of fact, that, under the management of -such men, the steel trust turns out nothing but steel. And why? Simply -because, below these managers are thousands of highly trained men and -hundreds of thousands of wage-workers who, collectively, know all that -is known about the making of steel. - -Here, then, comes this crushing question. If the Socialists were to gain -control of this government, and upon behalf of the government, buy out -the steel trust, what would prevent the Socialist President from writing -such a letter as this to the chief executive officer of the steel trust: - - “Dear Judge Gary: Until further notice stay where you are and do as - you have been doing, except as to these particulars: Instead of - consulting with J. Pierpont Morgan and your Wall Street cabinet, - consult with me and my cabinet. Instead of making steel for profit, - make it solely for use. It will not be necessary for you to make steel - rails that break in order to keep steel stock from breaking on the - market. Make everything as good as you can, sell everything you make - at cost, increase the wages of your workingmen and shorten their - hours. Do everything you can, in fact, to make the lot of the - steel-worker as comfortable as may be.” - -Would such a letter create a riot? Would Judge Gary indignantly resign -and the workers flee? - -Would the production of steel be interrupted for a single moment? - -Yet, in no more violent way than this would the Socialists take over the -ownership and control of any industry. The men now in charge would be -left in charge—at least until better men could be found to take their -places. Probably, here and there, a man would have to be changed. Not -every man who can squeeze out profits is good for anything else. But the -men who could forget profits and make good in usefulness—the men who -could look at their problems solely from the point of view of the -public—such men would be let alone. They would not only be let alone, -but they would be given a better opportunity than they now have to make -good. Profits ever stand in the way of making good in the real sense. -Steel rails that break and kill passengers are not made poor because the -steel trust officials do not know how to make them better. They are made -poor because it would decrease profits to make them better. Every -intelligent manager of industry knows of many things that he might do to -increase the worth of his product, but most of this knowledge goes to -waste because it would interfere with profits. - -Let no man fear that Socialism, if tried, would crumple up because the -government would be unable to find competent managers of industry. Every -industry will continue to produce men who are competent to take charge -of its technical work. The matter of executive heads is of secondary -importance. The Postmaster General of the United States, who, almost -invariably, is a mere politician, is at the head of one of the greatest -enterprises in the world, yet the mails go on. The men who sort letters -must know their business. The Postmaster General need not know his. It -would be better if he did, of course, but even if he does not the mails -go on. So much more important, collectively, are the real workers of the -world than any man who figureheads over them. - -When E. H. Harriman died the Harriman heirs found a man to head the -Harriman system of railroads. The man they found—Judge Lovett—is not -even a railroad man, but the Harriman lines go on. The Vanderbilts, -Goulds, Rockefellers and Morgans also find men to manage their railroads -and other industries. What these capitalists have done, the President, -his cabinet and congress, will probably have little difficulty in doing. - -Opponents of Socialism make ridiculous statements about the slavery that -they declare would exist if the people, through the government, owned -and operated their own industries. The workingman is told that, under -Socialism, he would be ordered about from place to place as if he were a -child. - -This charge is no more ridiculous than another charge that is sometimes -made, by which it is represented that, under Socialism, the blacksmith -would burst into an opera house, demand the job of leading the -orchestra, and start a revolution if he were denied the job. The fact is -that, under Socialism, industry would proceed, so far as these matters -are concerned, in much the same manner that it now proceeds. The workers -would be free to apply for the kinds of work for which they regarded -themselves as best fitted. So far as the necessities of industry would -permit, the applications of the workers would be granted. But, in the -long run, the workers would have to work where they were needed, -precisely as they now have to work where they are needed, and, then as -now, particular tasks would be given to those who were best fitted to -perform them. Under Socialism, the worker would have to apply for work, -at this place or that place, precisely as he does now. The only -difference would be that he would always get work somewhere, that he -would work fewer hours, under better conditions, for more pay, and, -that, as a voter, he would have a voice in the management of all -industry. - -Such are the replies made by Socialists to the chief objections that are -launched against Socialism. There is another charge—not an -objection—that should also be considered. It is the charge that -Socialists are dreamers, striving to establish a Utopia. Nothing could -be more absurd. Socialists are evolutionists. They do not believe in -Utopias, because they do not believe there is or can be such a thing as -the last word in human progress. They believe the world will always -continue to go onward and upward, precisely as it has always gone onward -and upward. Much as they are devoted to Socialism, they have not the -slightest belief that the world will stop with Socialism. They believe -Socialism will some day become as outgrown and burdensome as capitalism -now is, and that, when that day comes, Socialism should and will give -way to something better. - -The chief contention of Socialists is that Socialism is the next step in -civilization, that it represents a great advance over capitalism, that -it will end poverty and industrial depressions, and that Socialism must -come unless civilization is to go backward. - - - - - CHAPTER VI - THE “PRIVATE PROPERTY” BOGEY-MAN - - -Socialists want the people, through the government, to own and operate -the country’s great industries. In making this proposal, however, they -always specify that they also want the people to own and operate the -government. - -Upon this slight basis rests the charge that Socialists oppose the right -of the individual to own private property. Gentlemen who own much -private property—hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth—energetically -try to frighten gentlemen whose holdings of private property are chiefly -confined to the clothes they stand in and the chairs they sit in. - -“Beware of those Socialists,” say these gentlemen. “They are your worst -enemies. They would deprive you of the right to own private property. -They would have everybody own everything jointly, thus permitting nobody -to own anything individually. Look out for them.” - -We Socialists say to you: “Look out for the gentlemen who are so fearful -lest you shall lose the right to own private property. If you will -observe carefully, you will note that they are the ones who own -practically all of the private property. You have hopes, perhaps, but -they have the property. Your hopes do not increase. Their property does. -Besides, we have no desire to deny you the right to own private -property. On the contrary, we want to make your right worth something. -It is not worth anything now, because you don’t own anything and can’t -own anything. You are kept too busy making a bare living.” - -The imagination can picture no more seductive subject than the right to -own private property. The right to own private property suggests the -power to exercise the right. The power to exercise the right a little -suggests the power to exercise it much. The power to exercise it much -suggests the power to put the world at one’s feet; to reach out and get -this, whatever it may be; to go there and get that, wherever it may be. -Nothing that is of earth or on earth is beyond the dreams of one who -owns enough private property. Therefore, the subject may be worth a -little more than ordinary consideration. - -What, then, is property? Let us look around us. One man has property in -land. So far as the eye can see, maybe, the laws of the state defend him -in his power to say: “This is mine. I bought it. I paid for it. No one -can take it from me without my leave. No one may even pick a flower from -the hillside, or a berry from a bush without my consent.” - -Property in land may be called property in natural resources—property in -things that man did not make. - -Then there is property in things that man has made. Property in food, -property in clothing, property in houses, and property in the mills and -machinery with which food, clothing, houses and all other manufactured -articles are made. - -Now, why should anyone wish a property right in anything? Why should -anyone wish to say of anything on earth: “This is mine. No one may take -it from me without my leave. No one may even use it without my leave”? - -Only that he may fully use and enjoy it. That is the only valid reason -that lies behind the desire to own anything. Some things cannot be fully -used and enjoyed unless they are exclusively within the control of those -who use them. A home into which the world was at liberty to enter would -be no home. It might be a lodging house or a hotel, but it would be no -home. Therefore, there is a valid reason why each individual should -exclusively control the house in which he lives. Such exclusive control -may arise from private ownership, as we now understand the term, or it -may arise from the right, guaranteed by the state, to exclusive control -so long as its use is desired; but, from whatever it may arise, it -should exist. - -It is the shame of the present civilization that it does not exist. The -great majority of human beings have not the exclusive control of the -houses in which they live. Their clutch upon their habitations is of the -flimsiest sort. The sickness of the father may deprive them of the power -to pay rent and thus put them out. The ability of some other man to pay -a greater rental may put them out. Any one of many incidents may deprive -them of their right to exclusive control of their domiciles. - -Exclusive control of the furnishings of a home is also necessary to -their complete enjoyment. What is true of house furnishings is true of -clothing. Anything, in fact, that is exclusively used by an individual -cannot be completely enjoyed unless it is exclusively controlled by that -individual. - -Wherein lies the justice of permitting one individual to own that which -he does not use and cannot use, but which some other individual must -use? Why should Mr. Morgan and his associates be permitted to own the -machinery with which the steel trust workers earn their living? Why -should Mr. Rockefeller and his associates be permitted to own so many of -the railroads with which railroad men earn their living? Why should one -man be permitted to own block upon block of tenements, while block upon -block of tenement-dwellers own no homes? - -These questions cannot be answered by saying that the world has always -been run this way. In the first place, it is not true. Never, during all -the years of the world, until less than a century ago, did a few men own -the tools with which all other men work. In fact, it is only within the -last 40 years that such ownership has divided the population into a -small master class and a vast servant class. But even if the world had -always been run as it is running, that, in itself, would not make it -right. And anything that is wrong cannot be made right without changing -it. - -We Socialists are determined to change the laws relating to private -property. We assert that the present laws are wrong. We are prepared to -prove that they are wrong. We are eager to demonstrate that the poverty -of the masses is the direct result of the ownership, by a few, of a -certain kind of property that should not be privately owned. We refer, -of course, to the industrial machinery of the country, which is owned by -those who do not use it and used by those who do not own it. - -Our proposal, therefore, is this: We say that all property that is -collectively used should be collectively owned, and that all property -that is individually used should be individually owned. The last clause -should help out the gentleman who is afraid that Socialism would rob him -of the ownership of his undershirt. The first clause will help him to -own an undershirt. - -Please take this suggestion: Distrust any man who advises you to -distrust Socialism because of the fear that it would destroy the -individual’s right to own property. Such a man is always either ignorant -upon the subject of Socialism or crooked upon the subject of capitalism. -There are no exceptions, for Socialism does not mean what he says it -means and would not do what he says it would do. - -Socialism would give such a meaning to the individual right to own -property as it has never had in all the history of the world. Under -Socialism, the individual would not only have the right to own property, -but he would have the power to exercise the right. He would own -property. If Socialism would not give every head of a family the power -exclusively to control as good a house as the $5,000–a-year man now -lives in, Socialists would have no use for Socialism. The actual -ownership of the house might or might not rest with the individual. To -prevent grafters from grabbing houses, it might be deemed advisable to -let the state hold the title. But the state would protect the individual -in the right exclusively to control the house as long as he wished to -live in it, even if it were for a lifetime. If the people so desired, -the state might even go further and give the children, after the death -of their parents, the same right. But no Socialist government would -permit a landlord class to fatten upon a homeless class. - -Why? Because Socialists believe that no validity underlies a private -title to property except the validity that is completed by the _use_ of -property. This statement, like any other, can be made ridiculous by -construing it ridiculously. Socialists do not mean by this, for -instance, that if a man should take his family to the country for the -summer anybody would have a right to move into his house, merely because -he had temporarily ceased to use it. But Socialists do mean that it is -hostile to the interests of the community for a small class to own so -much that they can never use. - -Socialists believe that the needs of the community are so great that all -of the resources of the community should be available to the community. -Therefore, they would require occupancy, or use, as a pre-requisite to -the perfection of a title. Not that if a man, in spring, were to hang up -his winter underclothing for the summer, any neighbor gentleman would -thereby be given the right to appropriate the same—nothing of the kind. -This statement with regard to use, like all other statements made by -Socialists, must be construed reasonably. We simply lay down the -principle that it is wrong to perpetuate conditions under which a few -are enabled to grab so much more than they can use. Such grabbing hurts. -What a man cannot use he should not have. He thereby prevents others -from getting what they need. - -Besides, what is grabbing but a bad habit? Mr. Rockefeller’s -$900,000,000, if expended exclusively for bologna sausages, might buy -enough to supply him for a million years. If expended for golf balls, he -might be able to play golf, without buying a new ball, until he had -eaten the last sausage. If expended for clothing, he might be able to -wear a new suit, every fifteen minutes, for the next 28,000,000 years. -But what good do all of these figures do Rockefeller? His capacity for -consuming wealth is extremely limited. It is only his capacity for -appropriating the wealth created by others that is great. Every time Mr. -Rockefeller’s watch ticks $2 drop into his till—but he never sees them. -He hardly knows they are there. He has to hire a bookkeeper to know they -are there. So far as certainties are concerned, Mr. Rockefeller knows -only that when he wants bacon and eggs, with a little hashed brown -potatoes on the side, he has the money to pay for them. In other words, -the few wants of his slight physical body are never in danger of denial. - -Mr. Rockefeller’s physical wants would be in no danger of denial if he -were worth only $50,000. Why, then, does he want to own the rest of his -$900,000,000 worth of property? Plainly, it is only because he is a -victim of a bad habit. Some men want money because of the power it gives -them, but Rockefeller has never seemed to care much about power. He -simply has a mania for accumulation. The more he gets, the more he can -get—therefore, he always wants to get more. - -And, what does Rockefeller do with wealth, after he gets it? Why, he -lets us use it. He invests it in railroads, or steel mills, or -steamboats, or copper mines, or restaurants, or whatever seems likely to -bring him more money. He does not use any of these properties much. The -same freight train that brings him a package of breakfast food brings -carloads of kitchen stoves and iron bedsteads to those whose watches -have to tick all day to bring in $2. But the point is that while Mr. -Rockefeller uses his properties little and we use them much, he is -continuously charging us toll for their use and investing the toll in -more iron, more steel or more copper. If he charged us no toll, we -should have reason to be thankful to him. If he should invest the toll -in the necessities of life and dole them out to us, we should, if we -were beggars, also have reason to be thankful to him. But he invests his -toll in more iron, more steel or more copper—toll that the men who made -it need to put blood into their bodies and clothing on their families. - -That is all that the private ownership of property does for Mr. -Rockefeller more than it does for anybody else. The beefsteak upon his -plate is no more secure from outside attack than is the food upon the -plate of the poorest laborer. But the industrial machinery that Mr. -Rockefeller owns enables him to get, every time his watch ticks, the -equivalent of $2 worth of food, or clothing, or anything else. - -We stupid people who permit the private ownership of industrial -machinery should be exceedingly thankful to Mr. Rockefeller and men of -his type. To these gentlemen, are thanks especially due from those -persons who believe that the constitution of the United States -represents the last gasp of wisdom and should not, therefore, in any -circumstances, be changed. Under the constitution and laws of this -country, as they stand to-day, Mr. Rockefeller and his associates could -legally starve us to death, if they were so minded. Each of them could -go abroad, deposit $1,000,000 in the Bank of England, then cable -instructions to close down every industry they own, which would mean -every industry of importance in the country, including the railroads. No -one would have a legal right to trespass upon their premises, and their -hoarded wealth would be sufficient to enable them to live comfortably -abroad to the end of their days, while the people of America were -starving to death. - -Of course, the people of America would not starve to death. Law or no -law, the people of America would break into the abandoned properties and -operate them. Without extended delay, they would change the law, -including the federal constitution, to justify their action. But the -theoretical possibility of such abandonment is sufficient to illustrate -the absurdity of our present laws with regard to the ownership of -private property. - -When the constitution was adopted, even no such theoretical possibility -existed. It is true that we were then almost exclusively an agricultural -people, and some of the best families had stolen millions of acres of -the most available land. But back of the most available land were untold -millions of acres of other land upon which human life could be -sustained—land that could be had for the taking and clearing. The -factory age had not dawned. Every home was its own factory, in which -cloth was woven and clothing was made. Aside from the stolen land which -was privately owned, almost nothing was privately owned that was not -suitable for private ownership. That was largely due, of course, to the -further fact that there was not, at that time, much wealth in the -country. - -But, viewed from any angle, the unrestricted private ownership of -property is a curse to the people and always has been. If it were not a -curse, in the sense that it enables some to rob others, no one who is in -his senses would be in favor of it. The desire to use property is a -legitimate reason for wishing to own it, but the desire to own property -that one does not use can arise from no other motive than a purpose to -use such ownership as a bludgeon with which to rob the users. - -Apply this test and it will be found never to fail. The landlord owns -land because he wants to live in idleness from the fruits of those who -till the land. The multimillionaire owners of industrial machinery want -to own the industrial machinery because they want to use such ownership -to appropriate part of what their employees produce. If private -ownership did not give this advantage to the owners, the owners would -not care to own. If it does give this advantage to the owners the -workers have a right to object. Moreover, the workers have a right to -insist that such ownership cease. - -It is not enough to reply that a man has a right to own any physical -property that he can buy. Some burglars have enough money to buy dark -lanterns and “jimmies,” paying for the same in perfectly lawful coin of -the United States. But merely because the private ownership of burglars’ -tools is not for the good of the people, we have laws forbidding such -ownership, and if the laws be violated, we seize and confiscate the -tools. - -Some day, the fact may dawn upon us that, for every dollar taken with -burglars’ tools, a million dollars is taken—quite legally, of course—by -the owners of industrial tools. - -It may be a sore blow, of course, to a man who under capitalism, has -never been able to own a coffee grinder, to tell him that, under -Socialism, he would not be permitted to own a steel mill. If so, let the -blow fall at once. He might as well know the worst now, as later. But if -there be those who are interested in owning homes, furniture, clothing, -motorboats, automobiles, and so forth, let them be interested in -Socialism. Socialism, by no means, guarantees that every laborer shall -go to his work in a six-cylinder car, while his wife does the marketing -in a limousine, but it does guarantee that Socialism would not prevent -him from privately owning all such property that he could earn. - -We realize, of course, that this is but a small bait to hold out to a -man whom capitalism has given the “right” to own the earth. Among -gentlemen who would like to own the earth, perhaps we shall therefore -make little progress. But among gentlemen who have been promised the -earth and are getting only hell, we may do better. The time may come -when they will tire of piling their bones at the foot of the precipice -of private property. The time may come when they will realize that it -would be no more absurd to have private undershirts owned by the public -than it is to have the public’s industrial machinery owned by private -interests. Then we shall have Socialism. - -“And everything will be divided up equally, all around, and in five -years the same persons will be rich who are now rich, and the same -persons who are now poor will be poor again.” - -List to the croaking parrot that has just flown into our happy home. -Whenever and wherever there is a discussion about Socialism, that wise -old bird wheels in and declares it is all a wicked scheme to rob the -rich for the benefit of the poor, and that in no event could it long -succeed. Poor old feathered imitation of a human intellect! Brainless, -yet not without a voice, it talks on and on and on. Bereft of its -feathers and its voice, it might take its place upon a hook in the -market place and eventually work its way into some careless shopper’s -basket as a perfectly good partridge, or diminutive duck. Placed upon -the table and served as a delicacy, its worthlessness would soon be -understood. But clad as nature clothed it and harping words that some -one once dropped into its ear, its voice is continuously mistaken for -the voice of wisdom and the progress of the world is commanded to halt. - -But the progress of the world does not halt. Those who can think without -inviting excruciating pain; those who can reflect without bringing on a -stroke of apoplexy, are not compelled to think much or to reflect much -to realize that nothing the bird says about “dividing up” is so. Who -divided up the wealth that is represented in the public buildings in -Washington? What part of the White House, pray, do you own? Do you own -the south veranda, or do you own the President’s bed? Maybe it is the -gilded lady upon the dome of the Capitol who calls you “papa” or -“mamma.” If not, the wealth represented in the public buildings in -Washington has not been “divided up,” for you have not been given your -share. - -Under Socialism, the wealth of the nation would no more be divided up -than the wealth invested in the American navy is divided up now. The -industrial wealth of the community, owned in common by the members of -the community, would be at the service of the community. It would no -more be at the service of an individual, exclusive of any other or all -other individuals, than the postal department is now at the service of -an individual to the exclusion of any other individual. Nor would any -man or small set of men ever have a greater opportunity to regain -possession of the nation’s industrial wealth than any man or small set -of men now have to acquire private ownership of the Capitol at -Washington. Any man may walk into the Capitol with all the freedom that -he might feel if it were his own. But let any man try to sell off a wing -as a lodging house and the Capitol police would do their duty. Let -Socialists once nationalize the nation’s industries and they will -cheerfully agree to lay their heads on the block if individuals ever -recover possession of them. - -Gentlemen who believe otherwise forget that under Socialism there would -no longer be the means by which a few pile up great fortunes at the -expense of the many. The private ownership of property that is -collectively used is the means by which such fortunes are now -accumulated. With the means gone, how could the fortunes reappear? - -We Socialists are also often chided for what our opponents are pleased -to call our “gross materialism.” Gentle folk like the Morgans, the -Guggenheims, the Ryans, the Havemeyers and others often grieve because -our vision seems to comprehend nothing but bread and butter, clothing -and furniture, houses and lots and pensions for the aged. - -Their grief is perhaps natural. We talk much about those things. We are -frankly committed to the task of removing poverty from the world. -Material things are required to remove poverty. When poverty goes, of -course, a lot will go that is not material. All of the unhappiness that -is caused by poverty and the fear of poverty will go. All of the -ignorance that is caused by poverty will go. All of the crimes that are -caused by ignorance and poverty will go. And much of the vice will go. - -Much of the vice? Did you ever consider how much vice would go if -capitalism were to go? Did you ever realize to what extent vice is -fostered by the profit system to which Socialism is opposed? No? Then -read what Wirt W. Hallman, of Chicago, said before the American Society -of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis. Here it is: - - “If any city will take the profit out of vice, it will immediately - reduce the volume of vice at least 50 per cent. If, in addition, it - will make vice dangerous to men as well as women, to patrons, - property-owners and business men as well as to dive-keepers and women - street-walkers, it will reduce vice 75 per cent. or more, and will - reduce the wreckage of health and morals in much the same proportion.” - -Socialism will not only take the profit out of vice, but it will take it -out of everything. By enfranchising woman and making her economically -independent, no woman would be compelled to sell herself to keep -herself. Socialism, in this and other enumerated respects, is therefore -not particularly materialistic. - -But what if it were wholly materialistic? What if its advocates thought -of teaching nothing to the world but the best means of supplying itself -with bread and butter, boots and shoes, caps and clothing, houses and -lots? Do you now require your grocer to teach you ethics? Does your -haberdasher supply you with spiritual food as well as neckties? If your -house were burning, would you refuse the assistance of the fire -department merely because the fire department is exclusively -materialistic? - -The charge of “gross materialism” is but more sand thrown in the eyes of -those who could not be so easily robbed if they could see Socialism. -Socialists behold a world that is and always has been poverty-stricken. -They say that for the first time in the history of the world it is now -possible to remove poverty. And those gentlemen who might have to go to -work if poverty were removed rebuke the Socialists because they do not -sing psalms while talking about the bread and butter question. -Assuredly, no flattery is thereby intended, but indeed what flattery -this is. By inference, they tell the world that we are super-men. We -could tell the world all it needs to know if it were not for the -cussedness that causes us to harp on bread and butter. - -The real cause of such complaint is, of course, not that we are teaching -the world too little, but too much. We could preach ethics and religion -until the cows came home and not arouse a croaker. We could preach -nothing until the cows dropped dead and still there would be silence. -But when we proclaim the right of the individual, not only to work, but -to possess all he creates, the gentlemen who create nothing and own -everything fire at us every brick within reach. - -Mr. John C. Spooner, once a United States Senator from Wisconsin, but, -happily, no longer such, feels particularly aggrieved at the Socialist -proposals commonly known as the initiative, the referendum and the -recall. To engraft these measures upon our federal and state -constitutions would, he says, be an attempt to bring about a “pure -democracy,” meaning thereby a community the members of which directly -governed themselves. A “pure democracy,” according to Mr. Spooner, was -never made to work on a great scale and cannot be made to work to-day. - -Mr. Spooner, who, in and out of office, has always served the rich, is -evidently still true to his allegiance. If Mr. Spooner does not know -that no Socialist, nor any other person fit to be out of an idiot -asylum, has ever even suggested that the government of the United States -be converted into a pure democracy, the sum of his knowledge is even -less than the sum of his public services up to date. Socialists, and -those who have followed us in advocating the initiative, the referendum -and the recall merely want to give the people power to do certain things -for themselves, provided their elected representatives refuse to do -them. - -We do not propose to do away with representative government. We do not -propose to disband a single legislative body. But we do propose to make -every elected official represent us. We do not care whether he be a -judge, a congressman or a President. He must represent us. But merely -because we are determined these gentlemen shall represent us, other -gentlemen like Mr. Spooner seek to make the people believe we are trying -to go back to the old New England town meeting days and collect -90,000,0000 people on the prairie somewhere every time a law is to be -passed or a fourth-class postmaster appointed. The most charitable -construction that can be placed upon the attitude of Mr. Spooner and men -of his kind is that they are infinitely more foolish than they believe -Socialists to be. - -Another point of view is suggested by a Denver gentleman whose letter -follows: - - “In one of your articles on Socialism, you tell how Socialists would - govern—changes they would make in the constitution, and so forth. I - should like to ask what you Socialists, or your ancestors had to do - with making our present form of government? In other words, what - percentage of the Socialists have three generations of American-born - ancestors? Socialist leaders, in particular? A very small percentage, - I venture to say. Socialism is a result of immigration. Americans - still have faith in the constitution of the United States.” - -When all other attacks fail, the charge is gravely made that “Socialism -is un-American” and, therefore, a “result of immigration.” - -Does it never occur to these gentlemen that the United States are also -the “result of immigration”? That the English language, as we speak it -here, is the result of immigration? - -Would these gentlemen have us reject everything that comes from Europe? -If so, why do they not reject the Declaration of Independence, which, -though written by Thomas Jefferson, yet breathes the spirit of Rousseau -and Voltaire, at whose feet he was proud to sit? Why do they not reject -the constitution of the United States which is heavily saturated with -the political principles of the English? Why do they not reject the -English common law, which assuredly is not American? Why do they not -reject the multiplication table, the works of Shakespeare and the -wireless telegraph? - -Why don’t they? Because they are not fools. They are foolish, let us -hope, only when they are talking about Socialism. On this subject, their -brains curdle. They do not ask whether the principles upon which it is -based are true. Truth is not the test. The test is the place where the -principles were first proclaimed. If it could be proved that they were -first proclaimed at Muncie, Indiana, by a gentleman who was born there -immediately after the landing of Columbus—then we might expect these -patriots to become Socialists even if Socialism had not a leg to stand -upon. But since Europeans chanced to hit upon Socialism before we did, -precisely as they chanced to hit upon many another good thing before we -did, these gentlemen do not want Socialism, even though it be true. - -Well, let them reject it. Let them reject the sun, the moon and the -stars, if they want to. None of them was made in America. Let them -reject the Mississippi River because it was discovered by De Soto, a -foreigner. Let them reject the Pacific Ocean because it was discovered -by Balboa, another foreigner. The march of the sun and planets will -probably not be seriously disturbed, even if some gentlemen do reject -them. Possibly the Mississippi River may flow on. Certainly, the -Socialist party in America will not disband. It’s busy. - -I cannot tell my correspondent what percentage of Socialists have three -generations of ancestors who were born in America. I do not know. I do -not care. I do not know why he should care. I know some Socialists who -have fifteen generations of ancestors who were born in America. I have -seen some Socialists when they had been in this country only fifteen -minutes. So far as I could discover, they were precisely like the -Socialists who had lived in this country, in person or by proxy, for 300 -years. They all believed that poverty was unnecessary and that Socialism -would remove it. - -Either that belief is true, or it isn’t. Whence it sprang or by whom it -is expressed makes no difference with its truth or falsity. Yet, men who -think they can think, write or speak as this gentleman has written. They -mean well, of course, but they are suffering from ingrowing Americanism. -They are turning their eyes upon themselves and their backs upon the -world. If America ever reaches the point where it will reject truth, -simply because it comes from abroad, while accepting error for no other -reason than that it is made at home, America will not be worth bothering -about. - - - - - CHAPTER VII - SOCIALISM THE LONE FOE OF WAR - - -Ask the first man you meet if he is in favor of war and he will tell you -he is not. Mr. Wilson is opposed to war. The Czar of Russia is opposed -to war. The King of Italy is opposed to war. The Sultan of Turkey is -opposed to war. The King of England and the German Emperor are opposed -to war. Every king and emperor in the world is opposed to war. Mr. -Roosevelt, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Carnegie, Mr. Taft—everybody, -everywhere, is opposed to war. - -Yet, Mr. Taft, not so long ago, flung an army in the face of Mexico, and -dispatched powerful warships to the coast of Cuba. The King of Italy, -not so long ago, attacked, by land and sea, the people of Turkey. Mr. -Roosevelt and Mr. Bryan, a little longer ago, enlisted in the war -against Spain. Mr. Morgan, only a few years ago, helped to furnish the -sinews of war with which Japan fought Russia. At this moment, the King -of England and the German Emperor are threatening their respective -nations with bankruptcy in order to augment their enormous machinery for -the slaying of men. And, Mr. Carnegie, having grown rich, in part by the -manufacture of armor-plate for warships, is now using some of his money -to further a peace-movement that brings no peace. - -Plainly, here is something mystifying—a world that wants to stop -fighting and cannot. Why cannot it stop fighting? Mr. Wilson cannot tell -you. Mr. Morgan will not tell you. Mr. Roosevelt has not told you. Mr. -Bryan and Mr. Carnegie seem not to know. No one who should know seems to -know. Yet, they must know. Common sense says so. The men who make wars -know why they make them. Wars do not happen—they are made. Somebody -says: “Bring out the guns.” Somebody says: “Begin shooting.” Somebody -knows what the shooting is about. - -What is it about? Be careful, now. Don’t answer too quickly. Don’t say -“the flag” has been insulted. Don’t say “the national honor” has been -impugned. These are old reasons, but they may not be true reasons. We -Socialists are willing to stake everything on the statement that they -are not true reasons. If we are right, we are worth listening to. War is -hell. During the 132 years that we have been a nation, we have had war -hell at average intervals of 22 years. We are already preparing for our -next war. We are arming to the teeth. It may not last so long as the -Civil War, but it will be bloodier. We have all of the most improved -machinery for making it bloodier. - -On the sea we are armed as Farragut never was armed. Any of our -dreadnoughts could sink all of the ships, for which and against which, -Farragut ever fought. And, on land, we are armed as Grant never was -armed. Grant drummed out his victories with muzzle-loading rifles. No -rifle could be fired rapidly. No bullet could kill more than one man, -nor any man unless that man were near. But the modern rifle can be fired -25 times a minute, and it will kill at four miles. More than that, a -single bullet from a modern rifle will kill every man in its path. It -will shoot through 60 inches of pine. It will string men like a needle -stringing beads. It will literally make a sieve of a soldier. Seventy -bullet holes and more were found in the body of many a man who fell on -the plains of Manchuria. - -Toward such a war—or worse—we are speeding. Indeed, it will be hell. But -it will not be hell for the men who make it. It will be hell for the men -who fight it. The men who make it will stay at home. Their blood will -drench no battlefield. Their bones will lie in the mire with no sunken -ship. But the blood of the workers will drench every battlefield, and -their skeletons will march with the tides on the floor of the sea. - -Good Christian gentlemen who abhor war hold out no hope that war will -soon cease. Good Christian gentlemen who abhor war pretend not to know -why, in a world that is weary of war, war still persists. Or, if they do -pretend to know, they account for the persistence of war by slandering -the human race. They say the race is bad. Its brain is full of greed. -Its heart is full of murder. - -The mind of the race is not, nor ever has been filled with the greed -that kills. - -The heart of the race is not, nor ever has been, filled with the black -blood of murder. - -It is only a few whose minds and hearts have been thus poisoned by greed -for gain or lust for power. Probably we should all have been thus -poisoned if we had been similarly circumstanced—if we had been great -capitalists. But most of us, lacking the capitalist’s instinct for -profits, never chanced to see the easy loot and the waiting dagger lying -side by side. The gentlemen who have seen them have made our wars. And -the gentlemen who do see them are making our wars to-day and preparing -others for the future. - -We Socialists make this charge flatly. We smear the monstrous crime of -war over the face of the capitalist class. We mince no words. We say to -the capitalist class: - -“Your pockets are filled with gold, but your hands are covered with -blood. You kill men to get money. You don’t kill them, yourselves. As a -class, you are too careful of your sleek bodies. You might be killed if -you were less careful. But you cause other men to kill. - -“And you do it in the meanest way. You do it by appealing to their -patriotism. - -“You say: ‘It is sweet to die for one’s country.’ - -“You don’t dare say: ‘It is sweet to die for Havemeyer,’ as many -Americans died during the Sugar Trust war to ‘free Cuba.’ - -“You don’t say: ‘It is sweet to die for Guggenheim or Morgan,’ as many -Americans would have died if Taft’s army had crossed the Rio Grande. - -“You don’t say: ‘It is sweet to die for the Tobacco and other trusts,’ -as many Americans died during the war with the Philippines. - -“You don’t dare say any of these things, because you know, if you did, -you would not get a recruit. You know you would be more likely to get -the boot.” - -We Socialists, who make these charges, know they are serious. They are -as serious as we know how to make them. If they lack any of the -seriousness they should have, it is because we lack some of the -vocabulary we should have. The facts upon which the charges are made are -serious enough to justify the full use of any vocabulary ever made. The -facts are the facts of colossal murder for gain. And they are as old as -history. - -The small rich class that lives in luxury from the labor of the great -poor class has a reason for clinging to the control of government. That -reason is not far to seek. Without the control of government, the small, -rich class would not be rich. Government, in the hands of the rich, is a -sort of two-handed claw with which golden chestnuts are pulled out of -the fire. One claw is the governmental power to make and enforce laws. -The other claw is the power to grab by force that which cannot be -grabbed by laws. - -One nation cannot make laws for another nation. But the capitalists of -one nation may possess property that is wanted by the capitalists of -another nation. Or the capitalists of one nation may see a great -opportunity for personal profit in transferring to their own nation the -sovereignty that another nation holds over a certain territory. That was -why Great Britain made war against the Boers. Certain rich English -gentlemen believed they could make more money if the British flag waved -over the diamond and gold fields of the Transvaal. For no more nearly -valid reason, the capitalist class of Japan made war against the -capitalist class of Russia. Russia had stolen Korea and Japan wanted it. -Korea belonged to the Koreans, but that made no difference. Two thieves -struggled for it and one of them has it. - -The moment that the capitalist class of one nation determines to rob the -capitalist class of another nation, the machinery for inflaming the -public mind is set in motion. This machinery consists of tongues and -printing presses. Tongues and printing presses immediately begin to -foment hatred. Every man in each country is made to feel that every man -in the other country is his personal enemy. But that is stating it too -mildly. Every man in each country is made to feel that every man in the -other country is as much worse than a personal enemy as a nation is -greater than an individual. Fervent appeals are made to “patriotism.” -“The flag” is waved. It is not “sweet to die” for Cecil Rhodes, for -Rothschild or any one else—“It is sweet to die for one’s country.” And -thousands of men take the bait. - -They bid farewell to their homes. They embark upon transports. They sail -strange seas. They disembark upon strange shores. They see strange men. -Men whom they never saw before. Men against whom they have no possible -sort of grudge. Men who never harmed them. Men whom they never harmed. -Common workingmen, like themselves. - -But they shoot these men and are shot by these men. They spill each -other’s blood. They break each other’s bones. They break the hearts of -each other’s families. And, when one army or the other has been crippled -beyond further fighting, there is peace. The peace of the sword! The -peace of death! The peace that leaves the working classes of both -countries poorer and the capitalist class of only one country richer. - -Was it not a great victory? Yes. - -It was a great victory for the capitalists of the world who lent money -to both belligerents. (But it was not a great victory for the workingmen -of both countries, who, through weary, weary years, will be shorn of -part of their earnings to pay the interest upon the war bonds.) - -It was a great victory for the capitalist group who plunged for plunder -and got it. (But it was not a great victory for the capitalist group -that lost its plunder.) - -It was a great victory for the generals, who, from a safe distance, -directed the fighting. (But it was not a great victory for the -workingmen who, at close quarters, fell before the guns and were buried -where they fell.) - -It was no sort of a victory for the working class of either country. At -least, any victory that came to the working class of either country was -merely incidental. Great Britain whipped the Boers, but the British -people did not get the gold mines and the diamond mines. The Japanese -whipped the Russians, but the Japanese workingmen did not get any of the -plunder for which the war was fought. The Japanese capitalists got all -of the plunder. The common people of Japan were so poor, after they had -fought a “successful” war against Russia, that, within six months of the -termination of the war, the Mikado urged the sternest self-denial upon -them as the only means of saving the country from bankruptcy. And, -notwithstanding the victory of the British over the Boers, the common -people of England were never before so poor as they are to-day. - -What is the use of blinking these facts? They are facts. Nobody can -disprove them. They stand. They stand even in the face of the further -fact that some wars have helped the working class. The American -Revolution helped the working class of America. But the American working -class would not have been in need of help if the English land-owning -class who ruled the British government had not been using the government -to plunder and oppress the people of America. - -But that is only one side of the story. Let us look at the American -side. The common people of America gained something from the war. They -slipped from the clutches of the English grafters. But they did not get -what they were promised. Read the Declaration of Independence and see -what they were promised. Read the Constitution of the United States and -see what they were given. Between the Declaration of Independence and -the Constitution of the United States there is all the difference that -exists between blazing sunlight and pale moonlight. No finer spirit was -ever breathed into words than that which appears in the Declaration of -Independence. Jefferson wrote it, and he wrote splendidly, though the -Declaration, as it stands, is not as he first wrote it. Jefferson was so -afire with the idea of liberty that his associates upon the committee -that drafted the Declaration shrank from the light. They compelled him -to tone down his words. But the Declaration as it stands spells Liberty -with a big “L.” And, Liberty with a big “L” can be nothing but a -republic in which the people, through their representatives, absolutely -rule. - -The people, through their representatives, have never ruled this country -and do not rule it to-day. The Constitution of the United States will -not let them. It will not let them vote directly for President. In the -beginning, the people did not even choose the electors who elected the -President. State Legislatures chose them. No man except a legislator -ever voted for the electors who chose Washington, Adams, Jefferson, -Madison and some others. To this day the Constitution denies the right -of the people to choose United States Senators and Justices of the -United States Supreme Court. In the few states where the people -practically choose United States Senators they do so only by “going -around the end” of the Constitution. They exact a promise from -legislative candidates to elect the senators for whom the people have -expressed a preference. But this is wholly extra-constitutional. If the -legislators were to break their promises, the United States Supreme -Court would be compelled to sustain them in their constitutional right -to do so. - -Now, here is the point. Granted that the American Revolution was of -value to the American working class. Granted that the ills that followed -from American rule were not so grievous as the ills inflicted by the -ruling class of England. Grant all this and more. Still, is it not true -that if it had not been for the ruling class of England, there would -have been no occasion for a war? Is it not true that the English people, -if they had been in control of their own government, never would have -harmed the people of America? When did the English people, or any other -people, ever harm anybody? When did a thievish, murderous ruling class -neglect to harm any people whose plunder seemed possible and profitable? - -The idea that the people of one country, if left to themselves, would -ever become embittered against the people of another country, is absurd. -Test this statement by your own feelings. Are you so angry at some -Japanese peasant who is now patiently toiling upon his little hillside -in Japan, that you would like to go to Japan and kill him? Is there any -person in Germany whom you never saw that you want to kill? - -Of course not. But if you are a “patriotic” American citizen, you may -some day cross a sea to kill somebody. If you believe in “following the -flag,” the flag may some day lead you into the hell of war. If you -believe “it is sweet to die for one’s country,” you may some day be shot -to pieces. But if so, you will not die for your country. Your country -wants you to live. You will die for the ruling class of your country. If -you should expire from gunshot wounds in Mexico, you might die for Mr. -Guggenheim, or some other noble citizen who will be far from the firing -line. Wherever you may die from war-wounds, you will die to put more -money into somebody else’s pockets. - -It has always been so. Why did we go to war against England in 1812? -Because the English people had wronged us? The English people, left to -themselves, never wronged anybody. We went to war with England in 1812 -because the ruling class of England, then deep in the Napoleonic wars, -were holding up American ships upon the high seas to take off alleged -British subjects and jam them into the British Navy. - -Such action, of course, was harmful to American pride, but really it did -not deeply concern the American working class. Most of the workers lived -and died without ever having seen a ship. Nevertheless, the American -working class was summoned to the slaughter. My paternal -great-grandfather, a humble farmer in the Hudson River Valley, was -drafted into the ranks, and to this day I honor him because he would not -go without being drafted. And, when the war was ended, the working class -of America was worse off than it was before. - -So was the working class of England. Some were dead. Some were shattered -in health. The living lived less well because they had to pay the cost -of hell. The impressment of alleged British subjects upon the high seas -ceased only because Great Britain chose to end it. The treaty of peace -contained no stipulation that she should end it. Thus ceased this -criminally stupid war, which never would have begun if the people of -England, instead of a small ruling class, had ruled their own country. - -The war with Mexico was so monstrous that General Grant, who fought in -it, denounced it in the strongest language at his command. In the second -chapter of the first volume of his “Memoirs,” after characterizing the -Mexican War as “unholy,” he says: - - “The occupation, separation and annexation” (of Texas) “were, from the - inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to - acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the - American Union. Even if the annexation itself could be justified, the - manner in which the subsequent war was forced upon Mexico cannot.... - The Southern Rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican War.” - -Do you get that? Two wars caused by slavery. Seven hundred thousand men -killed. Twenty billion dollars’ worth of wealth either destroyed -outright, or consumed for interest upon the public debt, or paid for -subsequent pensions. - -And for what? - -To settle the question of slavery. - -To settle the question of slavery that the men who framed the national -Constitution, most of whom were slaveholders, permitted to exist. - -To settle the question of slavery, which, never for one moment, during -all of those intervening years, was anything but a curse even to the -white working class. - -And, what is chattel slavery? Merely a method of appropriating the -products of the labor of others. Who were interested in maintaining it? -Certainly not the working class, no member of which ever owned a slave. -The capitalist class of the South was interested in it, because its -holdings were agricultural, and slave labor was well adapted to -agricultural undertakings. The capitalist class of the North was not -interested in maintaining chattel slavery, because the investments of -Northern capitalists were chiefly in industrial undertakings, for which -black slave labor was not well suited. Yet, the North never seriously -objected to slavery, as such. Men like Wendell Phillips, who did object -to slavery, as such, were mobbed in the North. If the North, like the -South, had been, so far as the great capitalists were concerned, an -agricultural country, there is no reason whatever to suppose that the -North would not have been in favor of chattel slavery. What the North -most objected to was the effort of the South to extend slavery into new -states, as they were admitted. The Southern aristocracy, in this manner, -sought to prevent the loss of its hold upon the government. The Northern -capitalists also desired to gain control of the government. When the -addition of new free states stripped the South of its political -supremacy, the South went to war. The North resisted the attack to save -the Union. - -Remember, that is why the North went to war—to save the Union, which had -been attacked. It was not to free the slaves and end slavery. We have -this upon the authority of no less a man than Lincoln. Lincoln once sent -word to the South that if it would permit him to put one word into a -peace-treaty, he would let the South put in all the others. The one word -that Lincoln said he wanted to put in was “union.” Lincoln was opposed -to slavery, but he was not so much opposed to it that he wanted to fight -about it. It was only after the South had fought Lincoln almost to a -standstill that he rose above the Constitution and destroyed an -institution that was not even mentioned in the Constitution—much less -prohibited by it. - -That is what the Civil War was about—chattel slavery. - -Something that would not have existed if men had not first existed who -wished to ride upon the backs of others. - -Something that would not have existed if the representatives of the -ruling class who drafted the Constitution had not been eager that it -should persist. - -Something that never for a moment benefited the working class. - -Yet, the working class fought the war—on one side to preserve slavery -for the benefit of others; on the other side to maintain a union under -which white men and black men alike are always upon the brink of -poverty. - -Seven hundred thousand men followed the Stars and Stripes and the Stars -and Bars—to bloody graves. Not one of them would have been killed in war -if the common people of each section had ruled each section. The common -people never owned slaves. They did well if they owned themselves. - -And now we come to the Spanish-American War. We believe it was fought to -“free Cuba.” We believe it was fought to “avenge the _Maine_.” Don’t -take too much for granted. Even Senator Nelson, of Minnesota, declared -in the United States Senate in 1912 his belief that the war with Spain -was fomented by Americans who held large interests in Cuba. He also -declared his belief that the Sugar Trust was trying to foment another -revolution for the purpose of bringing about annexation and thus ridding -itself of the 80 percent. tariff that is now levied upon American sugar. - -But there is more to the story. To this day, there is no proof that the -_Maine_ was destroyed by Spaniards, Cubans, or anyone outside of her. -For fourteen years the government of the United States did not seem to -want to know. The _Maine_, with the bones of 200 or 300 workingmen -aboard her, was permitted to lie in the mud of Havana harbor where she -sank. And, when the wreck was tardily raised, nobody was able to say -that the ship was not destroyed by the explosion of her own magazines. -Now, the hull of the old ship is down far in the ocean, with no hope -that the facts will be known. - -But the interests that wanted war had no doubt of the facts in 1898. -Their newspapers thundered their theory every day. The _Maine_ had been -destroyed by Spaniards! We must “Remember the _Maine_.” We did remember -the _Maine_, but we forgot ourselves. We forgot to be sure we were -right. And, even if we were right, we forgot that the killing of a few -thousands of Spanish workingmen would be no fit punishment for the crime -of the Spanish ruling class that wrecked the _Maine_. - -We also forgot to watch what Wall Street was doing at the time. Read -some paragraphs from the New York _Tribune_ of April 1, 6, 9 and 20, -1898: - - “Mr. Guerra, of the Cuban Junta, was asked about the Spanish-Cuban - bonds against the revenues of the island. He replied that he did not - know their amount, which report fixed at $400,000,000....” - - “These bonds are payable in gold, at 6 per cent. interest, ten years - after the war with Spain had ended....” - - “The disposition of the bonds of the Cuban Republic has been a - question discussed in certain quarters during the last few days, and - the grave charge has been made that the bonds have been given away - indiscriminately in the United States to people of influence who would - therefore become interested in seeing the Republic of Cuba on such - terms with the United States as would make the bonds valuable pieces - of property.” (Kindly note that the bonds would be worth nothing - unless Spain were driven out of Cuba.) “Men of business, newspaper, - and even public officials, have been mentioned as having received - these bonds as a gift....” - - “A congressman said in the house on Monday that he had $10,000 worth - of Cuban bonds in his pocket, while H. H. Kohlsaat, in an editorial in - one of the Chicago papers, charges the Junta with offering a bribe of - $2,000,000 of Cuban bonds to a Chicago man to use his influence with - the administration for the recognition of the Cuban government.” - - “Mr. Guerra made the somewhat startling statement that a man - representing certain individuals at Washington has sought to coerce - the Junta into selling $10,000,000 worth of bonds at 20 cents on the - dollar. ‘This man practically threatened us that unless we let him - have the bonds at the price quoted, Cuba would never receive - recognition. He said he was prepared to pay on the spot $2,000,000 in - American money for $10,000,000 of Cuban bonds, but his offer was - refused.’” - -You probably do not remember these items. Perhaps, at that time, like -many other citizens, you were too busy “remembering the _Maine_.” If so, -what do you think of these items now? Do they mean anything to you? Do -they offer any explanation as to why this government, after having paid -little or no attention to six rebellions in Cuba during a 50–year -period, suddenly determined to “free Cuba”? - -In any event, remember that whatever Spain did to Cuba was done by the -ruling class and not by the people of Spain. The ruling class was bent -upon the robbery of the Cubans. The people of Spain did not profit from -the robbery. Nor was the working class of the United States helped by -the expulsion of Spain from Cuba. The Sugar Trust and some other great -American interests were helped, but the American working class was not. -The working class had only the pleasure of doing the fighting, the dying -and the bill-paying. - -The American working class profited no more from the war with the -Philippines, which was fought solely to provide a new field for the -dollar-activities of American capitalists. There is no American -workingman who now finds it easier to make a living because of the -generally improved conditions brought about by the war with the -Philippines. General conditions have not been improved. They have been -made worse to the extent that the cost of the war is a burden upon -industry. If working-class interests had been consulted, the war never -would have been waged. No working class interest was involved. The -workers had everything to lose, including life, by going to the front, -and nothing to gain. But they “followed the flag”—and some of them never -came back. They stayed—six feet under ground—that the Tobacco Trust, the -Timber Trust, and many other great capitalist interests might stay on -the islands above the ground. - -Look wherever you will, you cannot find a working class interest that -should or could cause workingmen to slaughter each other. Nor is this -situation new. It is as old as war itself. It is a fact that men of -sense and honesty have always recognized. Tacitus said: - -“Gold and power are the chief causes of war.” - -Dryden, the poet, said: “War seldom enters but where wealth allures.” - -And Carlyle, in this striking fashion, showed the utter absence of -working-class interest in war: - - “To my own knowledge, for example, there dwell and toil in the British - village of Dumrudge, usually some five hundred souls. From these, by - certain ‘natural enemies’ of the French, there are successively - selected, during the French war, say, thirty able-bodied men. - Dumrudge, at her own expense, has suckled and nursed them. She has - not, without difficulty and sorrow, fed them up to manhood and even - trained them up to crafts, so that one can weave, another build, - another hammer, and the weakest can stand under some thirty stone, - avoirdupois. - - “Nevertheless, amid much weeping and swearing, they are selected, all - dressed in red and shipped away, at public expense, some two thousand - miles, or, say, only to the south of Spain, and fed there till wanted. - - “And now, to the same spot in the South of Spain, are sent thirty - similar French artisans—in like manner wending their ways, till at - length, after infinite effort, the two parties come into actual - juxtaposition, and thirty stand facing thirty, each with a gun in his - hand. Straightway the order ‘Fire!’ is given, and they blow the souls - out of one another; and, in the place of sixty brisk, useful - craftsmen, the world has sixty dead carcasses, which it must bury and - anew shed tears for. - - “Had these men any quarrel? Busy as the devil is, not the smallest! - They lived far enough apart; were the entirest strangers; nay, in so - wide a universe, there was even, unconsciously, by commerce, some - mutual helpfulness between them. - - “How, then? - - “Simpleton! Their governors had fallen out, and, instead of shooting - one another, had these poor blockheads shoot.” - -That is the cause of war between nations—“the governors fall out.” And -who are the governors? Nobody but the representatives of the ruling -class, who clash in their race for plunder and deceive workingmen into -doing their fighting for them. - -Now, let us go back a bit. You may recall that I said that the ruling -capitalist class uses government as a two-handed claw with which to pull -golden chestnuts out of the fire. One hand of this claw is the power to -make and enforce laws. The other hand—the power to wage war—is used to -grab what cannot be grabbed with laws. Wars between nations illustrate -one form of effort to get what laws cannot give. Here is another: - -The United States is dotted with forts, arsenals and armories. Far in -the interior, where, by the widest stretch of the imagination, no -foreign army could come, we see these grim reminders and prognosticators -of war. Under the Dick Military Law, the President of the United States, -without further legislation, can compel every man in the United States, -between the ages of 18 and 45 years, to enlist in the militia of his -state and serve under the orders of the President of the United States. -The President, therefore, has it in his power at any time to raise an -army of about 12,000,000 men and place them in the field. - -What for? To fight a foreign foe? Not much. The Constitution of the -United States forbids the President to make war against a foreign nation -without the explicit authorization of Congress. But the Dick Law -authorizes the President to raise this enormous army and to command it. - -Here is the question. At whom is this enormous potential army aimed? Why -is the land strewn with arsenals and armories that could be of little or -no service in a foreign war? - -To quote a word from Carlyle, “Simpleton,” do you not know that all of -these arrangements are made to shoot you if the capitalist class should -ever decide that you should be shot? Nor, have you never noticed against -whom the state militia is invariably used? - -If you have noticed none of these things, perhaps it would be well for -you to wake up. The militia of the states is practically never used -except to beat down workingmen who have revolted against the outrageous -wrongs heaped upon them by their employers. American workingmen do not -readily revolt. Nowhere are they any too prosperous. Millions believe -from the bottoms of their hearts that they are being robbed. Yet, they -keep on. Only when they are ground into the dust, as they were by the -Woolen Trust at Lawrence, or by the Coal Trust in Pennsylvania, do they -rebel. - -Please, therefore, note this monstrous situation: - -Under the laws of the land, the capitalists have a right to grind their -employees as deeply into the dust as they can grind them. - -While this process is going on the national and state troops are quite -still. But when human nature, unable to bear up longer, explodes and a -few window panes are broken, the troops come scurrying to the scene. -Soldiers fill the streets, citizens are ordered this way and that, guns -are fired recklessly, perhaps a man or two or a woman or two are killed; -the soldiers deny the killing and charge it to the strikers themselves, -and eventually the strike is broken. - -Can you recall when the militia of a state was recently used for -anything else? - -Now, we Socialists do not believe in violence, even by strikers. We are -supposed to be greedy for blood, but we are not. We do believe, however, -the best way to end violence caused by robbery is to end the robbery. We -believe it is contemptible for a government to be blind to robbery so -long as it proceeds without an outcry from the victim. We believe it is -criminal for the government to shoot the victim simply because, in his -distress, he breaks a pane of glass in the factory or mill in which he -was robbed. We can understand why such crimes are committed, because we -know that the same capitalist interests that control industry also -control government. But, understanding the offense does not make us -approve it. We are against the great crime of war, whether it be -practiced upon a huge scale abroad, or upon a small scale at home. - -But the President is also opposed to war, the Czar of Russia is also -opposed to war, and the German Emperor is also opposed to war. No -Socialist can outdo any of these gentlemen in deploring war. The -smallest Socialist, however, outdoes any of these gentlemen in making -good upon his declaration. Socialists will not go to war. They will not -join the army, the militia, or the navy. All over the world this is -true. They preach against war in season and out of season. They preach -against anything that tends toward war. They preach against dressing -little boys as soldiers and calling them “scouts.” And wherever -Socialists hold seats in national legislative bodies, their attitude is -“No men; no money.” They will vote for no bill that seeks to draw -another man or another dollar into the horrible game of war. - -Those who do not understand us, or who do not want us to be understood, -charge us with lack of patriotism. If blood-letting for dollars be the -test of patriotism, we certainly are not patriotic. We refuse to kill -men for money, either for ourselves or for any one else. Nor do we -believe that Frenchmen, Englishmen, Germans or any others are less our -brothers than are Americans. We regard all nationalities and races as -members of the great human family. We want this family to live in peace. -We preach peace. We live peace. - -But how can there be peace when great groups of capitalists are -contending for profits? How can there be peace when great groups of -capitalists controlling their respective governments, build great fleets -and muster great armies to struggle for trade and profits? How can there -be peace when these same capitalists, through their control of -government, teach even school children that the warrior’s trade is -glorious and that the citizen’s duty is to “stand by the flag”? Our flag -has often stood where it had no moral right to stand. It has stood for -the wrongs of capitalism when it should have stood for the rights of the -people. Our flag will always stand for the wrongs of capitalism, so long -as capitalism controls the government. - -In such circumstances, there can be no assured peace. Peace tribunals, -like that of The Hague, may be established until their sponsors are -black in the face, but still there will be no peace. There can be no -peace. Profits prevent. The gentlemen who attach themselves to these -tribunals want peace—if. Peace if it can be maintained without hurting -profits. Peace if it can be maintained without restraining capitalistic -brigands who wish to descend upon the property of others. Peace if it -can be had without price. - -So war continues in a world that is weary of war. Heavier and heavier -becomes the burden of armaments. The workingman staggers under the -weight of the fourteen-inch gun. The workingman may go hungry. The gun -must be fed. - - “Whether your shell hits the target or not, - Your cost is six hundred dollars a shot. - You thing of noise and flame and power, - We feed you a hundred barrels of flour - Each time you roar. Your flame is fed - With twenty thousand loaves of bread. - Silence! A million hungry men - Seek bread to fill their mouths again.”[2] - -Footnote 2: - - P. F. McCarthy, in the New York _World_. - -Only one machine can smash this gun, and that is the printing press. The -greatest gun can shoot only twenty miles or so. The Socialist press can -shoot and is shooting around the world. When the working class controls -its printing presses, war will end. - -Do you really want war to end, or is a string attached to your wish? If -you mean business, you can help end it. But if you want the privilege of -aiding in this great work for humanity, you will have to vote the -Socialist ticket. It is the only ticket that always and everywhere is -sternly against war, as the Socialist party is the only party opposed to -the profit system that makes wars. - -I cannot close this chapter without calling the attention of readers to -a book entitled “War—What For?” by Mr. George R. Kirkpatrick. It is -published by the author at West Lafayette, Ohio. Between darkness and -daylight, one night, I read it all. I can never forget it. If all the -world had read it, there would be no more war. - - - - - CHAPTER VIII - WHY SOCIALISTS OPPOSE “RADICAL” POLITICIANS - - -A “radical” politician, when he is not an utter fraud, is a well-meaning -man who lacks either the courage or the insight to do well. He can see -wrongs, but he cannot see rights. Or, if he can see rights, he dare not -do right. Always, there is some reason why he should not do right. The -people are not ready. The time is not propitious. Thus does he appease -his conscience, betray his followers and destroy himself. - -Abraham Lincoln, during all except the last two years of his life, was -such a man. I sometimes feel that this is why so many modern “radicals” -believe they are second Lincolns. They seem to remember Lincoln only as -he was when he was too small for his task. Mr. Roosevelt, in particular, -is suspected of harboring the belief that he is a second Lincoln. In a -way and to a degree, Mr. Roosevelt is right. The ground upon which Mr. -Roosevelt now stands is broadly comparable to the ground upon which Mr. -Lincoln stood before he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Mr. -Lincoln hated chattel slavery, but was willing to end the war with -slavery intact. Mr. Roosevelt hates the robbery of man by man, but he -shrinks from trying to seize the club with which the robbery is -committed. He is willing to pick at the splinters upon the club, -precisely as Mr. Lincoln was long willing to content himself with -efforts to restrict the evil of slavery. And, Mr. Roosevelt, picking at -splinters, is no more useful in destroying poverty than was Mr. Lincoln, -when he picked at the splinters of chattel slavery. The Civil War came -on, in spite of all that Lincoln did, because he did no more than to -temporize with the evil that was destined to cause the war. Mr. -Roosevelt, even as the leader of a new political party, is doing no more -than to temporize with the monstrous evil of unnecessary poverty in -America. - -Let us look, even more closely, into the life of Lincoln. The career of -no other man of modern times is so well suited to our purpose. We want -to know whether a “radical” like Roosevelt or Wilson should be more -highly regarded by the people than a revolutionist like Debs or Berger. -Lincoln, at different times in his life, was both a “radical” and a -revolutionist. His “radical” beliefs put him into the White House. One -colossal revolutionary act put him into the hearts of men. We Socialists -feel that he nestles a little more closely to our hearts than he does to -some others. When Lincoln ceased to temporize with chattel slavery and -struck it down, he became one of us. He actually did to chattel slavery -what we are trying to do to wage slavery. - -The magnitude of this act, as well as the usefulness of a mere “radical” -politician, may be measured by what Lincoln’s life would have been -without his name at the bottom of the Emancipation Proclamation. -Tradition has it that Lincoln became a radical upon the slavery question -when, as a flatboatman upon the Mississippi, he saw a negress sold upon -the auction block at New Orleans. Tradition has it that he said: “If I -ever have a chance to hit slavery, I will hit it and hit it hard.” - -The fact is that when Mr. Lincoln began to get the power to hit slavery, -he did not hit it hard. He was a “radical” politician and therefore -could not hit it hard. He was against slavery, but he was also against -anything that would end slavery. In the phrase of our time, he wanted to -“regulate” slavery. Men like John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison -wanted to end slavery and advocated means that would have ended it, but -Lincoln, though he hated slavery as much as they did, wanted only to -restrict it. He was “radical.” Brown and Garrison were revolutionary. -Lincoln meant well. Brown and Garrison were determined to do well. - -But after Lincoln, even as President, had continued to temporize with -slavery; after he had sent word to the Southern leaders that if they -would let him write into a treaty of peace the one word “union” he would -let them write all of the other words, including “slavery”—after all of -this, there came a change, and Lincoln ceased to be a “radical.” Then, -and not until then, did he strike the blow that in his youth he declared -he would strike if ever the opportunity should come. With only the -briefest words he laid the Emancipation Proclamation before his cabinet. - -“I do not lay this before you for your advice,” he said, “but only for -your information. I have promised my God that I will do this, and I -shall do it.” - -Thus spoke the revolutionist. The time for “radicalism” had passed. -Slavery, during half a century of “radicalism,” had expanded. Having the -power to kill chattel slavery and daring to use it, Lincoln killed -chattel slavery. He put himself into the hearts of men. He wrote his -name so big in history that the names of all other men since his time -seem small. - -Yet Lincoln, if he had been content to remain merely a “radical,” could -have performed no service for his country worth while, and Fame would -have missed him by many a mile. If the South had won, the North would -have blamed Lincoln. If the North had won, without destroying chattel -slavery, nothing would have been settled, and Lincoln would have been -given the credit for settling nothing. Lincoln’s greatest opportunity to -serve his country lay in doing precisely what he did, and it is to his -eternal glory that he had both the understanding and the courage to do -it. - -The times again call loudly for such a man. Chattel slavery is dead, but -a greater slavery has grown up in its place. Wage slavery is as much -greater than chattel slavery as the white people in this country are -more numerous than the black people. Poverty is widespread and the fear -of poverty is all but universal. No one knows how much longer he will -have employment. No one can know how much longer he will have -employment. A few own all of the machinery without which we cannot be -employed. These few have it in their power to say whether we shall be -permitted to earn the means of life. We may want to work as much as we -please, but we cannot work unless they please. They do not please to let -us work unless they believe they can see a profit in so doing. That we -need work means nothing to those who own the great industries of the -country. Nor does the fact that the people need the things we could -make. They consider only the question: “Is there profit in it?” By their -answer, we eat or hunger, live or die. - -Such times could not help but call for great men, even in little places. -The times call for great men to take charge of municipal affairs, lest -the poor shall be tortured with bad tenements and robbed of their last -nickels by little grafters while greater grafters are taking their -dollars. The times call for great men in state offices, in judicial -positions, in Congress and in the White House. But, in response to the -White House call, who answered in 1912? Mr. Roosevelt answered. Mr. -Wilson answered. - -Socialists do not regard either Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Wilson as a -fraudulent “radical,” in the sense that they believe either of them to -be intent upon wantonly fooling the people. We regard Mr. Roosevelt as -being something of a self-seeker. We regard him as the embodiment of -inconsistency. We know that when he was President he never tried to do -some of the things that he later promised to do if we would again make -him President. We know he does not now promise to try to take away the -club with which robbery is committed. He is still picking at the -splinters, taking care to lay no hand upon the club itself. And, so far -as concerns Mr. Wilson, we regard him as an amiable, cultured gentleman, -who, meaning well, as he doubtless does, lacks the understanding without -which he can not do well. We also call attention to the fact that -immediately following Mr. Wilson’s nomination he began to placate the -great grafters. He invited them to his home to hold counsel with him. -And, in his speech of acceptance, he all but laid himself at their feet. -He said nothing worth saying. He confined himself to platitudes. He -swore allegiance to the “rule of right” as applied to government, -without giving the slightest indication of his definition of right. Wall -Street applauded him. Stocks went up. But would stocks have gone up if -Wall Street had believed that, under Wilson, grafters would not be -permitted to continue to rob you? - -We Socialists may be extremely absurd persons, but, as we look about us, -we see two or three things that should be done at once. - -We believe every man should have the continuous right to work. We -believe this right should be guaranteed by law. The law prohibits -stealing and vagrancy. Why should not the law, therefore, guarantee the -right to avoid the necessity for becoming either a thief or a vagrant? - -We also believe that after a man has worked he should not be robbed. We -believe if nobody were robbed, there would be in this country neither -millionaires nor paupers. From the fact that there are in this country -so many millionaires and so many paupers or near-paupers, we deduce that -the extent of the robbery of the many by the few is appalling. - -We want this stopped. We don’t demand that it be stopped a hundred years -hence—we demand that it be stopped now. We are interested in our -posterity, but we are also interested in ourselves. We want to enjoy -life a little. This world looks good to us. We know it could be good to -us. We demand that it shall be good to us. Nor are we appeased by the -promise of some “radical” like Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Wilson that if we -will elect him President, he will try to make the world a little less -bad for us. The promise of a 1 per cent. or a 5 per cent. reduction in -robbery constitutes no blandishment. We demand a 100 per cent. reduction -in robbery. We are tired of robbery. We mean to end it. We shall end it. -We cannot fail, because we have a weapon with which the robbed class -never before fought. We have the gigantic printing press. Our ancestors -had a puny press, or none at all. We shall carry our word far. Wherever -our word goes it will wake. Sooner or later, the robbed will understand. -Then robbery will cease. Millions of people who understand how to stop -robbery will never consent to let a few continue to rob them. - -Such is our demand—a 100 per cent. reduction in robbery and the right of -the individual to continuous work. Yet, so far as we know, we want no -more than is wanted by every other man who is not robbing anybody. We -know of no man who is willing to be denied the right to work. We know of -no man who is willing to be robbed. We differ from you Republicans and -Democrats only in this: You seem to be willing to take an eternity to -end robbery and secure a guarantee to the right to labor. We tell you -that if you take an eternity to get these rights you will never get -them. We also tell you that with either Mr. Wilson, Mr. Roosevelt or any -other so-called “radical” in the White House the working class will -remain poverty-stricken. - -These gentlemen want to make you an omelette, but they do not want to -break any eggs. They are afraid to break eggs. Breaking eggs means -destroying the great fundamental laws that capitalists use to rob you. -Yet, how are you ever to have an omelette unless eggs are broken? How -can you be helped without hurting those who are now hurting you? - -Make no mistake—anything that will make it much easier for you to live -by working will make it much harder for capitalists to live without -working. Picking at the splinters of this poverty-problem will not do. -The wrong is great; the remedy must be equally great. - -Anything that will not hurt the capitalist class much will not help you -much. - -Between you and the capitalist class there can be no peace. - -So long as either of you exists, there can be only war. - -You will continue to fight for the right to live. - -The capitalist class will continue to refuse you the right to live -except at the price of a profit. - -This ultimatum, which has never appealed to your stomach, will some day -not appeal to your brain. - -You will begin to ask questions. - -You will ask if you were born only that Mr. Morgan, Mr. Armour or Mr. -Ryan might be made a little richer. - -You will ask if it is right that you should die when you can no longer -make others richer. - -Your common sense will tell you that you were not born to make anybody -richer. - -Your common sense will tell you that you have a right to live, whether -anybody be thereby made richer. - -And, when that time comes, you will be in no mood to listen to the -remedies of “radical” gentlemen like Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Wilson. - -You will no longer want wage slavery “regulated”—you will want it -destroyed. - -You will call for another Lincoln to destroy wage slavery as the first -Lincoln destroyed chattel slavery. - -And your call will be answered, because you will answer it yourself. - -You will place in office not only a man but _men_ who will work your -will. You will know what you want and you will get it, because you will -know how to get it. - -The reason you have never gotten what you want is because you have never -known how to get it. You want the right to work without being robbed. -You do not seem to realize that it is the existence of the capitalist -system that causes you to be robbed. In an indefinite sort of way you -seem to believe that it is possible for a small class of bondholders and -share-holders to live in luxury without working and, at the same time, -take nothing from the product of your labor. If dividends grew upon one -tree and wages upon another, your belief would be justified. But, -inasmuch as dividends and wages grow upon the same tree, your belief is -not justified. Both are the products of your labor. If the bondholders -were to take everything you produce, you would have nothing. If you were -to take everything you produce, the bondholders and other capitalists -would have nothing. - -Such being the fact, what possible benefit can come to the American -people through the election to the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson? Mr. -Wilson is not opposed to the capitalist system. He believes one class -should own all of the great industries of the country while another -class toils in them. Believing thus, he necessarily believes no man has -a right to work, however sore may be his need, unless some other man -thinks he can see a profit in hiring him. If he did not so believe, he -would not have stood for the Presidency upon the Democratic platform. -The importance of securing to each individual the right to work would -have prevented him from so standing. He would have proclaimed to the -country an amendment to the platform in some such words as these: - -“_If you elect me President, I will urge the passage of a law that will -make it a felony for any capitalist to refuse work at wages representing -the market price of the product, except at such times as his steel -plants, railroads, or other industries, are running at full capacity._” - -He would also have added: - -“_When a man’s right to work is involved, I care not whether the man who -hires him makes a profit or not. Life comes before profits. Work comes -before life. I am for men._” - -Not one word of which Mr. Wilson ever said. Mr. Wilson believes in -profits first and life, if at all, afterward. He may not believe he -does, but he does. That is what his attitude amounts to. He wants both -profits and life if we can get them. But if either must fall, it must be -life. Life must always fall when work falls. Mr. Wilson stands for -absolutely nothing that will put the worker’s right to work before the -capitalist’s greed for profits. Let him or any of his friends point out -a word in his platform, or any of his public utterances, to the -contrary. There is no such word, because it has never been spoken or -written by Mr. Wilson or anybody who is back of him or in front of him. - -More astounding do these facts become as we consider them. Here is a -great nation, eager to earn its bread. Of the many millions who compose -this nation, not one in ten ever has or ever will receive a profit upon -anything. More than nine-tenths of our many millions are wage-laborers -or farmers. Naturally, they care nothing about profits. If everybody -were continuously employed at good wages, and the balance-sheets, at the -end of the year, should show not one dollar left for dividends, nobody -except the capitalists would shed a tear. So little does the working -class really care about profits. So convinced is the working class that -the right to work, together with the right to be protected from robbery, -should come ahead of everything else. _Yet this very working class that -cares nothing about profits; that cares and needs to care so much about -the continuous right to work; that cares and needs to care so much about -the right to be protected from robbery—this very working class gave Mr. -Wilson almost every vote he received!_ - -Do the people of America know how to get what they want? - -The people of America want the continuous right to work. - -Mr. Wilson offers them fine phrases about the “rule of right”—phrases -that Wall Street applauds because Wall Street knows such phrases mean -the continued rule of wrong. - -The people of America want the right to be protected from robbery, and -Mr. Wilson offers them an anti-trust plank, in which they are solemnly -assured that if they will only wait until Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Morgan -and other similar gentlemen are in jail, they will be very happy. - -Is it not absurd? Indeed, it is not. It is pitiful. It is pitiful that a -people should so long have been kept in ignorance of both the nature of -their social malady and its cure. Yet, how could they be otherwise than -ignorant? They depend for such information upon their newspapers, -magazines, public officials, and public speakers. Until recently, almost -all of these sources were poisoned against the people. They were -poisoned against the people because they were controlled, in one way or -another, by the capitalist class. They are still almost all poisoned in -the interest of the capitalist class. The truth about Socialism is -carefully suppressed. The false is carefully put forward. Wrongs are -admitted, but rights are not recognized. The people are robbed, yes—but -who robs them? Why, the trusts and the high-tariff gentlemen, certainly. -Therefore, if we lower the tariff and place the trust gentlemen in jail, -we shall be happy. - -Nobody seems moved to recall whether we were happy when the tariff was -low and there were no trusts. - -Nobody seems to recall that the working class has never been happy; that -it has always been the prey of a master class which has resorted first -to one method and then to another to plunder. In fact, nobody but -Socialists seems to do any serious thinking until his favorite “radical” -President has passed into history without doing the slightest thing to -alleviate poverty. - -Grover Cleveland was regarded, each time he was elected, as radical. In -Cleveland’s day, not to be in favor of highway robbery in office was -regarded as proof of radicalism. That is why Cleveland’s dictum that “a -public office is a public trust” attracted national attention. It was a -new note. But in neither of Cleveland’s terms did he do anything to -improve the condition of the American people. They were as poor when he -finally left office as they were when he first took office. Moreover, -there was good reason for their poverty. Cleveland never lost an -opportunity to betray them. He sold bonds in secret to Mr. Morgan to the -great profit of Mr. Morgan and the great loss of the American people. He -hurled troops against strikers and placed thousands of deputy United -States Marshals under the orders of railway managers who were trying to -prevent their employees from obtaining living wages. - -Benjamin Harrison was never regarded as a radical, but in 1888 he was -regarded as an improvement upon Cleveland. After Harrison had done -nothing for four years, Cleveland was believed to be an improvement upon -Harrison. Four years more of Cleveland were enough to send him out of -office with the condemnation of everybody but the grafters in both -parties. - -Business revived somewhat under the Presidency of McKinley, but the -revival was not so much due to anything that Mr. McKinley did as it was -to the fact that the time had come for the pendulum to swing back from -panic to “prosperity.” Nor did the revival solve the problem of poverty. -Nothing was settled because nothing was changed. Not so many men were -denied the right to work, but those who worked toiled only for a “full -dinner pail.” They paid all they received to live poorly. Only their -employers fared wonderfully well. For them there was real prosperity. - -Which brings us to Mr. Roosevelt and his Progressive party. - -Mr. Roosevelt was the first President of the type that is now regarded -as “radical.” He held office seven years and a half. He had “a perfectly -corking time.” He did business with all of the bosses, including Hanna, -Quay, Cannon, Payne, Aldrich and a host of others, but we have his word -for it that his intentions were good. Maybe they were. For the sake of -argument, let it be granted that they were. Let it be conceded that he -believed the things he did would enable the average man to earn a living -more certainly and more easily. Still, is it not a fact that the things -he did failed to accomplish what he expected they would? - -Is it not a fact that it is to-day more difficult for most persons to -make a living than it was when Mr. Roosevelt became President? - -Is not the cost of living vastly more? - -Are not more millions of men out of work? - -Is there not greater uncertainty with regard to continuity of -employment? - -Are not more men, women and children living upon the hunger line, or -close to it? - -Each of these questions must be answered in the affirmative. Mr. -Roosevelt, himself, would not dare, even if he were so inclined, to -answer them in the negative. The facts are notorious and scandalous. -They are scandalous because poverty, in this rich country, is -unnecessary. - -Yet, Mr. Roosevelt is not wholly to blame. He is only partly to blame. A -President is not the government. He is only part of the government. As -part of the government, Mr. Roosevelt advocated measures, some of which -were enacted into law, that he believed would do good. Subsequent events -have proved that he was in error. The measures he believed would help -have not helped. If they had helped, times would be better than they -were, instead of worse. - -Therefore, we are brought face to face with these questions: - -“_If Mr. Roosevelt, during seven and one-half years in the White House, -could do nothing to make the conditions of the average man’s life -easier, how long should we have to elect him President in order to give -him time to do something worth while?_ - -“_If we were to elect him for life, are you sure that the rest of his -lifetime would be long enough?_ - -“_In any event, are you prepared to wait so long to be helped?_” - -Mr. Roosevelt’s friends, following this thought, reply that he is not -the same man that he was when he left the White House; that he has -grown, with vision enlarged. - -No, he is not the same man. The American people have forced him into the -advocacy of some things. They have forced even some Socialist measures -upon him. The initiative, the referendum and the recall are Socialist -measures. For a good many years, Mr. Roosevelt tried to damn them with -faint praise combined with a medley of doubts and strangling provisos. -But after these measures, in one winter, fought their way into every -state capitol west of the Mississippi, as well as into some of the state -capitols of the East, Mr. Roosevelt saw a great light. Then he became in -favor of them. - -When Mr. Roosevelt was President he had nothing to say against the -courts. He criticised individual judges, as he criticised Judge Anderson -of Indianapolis, whom he called “a damned jackass and a crook.” But -Judge Anderson, be it remembered, had just decided against Mr. Roosevelt -in the libel suit that he brought against several newspapers because of -articles reflecting upon the part played by himself and others in the -acquisition of the Panama Canal property. - -Now Mr. Roosevelt is convinced that our judicial system is in need of -reform. In reaching this opinion, however, he is somewhat late. The -courts are no longer popular. The people have not yet begun to strike at -them, but they are watching them out of the corners of their eyes. Mr. -Roosevelt senses the situation and responds with a proposition to give -the people the right to recall, or set aside, the decisions of _state_ -courts. He says nothing about giving the people the right to recall the -decisions of the United States Supreme Court, though he must know this -court is the chief judicial offender. Yet we are asked to believe that -Mr. Roosevelt, in belatedly joining the fight against the tyrannical -power of the courts, is but giving proof of the greatness to which he -has grown and the increased fearlessness with which he fights. - -The women of the country have forced Mr. Roosevelt into the advocacy of -woman suffrage. Mr. Roosevelt used to say that Mrs. Roosevelt was “only -lukewarm” toward woman suffrage, and that his interest in it was the -same. After the women of California gained the ballot, and Mr. Roosevelt -again became a candidate for the Presidency, he changed from “lukewarm” -to very hot. From that moment, woman suffrage became not only a right, -but a necessity. Of course, the fact that women vote in several western -states that he hoped to carry had no part whatever in changing his -opinion. Mr. Roosevelt is not that kind of a man. - -Mr. Roosevelt’s 1912 platform—or “contract with the people,” as he calls -it—bristles with new devices and new plans for the public good. Some of -Mr. Roosevelt’s plans would probably help a little—provided he could get -a Congress that would put them into effect, and courts that would -declare them constitutional. Mr. Lincoln probably could have helped the -black slaves a little if he had made it a legal obligation upon slave -owners to provide each negro, semi-annually, with a red necktie and a -paste diamond. Mr. Lincoln might have gone even further and provided -that each negro should be supplied, during the water-melon season, with -all the melons he could eat. Instead, he wrote the Emancipation -Proclamation. - -Mr. Roosevelt’s present political program is by no means an emancipation -proclamation to the American people. It unties no knots, nor cuts any. -It bristles with Socialists’ phrases, but it does not bristle with -Socialist remedies. “This country belongs to the people who inhabit -it”—an assertion that appears in Mr. Roosevelt’s platform—is a Socialist -phrase. But Mr. Roosevelt’s method of giving the people their own is not -Socialistic. The Socialist method is to give it to them. Mr. Roosevelt’s -method is to appoint “strong” commissions to regulate the country that -the people own, but do not control or enjoy. Again and again in his -platform Mr. Roosevelt fervently advocates a “strong” commission to do -this or do that. - -If the word “strong” in a platform were sufficient to make a commission -“strong” in action we might expect the commissions that Mr. Roosevelt -advocates to be as strong as any commission can be that is trying to -regulate other people’s property. - -But we do not believe the word “strong” in a platform makes a commission -strong. Mr. Roosevelt, always preaching strenuosity, nevertheless -appointed, during his Presidency, some exceedingly poor officials. - -Since Mr. Roosevelt, the originator of “strong” commissions as a cure -for the poverty that is produced by robbery, failed as he did, what -should we expect from such commissions if they were appointed by -Presidents of the ordinary Wall Street stripe? - -Simmered down, Mr. Roosevelt’s Progressive Party stands simply for this: -We are still to have trusts and tariffs, but only such trusts and -tariffs as Mr. Roosevelt wants. We are still to have a master class who -own all of the industries and a servant class who do all of the work, -but masters and servants must conduct themselves as Mr. Roosevelt -provides. Masters may still hold out for profits and servants may die -for lack of opportunity to work, but so long as Mr. Roosevelt, at -Armageddon, is “fighting for the Lord,” what of it? - -Such is not Mr. Roosevelt’s reasoning, but it might as well be. Mr. -Roosevelt and Mr. Wilson, like all other “radical” politicians, are -incapable of rendering any great service to the American people for the -simple reason that they do not strike at the great wrong. The great -wrong is the ownership, by a small class, of the great class’s means of -life. A people who cannot support themselves without asking the -permission of others are little more than slaves. We are such a people. - -“Radicals” who promise, if given power, to free us, only mock us. Such -gentlemen are not radicals at all. The word “radical” is derived from a -Greek word meaning “root.” A real radical is one who goes to the roots -of things. But radicals like Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Wilson go to the -roots of nothing. - -The only way to go to the root of anything is to go to it. - -Lincoln went to the root of the chattel slavery question. - -When he had finished, the chattel slavery question was no longer a -question—it was a corpse. After wasting years of his life as an -anti-slavery “radical” he became an anti-slavery revolutionist and -destroyed slavery. Lincoln, during the last two years of his life, -became a real radical. A real radical and a revolutionist are but -different names for the same thing. - -The working class is suffering from robbery. The working class has -always suffered from robbery. Never has there been a time when a little -crowd of grafters were not feeding upon the workers. - -In the beginning, the working class were held as chattel slaves, the -only possible cure for which was the utter destruction of chattel -slavery. - -Then the workers became the serfs of feudal lords, the only possible -cure for which was the destruction of feudalism. - -Now the toilers are robbed by the private ownership of the means of -production, the only possible cure for which is the destruction of such -ownership and the substitution of public ownership through the agency of -government. - -No tinkering will do. Tinkering could not and did not settle the white -man’s or the black man’s slavery question. Nothing but the absolute -destruction of the capitalist system can remove the poverty, the -ignorance, the crime and the vice that are inevitable products of the -system. - -But do not expect capitalists to remove this system for you. They will -not. - -You never saw a tiger feed its prey. You never saw a burglar mend a -victim’s roof. You may see both of these sights some day. If you should, -you may, perhaps, prepare yourself to behold the more marvelous -spectacle of the capitalist class financing the campaign of a genuine -radical who is bent upon taking the capitalist class off your back. - -But until you see a tiger feeding its prey, you may well ask yourself -whether “radicals” whose campaigns are financed by great capitalists are -radical enough to do you any good. - -Certainly one side or the other is always doomed to disappointment; -either the capitalists who put up the money or the workers who put up -the votes. The capitalists are still doing quite well. Are you? - - - - - CHAPTER IX - THE TRUTH ABOUT THE COAL QUESTION - - -Almost anyone can make anybody believe anything that is not so. It is -only the truth that makes poor headway in this world. Our national motto -seems to be: “When there are no more blunderers or liars to be heard, -let us listen to common sense.” - -The anthracite coal situation is a case in point. So long ago as 1902 -this situation had become maddening. As the result of a prolonged strike -to obtain living wages for the miners, the country, at the beginning of -winter, was threatened with a coal famine. So serious was the situation -that a “Get-Coal Conference” was held at Detroit. Among the delegates -were Victor L. Berger, the first Socialist congressman, and a number of -other Socialists. These Socialist delegates told the conference what to -do. They said: - -“Go into politics. Make the governmental ownership of the coal mines and -the railroads a political matter. Take over the ownership of these mines -and railroads and operate them for the benefit of the people, rather -than for the benefit of millionaires. Do that and you will have solved -your coal problem.” - -But that was the truth, mind you. As truth, it had no chance of -acceptance at that time. Truth never has a chance the first time, the -second time or the third time. Truth has attained its great reputation -for rising every time it is crushed only because it has been so often -crushed. - -And the truth that these men spoke in Detroit years ago was forthwith -crushed, not only in Detroit, but all over the country. What was the use -of believing? Were there not plenty of blunderers about? Were there not -plenty of blind alleys in which to go? - -Indeed, there were. The people went into one of them. Or, rather, they -remained in the blind alley in which they had long been. That was the -blind alley of private ownership of the coal mines and railroads. Plenty -of blind men could see a delightful opening at the end of this blind -alley. They were very sure that it led somewhere. It must lead -somewhere. Certainly, no great difficulty could be encountered in -managing these millionaires. The Inter-State Commerce Commission would -fix them if nothing else could fix them. If the Inter-State Commerce -Commission should prove too weak for the task, the courts would not -prove too weak. At any rate, there was no danger ahead. It was entirely -safe to leave the nation’s coal supply in the hands of a few men who had -already abundantly proved their disinclination to treat either their -employees or the public honestly. - -For ten straight years thereafter we fought the Coal Trust in the -courts. We enjoined it, we indicted it, we prosecuted it. To what -purpose? To no purpose. In 1912, the United States Supreme Court brought -an end to the proceedings by handing down a decision that was said to be -a “great victory” for the Government. But it was one of those great -anti-trust victories that do not hurt the trusts nor help the people. -This “victory” did not hurt the Coal Trust. The price of coal did not go -down a nickel. On the contrary, the prices of coal road stocks -immediately went higher. Wall Street knew the decision would not -interrupt the Coal Trust in its plundering, and backed its opinion with -its money. Wall Street quickly realized what we have not yet fully -realized—that the court had prohibited only a certain method of -stealing, while leaving the trust free to adopt any one of a hundred -other methods, each of which is as suitable to its purposes as the -method that has been put under the ban. - -The trust lawyers quickly juggled out one of the hundred other methods -of stealing and the robbery of the people continued as if there had been -no decision by the United States Supreme Court. Immediately, there was a -loud demand from the “radical” press that the anti-trust law be so -amended that it would prohibit the new form of robbery. Again the -Socialists repeated their warning against reliance upon laws that seek -to regulate trusts. Again the Socialists urged the people to settle the -coal question for all time by owning and operating the coal mines and -the railroads that carry the coal to the people. Between the advice -given by Socialists and the advice given by radicals, there was all the -difference that there is between night and day. The “radicals” advised -the people to leave the coal in the hands of a few multi-millionaires -and then fight in the courts to get it back. The Socialists assured the -people that if they would take possession of their own coal they would -not be compelled to fight to get it back. But the advice given by the -Socialists contained too much truth to find ready acceptance. There -being not fewer than a hundred ways in which the trust could rob the -people, it seemed so much more reasonable to let the trust try these -various ways, one by one, and prosecute the trust gentlemen for each -separate form of robbery. Ten years were required to “win” the -anti-trust case that was finally decided in 1912, so we shall require at -least 1,000 years to obtain supreme court decisions prohibiting a -hundred different methods of Coal Trust robbery. But good, able -“radical” gentlemen assured the people that the way to kill the Coal -Trust was to choke it with court decisions and the people believed what -they were told. Almost always the people believe what they are told -unless what they are told is true. It is only the truth that must fight -its way in this world. So many powerful, selfish persons are always -eager to foist the lie that feathers their nests. Truth is always -besmirched by those whom it would destroy, and too often despised by -those whom it would help. - -Thus we have a naked view of two classes of men—the anthracite coal -operators and their victims. The coal operators are conscienceless -robbers. They hold within the hollows of their hands the anthracite coal -supply of this country. They own it or control it as you own or control -a gas range that you have bought or rented. The coal supply of this -country is their property. And though you must draw upon it or freeze in -winter, you cannot have a pound of coal except at their price. And their -price is always all they believe they can get out of you without a riot. -The cost of production does not matter. Your necessities do not matter. -They want all they can get. - -These naked millionaires are not attractive persons. Who would be an -attractive person if he had their power? Are you so sure you would be an -attractive person if you had their power? Do not be too sure. Give any -man such an opportunity to squeeze millions out of a people and it is -very likely that he will squeeze them. There is little or nothing in -this “good man,” “bad man” theory. The blackest Coal Trust magnate is -just what you and the Coal Trust have made him. If anything, you are -more to blame than he. He gets all of his power from the laws. And the -men whom you elect make the laws. They make the laws which say that a -few men—or, so far as that is concerned, one man—may own all of the -anthracite coal mines in the country. - -These laws are certainly very comfortable for the Coal Trust gentlemen. -If you are satisfied, they are. If you don’t move to change them, they -will never move to change them. But, if you are fit to cast a ballot, -you know that the present conditions can never be changed until the laws -that made the conditions are changed. - -Let us now take a close view of the Coal Trust victims. You are one of -them. You are tired of the Coal Trust. You have no sort of notion that -it is anything except the robber concern that everybody believes it to -be. You would be much better pleased if the government owned the mines. -You would be still better pleased if the government owned not only the -mines but the railroads that carry coal from the mines. You know that in -the Panama Canal Zone, where the government sells all of the supplies, -the cost of living is much less than it is here. You believe all of this -and more. But what are you doing to translate your belief into -accomplished fact? - -You are doing nothing. The only way in which you can translate this -belief into accomplished fact is to express your belief in political -action. You must vote for that which you believe. You must support a -political party that advocates the ownership by the government of the -coal mines and the railroads. If you vote for a party that believes in -permitting the ownership of the coal mines and the railroads to remain -where it is you are voting for the Coal Trust. How long do you believe -it will take you to beat the Coal Trust by voting for the Coal Trust? Do -you know of any way in which the Coal Trust can be beaten except by -voting against it? - -Of course, the newspapers that you read will tell you there are other -ways of beating the robber Coal Trust than by voting against it. They -will tell you that the Coal Trust can be “regulated” or indicted and -convicted into decency. Ask your newspapers what makes them think so. We -have many great trusts in this country—has a single one of them ever -been regulated into decency? Have they been so ruthlessly pursued in -court that they were willing to be decent? You know the answer. You know -there is not a decent great trust in the country. You know that every -attempt to drive them into decency has failed. Yet your newspapers have -the impudence to tell you that it is not necessary that the government -should own the anthracite mines and the railroads. - -It would be difficult to imagine a more amazing situation. Here we have -in this country two sharply contrasted classes of opinion. - -One opinion is that institutions like the Coal Trust should be regulated -or destroyed—compelled to go back to competition. - -The other opinion is that institutions like the Coal Trust can neither -be regulated nor compelled to break up into small parts and compete. - -The men who hold the first opinion can not point to a single instance -wherein their belief has been justified by events. The men who hold the -second opinion have only common sense with which to back up their -assertion that, if the government owned the coal mines and the -railroads, Coal Trust magnates and railway multi-millionaires could not -rob us. - -But in this instance, as in all others where the robbery of the many by -the few is concerned, truth is put upon the defensive. The grafters, as -they might naturally be expected to do, not only shower upon the -truth-tellers their scorn and derision, but even the people who are -being robbed are doubtful or suspicious. They are not so certain that if -robbers be stopped robbery will be stopped. They suspect the statement -that, if nothing be taken from something, something will remain -untouched. They want us to prove, not only that two and two make four, -but that nothing from four leaves four. - -But they don’t ask the “regulation” send-them-to-jail gentlemen to prove -anything. When these grafters say two from four leave four nobody -expresses a doubt. Everybody is ready to believe that that which has -never been done can be easily done. Few are ready to believe that that -which might easily be done can be done at all. - -The public attitude toward the Coal Trust and the railroads constitutes -possibly the only exception to this rule. The Coal Trust and the -railroads have so wronged the people that the people would doubtless -welcome their ownership by the government. If the people were to vote -directly upon the question: “Shall the government take over the -ownership of the anthracite coal mines and the railroads?” it is -probable that the affirmative majority would be not less than two to -one. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that the coal question can be solved -only with ballots, the Socialists are the only ones who seem ever to try -with their ballots to solve it. The rest of the people, while opposed to -the conditions that exist, vote the tickets of parties that are pledged -to maintain the conditions that exist. - -Every man who voted for Wilson, Roosevelt or Taft voted to keep the coal -supply of the nation in private hands and the railroads in private -hands. - -Those who voted for Mr. Wilson voted to “destroy” the Coal Trust and -“send the trust magnates to prison.” - -Those who voted for Mr. Roosevelt voted to permit the Coal Trust to -continue to own the nation’s coal supply, provided only that it be -“good.” Otherwise, a “strong” commission appointed by Mr. Roosevelt -would proceed to administer “social justice.” - -Those who voted for Mr. Taft voted to break the Coal Trust into bits. - -Candidly, let us ask, did either of these plans suit anybody? Is there -anybody who would not have vastly preferred that the government take -over the ownership of the anthracite coal mines and operate them for the -benefit of the people? A plan of governmental ownership and operation -would have settled the coal question instantly. A government that can -dig the Panama Canal can dig coal. - -But there is no likelihood whatever that Mr. Wilson’s plan to destroy -the Coal Trust and all other trusts will settle the coal question at -all. The Coal Trust cares nothing for courts. Mr. Hearst attacked the -Coal Trust more vigorously in the courts than any President ever -attacked any trusts in the courts. Mr. Hearst came out of court -absolutely empty-handed. He gained a few paper victories, but he gained -no substantial victory. He never halted for a moment the upward flight -of the price of coal. - -Mr. Wilson, if he try ever so hard, can do no better. So long as the -principle of the private ownership of the anthracite coal fields is -admitted—and Mr. Wilson admits this principle as fully as does -anybody—nothing can be done. Corporations can be split up into bits, it -is true, as the Standard Oil Company was split up, but what do such -splits amount to? Absolutely nothing. The ownership is not changed. The -dominating owners continue to handle the pieces as they formerly handled -the whole. - -Suppose Mr. Wilson try to enforce the criminal clause of the Sherman -Anti-Trust law and put the coal magnates into jail? Suppose he try to -compel the component parts of the Coal Trust actually to compete with -each other. What will happen? - -This will happen. The component parts of the Coal Trust will refuse to -compete. The men who are at the head of the coal companies are business -associates of long standing. They know each other well, and they know -well that none of them can make any money by fighting any of the others. -So, when one gentleman announces a schedule of coal prices, none of the -others will undercut him. All of the other coal companies will announce -the same prices, because the owners of each company will also be the -owners of all the other companies. - -Did you ever stop to consider what position the government will then be -in? Will not its hands be tied? Can the government go into court and -demand that the other companies cut their prices? Suppose the other -companies say they cannot cut their prices without losing money? Suppose -the other companies say nothing at all, except: “This coal belongs to -us. We have quite as much right to fix our own price upon it as has the -government to fix its own price upon postage stamps. That other coal -companies have fixed the same price we have is no more the government’s -business than it is because several grocers fix the same price upon -sugar, bacon, tea or coffee.” - -It will then be up to the government to prove that the identicality of -prices is the result of conspiracy. If conspiracy cannot be proved, the -government can do nothing. In such a case, the government would never be -able to prove conspiracy. The coal operators would not conspire over the -telephone, or on the street corners. There would be little for them to -conspire about, anyway. All of them would be financially interested in -all of the companies, precisely as Mr. Rockefeller is financially -interested in all of the constituent companies of the Standard Oil -Company. The matter of price-fixing would probably be left to the -dominating personality of the group, precisely as it is now left, more -or less, to the strongest man among them. And, the prices he fixed would -speedily become the prices of all. - -Thus do we perceive a peculiar feature of the human mind. Individually, -we know what we should like to do about the Coal Trust and the -railroads. We know we should like to own and operate them. But -collectively we know no such thing. We do not get together. We act as if -that which each of us believes were believed by no other than himself. -We are like butter that will not “gather” or bees that will not “hive.” - -There is every reason why we who are paying outrageous prices for coal -should get together on the matter of public ownership. The cost of -mining coal is less than $2 a ton. In 1902 Mr. George F. Baer—the -“Divine Right” gentleman—testified that the cost was $2, and some other -witnesses testified that it was as low as $1.43 a ton. Probably no one -but the coal magnates know exactly what the cost is, but now and then a -fact leaks out that is illuminating. Such a fact was discovered in 1912 -by a staff correspondent whom the New York _World_ sent into the coal -regions. - -The _World_ man found that the Coal Trust sells coal to its employees at -a reduced price. This is not philanthropy, because if the Coal Trust -charged full price for coal, it would soon be compelled to pay the -miners more wages—they live like dogs, and not much more can be taken -from them until it is first given to them. At any rate, the _World_ man -found that the price of coal, to miners, is only $2 a ton. - -Now, it is fair to assume that the Coal Trust is not losing any money on -the $2 coal that it is selling to its employees. It is more likely that -it is making a nickel or two. At any rate, $2 a ton may be considered -the extreme limit of the cost of mining a ton of anthracite. - -Whenever the people of this country are ready to listen to the truth -about the coal question, the retail price of coal can quickly be more -than cut in two. The actual cost of mining coal and transporting it to -any point within 500 miles of the mines probably is not more than $3 a -ton. If the people, through the government, owned and operated the -mines, the government could afford to sell coal at this price, plus the -local cost of delivery. The wages of the miners could be doubled—as they -should be—and coal could still be sold by the government at $5 a ton. In -any calculation about the coal problem, the miners should not be -forgotten. The Coal Trust will never take care of them, but they have a -right to demand that they shall be taken care of. - -The business of mining coal is dangerous and disagreeable to the last -degree. Coal miners, when they are at work, seldom see the day. They go -from the night of the surface to the night of the mines. They breathe -such dust as never blew in the filthiest street. When a fall of slate -comes or an explosion of firedamp, their mangled bodies are all that is -left for their weeping widows and orphans at the mouth of the mine. If -they escape death by accident, they cannot escape the death that comes -from the unhealthfulness of their calling. No life insurance company -wants much to do with a coal miner except at the highest rates. No -tuberculosis exhibit is complete without the blackened lungs of a coal -miner in a jar of alcohol. There is nothing for a coal miner when he is -alive but a cheerless existence of the greatest drudgery—and nothing for -him when he is dead but an unmarked grave on the hillside. Yet 76,000 -human beings thus spend their lives in the anthracite coal mines, and -hundreds of other thousands in the bituminous mines. All of this great -toll of human misery that the nation may burn coal. - -If the nation could not get along without coal, there might be some -excuse for this colossal sacrifice. Even then, it would be hard for -those who might be compelled to make the sacrifice and, if we were to be -fair about it, we might have some difficulty in determining who should -go to the mines and who should go to the opera. If we were to be fair -about it, perhaps some of those who now go to the opera would go to the -mines sometimes. But the nation could easily get along without sending -anybody into the mines. Water power and fuel oil will do everything that -coal is now doing. - -Please consider the water power question. In a report made to President -Taft in 1912 by Commissioner of Corporations Herbert K. Smith, these -statements appear: - -Steam and gas engines are creating in this country approximately -19,000,000 horsepower. - -Water wheels, in this country, are developing 6,000,000 horsepower. - -The water power of this country, capable of development, is -approximately 19,000,000 horsepower. - -These statements mean that there is enough undeveloped water power in -this country to more than take the place of every coal-burning steam -engine. This water power, if converted into electricity, would do -everything that steam does and more. It would run machinery. It would -light streets. It would heat houses. Moreover, the water power, once -developed, would not have to be dug out of the ground every year. “White -coal,” as the Italians call water power, is mined by the sun and thrown -into the furnace by the force of gravitation. Railroads need not haul -it. Nobody need deliver it. It hauls and delivers itself. - -But that is not all. If there were not an ounce of water power in this -country, still we should not be dependent upon coal for heat and power. -Oil will burn quite as well as coal—in fact, a good deal better. Dr. -Rudolph Diesel, of Munich, in 1912 declared before the Institute of -Mechanical Engineers in London that exhaustive researches had indicated -the presence of as much oil in the globe as there is coal; that new oil -fields were constantly being discovered, Borneo, Mexico and even Egypt, -in addition to other known lands, containing great fields; that “the -world’s production of crude oil had increased three and a half times as -rapidly as the production of coal, and that the ratio of increase was -becoming steadily greater.” - -Why then do we continue to burn coal? For the same reason that we -continue to do a number of other foolish things. Because we do not -manage this country in which we live. The men who are managing it are -managing it for profit. If there were a greater profit for the Coal -Trust in switching from coal to water power or oil they would switch us -quickly enough. If we were to change to oil, it would be a simple matter -to lay oil pipes in the streets precisely as we now lay water and gas -pipes, and heat our houses with oil sprays blown into our furnaces with -jets of steam. Certainly, there would be no difficulty in heating houses -from a central heating plant that burned oil. Plenty of western cities -have such central heating plants now that burn coal. And the idea is a -good one, too. The central plant decreases the danger of fire, besides -doing away with dust and the necessity of shoveling coal into the -furnace of each house. - -But gentlemen like the Coal Trust barons figure this way: “We have a -certain amount of money invested here. We are looking only for the -highest rate of interest that we can get upon our investment. We might -serve the people better if we were to turn to water power development or -the burning of oil, but it is doubtful if we should obtain a greater -rate of interest upon our investment. Certainly, we should lose a lot by -junking our coal mines, as we should be compelled to do if we were to -prove their worthlessness—so, we’ll just keep on dealing in coal.” - -And, the people of the United States, through their failure to “get -together” politically behind some party that stands for what they all -want—the people of the United States are getting the worst of it. - -If the people of the United States want their government—which is -actually themselves, though they do not seem to know it—if the people of -the United States want their government to take over and to operate the -coal mines solely for the benefit of the people of the United States, -they can do it simply by standing together and talking and voting for -what they want. - -In the meantime, it would be a splendid thing for the country if the -Coal Trust would increase the price of coal a dollar a month until such -time as the people become enough interested in their own problems to -solve them. - - - - - CHAPTER X - DEATHBEDS AND DIVIDENDS - - -Stock market reports do not show a relationship between deathbeds and -dividends. Such a relationship exists, however. In this country, many -are made to die miserably in order that a few may live magnificently. -Every year, more than half a million human beings are compelled to die -in order that a few thousands may make, every year, perhaps half a -billion dollars. More than three millions are kept sick in order that a -handful may be kept rich. - -This is not mere rhetoric. It is fact. Irving Fisher, Professor of -Political Economy at Yale, and President of the Committee of One Hundred -on National Health, is one of the authorities for the figures. In his -report on national vitality, to the Conservation Commission, he declared -that in this country, every year, 600,000 human beings die whose lives -might be saved; that there are constantly 3,000,000 ill who might be -well. - -Dr. Woods Hutchinson, New York physician, endorses these estimates. -Moreover, the estimates are confirmed by the actual experience of New -Zealand. New Zealand’s death-rate is 9.5 to the thousand. Our death-rate -is 16.5 to the thousand. If New Zealand’s population were as great as -our own, the number of deaths each year, under her present rate, would -be 630,000 fewer than the number of Americans who die each year. Yet the -climate of New Zealand is no more healthful than is that of America. New -Zealand simply does not sacrifice her people to private greed. America -does. - -Plenty of laymen know how typhoid could be made a dead disease. Germany -has already made typhoid all but a dead disease in Germany. Yet, in this -country, tuberculosis, typhoid and other diseases that could easily be -prevented, are permitted to go on, killing their millions. - -Why? Because capitalism stands in the way. Because deathbeds could not -be decreased in number without decreasing dividends in size. Because -we can reduce the death-rate only by acting through our -governments—national, state and municipal—and big business, rather -than ourselves, controls these governments. Big business, desiring to -keep the special privileges it has and to get more, puts men into -office whom it believes will do its bidding. Usually, these men know -nothing and care nothing about promoting the public health. They are -politicians. If they do know something about promoting the public -health, and attempt to apply their knowledge at the expense of -somebody’s dividends, there is a fight. If it is a disease-infected -tenement that it is desired to tear down, the injunction is brought -into play. - -Such a situation seems appalling. It is appalling. It borders upon the -monstrous that a people who have at last learned how to prevent the -great diseases should not be permitted to apply their knowledge. That -the people endure such a condition can be explained only on the theory -that they realize neither the ease with which modern science could -extend their lives, nor the identity of the few who put dividends above -life. - -In order that there shall be no doubt concerning the power of present -knowledge, if applied, to destroy some of the great diseases and cripple -others, I shall set down here a question that I asked of Professor -Irving Fisher, Dr. Woods Hutchinson, and Dr. J. N. McCormack. Dr. -McCormack is an eminent physician, who devotes his entire time to -lecturing throughout the United States, under the auspices of the -American Medical Association and the Committee of One Hundred. His topic -is the advisability of applying modern knowledge to the public health -problem. Here is the question: - -“If you had the power of a czar, could you destroy tuberculosis and -typhoid fever, and also greatly reduce the number of deaths from -pneumonia?” - -Professor Fisher and Dr. McCormack replied promptly in the -affirmative. Evidently, I might as well have asked Dr. Hutchinson if, -having a glass of water, he could drink it. He was most matter of -fact. Without a doubt, tuberculosis could be destroyed. So could -typhoid fever, which is solely a filth disease that no one can get -without eating or drinking matter that has passed through the stomach -of a typhoid victim. Parenthetically, I may say that I heard Dr. -Hutchinson tell a committee of the United States Senate that if a -National Department of Health were established and properly -administered, half of the crime would cease in twenty-five years. Dr. -Hutchinson also said that it was entirely possible to save the babies -that died from preventable diseases—dysentery, for instance. The -lowest estimate of the number of babies who die every year from -preventable diseases is 100,000. - -Ask the same question of any physician in the country who is worth his -salt and he will give the same answer. Thus well known are the methods -by which the great diseases might be destroyed. - -The way to wipe out tuberculosis quickly, for instance, would be to -destroy every habitation that is known to be hopelessly infected—and -there are many such—permit no habitation to be erected without provision -for sufficient sunlight and air; permit no factory or other workplace to -be erected without sufficient provision for sunlight and fresh air—and -destroy such workplaces as now exist without this provision; reduce the -cost of living so that the millions who now cannot afford to live in -sanitary homes and buy adequate food could do so; isolate the infected -and educate the people with regard to the necessity of sleeping with -their bedroom windows wide open. - -If this program were put through, tuberculosis would cease as soon as -those who are now infected should either have recovered or died. It is -because such a program has not been put through that, according to -Professor Fisher, there are always 500,000 Americans suffering from -tuberculosis, and the annual death-roll from the disease is 150,000. Any -municipal government, if it were disposed to do so and the courts were -willing to let it do so, could put through the housing part of the -program in a single summer. The dangerous habitations could be -condemned. The government, if necessary, could build and rent at cost, -sanitary houses in the suburbs, as the government of New Zealand does -for its people. Congress, the President and the courts, if they were -disposed to do so, could reduce the cost of living. If the government -can teach farmers by mail how to prevent hog-cholera, there would seem -to be no reason why it should not teach human beings by mail to breathe -fresh air both night and day. - -What stands in the way of immediately putting through such a program? -Nothing in the world except the men whose property would be destroyed, -or whose stealings in food-prices would be stopped. The property loss -would be enormous. (Think of calling the destruction of a lot of -death-traps a “loss.”) The “value” of the property destroyed might be a -billion dollars. Maybe it would be two billions. What difference need it -make if it should take five billion dollars’ worth of labor, lumber, -bricks, steel and other materials to replace death-traps with -life-traps? One hundred and fifty thousand lives would be saved every -year from tuberculosis alone, and the rebuilding operations would create -greater prosperity for labor than was ever created by any act of -Congress. - -A hundred years ago, no one knew how to stamp out tuberculosis. What -good does it do us to know how? We are not permitted to apply our -knowledge. We can peck away if we want to, at the edge of the problem, -but we mustn’t strike at the middle. If we should, we might cut -somebody’s dividends. We might interfere with the “vested interests” of -the owners of the cellars in which 25,000 New York families live, or -with the owners of the 101,000 windowless rooms in which New Yorkers -live, or with the owners of the unsanitary houses and factories in other -cities. Our public officials know better than to try to do anything -really radical in the health line. They have condemned just enough -pestholes to know how dangerous it is to political prospects to grapple -with property, and enforced just enough of the factory laws to know how -dangerous it is to try to enforce factory laws at all. - -In New York City, according to Tenement House Commissioner Murphy, 45 -persons are burned alive every year in death-trap tenements. A new -tenement house law prohibits the erection of death-traps, and in the new -tenements there are no cremations. But the old death-traps are permitted -to stand. In ten years, 450 more persons will have been burned alive. In -10 years, 1,500,000 more Americans will have died from tuberculosis. - -“Of the people living in the United States to-day,” said J. Pease -Norton, Assistant Professor of Political Economy at Yale, “more than -8,000,000 will die of tuberculosis.” Between the ages of 20 and 30, -every third death is from consumption, and, at all ages, the mortality -from the same disease is one in nine. - -We now censure ancient kings for having slaughtered men in war for -private profit. But what ancient king ever made such a record in war as -our dividend-takers make in peace? What ancient king, in his whole -lifetime, ever slew 8,000,000 men? What modern war marked the end of so -many men as tuberculosis kills in a year? During the four years of the -Civil War, only a little more than 200,000 men were killed in battle. -Tuberculosis kills 300,000 Americans every two years. Other diseases -that could be prevented if dividends were out of the way bring up the -total of avoidable deaths in this country to 1,200,000 every two years. - -What if our Government did nothing to end a war that was killing 600,000 -Americans each year? What if a few contractors who were making millions -out of the war controlled elections, administrations and the courts and -would not let the government end the war? - -What difference does it make whether foreign foes and army contractors -kill these millions, or whether domestic dividend-takers and their -governments kill them? Dead men not only “tell no tales,” but they have -no preferences. It is as bad to be dead from one cause as from another. - -“During the next ten years,” said Professor Norton, “more than 6,000,000 -infants less than two years old will end their little spans of life, -while mothers sit by and watch in utter helplessness. And yet this -number could probably be decreased by as much as half. But nothing is -done.” - -Dr. Cressey L. Wilbur, Chief Statistician for Vital Statistics for the -Federal Census Bureau, says that at least 100,000 and perhaps 200,000 -children less than five years old die in this country every year from -preventable causes. - -Our national government freights the mails with circulars telling how to -cure hog-cholera and kill the insects that prey on fruit trees; but in -all the years since the Revolutionary War, it has never sent a circular -to a mother telling her how to keep her baby alive. The state and the -municipal governments have done something, but they have usually stopped -when they reached the big money bags. Not a state or a city has made it -impossible for a baby to be given bad milk. Not a state or a city has -rid itself of unsanitary habitations. Not a state or a city has -condemned all the workshops in which men and women work at the peril of -their lives. Not a state or a city has even enforced its own -factory-inspection laws. - -If the men whom big business has put in office were even intelligently -interested in public health, probably 50,000 babies could be saved each -year without tearing down a rookery or providing a single better house. -A little intelligent effort and a few thousand dollars would suffice. - -Dr. Hutchinson tells what a little intelligent effort and a few dollars -did for the babies of the small English city of Huddersfield. A few -years ago a physician was elected mayor. One of his first acts was to -announce that he would give a prize of ten shillings to the mother of -every child born during the mayor’s administration, provided the babies -were brought to his office in perfect health, on the first anniversary -of their birth. The only other stipulation was that no mother should be -eligible to a prize who did not immediately report to the mayor the -birth of her infant. - -Though the prize was small, there was no lack of mothers who were -willing to be takers. The doctor-mayor established what amounted to a -correspondence school for mothers, and, at the birth of each child, -began to send circulars telling how to take care of the baby; what to -feed it and what not to feed it; what to do if the baby appeared -so-and-so—and so on. Moreover, he kept a city physician on the circuit -to look in at each home as often as possible, to see how the babies -appeared and give the mothers further advice. - -That’s all there is to this story—except that he brought down the -death-rate for babies from 130 to 55; saved 75 babies each year to each -thousand born. More than that he helped the babies who would have lived -anyway. Good care, says the doctor, will increase the strength of strong -babies from 15 to 25 per cent. - -Any American government could do as much. By condemning unsanitary homes -any American government could do more. All that is necessary is the -desire—and the permission of those who control the governments. The -people that cast the ballots are willing to give the permission, but the -ballots they cast perpetuate the conditions against which they complain. -Otherwise, there would be no death-trap houses; nor impure food; nor -extortionate food-prices; nor unsanitary workplaces. And somebody would -go to jail if an ice trust, desiring to cripple competitors who might -cut prices, should send ships up a river to destroy the ice. It was -brought out in court that the New York Ice Trust did that. The ice trust -was convicted under the State anti-trust law. But nobody is in jail. And -ice is still selling at a price that kills the children of the poor. - -The only way to get big business on the side of public health is to get -public health and private profit on the same side. Health makes -efficiency, efficiency makes profit, and whenever public health can be -bought at a price that seems likely to yield a profit in efficiency, big -business will buy. That is the way Professor Fisher figures it out and -here is a case that he cites in point: - -The girls in one of the Chicago telephone exchanges that is located in a -particularly smoky and dusty part of the city complained to the manager -of the smoke and dust. He cheerfully advised them to forget the smoke -and dust and go on with their work, which, having more hunger than -money, they did. - -A few months later a growing volume of complaints against bad service -caused the manager to investigate. He found that the smoke and dust were -interfering with the operation of the switchboards. The little brass -tags were so gummed that frequently they did not fall when subscribers -called. Nor did the grime on the “plugs” with which connections are made -constitute a good medium for the flow of electricity. - -When the manager learned what the smoke and dust were doing to his human -machines he did nothing. But when he learned what smoke and dust were -doing to his metallic machines he wasted no time. He laid the matter -before his superiors, with the result that a plan was installed for the -filtration, through water, of every particle of air that entered the -exchange. - -It is not to the interest of big business as a whole that the people -should have pure food. The markets are flooded with unwholesome food -that an honest law, honestly administered, would have barred. Professor -Fisher relates an incident that shows how afraid the big meat dealers -are of the pure food law. - -The professor was sitting in the lobby of a hotel not distant from New -York. The proprietor of the hotel called up a New York meat dealer on -the long-distance ‘phone to complain that some bad beef had been sent to -the hotel. He said he had never yet fed his patrons on rotten beef and -he didn’t intend to begin. The beef must be taken away and the charge -deducted from his bill. The man at the other end of the wire evidently -offered no opposition, and the receiver was hung up. - -Soon the telephone rang again. New York was on the wire. The -conversation was brief. All that Professor Fisher could hear was the -hotel man’s single remark: “I’ll see what I can do and let you know.” - -The hotel man rang off and immediately called up a local restaurant. -Then Professor Fisher heard this cheerful statement go over the wire: - -“I’ve got some beef here that ain’t just right, and the New York people -who sent it to me wanted me to see if I couldn’t sell it for them up -here ... Oh, it’ll hang together yet, but ’tain’t what I want for my -people; you might use it, though ... I don’t know what the price will -be. You’ll have to make your bargain with them, but it won’t be much.... -All right, send over and get it.” - -And this—and a thousand times more than this—under the Pure Food Law! -Such crimes could not occur if the government, when it tried to enact a -decent law, had not been thrown flat on its back. The pity of it is that -when big business and a government come into collision over public -health matters, the government is usually thrown on its back. - -“I doubt,” said Dr. Hutchinson, “whether there is a local health officer -at any post of entry in the United States who, if a case of plague, -cholera or yellow fever should appear on a ship, would not think three -or four times before he reported it. And if he did report it, as the law -requires him to do, his act would cost him his position. Business -interests would cause his removal.” - -This is not mere talk. Nor is it simply prophecy. It is history. So long -as New Orleans was subject to periodical outbreaks of yellow fever, the -health authorities were compelled not only to fight the disease, but to -fight the business interests that denied its existence. Dr. Hutchinson -says that business interests once caused the removal of the State health -officer of Louisiana, merely because he insisted that yellow fever -existed in the State—which it did. - -Dr. Hutchinson himself, as State health officer of Oregon, in 1905–6, -had to fight big business to conserve public health. Big business -whipped him. His experiences were not novel, but one of them will be -related for the simple reason that it was not novel, and therefore shows -the sort of opposition that health officers, all over the land, are -compelled to encounter. - -Soon after taking office Dr. Hutchinson began an investigation of the -water supplies of the chief cities of Oregon. His report showed that the -water that private corporations were serving to municipalities carried -typhoid infection. - -Immediately the business interests of the State turned their guns upon -him. Through the newspapers, which they controlled by reason of -advertising contracts, they denounced him as an “enemy of the State.” -“The fair fame of the commonwealth” was being traduced by a reckless -maligner. He was even dared to show his face in one city. An attempt was -made to remove him from office, but the governor happened to be a man -who could not be browbeaten, and Dr. Hutchinson remained. - -But while the business interests of Oregon were not able to get the -governor, they got somebody. The city officials who could have purified -the water took no step to do so. If they had merely recognized the -existence of infected water and urged the people to boil it, some -service would have been performed. But the municipal officials upheld -the “fair fame” of their various communities by denying that the water -was infected. Notwithstanding their denials typhoid soon broke out. The -outbreak at Eugene, the seat of the State university, was particularly -severe. Several students died. - -Yet the San Francisco plague case must long stand as the classic -illustration of the manner in which business fights government when a -great disease comes. Black plague—the deadliest known to the Orient; a -disease that, more than once, has killed 5,000,000 persons during a -single outbreak—appeared in San Francisco in 1900. The local board of -health quarantined the Chinese district, and the news went out over the -country. The horror of horrors had arrived! The black plague! It sent a -shudder over the land. - -It sent a greater shudder over the business interests of San Francisco. -These business interests quickly saw visions of quarantines against the -State and cessation of tourist traffic. An appeal was made to a Federal -Judge to declare the quarantine illegal. He promptly did so. In giving -his decision, he went out of his way to make this statement: - -“If it were within the province of this court to decide the point, I -should hold that there is not now, and never has been, a case of plague -in this city.” - -The local board of health that discovered the plague was removed, as was -the State board of health that confirmed the prevalence of the disease. -The governor of the State sent a remarkable message to the Legislature -in which he denounced those who said plague existed in San Francisco, -and appointed a committee of physicians and big business men to go to -the California metropolis and make an “impartial” investigation. The -business men on the committee included the biggest bankers and merchants -in California. They reported in the most positive terms that there was -no plague. - -Dr. Kinyoun, the Marine Hospital Surgeon in charge, held his ground. Dr. -Kinyoun was shortly transferred to Detroit. His successor said there was -plague. His successor was shortly transferred to a distant city. - -Of course, no one now denies that black plague was in San Francisco -precisely when Dr. Kinyoun said it was. Even the eminent bankers and -merchants who certified that it wasn’t there admit that they were in -“error.” It is nowhere denied that there were more than 200 cases. It is -nowhere denied that there were more than 100 deaths. - -Such is the situation that has been imposed upon us by a system that -places private profits above human life. Having painfully accumulated -the knowledge with which we could combat the great disease, we are -unable to apply it because we do not own and therefore cannot manage our -own country. - -“We look with horror on the black plague of the Middle Ages,” said -Professor Norton. “The black plague was but a passing cloud, compared -with the white plague visitation.” - - - - - CHAPTER XI - IF NOT SOCIALISM—WHAT? - - -I have never seen you, but I know you. Your knuckles are bloody from -continued knocking at the door of happiness. The harder you knock, the -bloodier your knuckles become. But the door does not open. It stands -like an iron gate between you and the desires of your soul. - -What is the matter with this world? Was it made wrong? Is it a barren -spot to which too many have been sent? After Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. -Morgan had been sent, should you have been kept? Is this their world and -are you an intruder here? - -You are not an intruder here. You know that. You have as good a right -here as anyone else. But perhaps, nevertheless, this world was made -wrong? If you had the power to make worlds, could you make a better one? -Could you make fairer skies? Could you make greener fields? Could you -improve the sun? Could you make better people? - -Perhaps you could do none of these things? If not, what is the matter -with this world? Look at it again. Here it is—spinning beneath your feet -as it has spun since the dawn of time, and, never before, since the dawn -of time, has it been such a world as it is now. Never before, since the -dawn of time, was it so well suited to your purposes as it is now. - -Your ancestors enjoyed no material thing that they had not wearily -created with their hands. You need create nothing with your hands. You -need but to touch with the tips of your fingers the iron hands that can -make what man could never make so well. Whatever machinery can make, you -can have. And, to drive this machinery, you have the forces of the sun, -as they come to you in the form of steam and electricity. - -Make no mistake—good, bad or indifferent as this world may be, it is at -least moving. None of your ancestors ever lived in such a world. And -none of your descendants will ever live in such a world as we live in -to-day. - -Edison once pictured to me the world that he already sees dawning. It -was a wonderful world, because it was filled with wonderful machinery. -Cloth would go into one end of a machine and come out at the other end -finished suits of clothes, boxed and ready for the market. Every -machine, instead of making a part of a thing, would make the complete -thing and put it together. The world would be smothered with wealth. - -But there was one disquieting feature about his world. There was not -much room in it for men. Each machine, attended by but a single man, -would do the work of hundreds of men. Moreover, that one man need not be -skilled. He need be but the merest automaton. Only the inventor of the -machine need have brains. - -Maybe Edison was dreaming. The easy way is to say he was dreaming. I, -who know him, have my doubts. Edison always dreams before he does, but -everything that he dreams seems pitifully small beside what he does. He -dreamed of the electric light before he made it, but his dream was -paltry beside the light he made. And, the dynamo of his dream was a -wheelbarrow beside the dynamo that to-day sings its shrill song around -the world. - -This much, however, is not a dream. Some of the automatic machinery that -Edison spoke of is already here. One man behind a machine is doing the -work of hundreds of men. Men are becoming a drug upon the labor market. -More than five millions are often out of work. As invention proceeds, -the percentage of the population who cannot find work must increase. - -What is going to become of these men? Do you expect them to starve -quietly? Do you believe they will make no outcry? Do you believe they -will raise no hand against a world that raises both hands against them? -Moreover, what kind of a world is it in which the greater the machinery, -the greater the curse to the men who run machinery? We do not yet live -in such a world, it is true, but if Edison be not in error, we shall -soon live in it? What shall we do when machinery does everything? - -This may seem like a far cry, but it isn’t. The germ of the Socialist -philosophy is contained in this one word “machinery.” Let us put the -spot-light upon that word and show everything that is in it. - -Suppose there were one machine in this country that was capable of -producing every material thing that human beings need or desire. Suppose -the machine were so wonderfully automatic that it could be perfectly -operated by pushing a button, once a day, in a Wall Street office. - -Beside this push-button, suppose there were another button that operated -all of the railroads in the country; passenger trains automatically -starting and stopping at the appointed places; freight trains -automatically taking on and discharging their cargoes. Not a human being -at work anywhere. - -Imagine also one man owning this great machine and the railroads. - -The rest of the race, if it were to remain law-abiding, would be -compelled to change the law or starve to death, would it not? What else -could the race do? Nobody would have any work. Nobody would therefore -have anything with which to buy. The single giant machine might be -capable of producing, with the push-button help of its owner, more -necessities and luxuries than the entire race could consume. The -automatic railway system might be capable of delivering to every door -everything that everybody might want. The single owner might have more -billions of dollars than Mr. Rockefeller has cents. But nobody else -would have anything. - -What I am trying to show is that the private ownership of machinery is a -gigantic wrong. If it were not a wrong, the world would be helped by the -private ownership of a single machine fitted to produce every material -thing that the race needs. If the people owned such a machine, there -would certainly be no more poverty. There would be no more poverty -because the people would get what the machine produced. - -If this be plain, let us further consider the present situation. - -We live in a wonderful world. - -It is big enough and rich enough to enable everybody in it to live in -comfort. - -But hundreds of millions throughout the world do not live in comfort -because the progress of the world has brought relatively little to them. - -They have no share of stock in the earth—somebody who has a little piece -of paper in his hand claims the ownership of the spot of earth upon -which they wish to lay their heads and charges them rent for using it. - -Another little group own all of the machinery, handing out jobs here and -there to the men who offer to work for the least. - -Nor is this a chance situation. A small class has always robbed the -great class. It has been and is the rule of the world. The methods of -robbery have been changed. Method after method has been abandoned as the -people awakened to the means by which they were being robbed. But -robbery has never been abandoned. The small, greedy, cunning class that -will not be content with what it can earn is here to-day, playing the -old game with a new method. - -Socialists declare the new method is to own the industrial machinery -with which all other men must work. You may not agree with this. -Probably you do not. If you do not, will you kindly answer some -questions? - -Why do a few men, who will work with no machinery, want to own all of -the machinery in the country? - -Would these men care to own any machinery if there were not an -opportunity in such ownership to get money? - -Where can the money they get come from except from the wealth that is -produced by the men who work with their machinery? - -So long as a few men own all of the machinery, must not all other men be -at their mercy? - -How can anyone get a job so long as the men who own the machinery say he -can have no job? - -How can anyone demand a wage that represents the full value of his -product so long as the capitalist refuses to pay any wages that do not -assure a profit to him? - -Mr. Roosevelt and some others would have you believe that all of these -wrongs can be “regulated” into rights. They would have you believe that -only “strong” commissions are necessary to make all of these wrongs -right. But Mr. Roosevelt and some others do not know what they are -talking about. This is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. Men -have talked as they talk since robbery began. History records no -instance of one of them that made good. During all of the years that Mr. -Roosevelt was in the White House, he never appointed a commission that -was “strong” enough to make good. - -We have it upon the authority of no less a man than Dr. Wiley that Mr. -Roosevelt’s commission to prevent the poisoning of food was not strong -enough to make good. The food-poisoning went on. - -I mention Mr. Roosevelt’s food commission because it is a shining -example of what his “strong” commission theory of government cannot do. -Mr. Roosevelt, unquestionably, is and was opposed to the poisoning of -food. He appointed a commission to stop one kind of poisoning. But, for -reasons that you, as well as anyone else, can surmise, the commission -decided in favor of the food-poisoners instead of in favor of the -public. Which brings us to this question: If Mr. Roosevelt could not -appoint a commission “strong” enough even to prevent the poisoning of -food, what reason have you to believe that he or anyone else could -appoint a commission strong enough to prevent capitalists from robbing -workingmen? - -You who oppose Socialism do so, no doubt, largely because you believe -the people could not advantageously own and manage their own industrial -machinery. We who advocate Socialism reply that it is much easier to -manage what you own than it is to manage what someone else owns. The -facts of history show that it is practically impossible to manage what -someone else owns. That is what we are trying to do to-day—and we are -failing at it. We are trying to manage the trusts. Fight as we will, the -trusts are managing us. They fix almost every fact in our lives. They -begin fixing the facts of our lives even before we are born. They -determine even whether all of us shall be born. It is a well-known fact -that when times are bad, the birth-rate decreases. Having the power to -make bad times, the trusts also have the power to diminish the number of -births. The trust panic of 1907 unquestionably prevented thousands of -children from being born. No one can ever know how many, but we do know -that both marriages and births decreased. - -In view of such facts as these, is it not idle to talk about -“regulating” the property of others? Is it not stupid to believe that in -such regulation lies our greatest hope of material well-being? You must -admit that, thus far, the process of regulation has gone on painfully -slowly. If poverty, the fear of poverty and enforced idleness are any -indications of the progress of the country, it is difficult to see that -we have made any progress. Never before were so many millions of men out -of work in this country as there were during the panic of 1907. Never -before were so many millions of human beings so uncertain of their -future. A few men hold us all in the hollows of their hands. Our -destinies lie, not in ourselves, but in them. - -Is it not so? Don’t be blinded by “commissions,” political pow-wow and -nonsense—is it not so? If it is so, how much progress have we made -toward getting rid of poverty by trying to regulate property that we do -not own? We have been playing the game of “regulation” for more than a -generation. It has done nothing for you. How many more generations do -you expect to live? Are you willing to go to your grave with this -pestilential question of poverty still weighing upon your heart? Are you -willing to go out of the world feeling that you never really lived in -it—that it was only a place where you toiled and sweat and suffered -while others lived? - -We Socialists put it to you as a common-sense affirmation that your time -can come now if you and all others like you will join in a political -effort to make it come. - -Any political partisan will make you the same promise, but you know, -from sad experience, that their promises are worthless. We ask you to -consider whether our promises are worthless. - -We promise you, for instance, that if you will give us power you need -never again want for work. If the people, through the government, owned -the trusts and other great industries, why should anybody ever again -want for work? Thenceforward, the great plants would always be open. No -factory door would ever be closed so long as there was a demand for the -product of the factory. If the demand for goods were greater than the -capacity of the factories, the number of factories would be increased. -Nothing is simpler than to increase the number of factories. Only men -and materials are required. We have an abundance of each. - -But we promise you more. We promise you that, if you will give us power, -we will give you not only the continuous opportunity to work, but we -will give you continuous freedom from robbery. Again, nothing is simpler -than to work without robbery. All that is necessary is to enable the -worker to go to work without walking into anyone’s clutches. No one can -now go to work without walking into many men’s clutches. When a man goes -to work for the Steel Trust, he walks into the clutches of everybody who -owns the stocks or the bonds of the trust. When a man goes to work for a -railway company, he walks into the clutches of every person who owns the -stocks or the bonds of the railway company. In other words, the stock -and bondholders of these institutions, by virtue of their control of the -machinery involved, have it in their power to say whether the worker -shall work or not work. They say he shall not work unless they can make -a profit upon his labor. The worker cannot haggle too long because he -must labor or starve. Therefore, he comes to terms. He walks into the -clutches of those who want to rob him of part of what he produces. He -consents to work for a wage that represents only a part of what he has -produced. - -That is robbery. You may call it business, but it is robbery. If robbery -is anything, it is the taking of the property of another against his -will. The worker knows his wage is not all he earns. He resents the fact -that he must toil long and hard for a poor living, while his employer -lives in luxury without doing any useful labor. But the worker has no -alternative. He must consent. He does consent. - -Under Socialism, there would be no such robbery, because goods would not -be produced for profit. Goods would be produced only because the people -wanted them. Whatever the people wanted would be produced, not in -niggardly volume, but in abundance. - -Decent homes, for instance, would be produced. Millions of people in the -great cities now live in houses that are death-traps. They are not -houses, in the sense that country dwellers understand the word, but -dingy rooms, piled one upon another in great blocks. Light seldom enters -some of them. Fresh air can hardly get into any of them. The germs of -tuberculosis abound. The germs of other diseases swirl through the dust -of the streets. The death-rate is abnormally high—particularly the -death-rate of children. Yet, nothing would be simpler, if the -profit-seeking capitalists were shorn of their power, than to give every -human being in this country a decent home. - -The best material out of which to make a house is cement or brick. -Either is better than wood because wood both rots and burns. There is -practically no limit to the number of cement and brick houses that could -be built in this country. Every State contains enough clay and other -materials to build enough houses to supply the whole country. If the -five millions of men who were out of work for many years following the -panic of 1907 could have been employed at house-building, they -themselves would not only have been prosperous, but the American people -would have been housed as they had never been housed before. If the two -millions of men who are always denied employment, even in so-called -“good” times, were continuously engaged in house-building, good houses -would be so numerous that we should not know what to do with them. - -The same facts apply to all other necessities of life. The nation needs -bread. Some are starving for it all the while. Yet what is simpler than -the furnishing of bread? We know how to grow wheat. With the scientific -knowledge that the government could devote to wheat growing, combined -with the improved machinery that a rich government could bring to bear -upon the problem, the wheat-production of the country could easily be -multiplied by four. Little Holland and little Belgium, with no better -soil than our own, raise almost four times as much wheat to the acre as -we do. And, with wheat once grown, nothing is more simple than to make -it into flour. Probably we already have enough milling machinery to make -all the flour we need. If not, we could easily build four times as many -mills. We should never be unable to build more mills until we had no -unemployed men to set to work. And, if we had no unemployed men to set -to work, we should have, for the first time in the history of the world, -a completely happy nation. - -Do you doubt any of these statements? How can you doubt them? We have -the men. We have the materials. The only trouble is that they are kept -apart. They are kept apart because a few men control things and will not -allow men and material to come together unless that means a profit for -the few men. We Socialists purpose to put them together. If they were -put together, how much longer do you believe the people would have to -shiver in winter for lack of woolen clothing? There is no secret about -raising sheep. We have vast areas upon which we could raise more than we -shall ever need. Even a concern like the Woolen Trust—the head of which -was indicted for conspiring to “plant” dynamite at Lawrence to besmirch -the strikers—even such a concern enables some of us to wear wool in the -winter time. How many more do you believe would wear wool if the United -States government were to take the place of this concern as a -manufacturer of woolen goods? Do you believe anybody would be compelled -to suffer from cold for lack of woolen clothing? How can you so believe? -The government, if necessary, could build four woolen mills for every -one that exists. The government could not fail to supply the people’s -needs. And, with all goods sold at cost, prices would be so low that the -people could buy. - -These, and many other possibilities, are entirely within your reach. You -can realize them now. Will you kindly tell when you expect to realize -them by voting for the candidates of any other party except the -Socialist party? No other party except the Socialist party proposes to -put men and materials together. Every other party except the Socialist -party proposes that a small class of men shall continue to own all of -the great industrial machinery, while the rest shall continue to be -robbed as the price of its use. Every other party except the Socialist -party proposes that a small body of men shall continue to graft off the -rest by wringing profits from them. No party except the Socialist party -puts the people above profits. - -Even Mr. Roosevelt and his party do not. Mr. Roosevelt stands as firmly -for the principle of profits as does Mr. Morgan. Mr. Roosevelt differs -from the most besotted reactionary only in his hallucination that he -could appoint “strong” commissions that would successfully regulate -other people’s property. Mr. Roosevelt does not seem to recognize that, -so long as profits are in the capitalist system, the workers must not -only be robbed of part of what they produce, but that they must be -periodically denied even the right to work at any wage. Nor does he seem -to realize that, if he were to reduce the profits to the point where -there was not much robbery, the capitalists would no longer have any -incentive for remaining in business. - -With profits eliminated, or cut to the vanishing point, the capitalist -system cannot stand. - -With profits not eliminated or cut near the vanishing point, the people -cannot stand. - -Therefore, Mr. Roosevelt is trying to bring about the impossible. He is -trying to prevent the people from being robbed without destroying the -power of the capitalist to live by robbery. Mr. Roosevelt probably would -like to decrease, somewhat, the extent to which capitalists practice -robbery. But he is not willing to take away from them the power to rob. - -If Mr. Roosevelt were chasing burglars instead of the Presidency, we -should first laugh at him and then put a new man on the force in his -place. Imagine a policeman trying to prevent burglary by “regulating” -the burglars, saying to them in a hissing voice: “Now, gentlemen, this -burglary must stop. We really can have no more of it. None of you must -carry a ‘jimmy’ more than four feet long. Any burglar caught with more -than twenty skeleton keys will be sent to prison.” - -Yet that is practically what Mr. Roosevelt says to the capitalists. The -“jimmy” of the capitalist is his ownership of the tools with which his -employees work, but Mr. Roosevelt makes no move to take this instrument -from the men who are despoiling the workers. All that Mr. Roosevelt -purposes to do is to place a limit upon the amount that the capitalist -can legally abstract. And he depends upon “strong” commissions to keep -the ferocious capitalist in order. - -We Socialists have no faith in such measures. We frankly predict their -failure, precisely as twenty years ago we predicted the failure of the -Sherman Anti-Trust Law. We were then known to so few of our own people -that not many persons had the pleasure of calling us fools. Now, nobody -wants to call us fools for that. We are now fools because we do not -believe in Wilson or in Roosevelt. - -We are not content to await the verdict of time, but we await it with -confidence. We dislike to waste twenty-five more years in chasing up -this Roosevelt blind alley, but if you should determine to make the -trip—which we hope you will not—we shall still be on the main track when -you come back. - -If somebody else had the key to your house and would not let you in -unless you paid him his price, you would not value highly the services -of a policeman who should tell you that the way to deal with the -gentleman was to “regulate” him. If the gentlemen had locked you out -upon an average of four times a week, you would feel even less kindly -disposed toward such a policeman. - -We Socialists feel that the capitalist class has keys that belong to the -American people, and that it has used and is using those keys to prevent -the people from using their own, except upon the payment of tribute. - -We feel that the capitalist class holds the keys to our workshops and -will not let us enter except upon such tribute terms as they can wring -from us. - -We feel that the capitalist class has the keys to our coal fields and -will not let us be warm in winter except upon the payment of money that -should go, perhaps, for food or clothing. - -We feel that the capitalist class has the keys of our national pantry -and compels those to go hungry whom it has denied the right to work. - -In short, we feel that the capitalists have the keys of our happiness—so -far as happiness depends upon material things—and are compelling us to -subsist upon uncertainty and fear, when security and contentment lie -just at our elbows, awaiting the turn of the keys. - -We Socialists are ready to stand behind any party that will pledge -itself to return these keys to the people, reserving only the right to -be convinced that the pledge is made in good faith and will be kept. - -If Mr. Roosevelt will promise to use his best efforts to take from the -capitalists the private ownership of industry, we Socialists shall -believe he means business and shall begin to respect him. - -If Mr. Wilson will make a similar promise, we shall feel the same toward -him. - -But if Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Wilson should make such a promise, they -would have absolutely no capitalist support. Mr. Perkins would not be -with Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Ryan would not be with Mr. Wilson. So far as -great capitalists are concerned, Armageddon and Sea Girt would look a -good deal like a baseball park two weeks after the close of the season. - -All the world over, the Socialist party is the only political -organization that frankly stands up to the guns and demands the keys. It -is the only party that minces no words and looks for no favors from the -rich. The Socialist party is avowedly and earnestly committed to the -task of compelling the capitalist class to surrender the power with -which it robs. And, anyone who believes that power does not lie in the -private ownership of industrial machinery need only try to become rich -without owning any such machinery or gambling in its products. We -Socialists are willing to stake our lives on the statement that if you -will transfer the ownership of industry from the capitalist class to the -people, those who now constitute the capitalist class will never get -another dollar that they do not work for or steal in common burglar or -pickpocket fashion. If we are in error about the significance of the -private ownership of industry, the transfer of such ownership to the -people would not hurt the capitalist class. But the capitalist class -evidently does not believe the Socialists are wrong in holding this -belief, because the capitalists are fighting us tooth and nail. - -Nothing is the matter with this world. Whatever is the matter is with -you. You can begin to get results now if you will begin to vote right -now. The election of Victor L. Berger to Congress in 1910 threw more of -the fear of God into the capitalist class of this country than any other -event that has happened in a generation. If fifty Socialists were in -Congress, the old parties would outdo each other in offering concessions -to the people. - -As an illustration of what fifty Socialist Congressmen could do I will -relate an incident that took place in Washington in the winter of 1912. - -Berger, by playing shrewd politics, had brought about a congressional -investigation of the Lawrence woolen mill strike. He had brought to -Washington a carload of little tots from the mills—boys and girls—and -they had spent the day telling a committee of the House of -Representatives of their wrongs. The stories were heartbreaking. Here -was a stunted little boy who declared he worked in a temperature of 140 -degrees for $5 a week. A young girl—the daughter of a mill-worker—told -of an insult offered to her by a soldier and of her own arrest when she -struck him. A skilled weaver described the difficulty of keeping life in -his four children on a diet of bread and molasses. Every story was -different in detail, but all were alike in the depths of poverty that -they revealed. The testimony bore heavily upon those who listened, and -when the session was suspended for the day the members of Congress -hastened quickly from the room. - -As Berger walked rapidly toward the door an old man stopped him. -Apparently he was a business man, 55 or 60 years old. Certainly he was -not a workingman. But he had heard the day’s testimony and he could not -remain silent. - -“Mr. Berger,” he said, “I have always been against you and all -Socialists. I was sorry when I heard you had been elected to Congress. -But if you brought about this investigation, as I am informed you did, I -want to say to you that if you were never to do another thing during -your term, your election would have been more than justified. I hope -your people will keep you in Congress as long as you live.” - -How many more men would change their minds if there were fifty -Socialists in Congress? How many capitalists would change their minds as -to how far they could safely go in robbing the people? - -Three millions of votes for the Socialist ticket would by no means elect -a Socialist president. But they would squeeze out more justice from the -capitalist parties than the people have had since this government began. - -Moreover, if you want the world during your own lifetime you will have -to take it during your own lifetime. It will not do you much good to let -your grandchildren take it during their lifetime. - - - - - APPENDIX. - NATIONAL SOCIALIST PLATFORM - - (Adopted at Indianapolis, May, 1912) - - -The Socialist Party of the United States declares that the capitalist -system has outgrown its historical function, and has become utterly -incapable of meeting the problems now confronting society. We denounce -this outgrown system as incompetent and corrupt and the source of -unspeakable misery and suffering to the whole working class. - -Under this system the industrial equipment of the nation has passed into -the absolute control of a plutocracy which exacts an annual tribute of -millions of dollars from the producers. Unafraid of any organized -resistance, it stretches out its greedy hands over the still undeveloped -resources of the nation—the land, the mines, the forests and the -water-powers of every State in the Union. - -In spite of the multiplication of labor-saving machines and improved -methods in industry which cheapen the cost of production, the share of -the producers grows ever less, and the prices of all the necessities of -life steadily increase. The boasted prosperity of this nation is for the -owning class alone. To the rest it means only greater hardship and -misery. The high cost of living is felt in every home. Millions of -wage-workers have seen the purchasing power of their wages decrease -until life has become a desperate battle for mere existence. - -Multitudes of unemployed walk the streets of our cities or trudge from -State to State awaiting the will of the masters to move the wheels of -industry. - -The farmers in every State are plundered by the increasing prices -exacted for tools and machinery and by extortionate rents, freight rates -and storage charges. - -Capitalist concentration is mercilessly crushing the class of small -business men and driving its members into the ranks of propertyless wage -workers. The overwhelming majority of the people of America are being -forced under a yoke of bondage by this soulless industrial despotism. - -It is this capitalist system that is responsible for the increasing -burden of armaments, the poverty, slums, child-labor, most of the -insanity, crime and prostitution, and much of the disease that afflicts -mankind. - -Under this system the working class is exposed to poisonous conditions, -to frightful and needless perils to life and limb, is walled around with -court decisions, injunctions and unjust laws, and is preyed upon -incessantly for the benefit of the controlling oligarchy of wealth. -Under it also, the children of the working class are doomed to -ignorance, drudging toil and darkened lives. - -In the face of these evils, so manifest that all thoughtful observers -are appalled at them, the legislative representatives of the Republican, -Democratic, and all reform parties remain the faithful servants of the -oppressors. Measures designed to secure to the wage earners of this -nation as humane and just treatment as is already enjoyed by the wage -earners of all other civilized nations have been smothered in committee -without debate, and laws ostensibly designed to bring relief to the -farmers and general consumers are juggled and transformed into -instruments for the exaction of further tribute. The growing unrest -under oppression has driven these two old parties to the enactment of a -variety of regulative measures, none of which has limited in any -appreciable degree the power of the plutocracy, and some of which have -been perverted into means for increasing that power. Anti-trust laws, -railroad restrictions and regulations, with the prosecutions, -indictments and investigations based upon such legislation, have proved -to be utterly futile and ridiculous. Nor has this plutocracy been -seriously restrained or even threatened by any Republican or Democratic -executive. It has continued to grow in power and insolence alike under -the administrations of Cleveland, McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft. - -In addition to this legislative juggling and this executive connivance, -the courts of America have sanctioned and strengthened the hold of this -plutocracy as the Dred Scott and other decisions strengthened the slave -power before the Civil War. - -We declare, therefore, that the longer sufferance of these conditions is -impossible, and we purpose to end them all. We declare them to be the -product of the present system in which industry is carried on for -private greed, instead of for the welfare of society. We declare, -furthermore, that for these evils there will be and can be no remedy and -no substantial relief except through Socialism, under which industry -will be carried on for the common good and every worker receive the full -social value of the wealth he creates. - -Society is divided into warring groups and classes, based upon material -interests. Fundamentally, this struggle is a conflict between the two -main classes, one of which, the capitalist class, owns the means of -production, and the other, the working class, must use these means of -production on terms dictated by the owners. - -The capitalist class, though few in numbers, absolutely controls the -Government-legislative, executive and judicial. This class owns the -machinery of gathering and disseminating news through its organized -press. It subsidizes seats of learning—the colleges and schools—and even -religious and moral agencies. It has also the added prestige which -established customs give to any order of society, right or wrong. - -The working class, which includes all those who are forced to work for a -living, whether by hand or by brain, in shop, mine or on the soil, -vastly outnumbers the capitalist class. Lacking effective organization -and class solidarity, this class is unable to enforce its will. Given -such class solidarity and effective organization, the workers will have -the power to make all laws and control all industry in their own -interest. - -All political parties are the expression of economic class interests. -All other parties than the Socialist Party represents one or another -group of the ruling capitalist class. Their political conflicts reflect -merely superficial rivalries between competing capitalist groups. -However they result, these conflicts have no issue of real value to the -workers. Whether the Democrats or Republicans win politically, it is the -capitalist class that is victorious economically. - -The Socialist Party is the political expression of the economic -interests of the workers. Its defeats have been their defeats, and its -victories their victories. It is a party founded on the science and laws -of social development. It proposes that, since all social necessities -to-day are socially produced, the means of their production shall be -socially owned and democratically controlled. - -In the face of the economic and political aggressions of the capitalist -class the only reliance left the workers is that of their economic -organizations and their political power. By the intelligent and -class-conscious use of these they may resist successfully the capitalist -class, break the fetters of wage slavery, and fit themselves for the -future society, which is to displace the capitalist system. The -Socialist Party appreciates the full significance of class organization -and urges the wage earners, the working farmers and all other useful -workers everywhere to organize for economic and political action, and we -pledge ourselves to support the toilers of the fields as well as those -in the shops, factories and mines of the nation in their struggle for -economic justice. - -In the defeat or victory of the working class party in this new struggle -for freedom lies the defeat or triumph of the common people of all -economic groups, as well as the failure or the triumph of popular -government. Thus the Socialist Party is the party of the present day -revolution, which marks the transition from economic individualism to -Socialism, from wage slavery to free co-operation, from capitalist -oligarchy to industrial democracy. - -As measures calculated to strengthen the working class in its fight for -the realization of its ultimate aim, the Co-operative Commonwealth, and -to increase the power of resistance against capitalist oppression, we -advocate and pledge ourselves and our elected officers to the following -program: - - - COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP - -1. The collective ownership and democratic management of railroads, wire -and wireless telegraphs and telephones, express services, steamboat -lines and all other social means of transportation and communication and -of all large scale industries. - -2. The immediate acquirement by the municipalities, the States or the -federal government of all grain elevators, stock yards, storage -warehouses and other distributing agencies, in order to reduce the -present extortionate cost of living. - -3. The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil -wells, forests and water power. - -4. The further conservation and development of natural resources for the -use and benefit of all the people: - -(_a_) By scientific forestation and timber protection. - -(_b_) By the reclamation of arid and swamp tracts. - -(_c_) By the storage of flood waters and the utilization of water power. - -(_d_) By the stoppage of the present extravagant waste of the soil and -of the products of mines and oil wells. - -(_e_) By the development of highway and waterway systems. - -5. The collective ownership of land wherever practicable, and, in cases -where such ownership is impracticable, the appropriation by taxation of -the annual rental value of all land held for speculation. - -6. The collective ownership and democratic management of the banking and -currency system. - - - UNEMPLOYMENT - -The immediate government relief of the unemployed by the extension of -all useful public works. All persons employed on such works to be -engaged directly by the government under a workday of not more than -eight hours and not less than the prevailing union wages. The government -also to establish employment bureaus; to lend money to States and -municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public -works, and to take such other measures within its power as will lessen -the widespread misery of the workers caused by the misrule of the -capitalist class. - - - INDUSTRIAL DEMANDS - -The conservation of human resources, particularly of the lives and -well-being of the workers and their families: - -1. By shortening the workday in keeping with the increased -productiveness of machinery. - -2. By securing to every worker a rest period of not less than a day and -a half in each week. - -3. By securing a more effective inspection of workshops, factories and -mines. - -4. By forbidding the employment of children under 16 years of age. - -5. By the co-operative organization of industries in federal -penitentiaries and workshops for the benefit of convicts and their -dependents. - -6. By forbidding the interstate transportation of the products of -child-labor, of convict labor and of all uninspected factories and -mines. - -7. By abolishing the profit system in government work, and substituting -either the direct hire of labor or the awarding of contracts to -co-operative groups of workers. - -8. By establishing minimum wage scales. - -9. By abolishing official charity and substituting a non-contributory -system of old age pensions, a general system of insurance by the State -of all its members against unemployment and invalidism and a system of -compulsory insurance by employers of their workers, without cost to the -latter, against industrial disease, accidents and death. - - - POLITICAL DEMANDS - -The absolute freedom of press, speech and assemblage. - -The adoption of a gradual income tax, the increase of the rates of the -present corporation tax and the extension of inheritance taxes, -graduated in proportion to the value of the estate and to nearness of -kin—the proceeds of these taxes to be employed in the socialization of -industry. - -The abolition of the monopoly ownership of patents and the substitution -of collective ownership, with direct rewards to inventors by premiums or -royalties. - -Unrestricted and equal suffrage for men and women. - -The adoption of the initiative, referendum and recall and of -proportional representation, nationally as well as locally. - -The abolition of the Senate and the veto power of the President. - -The election of the President and the Vice President by direct vote of -the people. - -The abolition of the power usurped by the Supreme Court of the United -States to pass upon the constitutionality of the legislation enacted by -Congress. National laws to be repealed only by act of Congress or by the -voters in a majority of the States. - -The granting of the right of suffrage in the District of Columbia with -representation in Congress and a democratic form of municipal government -for purely local affairs. - -The extension of democratic government to all United States territory. - -The enactment of further measures for general education and particularly -for vocational education in useful pursuits. The Bureau of Education to -be made a department. - -The enactment of further measures for the conservation of health. The -creation of an independent Bureau of Health with such restrictions as -will secure full liberty for all schools of practice. - -The separation of the present Bureau of Labor from the Department of -Commerce and Labor and its elevation to the rank of a department. - -Abolition of the federal district courts and the United States Circuit -Courts of Appeals. State courts to have jurisdiction in all cases -arising between citizens of the several States and foreign corporations. -The election of all judges for short terms. - -The immediate curbing of the power of the courts to issue injunctions. - -The free administration of justice. - -The calling of a convention for the revision of the Constitution of the -United States. - -Such measures of relief as we may be able to force from capitalism are -but a preparation of the workers to seize the whole powers of government -in order that they may thereby lay hold of the whole system of -socialized industry and thus come to their rightful inheritance. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -Perhaps you have a friend who believes he knows what Socialism is, but -doesn’t. If so, a copy of “The Truth About Socialism” will be mailed to -him for twenty-five cents. Prices for larger numbers follow: - - QUANTITIES PRICE - 5 copies (prepaid) $1.00 - 25 copies f.o.b. New York $4.50 - 100 copies f.o.b. New York $15.00 - - -The Socialist Party maintains a National office, for the purpose, among -other things, of furnishing any desired information about the party. -Upon request, it will furnish lists of Socialist books, newspapers and -magazines. Services of this sort are rendered not only freely, but -gladly. Address, - - NATIONAL SEC’Y OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY - 111 North Market Street - CHICAGO - - - - - The Truth About Socialism - - As the reviewers see it - - -Philadelphia _North American_ - -Nothing in the current and accepted literature of economics avails -entirely to controvert the arguments and offset the data here presented, -in lucid and almost colloquial form. Mr. Benson’s book takes on readily -the aspect of a burning and a shining light. - - -New York _Globe_ - -Many writers have told the truth about Socialism, but not many have told -it so racily and with such fire and no beating about the bush as Mr. -Benson.... - -In writing his book he has evidently had in mind every doubt that was -ever expressed about Socialism, every question, foolish or otherwise, -that was ever asked.... He has sought to write about Socialism sensibly -and practically and in the present tense. - - -J. B. Kerfoot in _Life_ - -But the book that did the biting, a reading of which inspired this -review ... lays before us not a theory, but a programme ... instead of -being merely intellectually alive, Mr. Benson’s book is emotively living -and magnetically, radio-actively in earnest. And unless you are mighty -thin-blooded or mighty thick-skinned it will raise a good, big itchy -lump either on your enthusiasm or your combativeness. - - -Horace Traubel in _The Conservator_ - -The man who can’t make out Socialism after reading Benson ought to -suspect himself. There’s something wrong with his machinery. There’s an -idiot around somewhere. And that idiot’s not Benson. - - -Detroit _Times_ - -The book will appeal to the thoughtful who desire a concise expression -of Socialist thought and argument. He has written clearly and forcibly; -he discusses his subject from the practical, not the technical side. - - -Springfield _Union_ - -It is a clearly written statement and the book may be regarded as -authoritative. - - - Send for catalogue of miscellaneous books published by - B. W. HUEBSCH, 225 Fifth avenue, New York - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES - - - 1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in - spelling. - 2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed. - 3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRUTH ABOUT SOCIALISM *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/69480-0.zip b/old/69480-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index aad3eea..0000000 --- a/old/69480-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/69480-h.zip b/old/69480-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 56c01c7..0000000 --- a/old/69480-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/69480-h/69480-h.htm b/old/69480-h/69480-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 98aa2db..0000000 --- a/old/69480-h/69480-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7877 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html> -<html lang="en"> - <head> - <meta charset="UTF-8"> - <title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The truth about socialism, by Allan L. Benson</title> - <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> - <style> - body { margin-left: 8%; margin-right: 10%; } - h1 { text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: xx-large; } - h2 { text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: x-large; } - h3 { text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: large; } - .pageno { right: 1%; font-size: x-small; background-color: inherit; color: silver; - text-indent: 0em; text-align: right; position: absolute; - border: thin solid silver; padding: .1em .2em; font-style: normal; - font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; } - p { text-indent: 0; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; text-align: justify; } - sup { vertical-align: top; font-size: 0.6em; } - .sc { font-variant: small-caps; } - .large { font-size: large; } - .xlarge { font-size: x-large; } - .small { font-size: small; } - .xsmall { font-size: x-small; } - .lg-container-b { text-align: center; } - .x-ebookmaker .lg-container-b { clear: both; } - .linegroup { display: inline-block; text-align: justify; } - .x-ebookmaker .linegroup { display: block; margin-left: 1.5em; } - .linegroup .group { margin: 1em auto; } - .linegroup .line { text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em; } - div.linegroup > :first-child { margin-top: 0; } - .ol_1 li {padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em; } - ol.ol_1 {padding-left: 0; margin-left: 2.78%; margin-top: .5em; - margin-bottom: .5em; list-style-type: decimal; } - div.footnote > :first-child { margin-top: 1em; } - div.footnote p { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: 0.25em; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } - div.pbb { page-break-before: always; } - hr.pb { border: none; border-bottom: thin solid; margin-bottom: 1em; } - .x-ebookmaker hr.pb { display: none; } - .chapter { clear: both; page-break-before: always; } - .figcenter { clear: both; max-width: 100%; margin: 2em auto; text-align: center; } - .figcenter img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; } - .id001 { width:20%; } - .id002 { width:10%; } - .x-ebookmaker .id001 { margin-left:40%; width:20%; } - .x-ebookmaker .id002 { margin-left:45%; width:10%; } - .ig001 { width:100%; } - .table0 { margin: auto; margin-top: 2em; } - .table1 { margin: auto; } - .nf-center { text-align: center; } - .nf-center-c0 { text-align: justify; margin: 0.5em 0; } - p.drop-capa0_0_6 { text-indent: -0em; } - p.drop-capa0_0_6:first-letter { float: left; margin: 0.100em 0.100em 0em 0em; - font-size: 250%; line-height: 0.6em; text-indent: 0; } - /* */ - .x-ebookmaker p.drop-capa0_0_6 { text-indent: 0; } - .x-ebookmaker p.drop-capa0_0_6:first-letter { float: none; margin: 0; - font-size: 100%; } - /* */ - .c000 { margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } - .c001 { page-break-before: always; margin-top: 4em; } - .c002 { margin-top: 2em; } - .c003 { margin-top: 1em; } - .c004 { margin-top: 4em; } - .c005 { page-break-before:auto; margin-top: 4em; } - .c006 { vertical-align: top; text-align: right; padding-right: 1em; } - .c007 { vertical-align: top; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1em; - padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em; } - .c008 { vertical-align: bottom; text-align: right; } - .c009 { margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } - .c010 { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: 0.25em; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } - .c011 { margin-left: 5.56%; margin-right: 5.56%; text-indent: 1em; - margin-top: 0.25em; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } - .c012 { font-size: .9em; text-indent: 1em; margin-top: 0.25em; - margin-bottom: 0.25em; } - .c013 { text-decoration: none; } - .c014 { margin-top: 1em; font-size: .9em; } - .c015 { page-break-before: always; margin-top: 2em; } - .c016 { margin-top: 1em; text-indent: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } - .c017 { vertical-align: top; text-align: right; } - .c018 { margin-top: 2em; text-indent: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.25em; } - div.tnotes { padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;background-color:#E3E4FA; - border:thin solid silver; margin:2em 10% 0 10%; font-family: Georgia, serif; - clear: both; } - .covernote { visibility: hidden; display: none; } - div.tnotes p { text-align: justify; } - .x-ebookmaker .covernote { visibility: visible; display: block; } - .figcenter {font-size: .9em; page-break-inside: avoid; max-width: 100%; } - .x-ebookmaker img {max-height: 30em; max-width: 100%; } - .footnote {font-size: .9em; } - div.footnote p {text-indent: 2em; margin-bottom: .5em; } - .chapter { clear: both; page-break-before: always; } - .ol_1 li {font-size: .9em; } - .x-ebookmaker .ol_1 li {padding-left: 1em; text-indent: 0em; } - body {font-family: Georgia, serif; text-align: justify; } - table {font-size: .9em; padding: 1.5em .5em 1em; page-break-inside: avoid; - clear: both; } - div.titlepage {text-align: center; page-break-before: always; - page-break-after: always; } - div.titlepage p {text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; font-weight: bold; - line-height: 1.5; margin-top: 3em; } - .ph1 { text-indent: 0em; font-weight: bold; font-size: xx-large; - margin: .67em auto; page-break-before: always; } - .ph2 { text-indent: 0em; font-weight: bold; font-size: x-large; margin: .75em auto; - page-break-before: always; } - .border {border-style: solid;border-width: 1px; } - .x-ebookmaker p.dropcap:first-letter { float: left; } -</style> - </head> - <body> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The truth about socialism, by Allan L. Benson</p> -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: The truth about socialism</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: Allan L. Benson</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: December 5, 2022 [eBook #69480]</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left'>Produced by: Richard Tonsing and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)</p> -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRUTH ABOUT SOCIALISM ***</div> - -<div class='tnotes covernote'> - -<p class='c000'><strong>Transcriber’s Note:</strong></p> - -<p class='c000'>The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.</p> - -</div> - -<div class='titlepage'> - -<div> - <h1 class='c001'>THE TRUTH ABOUT SOCIALISM</h1> -</div> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c002'> - <div>BY</div> - <div><span class='xlarge'>ALLAN L. BENSON</span></div> - <div class='c003'>Author of “The Usurped Power of the Courts,” “The Growing Grocery Bill,” “Socialism Made Plain,” etc.</div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='figcenter id001'> -<img src='images/i_title.jpg' alt='' class='ig001'> -</div> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div>NEW YORK</div> - <div><span class='large'>B. W. HUEBSCH</span></div> - <div>1913</div> - </div> -</div> - -</div> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c004'> - <div><span class='small'>Copyright, 1912</span></div> - <div><span class='small'><span class='sc'>By The Pearson Publishing Co.</span></span></div> - <div class='c003'><span class='small'>Copyright, 1913</span></div> - <div><span class='small'><span class='sc'>By Allan L. Benson</span></span></div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='figcenter id002'> -<img src='images/i_copyright.jpg' alt='' class='ig001'> -</div> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div><span class='xsmall'>First printing, February, 1913</span></div> - <div><span class='xsmall'>Second printing, March, 1913</span></div> - <div><span class='xsmall'>Third printing, May, 1913</span></div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 class='c005'>CONTENTS</h2> -</div> - -<table class='table0'> - <tr> - <th class='c006'></th> - <th class='c007'> </th> - <th class='c008'><span class='small'>PAGE</span></th> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>I</td> - <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>To the Disinherited</span></td> - <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_1'>1</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>II</td> - <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>What Socialism Is and Why It Is</span></td> - <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_4'>4</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>III</td> - <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>The Virtuous Grafters and Their Grave Objections to Socialism</span></td> - <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_24'>24</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>IV</td> - <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>Why Socialists Preach Discontent</span></td> - <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_43'>43</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>V</td> - <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>How the People May Acquire the Trusts</span></td> - <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_63'>63</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>VI</td> - <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>The “Private Property” Bogey-Man</span></td> - <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_81'>81</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>VII</td> - <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>Socialism the Lone Foe of War</span></td> - <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_99'>99</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>VIII</td> - <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>Why Socialists Oppose “Radical Politicians”</span></td> - <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_120'>120</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>IX</td> - <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>The Truth about the Coal Question</span></td> - <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_139'>139</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>X</td> - <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>Deathbeds and Dividends</span></td> - <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_153'>153</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>XI</td> - <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>If Not Socialism—What?</span></td> - <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_166'>166</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'> </td> - <td class='c007'><span class='sc'>Appendix</span></td> - <td class='c008'><a href='#Page_183'>183</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<div class='chapter ph1'> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c004'> - <div>The Truth About Socialism</div> - </div> -</div> - -</div> -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_1'>1</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER I<br> <span class='large'>TO THE DISINHERITED</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>I am going to put a new heart into you. I am going -to put your shoulders back and your head up. -Behind your tongue I shall put words, and behind your -words I shall put power. Your dead hopes I shall drag -back from the grave and make them live. Your live -fears I shall put into the grave and make them die. I -shall do all of these things and more by becoming your -voice. I shall say what you have always thought, but -did not say. And, when your own unspoken words -come back to you, they will come back like rolling thunder.</p> - -<p class='c010'>This country belongs to the people who live in it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The power that made the Rocky Mountains did not -so make them that, viewed from aloft, they spell -“Rockefeller.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>The monogram of Morgan is nowhere worked out -in the course of the Hudson River.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Nothing above ground or below ground indicates that -this country was made for anybody in particular.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Everything above ground and below ground indicates -that it was made for everybody.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Yet, this country, as it stands to-day, is not for everybody. -Everybody has not an equal opportunity in it. -A few do nothing and have everything. The rest do -everything and have nothing.</p> - -<p class='c010'>A great many gentlemen are engaged in the occupation -<span class='pageno' id='Page_2'>2</span>of trying to make these wrongs seem right. They -write political platforms to make them seem right. -They make political speeches to make them seem right. -They go to Congress to make them seem right. Some -go even to the White House to make them seem right. -But no mere words, however fine, can make these wrongs -right.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The conditions that exist in this country to-day are -indefensible and intolerable. This should be a happy -country. It should be a happy country because it contains -an abundance of every element that is required to -make happiness. The pangs of hunger should never -come to a single human being, because we already produce -as much food as we need, and with more intelligent -effort could easily produce enough to supply a -population ten times as great.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Yet, instead of this happy land, we have a land in -which the task of making a living is constantly becoming -greater and more uncertain. Everything seems to -be tied up in a knot that is becoming tighter.</p> - -<p class='c010'>You do not know what is the matter.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Your neighbor does not know what is the matter.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Why should you know what is the matter?</p> - -<p class='c010'>You never listen to anybody who wants you to find -out. You listen only to men who want to squeeze you -out. Their word is good with you every time. You -may not think it is good, but it is good. You may not -take advice from Mr. Morgan, but you take advice from -Mr. Morgan’s Presidents, Congressmen, writers, and -speakers. You may not take advice from Mr. Ryan, -but you take advice from the men whom Mr. Ryan controls. -If you should go straight to Mr. Ryan you -would get the same advice. What these men say to you, -Mr. Morgan and Mr. Ryan say to them. You listen -<span class='pageno' id='Page_3'>3</span>as they speak. You vote as they vote. They get what -they want. You don’t get what you want. But you -stick together. You seem never to grow tired. You -were with them at the last election. Many of you will -be with them at the next election. But you will not be -with them for a while after the next election. They -will go to their fine homes, while you go to your poor -ones. They will take no fear with them, save the fear -that some day you will wake up; that some day you will -listen to men who talk to you as I am talking to you. -But you will take the fear of poverty with you, and it -will hang like a pall over your happiness.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If you have lost your hope of happiness, get it back. -This can be a happy nation in your time. This country -is for you. It is big. It is rich. It is all you need. -But you will have to take it, and the easiest way to take -it is with ballots.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_4'>4</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER II<br> <span class='large'>WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND WHY IT IS</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>The occupation of the scarlet woman is said to -be “the oldest profession.” If so, the robbery -of man by man is the oldest trade. It is as old as the -human race. It had its origin in the difficulty of producing -enough of the material necessities of life. The -earth was lean. Man was weak. Never was there -enough food for all. Many must suffer. Some must -starve.</p> - -<p class='c010'>What wonder that man robbed man? Self-preservation -is the first law of nature. We have always fought -and shall always fight for those things that are scarce -and without which we should die. If water were -scarce, we should all be fighting by the brookside. If -air were scarce, we should all be straining our lungs to -take in as much as we could.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But what wonder, also, that the robbed should resist -those who robbed them? The robbed, too, have the instinct -of self-preservation. They, too, want to live. -All through the ages, they have fought for the right to -live. By the sheer force of numbers, they have driven -their exploiters from pillar to post. Again and again, -they have compelled their exploiters to abandon one -method of robbery, only to see them take up another. -And, though some men no longer own other men’s bodies, -some men still live by the sweat of other men’s -brows.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The question is: Must this go on forever? Must -<span class='pageno' id='Page_5'>5</span>a few always live so far from poverty that they cannot -see it, while the rest live so close to it that they cannot -see anything else? Must millions of women work in -factories at men’s work, while millions of men walk the -streets unable to get any work? Must the cry of child-labor -forever sound to high heaven above the rumble of -the mills that grind their bodies into dividends? Must -the pinched faces of underfed children always make -some places hideous?</p> - -<p class='c010'>No man in his senses will say that this situation must -always exist. Human nature revolts at it. The wrong -of it rouses the feelings even before it touches the intellect. -Something within us tells us to cry out and to -keep crying out until we find relief. We have tried almost -every remedy that has been offered to us, but every -remedy we have tried has failed. The hungry children -are still with us. The hungry women are still with us. -The hungry men are still with us. Never before was it -so hard for most people to live. Yet, we live at a time -when men, working with machinery, could make enough -of everything for everybody.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Your radical Republican recognizes these facts and -says something is the matter. Your Democratic radical -recognizes these facts and says something is the matter. -Your Rooseveltian Progressive also recognizes these -facts and says something is the matter. But if you -will carefully listen to these gentlemen, you will observe -that none of them believes much is the matter. -None of them believes much need be done to -make everything right. One wants to loosen the tariff -screw a little. The others want to put a new little -wheel in the anti-trust machine.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists differ from each of these gentlemen. Socialists -say much is the matter with this country. Socialists -<span class='pageno' id='Page_6'>6</span>say much is the matter with any country, most -of whose people are in want or in fear of want, and -some of whose people are where want never comes or -can come. Some such conditions might have been tolerated -a thousand years ago. Socialists will not tolerate -them to-day. They say the time for poverty has -passed. They say the time for poverty passed when -man substituted steam and electricity for his muscles -and machinery for his fingers.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But poverty did not go out when steam and electricity -came in. On the contrary, the fear of want became -intensified. Now, nobody who has not capital can live -unless he can get a job. In the days that preceded the -steam engine, nobody had to look for a job. Everybody -owned his own job. The shoemaker could make -shoes for his neighbors. The weaver could weave cloth. -Each could work at his trade, without anybody’s permission, -because the tools of their trades were few and -inexpensive. Now, neither of them can work at his -trade, because the tools of his trade have become numerous -and expensive. The tools of the shoemaker’s -trade are in the great factory that covers, perhaps, a -dozen acres. The tools of the weaver’s trade are in another -enormous factory. Neither the shoemaker nor -the weaver can ever hope to own the tools of his trade. -Nor, with the little hand-tools of the past centuries, can -either of them compete with the modern factories. The -shoe trust, with steam, electricity and machinery, can -make a pair of shoes at a price that no shoemaker, working -by hand, could touch.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Thus the hand-workers have been driven to knock at -the doors of the factories that rich men own and ask for -work. If the rich men can see a profit in letting the -poor men work, the poor men are permitted to work. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_7'>7</span>If the rich men cannot see a profit in letting the poor -men work, then the poor men may not work. Though -there be the greatest need for shoes, if those in need -have no money, the rich men lock up their factories and -wave the workers away. The workers may starve, if -they like. Their wives and children may starve. The -workers may become tramps, criminals or maniacs; their -wives and their little children may be driven into the -street—but the rich men who closed their factories because -they could see no profit in keeping them open—these -rich men take no part of the responsibility. They -talk about the “laws of trade,” go to their clubs and -have a little smoke, and, perhaps, the next week give a -few dollars to “worthy charity” and forget all about -the workers.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Now, the Socialists are extremely tired of all this. -Their remedy may be all wrong, but they are tired of -all this. Put the accent upon the <i>tired</i> all the time. -They say it is all wrong. Not only do they say it is -all wrong, but they say they know how to make it all -right. They do not propose to do any small job of -tinkering, because they say that if small jobs of tinkering -were enough to cure the great evil of poverty, we -should have cured it long ago. They say we have been -tinkering with tariffs, income taxes and the money question -for a hundred years without reducing either want -or the fear of want. They say we have made no progress, -during the last hundred years, in reducing want -and the fear of want, because we have never hit the -grafters where they live. By this, they mean that we -have never cut the tap root upon which robbery grows. -The serfs cut off the tap root when they threw off chattel -slavery, but another tap root has grown and we have -not yet discovered where to strike.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_8'>8</span>The Socialists say they know where to strike.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“<i>Strike at the machinery of the country</i>,” they say, -“<i>by having the people, through the government, own -the machinery of the country</i>.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>“<i>Cut out the profits of the private owners</i>,” they say. -“<i>Let the people own the trusts and make things because -they want the things, instead of because somebody else -wants a profit, and there will never again be in this country -either want or the fear of want.</i>”</p> - -<p class='c010'>This sounds like a nice, man-made program, cooked -up late at night by some zealous gentleman intent upon -saving his country. It may be a foolish program, but -if it is, it is not that kind of a foolish program. It is -not man-made, any more than Darwin’s theory of evolution -is man-made. Darwin observed present animal -life and thereby explained the past. Socialists observe -past and present industrial life and thereby forecast the -future. Paradoxically, then, the Socialist remedy is not -a Socialist remedy. If it is anything, it is the remedy -that evolution is bringing to us. Socialists see what -evolution is bringing and proclaim it, much as a trainman -announces the coming of a train that he already -sees rounding a curve.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Let me tell a story to illustrate this point:</p> - -<p class='c010'>Seventy years ago, Socialist writers predicted and -accurately described the trusts as they exist to-day. -Nobody paid much attention to the predictions or the -descriptions. Nowhere in the world was there a single -trust. Nowhere in the world was any one thinking of -forming one. The first trust was not formed until almost -forty years later.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The trusts were predicted because the steam engine -had been invented and brought with it machinery. The -invention did not mean much to most people. It meant -<span class='pageno' id='Page_9'>9</span>everything to these early Socialists. They saw its significance. -They saw that it meant a transformed world. -Never again would the world be as it had always been. -Never again would the amount of wealth that man could -create be limited by his weak muscles. Steam and machinery -had come to do, not only what he had been -doing, but what he had never dreamed of doing.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The only lesson that the rich men of the day learned -from steam was that it meant more money for them. -The rich men of the day, by the way, were in need of -a new method of exploitation. Serfdom had just gone -down in the Napoleonic wars, and some men were no -longer able to exploit other men by claiming to own -the other men’s bodies. Exploitation, through the private -ownership of land, still continued, it is true, but a -man working by hand cannot be much exploited because -he cannot make much. What I mean by this is -that he cannot be exploited of many dollars. Of course, -he can be exploited of so great a percentage of his -product that he is left starving, but the man who exploits -him will not be much richer. That is why there -were no great fortunes, as we now know them, in the -days before the machinery age. Wealth was too difficult -to make.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But, to return to our story. The invention of the -steam engine gave the rich men of the early eighteenth -century the opportunity of which they stood much in -need. Factories cost money. The workers did not -have any. The rich men did. The rich men built factories. -That is to say, they thought they were only -building factories. As a matter of fact, they were -taking over, from the hands of evolution, the poor man’s -tools. Never again were working men to own the tools -of their trades. Their tools had gone down in the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_10'>10</span>struggle in which the survivors must be the fittest. For -centuries, the world had starved because of their old -hand-tools. They could not, for a moment, exist after -steam and machinery came. It was right that the hand-tools -should go. It was unfortunate for the workers -only that the successors of hand-tools were too expensive -for individual ownership, and that they were also -unsuited to such ownership. No man can run a whole -shoe factory, even if he owns one. Many men are required -to run many machines, and many machines are -required to make the labor of men most productive.</p> - -<p class='c010'>All of this, the early Socialists saw or reasoned out. -They saw the rich men of the day building factories. -They saw those who were not quite so rich joining together -to build factories. Little co-partnerships were -springing up all over the world. Everybody competed -with everybody else in his line. Manufactures multiplied, -and it became the common belief that “competition -was the life of trade.”</p> - -<p class='c010'><i>Stick a pin here. The roots of Socialism go down -somewhere near this point.</i></p> - -<p class='c010'>The early Socialist writers who predicted the trusts -did not believe competition was the life of trade. They -believed the inevitable tendency of competition was to -kill itself. Their reasoning took this form:</p> - -<p class='c011'><i>Manufacturers engage in business, not because -they want to supply goods to the public, -but because they want to make profits for themselves.</i></p> - -<p class='c011'><i>Inasmuch as the question of who shall make -the profits depends upon who shall sell the -goods, manufacturers will compete with each -other to sell goods.</i></p> - -<p class='c011'><span class='pageno' id='Page_11'>11</span><i>Manufacturers will be able to compete and -still make a profit so long as the demand for -goods far exceeds the supply.</i></p> - -<p class='c011'><i>But the demand for goods will not always -far exceed the supply. The opportunity to -make profits will tempt other capitalists to -create manufacturing enterprises. The market -will become glutted with goods, because more -will have been produced than the people can -pay for.</i></p> - -<p class='c011'><i>Competition among manufacturers will then -become so fierce that profits will first shrink -and eventually disappear.</i></p> - -<p class='c011'><i>Manufacturers, to regain their profits, will -then cease to compete. The strongest will buy -out or crush the weakest. Monopolies will be -formed, primarily to end competition and save -the competitors from themselves, but, having -been formed, they will also be used to rob the -people.</i></p> - -<p class='c010'>Mind you—this reasoning is not new. It is seventy -years old. It sounds new only because it has so recently -come true. Nobody whose eyes are open now believes -that competition is the life of trade. The phrase has -died upon the lips of the very men who used to speak it. -The late Senator Hanna was one of the many who used -to believe that good trade could not be where competition -was not. But, when the great trust movement -of 1898 was under way, Senator Hanna said: “It is -not a question of whether business men do or do not -believe in trusts. It is a question only of whether business -men want to be killed by competition or saved by -coöperation.”</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_12'>12</span>However, the existence of the trusts is ample verification -of the Socialist prophecy that they would come. -And the trusts came in the way that the early Socialists -said they would come.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We may now proceed to consider what those early -Socialist writers thought of the trusts that they so accurately -described before they came, what they believed -would become of them and what they believed would -supplant them.</p> - -<p class='c010'>No Socialist was ever heard finding fault with a -trust simply for existing. A Socialist would as soon -find fault with a green apple because it had been produced -from a blossom. In fact, Socialists regard the -trusts as the green apples upon the tree of industrial -evolution. But they would no more destroy these industrial -green apples that are making the world sick -than they would destroy the green apples that make -small boys sick. They pause, first because they are evolutionists, -not only in biology, but in everything; second, -because they recall that the green apples that make -the boy sick will, if left to ripen, make the man well. -In short, Socialists regard trusts, or private monopolies, -as a necessary stage in industrial evolution; a stage that -we could not have avoided; a stage that in many respects, -represents a great advance over any phase of civilization -that preceded it, yet a stage at which we cannot stop -unless civilization stops. Therefore, Socialists take this -position:</p> - -<p class='c011'><i>It is flying in the face of evolution itself to -talk about destroying, or even effectually regulating -the trusts.</i></p> - -<p class='c011'><i>Private monopolies cannot be destroyed except -as green apples can be destroyed—by -<span class='pageno' id='Page_13'>13</span>crushing them and staying the evolutionary -processes that, if left alone, will yield good -fruit.</i></p> - -<p class='c011'><i>Private monopolies cannot be effectually -regulated because, so long as they are permitted -to exist, they will regulate the government -instead of permitting the government to -regulate them. They will regulate the government -because the great profits at stake will -give them the incentive to do so and the enormous -capital at their command will give them -the power to do so.</i></p> - -<p class='c010'>In other words, Socialists say that the processes of -evolution should go on. What do they mean by this? -They mean that the good elements of the trust principle -should be preserved and the bad elements destroyed. -What are the good elements? The economies of large, -well-ordered production, and the avoidance of the waste -due to haphazard, competitive production. And the bad -elements? The powers that private monopoly gives, -through control of market and governmental policies, -to rob the consumer.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists contend that the good can be saved and the -bad destroyed by converting the private monopolies into -public monopolies—in other words, by letting the -government own the trusts and the people own the government. -This may seem like what the foes of Socialism -would call a “patent nostrum.” It is nothing of -the kind. It is no more a patent nostrum than the -trusts are patent nostrums. Socialists invented neither -private monopolies nor public monopolies. Socialists -did not kill competition. Competition killed itself. Socialists -simply were able to foresee that too much competition -<span class='pageno' id='Page_14'>14</span>would end all competition and thus give birth -to private monopoly.</p> - -<p class='c010'>And, having seen thus far, they looked a little further -and saw that private monopoly would not be an unmixed -blessing. They saw that under it, robbery would -be practised in new, strange and colossal forms. They -knew the people would not like robbery in any form. -They knew they would cry out against it as they are -crying out against the trusts to-day. And they believed -that after having tried to destroy the trusts and failed -at that; after having tried to regulate the trusts and -failed at that, that the people would cease trying to -buck evolution, and get for themselves the benefits of -the trusts by owning them.</p> - -<p class='c010'>This may be an absurd idea, but in part, at least, it -has already been verified. It has been demonstrated -that private monopoly saves the enormous sums that -were spent in the competitive era to determine whether -this man or that man should get the profit upon the -things you buy. The consumer has absolutely no interest -in the identity of the capitalist who exploits him. -But when capitalists were competing for trade, the consumer -was made to bear the whole cost of fighting for -his trade.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Private monopoly has largely done away with the cost -of selling trust goods, by doing away with the individual -competitors who were once struggling to put their goods -upon the market. Private monopoly has also reduced -the cost of production by introducing the innumerable -economies that accompany large production.</p> - -<p class='c010'>What private monopoly has not done and will never -do is to pass along these savings to the consumers. The -monopolists have passed along some of the savings, but -not many of them. What they have passed along bears -<span class='pageno' id='Page_15'>15</span>but a small proportion to what they have kept. That -is what most of the trouble is about now. The people -find it increasingly difficult to live. For a dozen years, -it has been increasingly difficult to live. Persistent and -more persistent has been the demand that something be -done about the trusts.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The first demand was that the trusts be destroyed. -Now, Mr. Bryan is about the only man in the country -to whom the conviction has not been borne home that -the trusts cannot be destroyed. The rest of the people -want the trusts regulated, and the worst of the trust -magnates sent to jail. Up to date, not a single trust -has been regulated, nor a single trust magnate sent to -jail. Officially, of course, the Standard Oil Company, -the American Tobacco Company and the Coal Trust -have been cleansed in the blue waters of the Supreme -Court laundry and hung upon the line as white as snow. -But gentlemen who are not stone blind know that this is -not so. They know the Standard Oil Company, the -American Tobacco Company and the Coal Trust have -merely put on masks and gone on with the hold-up business. -Therefore, the Socialist predictions of seventy -years ago have all been verified up to and including the -inability of any government either to destroy or regulate -the trusts.</p> - -<p class='c010'>So much for what Socialists believe Socialism, by -reducing the prices of commodities to cost, would do -for the people as consumers. Socialists believe Socialism -would do even more for the people as workers. -Behold the present plight of the workingman. He has -a right to live, but he has not a right to the means by -which he can live. He cannot live without work, yet, -ever he must seek work as a privilege—not as a right. -The coming of the age of machinery has made it impossible -<span class='pageno' id='Page_16'>16</span>to work without machinery. Yet the worker -owns no machinery and can get access to no machinery -except upon such terms as he may be able to make with -its owners.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists urge the people to consider the results of -this unprecedented situation. First, there is great insecurity -of employment. No one knows how long his -job is destined to last. It may not last another day. -A great variety of causes exist, any one of which may -deprive the worker of his opportunity to work. Wall -Street gentlemen may put such a crimp in the financial -situation that industry cannot go on. Business may -slow down because more is being produced than the -markets can absorb. A greedy employer may precipitate -a strike by trying to reduce the wages of his employees. -Any one of many causes may without notice -step in between the worker and the machinery without -which he cannot work.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But worse than the uncertainty of employment is the -absolute certainty that millions of men must always be -out of work. Times are never so good that there is -work for everybody. Most persons do not know it, but -in the best of times there are always a million men -out of work. In the worst of times, the number of men -out of work sometimes exceeds 5,000,000. The country -cries for the things they might produce. There is -great need for shoes, flour, cloth, houses, furniture, and -fuel. These millions of men, if they could get in touch -with machinery, could produce enough of such staples -to satisfy the public demand. If they could but work, -their earnings would vastly increase the amount of -money in circulation and thus increase the buying power -of everybody. But they cannot work, because they do -not own the machinery without which they cannot work, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_17'>17</span>and the men who own it will not let it be used, because -they cannot see any profits for themselves in having it -used.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists say this is an appalling situation. They -are amazed that the nation tolerates it. They believe -the nation would not tolerate it if it understood it. -Some things are more easily understood than others. If -5,000,000 men were on a sinking ship within swimming -distance of the Atlantic shore and the employing class -were to prevent them from swimming ashore for no -other reason than that the employing class had no use -for their services—the people would understand that. -Socialists believe the people will soon understand the -present situation.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Here is another thing that Socialists hope the people -will soon understand. The policy of permitting a few -men to use the machinery with which all other men -must work or starve compels all other men to become -competitors for its use. If there were no more workers -than the capitalists must have, there would not be such -competition. But there must always be more workers -than the capitalists can use. The fact that the capitalist -demands a profit upon the worker’s labor renders the -worker incapable of buying back the very thing he has -made. Under present conditions, trade must, therefore, -always be smaller than the natural requirements of the -people for goods. And since, with machinery, each -worker can produce a vast volume of goods, it inevitably -follows that only a part of the workers are required -to make all of the goods that can be sold at a profit. -That is why there is not always work for all.</p> - -<p class='c010'>With more workers than there are jobs, it thus comes -about that the workers are compelled to compete among -themselves for jobs. Only part of the workers can be -<span class='pageno' id='Page_18'>18</span>employed and the struggle of each is to become one of -that part. The workers who are out of employment are -always willing to work, if they can get no more, for a -wage that represents only the cost of the poorest living -upon which they will consent to exist. It therefore follows -that wages are always based upon the cost of -living. If the cost of living is high, wages are high. If -the cost of living is low, wages are low. In any event, -the worker has nothing left after he has paid for his -living.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists say this is not just. They can understand -the capitalist who buys labor as he buys pig-iron, but -they say labor is entitled to more consideration than pig-iron. -The price of labor, they declare, should be gauged -by the value of labor’s product, instead of by the direness -of labor’s needs. They say the present situation gives -to the men who own machinery most of its benefits and -to the many who operate it none of its hopes. Now. as -of old, the average worker dare hope for no more than -enough to keep him alive. Again and again and again -the census reports have shown that the bulk of the -people in this country are so poor that they do not own -even the roofs over their heads.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The purpose of Socialism is to give the workers <i>all</i> -they produce. And, when Socialists say “workers” -they do not mean only those who wear overalls and -carry dinner pails. They mean everybody who does -useful labor. Socialists regard the general superintendent -of a railroad as quite as much of a worker as -they do the man on the section. But they do not regard -the owners of railway stocks and bonds as workers. -They regard them as parasites who are living off the -products of labor by owning the locomotives, cars and -other equipment with which the workers work. And, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_19'>19</span>since the ownership of machinery is the club with which -Socialists say capitalists commit their robberies, Socialists -also declare that the only way to stop the robberies -is to take away the club. It would do no good -to take the club from the men who now hold it and give -it even to the individual workers, because, with the -principle of private ownership retained, ownership would -soon gravitate into a few hands and robbery would go -on as ruthlessly as ever. Socialists believe the only -remedy is to destroy the club by vesting the ownership -of the great machinery of production and distribution -in the people, through the government.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Such is the gist of Socialism—public ownership of -the trusts, combined with public ownership of the government. -Gentlemen who are opposed to Socialism—for -what reasons it is now unnecessary to consider—lose -no opportunity to spread the belief that there are -more kinds of Socialism than there are varieties of the -celebrated products of Mr. Heinz. This is not so. -There are more than 30,000,000 Socialists in the world. -Not one of them would refuse to write across this chapter: -“That is Socialism,” and sign his name to it. -Every Socialist has his individual conception of how mankind -would advance if poverty were eliminated, but all -Socialists agree that the heart and soul of their philosophy -lies in the public ownership, under democratic government, -of the means of life. And, as compared with -this belief, all other beliefs of Socialism are minor and -inconsequential. Public ownership is the rock upon which -it is determined to stand or fall.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists differ only with regard to the means by -which public ownership may be brought about. A -handful of Socialists, for instance, believe that in order -to bring it about it is necessary to oppose the labor -<span class='pageno' id='Page_20'>20</span>unions. All other Socialists work hand in hand with -the labor unions.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Also, there is a difference of opinion among Socialists -as to how the government should proceed to -obtain ownership of the industrial trusts, the railroads, -telegraph, telephone and express companies and so -forth. Some Socialists are in favor of confiscating -them, on the theory that the people have a right to resort -to such drastic action. In a way, they have excellent -authority for their position. Read what Benjamin -Franklin said about property at the convention that was -called in 1776 to adopt a new constitution for Pennsylvania:</p> - -<p class='c012'>“Suppose one of our Indian nations should now agree to form -a civil society. Each individual would bring into the stock of -the society little more property than his gun and his blanket, for at -present he has no other. We know that when one of them has attempted -to keep a few swine he has not been able to maintain a -property in them, his neighbors thinking they have a right to kill -and eat them whenever they want provisions, it being one of their -maxims that hunting is free for all. The accumulation of property -in such a society, and its security to individuals in every society, -must be an effect of the protection afforded to it by the joint strength -of the society in the execution of its laws.</p> - -<p class='c012'>“Private property is, therefore, a creature of society, and is subject -to the calls of that society whenever its necessities require it, -<i>even to the last farthing</i>.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>But one need quote only the law of self-preservation to -prove that if any people shall ever become convinced -that their lives depend upon the confiscation of the trusts -that such confiscation will be justified. When men -reach a certain stage of hunger and wretchedness they -pay scant attention to every law except the higher law -that says they have a right to live.</p> - -<p class='c010'>I believe that most Socialists twenty years ago, were -in favor of confiscation. The trend now is all toward -<span class='pageno' id='Page_21'>21</span>compensation. Not that Socialists have changed their -minds at all about the equities of the matter. They have -not. But they are coming to see that compensation is -the easier and quicker way. Victor Berger, the first Socialist -congressman, introduced in the House of Representatives -an anti-trust bill in which he proposed that -the government should buy all of the trusts that control -more than forty per cent. of the business in their respective -lines, and pay therefor their full cash values—minus, -of course, wind, water and all forms of speculative -inflation. In short the differences in the Socialist -party upon the question of compensation are not unlike -the differences which once existed with regard to the -best means by which the negroes might be emancipated. -Years before the Civil War, Henry Clay proposed that -the government should buy the negroes at double their -market price and set them free. He said this would be -the cheapest and quickest way of settling the troubles -between the North and the South. The slave owners -would not consent, and, eventually Lincoln freed their -slaves without paying for them.</p> - -<p class='c010'>When Socialists speak of buying the trusts, they naturally -invite the inquiry as to where they expect to get -the money to pay for them. They expect to get the -money out of the profits of the trusts. That is the way -that Representative Berger provided in his bill. It is -a poor trust that does not pay dividends upon stock and -interest upon bonds that do not aggregate at least ten -per cent. of the capital actually invested. Most of them -pay more, and some of the express companies occasionally -spring a fifty or a 100 per cent. dividend.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The Socialist proposal is that the government pay for -the trusts with two-per cent. bonds, and that each year, -enough money be put into a sinking fund to retire the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_22'>22</span>bonds in not more than fifty years. The burden of purchasing -the trusts would thus be spread over a little more -than two generations, but Socialists say the burden would -be a burden only in name, since the prices of trust goods -could be radically reduced, even while the trusts were -being paid for, and upon the retirement of the bonds, all -prices could be reduced to cost.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Those who know little or nothing about Socialism believe -that Socialists also differ as to the advisability of -using violence to bring about Socialism. Never was -there a greater mistake. Above all others, the Socialist -party is the party of peace. When Germany and England, -in 1911, were ready to fly at each other’s throats, -it was the Socialist party of Germany that assembled -200,000 men in Berlin one Sunday afternoon and declared -that if there were a war, the Socialists of Germany -would not help fight it. It was generally admitted, -at the time, that the attitude of the German -Socialists, more than anything else, was responsible for -the avoidance of war.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists are equally pacific when considering the best -means by which Socialism may be brought about. Socialists -are, first, last and all the time in favor only of -political action and trade-union action. Wherever there -is a free ballot, they believe in using it, to the exclusion -of bombs and bullets. Socialists realize that they can -win only by converting a majority of the people to their -belief. That is why they begin one campaign the next -morning after the closing of another. They are busy -with the printing press and their tongues all the while. -For them, there is no closed season.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists realize that Socialism can be reared only -upon understanding, and that the use of dynamite would -turn the minds of the people against them for a hundred -<span class='pageno' id='Page_23'>23</span>years. Any Socialist who believes otherwise is the same -sort of a potential criminal that can be found in any -other party—and equally as rare. The Republican -party had its Guiteau and its Czolgosz, but it repudiated -neither of them more quickly than the Socialist party -would repudiate one of its own members who should -commit a great crime.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists, as a party, stand for violence only in the -same way that Abraham Lincoln stood for it. If the -Socialists should carry a national election in this country, -and, the capitalists, refusing to yield, should turn -the regular army at them, the Socialists would use all -the violence they could muster. While they are in a -minority, they are obeying the laws that the capitalists -make, but when the Socialists become a majority, they -will insist, even with bullets, that the capitalists obey the -laws that the Socialists make.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_24'>24</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER III<br> <span class='large'>THE VIRTUOUS GRAFTERS AND THEIR GRAVE OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>It is an old saying that the tree that bears the best -apples has the most clubs under it. Enough clubs -are under the tree of Socialism to stock a wood-yard. -Some of the clubs bear the imprints of honest men. -Some do not. The great grafters of the present day -are the most persistent foes of Socialism. The great -grafters say, not only that Socialism is anti-religious, -but that it would destroy the family. The grafters also -say that Socialism stands for free love.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It may be amusing to hear a grafter oppose Socialism -on the ground that it is against religion. It may be -diverting to hear gentlemen with Reno reputations -charge that Socialism would establish free love and thus -destroy the family. But such charges cannot be dismissed -by laughing at those who make them. Honest -men and women want to know the truth.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The truth is that there is no truth in the charge that -Socialism is against religion. Socialism is purely an -economic matter. It has no more to do with religion -than it has to do with astronomy. It is no more against -religion than it is against astronomy. Men of all religious -denominations are Socialists, and men of no -religious denomination are Socialists. Nor is there any -reason why this should not be so. The very pith and -marrow of Socialism is the contention that the people, -through the government, should own and operate, for -<span class='pageno' id='Page_25'>25</span>their exclusive benefit, the great machinery of production -and distribution that is now owned and operated by -the trusts. Either this contention is sound or it is not. -Whether it is sound or not, a man’s religious beliefs cannot -possibly have anything to do with what he thinks of it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But while Socialism is in no sense anti-religious, it is -in one sense pro-religious. So good an authority as the -Encyclopedia Britannica declares that “the ethics of Socialism -and the ethics of Christianity are identical.” One -of the concerns of Christianity is to establish justice upon -earth. The only concern of Socialism is to establish justice -upon earth. Socialism seeks to establish justice by -giving each human being an equal opportunity to labor, -while depriving each human being of the power to appropriate -any part of the product of another human being’s -labor. If the Socialist program contains a word of -comfort for either grafters or loafers, neither the grafters -nor the loafers have found it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Nor does the Socialist program contain a word of -comfort for the Reno gentlemen. Socialists beg leave -frankly to doubt the sincerity of certain wealthy men who -profess to believe that Socialism would destroy the family -by bringing about free love. Socialists say the best -proof that these men believe nothing of the kind is that -they do not make application to join the Socialist party. -The wives of some of them certainly make enough applications -for divorce.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Addressing themselves to the members of the capitalist -class, Socialists therefore speak as follows:</p> - -<p class='c010'>“If the preservation of the family depends upon you, -God help the family. If the preservation of womanly -women depends upon you, God help the women. You -are not all bad, but you are all doing bad. Some of you -are doing bad without knowing it; some of you are doing -<span class='pageno' id='Page_26'>26</span>bad though knowing it. But, whether you know it or -not, all of you are doing bad because your capitalist system -is bad. Your system makes those of you who would -do good do bad. It makes you fatten upon the labor of -children, because your competitors are fattening upon the -labor of children. It makes you fatten upon the labor of -women, because your competitors are fattening upon the -labor of women. It makes you fatten upon the labor of -men because your competitors are fattening upon the -labor of men. It makes you keep men, women and children -poor, because in no other way could you become -rich.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“And you are the ones who are so fearful lest Socialism -shall destroy the home. Why do you not worry a -little lest the poverty caused by capitalism shall destroy -the home? Why are you so slightly stirred by the spectacle -of little children torn from their firesides and their -schools to work for starvation wages in factories and department -stores? Why are you so well able to control -your grief when the census reports tell you that more than -5,000,000 women and girls have been compelled to become -wage earners because their husbands and fathers receive -so little wages that they cannot support their families? -Why are you so well able to bear up when the white-slave -dealer gets the little girl from the department store?</p> - -<p class='c010'>“None of these facts, nor all of these facts seem to suggest -to you wealthy gentlemen who are opposing Socialism -that the conditions under which you have become rich -are doing anything to disrupt the family or to bring about -free love. But you profess to be stunned to a stare when -Socialists present a program that is devoted to the single -purpose of preventing you, who do no useful labor, from -robbing those who do it all. If you have other grounds -for opposing Socialism, state them. But in the name of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_27'>27</span>common decency, don’t come forward as the protectors of -women and children. Your hands are not clean.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists contend that Socialism would do more to -purify, glorify and vivify the family than capitalism has -ever done or can do. Their reasoning takes this form:</p> - -<p class='c010'><i>Unless poverty is good for the family, capitalism is not -good for the family, because capitalism means poverty -or the fear of poverty for all but a few and can never -mean anything else. Capitalism can never mean anything -else because capitalism is essentially parasitical in -its nature. It lives and can live only by preying upon -the working class.</i></p> - -<p class='c010'><i>If plenty for everybody, without too much or too little -for anybody will purify, glorify and vivify the family, -Socialism will purify, glorify and vivify it. Socialism -will place all of the great machinery of modern production -in the hands of the people, to be used fully and freely for -nobody’s advantage but their own.</i></p> - -<p class='c010'>Of course, the family cannot be improved without -changing it. Upon this obvious fact is based the whole -capitalist attack upon Socialism as a destroyer of the -home. Socialists believe that freedom from poverty -would have a profound effect upon domestic relationships. -And Socialist writers have tried to picture the world as it -will be when all of the hot hoops of want have been removed -from the compact little group that is called the -family.</p> - -<p class='c010'>They have pictured woman standing firmly upon her -feet, with the ballot in one hand and the power under the -law to live from her labor with comfort and self-respect, -either inside or outside of her home. But no Socialist -has ever pictured a world in which woman would be compelled -to work outside her home if she did not want to. -Such a picture is reserved for capitalism in the present -<span class='pageno' id='Page_28'>28</span>day. Socialists merely contend that Socialism would -make women economically independent, by guaranteeing -to them the full value of their labor. No woman would -be compelled to marry to get a home. No woman who -had a home would be compelled by poverty to stay in it -if she were badly treated. For the sake of her children, -she might do so if she wished, but she could not be compelled -to do so. She would simply be free to act as her -judgment might dictate—to profit from a wise choice -or to suffer from an unwise one.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Briefly, such is the Socialist picture of the Socialist -world for women. No Socialist contends that it is a -picture of a perfect world. A perfect world could contain -neither fools, hotheads, nor vicious persons. The -hard conditions of the present world, and the harder -conditions of those long past have created too many -fools, hotheads and vicious persons to justify the hope -that all such persons can quickly be made wise, cool and -good. Socialists, with all their optimism, are not so optimistic -as that. They have absolutely no program, patented -or otherwise, for making people good.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Their only contention is that they have a program -under which people can be good if they want to. They -know, only too well, that with the coming of Socialism, -everybody will not suddenly want to be good. They expect -to have to deal with the bad man and the bad woman. -But they do not expect to have to deal with so many -bad men and bad women as we now have to deal with. -They do not expect to have to deal with any men or -women who have been made bad by poverty or the fear -of poverty. They do not expect to have to deal with -women who have been forced into prostitution because -there seemed to be no other way to keep soul and body -together. Socialists say that if there are any prostitutes -<span class='pageno' id='Page_29'>29</span>under Socialism they will be women who deliberately -choose prostitution as a vocation. Perhaps women, better -than men, can judge how many such women there are -likely to be.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It is this picture of economically independent womanhood -that is hailed by the wealthy detractors of Socialism -as the sign that the Socialists plan to destroy the home -and supplant it with free love. Socialists say that such -conclusions can be based only upon these assumptions:</p> - -<p class='c010'>That nothing but poverty keeps women from being -“free-lovers.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>That if women were given the power to support themselves -decently and comfortably outside of the home, -they would at once desert their children, their husbands -and “destroy the family.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists believe women can safely be trusted with -enough money to live on. Yet the word “trust,” as here -used, is not quite the word. Socialists do not believe it -is within their province either to trust or to distrust -women. Socialists believe economic independence is a -right that women should demand and get, rather than a -privilege that man should grant or deny, as he may see -fit. If women do well with economic independence, well -and good. If they do ill with it, still well and good. If -they have not yet learned to use economic independence, -they cannot begin learning too quickly, nor can they learn -except by trying to use it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In any event, Socialists do not claim the right of -guardianship over women. They do not believe any -human being, regardless of sex, has a right to coerce -another when that other is not invading the rights of -some other. They believe that women to-day are being -coerced. Coerced by poverty. Coerced by fear of poverty. -Coerced by men who presume upon their own -<span class='pageno' id='Page_30'>30</span>economic independence and the economic dependence of -women. They cite, as proof of their beliefs, the growing -number of divorces, together with the fact that -women are the applicants for most of the divorces.</p> - -<p class='c010'>And, the astounding circumstance about all of this is -that because Socialists hold these views, they are denounced -by rich grafters and their retainers as “destroyers -of the family,” and “free-lovers.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>The Socialists have said no more than Herbert -Spencer said about the folly of trying to promote happiness -with coercion. They say that weakness pitted -against strength and dependence against independence -invite coercion—no more in a family of nations than in a -family of individuals; that a woman whose economic dependence -prevents her from doing what all of her instincts -call upon her to do is coerced. Here is what -Herbert Spencer says in <cite>Social Statics</cite> (p. 76):</p> - -<p class='c012'>“Command is a blight to the affections. Whatsoever of beauty—whatsoever -of poetry there is in the passion that unites the sexes, -withers up and dies in the cold atmosphere of authority. Native -as they are to such widely-separated regions of our nature, Love -and Coercion cannot possibly flourish together. Love is sympathetic; -Coercion is callous. Love is gentle; Coercion is harsh. Love -is self-sacrificing; Coercion is selfish. How then can they co-exist? -It is the property of the first to attract, while it is that of the last -to repel; and, conflicting as they do, it is the constant tendency of -each to destroy the other. Let whoever thinks the two compatible -imagine himself acting the master over his betrothed. Does he believe -that he could do this without any injury to the subsisting relationship? -Does he not know rather that a bad effect would be -produced upon the feelings of both by the assumption of such an -attitude? And, confessing this as he must, is he superstitious enough -to suppose that the going through of a form of word will render -harmless that use of command which was previously hurtful?”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Nobody ever called Spencer a “destroyer of the -home,” or a “free-lover” for that. Yet, if Spencer -meant anything, he meant that coercion is primarily -<span class='pageno' id='Page_31'>31</span>wrong because it deprives the individual of the right to -be guided by his own judgment. Socialists contend that -women have a right to be guided by their own judgment, -even if they make mistakes. Men do so. Women rebel -against the denial of their equal right. They rebel -against the coercion that is worked against them by their -inability to earn decent, comfortable livings outside of -their homes. Socialists say the family can never be -what it might be or what it should be so long as this warfare -continues. They say that since the weak never -coerce the strong, there should be no economically weak -members of the community. Men and women should -both be economically independent. Each is likely to -treat the other better if they are so.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Francis G. Peabody, Professor of Christian Morals at -Harvard, has been as fortunate as Spencer in escaping -the charge of being a “destroyer of the family” and -a “free-lover.” The professor is quoted in the press as -follows:</p> - -<p class='c012'>“One thing is certain, the family is rapidly becoming disorganized -and disintegrated.... Divorces are being granted at an ever-increasing -rate. It may be computed that if the present ratio of -increase in population and in separation is maintained, the number -of separations of marriage by death would at the end of the twentieth -century be less than the number of separations by divorce....</p> - -<p class='c012'>“Owing to industrial life, the importance of the family is already -enormously lessened. Once every form of industry went on within -the family circle, but as the methods of the great industry are substituted -for work done in the home, the economic usefulness of the -family is practically outgrown.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Then, painting a picture of the world to come, as he -sees it, the professor said:</p> - -<p class='c012'>“Thus with the coming of the social state, family unity will be -for a higher end. The wife, being no longer doomed to household -<span class='pageno' id='Page_32'>32</span>drudgery, will have the greater blessing of economic equality. Children -will be cared for by the community under healthful and uniform -conditions, and we shall arrive at what has been called the -happy time when continuity of society no longer depends upon the -private nursery.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>But what Professor Peabody has said, or what Socialists -have said with regard to the next step in the evolution -of the family is a little beside the point, and is mentioned -so at length only because the detractors of Socialism -make so much of it. The point is: <i>Ought the world -if it can, to get rid of poverty, and will Socialism do it?</i> -If Socialism will rid the world of poverty, ought we to -retain poverty to keep women good? Who knows that -economic independence would make women bad? The -grafters intimate that they know. But who believes the -grafters? The grafters say the present status of the -family is so good that we should be content to remain -poor in order to preserve it. Professor Peabody says -the present status of the family is so bad that it is falling -to pieces. The professor has proof of his statement in -every divorce court. The grafters have proof of their -statement in no court, nor anywhere else.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Besides, the testimony of the grafters is properly subject -to suspicion. If Socialism would remove poverty it -would also remove the grafters. If Socialism would -not remove poverty or the grafters, but would -bring about free love, do you believe the grafters -would oppose it? Is it not more likely that the -grafters believe Socialism would remove both poverty -and themselves and that they are trying to throw -a scare into the people by howling about the -threatened destruction of the family? If not, why do -not the grafters themselves do something to stop their -own destruction of the family? A $100 bill will make -more happiness in a home than a sermon against Socialism. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_33'>33</span>Why don’t they give up their dividends and let -the workers have what they produce? Why don’t they -drum Professor Peabody out of Harvard? If the Socialists -are free-lovers, Professor Peabody is a free-lover. -Why don’t they put him out? Is it because he -does not also advocate Socialism?</p> - -<p class='c010'>“Ah,” say the grafters, “but the lives of Socialists do -not bear out their protestations of devotion to the family. -Look at the ‘affinities’ that some of them have had.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>“Quite true,” say the Socialists, “but one affinity does -not make a fire, nor do two make a forest. What if one -or two Socialists of more or less prominence have been -divorced? Are affinities and divorces unknown among -Democrats and Republicans? Is the percentage of divorces -greater in Socialist families than it is in Democratic -or Republican families? Where is your proof? -What have you got on Debs? What have you got on -Berger? What have you got on Seidel, the former Socialist -Mayor of Milwaukee? These men are in the limelight. -If they should make a mismove, you would -blazon it. What do you know against them?”</p> - -<p class='c010'>The foregoing pretty well sums up the situation, so far -as the free-love and destroying-the-family charges are -concerned. There is nothing in them. Socialists are -trying to eradicate poverty <i>now</i>. They have no other -immediate concern. If the eradication of poverty should -send the world to hell, the Socialists, if they can, will -send the world to hell. They do not believe anything -that can be kept only with poverty is worth keeping. -Their observation has taught them that poverty is always -and everywhere a curse. They believe no other curse is -nearly so great except the curse of excessive riches.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Let us now pass to objections to Socialism that are both -pertinent and honest. It is the common belief of those -<span class='pageno' id='Page_34'>34</span>who do not understand Socialism that, under a Socialist -form of government, the government would do everything -and the people could therefore do nothing; that -“everybody would be held down to a dead level,” and -that as a consequence of the individual’s inability to rise, -nobody would have an incentive to work.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Here are several kindred objections rolled into one. -Let us pick them to pieces and see what is in them.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Let it be conceded that under Socialism the government -would own and operate all of the great industries. What -of it? The people would do precisely what they are doing -now, except that they would do it through the government -for themselves, instead of through capitalists -for themselves and the capitalists. The people are now -engaged in useful labor. A small body of parasites are -appropriating much that the people produce. Under -Socialism, the parasites will have to go to work. The -people will simply continue to work, though under better -conditions and for a greater return than they now receive.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Now, let us see just what is meant by “keeping everybody -upon a dead level.” As the world stands to-day, -people differ chiefly as to wealth and to intellect. If one -person is not on a “dead level” with another it is because -he is more intelligent or more stupid than that other, or -because he is richer or poorer. Nobody, of course, believes -that Socialism or anything else could put Edison -on a dead level with the boss of Tammany Hall. If Socialism -is to establish a dead level, it must therefore be -by establishing equality as to wealth.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Capitalism has pretty nearly done that already. The -great bulk of the world is poor, living from hand to -mouth, worrying about the increased cost of living, and -going to the grave as empty-handed as when it came into -<span class='pageno' id='Page_35'>35</span>the world. Only a few have any money, beyond their -immediate needs, and as a rule that few is composed of -men who perform no useful labor. Here and there is a -man who combines a little useful labor with a great deal -of cogitation as to how he can appropriate something -that somebody else has produced. He may have enough -to cause him to mortgage his house to buy an automobile, -and to make a little pretence of affluence. But financially -he is a faker and he knows it. On the other hand, the -men who are not financial fakers are not workers. That -is to say, either they do no work that is useful to society, -or the work they do that is useful justifies but a small -part of their incomes.</p> - -<p class='c010'>To illustrate: The owner of a great industry devotes -his time to the management of that industry. So far as -his managerial activities pertain to the production and -distribution of his product, they are socially useful. So -far as they pertain to obtaining a profit for himself upon -that product they are not socially useful. The value of -the socially useful part of his activities may be approximately -measured by what he would pay another man for -managing the manufacturing and distributing end of his -business. The extent to which he is a parasite upon the -community may be approximately measured by the difference -between his net income from the industry and the -sum he would pay another man to manage the manufacturing -and distributing end of his business. A hired -manager might receive $5,000 a year. The capitalist -proprietor may receive $50,000 a year or he may receive -nothing—he is in a gambler’s game and must take a -gambler’s chances. If he receives $50,000 a year -$45,000 of it is because he owns the machinery. If he -did not own the machinery, he himself would be compelled -to hire out as a manager at $5,000 a year. In -<span class='pageno' id='Page_36'>36</span>other words, $45,000 a year is the price that the workers -pay the capitalist for the privilege of working with his -machinery. Socialists therefore contend that we are -already on a dead level of wealth, except as to the fact -that we have permitted a few who do little or no useful -labor to rise above those who do nothing else.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists, however, are not opposed in principle to the -economic dead level, and they do not believe anybody else -is. If it were desirable that each human being should -have a billion dollars, and, by pressing a button, each -human being could have a billion dollars, Socialists do -not believe there would be an extended Alphonse and -Gaston performance over the ceremony of pressing the -button. Socialists are opposed only to a dead level that -is so nearly level with the hunger line. They want to -raise the level to the point where it will comfort, not -alone the stomach, but the heart and the brain.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Now, mind you, Socialists have no patented wage scales -that they intend to force upon the people. If -Socialism stands for anything, it stands for the expression -of popular will, and therefore it will be for the -people to say, when Socialism comes, whether the manager -of a railway system shall receive greater compensation -than a train conductor on that system. I do not -fear contradiction when I say almost every Socialist believes -extraordinary ability should be rewarded with -extraordinary compensation—not $10,000 a month for -the manager of a railway system that pays its conductors -$100 a month, but enough more than the conductor to -show that the manager’s services are appreciated at -their worth. Socialists would also give garbage men -and sewer diggers extraordinary wages, on the theory -that their work is vitally necessary to everybody else and -extremely disagreeable to themselves.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_37'>37</span>But to satisfy those who want the dead level objection -analyzed to the bone, suppose everybody were to receive -equal compensation? Should we not have less injustice -in the world than we have now? Should we have any -suffering from hunger and cold? Should we have so -many crimes due to poverty? Should we have any -women forced into prostitution by poverty? Should we -have a single human being upon the face of the earth -haunted by the constant fear that he could not get work -and could not get food?</p> - -<p class='c010'>We have all of these evils now. Are they worth thinking -about? Are they serious enough to justify us in trying -to be rid of them? Granted, for the sake of argument, -that we cannot get rid of them without doing an -injustice to the railroad manager who would be paid no -more than a conductor—is it not better to do injustice -to an occasional person who would still be treated as well -as any of the others, than to compel all the others to -endure present conditions? If not, the “good of the -greatest number” is a fallacy, and majority rule is a -crime.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But would anyone question either the right or the expediency -of such action if the situation were reversed? -Suppose that the present system under which a few men -own almost everything had made almost everybody rich. -Suppose the few who were not rich—corresponding in -numbers to the present capitalist class—were to demand -that the rules of the game be so changed that they -could be made rich by making everyone else poor. Let -us suppose, even, that the few were to say that the -present system, while it worked satisfactorily for everybody -else, worked an injustice to them. Let us go -farther and say that the mere handful of objectors were -right in such contention. Would the 95 per cent. of the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_38'>38</span>people who were prospering under the system nevertheless -voluntarily overturn it and impoverish themselves -merely that 5 per cent. might become wealthy?</p> - -<p class='c010'>But there is still another side to the “dead level” objection. -Is not enough enough? Who but a glutton -wants more food than he should eat? Who but a fop -wants more clothing than he needs to wear? Who but -a man who has been pampered with riches, or spoiled by -the envy that riches so often produce, wants more than a -comfortable, roomy, sanitary house in which to live? -Does the possession of more things than these make the -few who have them happier?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists doubt it. If they did not doubt it, they -would still be against conditions that give such advantages -to a few who are not socially useful while denying -even ordinary comforts to everyone else. And, -right here, Socialists again ask these questions: “Even -if such luxuries be conceded as advantages, are we not -paying too great a price to give them to a few? Is it -well that so many should have no home in order that a -few should have many homes? And, if there is to be -any difference in homes, ought not the difference to be -in favor of those who are most useful instead of those -who are the most predatory?”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists contend that under Socialism, everybody -could not only have work all the time, but that everybody -could live as well as now does the man whose income is -$5,000 a year. They point to the fact that the man who -now spends $5,000 a year on his living, does not consume -the products of very much human labor. He has a comfortable -house, but comfortable, sanitary houses are not -hard to build. Machinery makes almost all of the materials -that go into them, and makes them cheaply. And -a house properly built lasts a lifetime.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_39'>39</span>The $5,000–a-year man and his family also eat some -food. But the flour is made with machinery at low cost, -as are also many other articles. The raw materials -come from the earth at the cost of human labor, but the -profits that are added to them by capitalists represent no -sort of labor.</p> - -<p class='c010'>So is it with clothing, furniture and everything else -that the $5,000–a-year man and his family consume. -Everything is made cheaply and rapidly with machinery. -The workers who make these things get little. The consumer -pays much. The difference between the cost of -making and the selling price is what eats up a large part -of the $5,000. Socialists believe that by cutting out all -of this difference and cutting out enforced idleness, everybody -could live as well as the $5,000–man now lives. -This is only an approximation, of course.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Now we come to the question of rising. What chance -would a man have to rise under Socialism?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Let us see, first, what is meant by rising. A man can -rise with his fellows or he can rise without them. I am -speaking now, of course, only of rising in the financial -scale. Habits of thought have been inculcated in us -which too often prevent us from thinking of rising in -any other way. When we think of bettering our condition, -we usually think in terms of money. We seldom -think in terms of greater leisure and greater freedom to -do the things that make life really worth while; knowing -that rich men are usually the slaves of their money, we -nevertheless want to be slaves.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialism is not intended to help the man who wants -to rise financially above his fellows. It throws out no -bait to him. A few men will undoubtedly rise a little -above their fellows during the early stages of Socialism, -but they will not rise very much and there will not be -<span class='pageno' id='Page_40'>40</span>very many of them. Socialism is for all, not for a few. -It is devoted to the task of raising the financial standing -of everybody who does useful labor and lowering the -financial standing of everybody who does not. Socialists -say that if Socialism were otherwise, it would be no better -than the lottery which is provided by the capitalist -system. Socialists do not believe in the lottery principle. -They have observed that the gentlemen who run -lotteries, rather than the ones who play them, wear the -diamonds. Nor does the fact that an occasional washerwoman -draws $22,000 with which she knows not what to -do, change their minds about the game.</p> - -<p class='c010'>See what a game it is that we are now playing. We -teach our small boys that this is a country of glorious -opportunities. In picturing the possibilities before them, -we know no bounds. We go even to the brink of the -ultimate and look over. Away in the distance, we -see the White House, and point to it. “There,” we say -to our boys, “there is where you may some day be. -Each of you has a chance to be President. And, if you -should not be President, each of you has a chance to be a -Rockefeller or a Carnegie. Carnegie began as a bobbin -boy. Rockefeller began as a clerk in an oil store. If -you are honest and industrious, perhaps you can do as -much.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Now, what are the facts? Not one of those boys has -much more chance of becoming the President than a -ring-tailed monkey has of becoming Caruso. It is not -that the boys are worthless—they may have in them -better timber than any past President ever contained. -But unless we shorten the Presidential term, and shorten -it a good deal, we cannot accommodate very many of -the lads with the use of the White House. During the -next eighty years, even if no President shall serve more -<span class='pageno' id='Page_41'>41</span>than one term, there can be no more than twenty Presidents. -During the same time—if we go on repeating -such foolishness—perhaps a billion boys will be -solemnly assured that each of them has a chance to be -President, though, as a matter of fact, only twenty boys -can cash in on their chances.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Do we never consider how ridiculous we make ourselves? -Do we never fear the crushing question that -some bright boy some day will ask: “Dad, just how -much do you think twenty chances in a billion are -worth?”</p> - -<p class='c010'>I mention this only to show at what an early age we -begin to hold out to our boys false hopes of the future. -I cannot attempt to explain the fact that no boy asks his -father why, in such a country of glorious possibilities as -this, he contents himself with driving a truck—but that -does not matter. The point is that we go on fooling the -boys until they are old enough to know better. They are -not very old when this time comes. The world teaches -them young. It is the exceptionally stupid young man -who does not know, at the age of twenty-five, that the -chances against him in playing for a Presidency, a Rockefellership, -or a Carnegieship are infinitely greater than -would have been the chances against him, if he had lived -two generations earlier and played the Louisiana Lottery. -Beside such a prospect, the chance of winning a -fortune at the race track looks like a certainty. Yet we -drove the Louisiana Lottery from the country because it -was such a delusion that it amounted to a swindle, and -we are beginning to drive the race tracks out of the country -for the same reason.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists believe it would be better not to promise so -much and to perform more. They believe it would be -better to promise each industrious man approximately -<span class='pageno' id='Page_42'>42</span>the present comfort-equivalent of $5,000 a year <i>and -give it to him</i>, than to hold out to him the hope of great -riches and give him, instead, great poverty or great uneasiness -because of the fear of poverty.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The Socialists may be wrong in all of this, but they -cheerfully place the burden of proof that the world is -well upon those who make the claim that it is well. -They ask the capitalists to find more than the exceptional, -rare man who has realized more than a fraction of the -promises that were held out to him in his youth. For -every such man that the capitalists may produce, the -Socialists will undertake to find twenty men who are living -from hand to mouth, either in poverty or in the fear -of poverty.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Such is the Socialist position with regard to “rising” -in the world. So far as Socialists are able to discover, -all of the rising that most persons do is done in the early -morning—about an hour before the 7 o’clock whistle -blows.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“Early to bed and early to rise” is not in violation of -the Socialist constitution, but Socialists respectfully contend -that the rising should be made worth while. And, -they also contend that if the people must be promised -something to make them rise, it is better, in the long run, -to promise something and give it to them than to promise -more and not give it to them. The best that can be said -for the latter plan is that it has been a long time tried -and until recently has worked satisfactorily for those -who made the promises they failed to keep.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_43'>43</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER IV<br> <span class='large'>WHY SOCIALISTS PREACH DISCONTENT</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>Rich men tell poor men to beware of Socialism -because Socialists preach discontent. Rich men -also tell poor men to beware of Socialism because -Socialists “preach the class struggle,” and try to “array -class against class,” politically.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It is all true. Socialists do these things. They make -no bones about doing them. They say they would feel -ashamed of themselves if they did not do them. If they -had a thousand times the power they have, they would do -these things a thousand times harder than they do. Just -so rapidly as they gain power, they are doing these things -harder.</p> - -<p class='c010'>What is it that they do? Let us see.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists preach discontent. Discontent with what? -Discontent with home? Discontent with children? Discontent -with friends? Discontent with honest labor? -Discontent with ambition? Discontent with life as a -whole? Why, nothing of the kind.</p> - -<p class='c010'><i>Socialists preach discontent only with poverty that is -made by robbery, and the ills that follow in its wake.</i></p> - -<p class='c010'>The Hon. Charles Russell, of England, said in 1912 -that 12,000,000 of England’s 45,000,000 population -were on the verge of starvation—shall we be satisfied -with that?</p> - -<p class='c010'>A recent investigation into the causes of the shockingly -high rate of infant mortality in Germany<a id='r1'></a><a href='#f1' class='c013'><sup>[1]</sup></a> shows that -“the children of poverty hunger before they are born. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_44'>44</span>They come into the world ill-developed, weaker than the -children of plenty, and with such low resistant powers -that infant mortality rages in their ranks like an epidemic.” -Shall we be satisfied with that?</p> - -<div class='footnote' id='f1'> -<p class='c010'><a href='#r1'>1</a>. “The Proletarian Child,” by Albert Langon, published in Berlin.</p> -</div> - -<p class='c010'>Here in the United States millions of men cannot get -work, while millions of men, women and children are -compelled to work for starvation wages. Shall we be -satisfied with that?</p> - -<p class='c010'>The census reports show that most people do not own -the roofs over their heads, having nothing but the -clothes upon their backs and their meager furniture. -Shall we be satisfied with that?</p> - -<p class='c010'>We are creating wealth rapidly, but what we make is -concentrating into so few hands that a few men hold us -as in the hollow of their hands, telling us whether we -may work, telling us what wages we shall receive if we -work, telling us how much we shall pay for meat, sugar, -lumber, clothing, salt and steel. Shall we be satisfied -with that?</p> - -<p class='c010'>The Stanley Steel Committee’s investigations showed -that, by a system of interlocking directorates, eighteen -men control thirty-five billions of industrial property—a -third of the entire national wealth. Shall we be satisfied -with that?</p> - -<p class='c010'>In times of industrial depression more than 5,000,000 -men who want to work are refused the right to do so, -because the few men who control everything cannot see -a profit for themselves in letting 5,000,000 men work to -support themselves. Shall we be satisfied with that?</p> - -<p class='c010'>The cost of living, mounting higher and higher, is -crowding an increasing number of unorganized workers -into the bottomless pit in which men, women and children -suffer the tortures of hell. Shall we be satisfied with -that?</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_45'>45</span>Mr. Morgan, with the tremendous money-power that -is behind him, is a greater power in this country than the -President of the United States, or the Congress of the -United States. Shall we be satisfied with that?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Some gentlemen are satisfied with these facts, but -Socialists are not. They are preaching discontent. -Should we not be worthy of your scorn and contempt if -we did not preach discontent? If such discontent is -wrong, contentment with the facts against which Socialists -cry out must be right. Who has both the candor -and the effrontery to say that contentment with such -facts is right? Should we be contented with the woolen mill -owners of New England who, fattening upon high -Republican tariffs, starve men, women and little children -with low wages? Should we be contented with the cotton-mill -owners of the South, who, under the protection -of Democratic state administrations, fill both their mills -and the graveyards with little children? Should we be -contented with a world in which a few own everything -and the rest do everything—a world in which the -worker is but a fleeing fugitive from inevitable fate, owning -neither his job, nor the roof over his head?</p> - -<p class='c010'>The cry of this wronged worker has come down -through the ages, but never was his hold upon the means -of life so slight as it is to-day.</p> - -<div class='lg-container-b c014'> - <div class='linegroup'> - <div class='group'> - <div class='line'>“Every creature has a home home—</div> - <div class='line'>But thou, oh workingman, hast none.”</div> - </div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c010'>So Shelley sang before machinery came. And, oh, the -truth of it—the truth of it still! And the pity of it! -In these days the inexcusability of it! Yet when we Socialists -cry out against it—when we try to awaken the -workingman to a realization that a new world was born -when the steam engine was born, and that this new world -<span class='pageno' id='Page_46'>46</span>may be and should be for him—we are rebuked by the -capitalists because we are “preaching discontent.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Of course we are preaching discontent. We are going -to preach it, if present conditions persist, so long as we -have breath with which to preach. We respectfully decline -to permit capitalists, as such, to tell us what we may -or may not preach. We preach what we please without -their leave. They preach what they please without our -leave. At intervals, they preach a good deal, through -some of the magazines, about religion. Big capital -is behind the “Men and Religion Forward” movement, -and some other similar movements. These gentlemen -who are living in luxury off what they take from us -tell us to take religion from them in the magazines and -be happy. “In the sweet by and by” we are to get our -own, while they get their own now. Socialists are willing -to stand in on all of the sweet by and by they can get -by and by, but they are also determined to make a prodigious -fight for the sweet here and now.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists regard poverty, in this day, as nothing less -than a scandal. Before the age of machinery there was -reason for some poverty. Now there is none. We can -make all the wealth we need and more. We could cut -our workday in two and still make all we need. Yet -poverty is scourging the world as wars never scourged it. -In Germany, England, the United States—wherever -capitalism has reached a high state of development—men, -women and children are pursued to the grave by -poverty or the fear of poverty.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Some gentlemen believe this is all right. They believe -this is as it should be. With such gentlemen Socialists -do not hope to make headway. With such gentlemen -Socialists do not seek to make headway. They belong -to the rich class who are grafting off the working class. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_47'>47</span>From them Socialists expect no quarter, nor will they -give any. The conflict must go to a finish. There will -be no surrender upon the part of the Socialists. The Socialist -party will never fuse with any of their parties. If -the Socialist party were standing still, instead of going -ahead, it would stand still alone for a thousand years -before it would go a foot with any capitalist party.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Make no mistake. This is all true. You saw the -Greenback party wither and blow away. You saw the -Populist party swallowed by the Democratic party. But -you will never see the Socialist party wither, nor will you -ever see it swallowed. Its members are not composed -of material that withers or fuses. Right or wrong, they -are actuated by the highest ideal that can move a human -being—the ideal of human justice. And they are going -down the line on their ideal, regardless of the length of -the line or of the obstructions that may be placed in their -way. After a man has seen Socialism, he can never -thereafter defend capitalism. That is to say, he cannot -if he is honest. Two or three out of a million are not. -Such persons, not infrequently, are hired by capitalists -to “expose” Socialism.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But while Socialists do not hope to make any progress -among the rich, they do hope to make progress among -the working class. Again, I must explain that Socialists -do not consider the working class to be exclusively composed -of those who wear overalls. Socialists include in -the working class all of those who do useful labor. It -matters not whether such labor be done by the digger in -the ditch or by the general superintendent of a railroad. -Socialists place all of those who do useful labor in the -working class. Workers are creators of wealth. Creators -of wealth differ from capitalists in this: workers -make; capitalists take. Capitalists are profit-seekers. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_48'>48</span>The small merchant takes a profit, but it is not the kind -of a profit that the big capitalist takes. The small merchant’s -profit represents only his labor, and is, therefore, -really wages. The big capitalist’s profits represent no -sort of labor. It is such profits that set capitalists and -workers at war, because the profits come out of the workers. -Socialists call this war the class struggle.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists are opposed to class war. Socialists believe -there should be no classes. There would be no classes -if everybody worked at useful labor and took no more -than belonged to him. But if some men will not work -at useful labor, choosing, instead, to make war upon -those who are working, who is to blame? Certainly not -the workers. They are trying to get nothing that belongs -to anyone else. They have never yet been able to -keep what belonged to them.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists recognize these facts. They say a class -struggle is in progress. Anybody who denies their statement -must necessarily know nothing of the existence of -trusts, labor unions, courts, lobbyists, crooked legislators, -millionaires, paupers, overworked workers, or men -who are underworked because they can get no work. -Anyone who recognizes the existence of these things cannot -well deny either the existence of classes or the existence -of a struggle. The dead of this warfare are upon -every industrial battlefield, where the fierce desire for -profits sends workers to their doom for lack of the safeguards -that would have saved their lives. The wounded -are in every poverty-stricken home.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Either these statements are true or they are not. If -they are true, is it wiser to recognize their truth, or, -ostrich-like, to stick our heads in the sand and deny both -the existence of classes and the class struggle? Socialists -<span class='pageno' id='Page_49'>49</span>believe it is wiser to recognize the existence of the facts. -They deplore the existence of the class struggle, but they -can see only harm in closing our eyes to it. If their contention -is correct a small body of capitalists are robbing -the great working class. If the working class has not -found out who is robbing it it cannot find out too quickly. -Nor can the working class find out too quickly the methods -by which it is being robbed.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It is the advocacy of these ideas that has caused the -Socialists to be censured by the rich for trying to “array -class against class.” If one class is being robbed by -another ought not the class that is being robbed to be -politically arrayed against the class that is robbing it? -Do we not array those whose houses are broken into by -burglars against the burglars? Is not the existence of -police forces sufficient proof that we do? If capitalists, -working through laws they have made, are robbing the -workers of thousands, where burglars take cents, why -should not the workers be politically arrayed against the -capitalists even more solidly than they are arrayed -against burglars?</p> - -<p class='c010'>The workers, either singly or collectively, as in their -unions, are already arrayed against the capitalists, so far -as fighting for more wages is concerned. Without any -help from Socialists, we thus have here class arrayed -against class. Socialists seek only to extend this conflict -to the ballot-box. They ask the worker to remember -when he votes as well as when he strikes that he belongs -to the working class. They point out to him that he is -robbed under the forms of law and that the robbery cannot -be stopped until the operations of capitalist laws are -stopped. The operations of capitalist laws cannot be -stopped until working men stop them. Working men -<span class='pageno' id='Page_50'>50</span>can stop them only by uniting at the ballot-box and wresting -from the capitalist class the control of the government.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In this way only do Socialists try to “array class -against class.” They do not try to array men against -men. They do not try to engender hatred of Mr. Morgan, -Mr. Rockefeller, or any other great capitalist. -Socialists have nothing against any rich man individually. -They regard all great capitalists as the natural and inevitable -products of the capitalist system. If the great -capitalists are sometimes bad, it is because the capitalist -system makes them bad. If the particular capitalists -who are bad had never been born, the capitalist system -would have made others do the same bad acts. Therefore -Socialists are opposed to the system that makes man -bad rather than to the men who have been made bad by -the system. If every capitalist in the world had gone -down with the <i>Titanic</i>, Socialists would have expected -absolutely no improvement in conditions, because the -capitalist system would still have remained. Other men -would simply have taken their places, and the wrongs -would have gone on. Therefore, Socialists leave it to -Democratic and Republican politicians to point out “bad -men” and say if this man or that man were in jail we -should have no more robbery. The slightest reflection -should reveal the fallacious character of such comment. -Where are all of the “bad men” of the last two generations? -Where are William H. Vanderbilt, Jay Gould, -E. H. Harriman and the others? They are not simply -in jail—they are dead. But who noticed the slightest -abatement of robbery when they died? Who will note -the slightest improvement of conditions when the “bad -men” of the present day are dead? Then how ridiculous -it is to say that if Mr. Morgan, Mr. Rockefeller -<span class='pageno' id='Page_51'>51</span>and some others were in jail we should have no more -robbery. So long as we have a system that makes men -bad we shall have bad men.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Let us now inquire what it is about the capitalist system -that makes men bad. We shall not have far to -look. It is the private ownership and control, for the -sake of private profits, of the means of life. Think how -gigantic is this power! All of our food, clothing and -shelter is made with machinery. A few own the machinery. -The others cannot use it without permission. -And, if permission be given, it can be used only upon such -terms as the owners offer. Those terms are always the -lowest wages for which anybody can be found to work.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Is it any wonder that the few who control this machinery -go mad with the desire to accumulate wealth? -Is it any wonder that they press their advantage to the -limit? Are you sure you would have done less if you -had been placed in the same circumstances? I am not -sure I should have done less. In fact, I am quite sure I -should have done as much, or more, if I could. I say -this because I take into account the tremendous power of -habit and environment.</p> - -<p class='c010'>An environment of money makes those whom it surrounds -forget men. The <i>Titanic</i> was not raced through -icebergs to her doom because her owners were indifferent -to the loss of human life. The <i>Titanic</i> was raced -to her doom because her owners <i>forgot</i> human life. -They thought only of the money that would come from -the advertisement of a quick trip across the Atlantic. If -they had not been made mad by this thought they would -at least have remembered their ship, with its cost of -$8,000,000. But in their money-madness they forgot -not only their passengers, but their own ship. Yet, if -the manager of the company had been sailing the ship for -<span class='pageno' id='Page_52'>52</span>the government, without thought of profit, he would have -thought of the passengers, the crew, the ship and the icebergs. -And if the trusts were owned by the government, -the men in charge of them would think of the workers -when they fixed wages and of the consumers when they -fixed the prices of finished products.</p> - -<p class='c010'>So easy is it to dispose of the argument that Socialism -is impracticable because it could not be made to work -“without changing human nature.” Some men believe -we must forever go on grabbing, grabbing, grabbing, -while others go on starving, starving, starving. Human -nature will “change” just so rapidly as conditions are -changed. If one sits on a red-hot stove, it is “human -nature” to arise. But if the stove be permitted to cool, -one who sits on it will not arise until other reasons than -heat have made him wish to do so. Yet, the human -nature of the man in each case is the same. It has in no -wise changed. It is only the stove that has changed.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Precisely so will the actions of men change when the -production of the necessities of life by the government -has demonstrated that no one need ever fear the lack of -the means with which to live. The very knowledge that -the stomach is taken for granted—that with free opportunity -to labor, the material necessities and comforts of -life are as assured as the air itself—will destroy the incentive -to accumulate more wealth than is needed. Even -the richest now consume and waste but a fraction of the -wealth they possess. Yet they are spurred on to seek -still further accumulations, because it is only so recently, -comparatively, that the whole race was fighting for the -means of life, that the madness for money is still in the -air.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The madness for money will not always be in the air. -Human nature is wonderfully adaptive. As soon as the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_53'>53</span>workers take control of the government for the benefit -of their class, and demonstrate the perfect ease with -which enough wealth can be produced to enable everybody -to live as well as the $5,000 a year man now lives, -the scramble for wealth will quickly subside. It will -not subside instantly, but it will subside. A few may -grumble, as their industries are bought and taken over -by the government, but they will have to take it out -in grumbling. They will not even have to work if they -don’t want to. They will have enough money obtained -from the sale of their plants to enable them to live -without working. But none of their successors will ever -be able to live without working, because no opportunity -will exist for anyone to obtain the products of another’s -labor. Goods will be made and sold by the government -at cost. No capitalist will stand between producers and -consumers. The people will be their own capitalists, -owning their own industrial machinery and managing it -through the government.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Those who are opposed to Socialism ask what assurance -we have that, under Socialism, the people would -be able to manage their government. Others ask why -we should not be as likely to have grafters in office under -Socialist government as we are now under Democratic -or Republican government? Still others believe that a -Socialist government would inevitably become tyrannical -and despotic, destroying all individual liberty and eventually -bringing down civilization in a heap.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Let us answer these objections one by one. And let -us first inquire why the people are not now able to manage -and control their government.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In the first place, our form of government does not -permit the people to control it. The rich men who made -our constitution—and they were rich for their day; not -<span class='pageno' id='Page_54'>54</span>a working man among them—purposely made a constitution -under which nothing could be done to which the -rich might object. That is why the United States senate -was created. It was frankly declared in the constitutional -convention that the senate was intended to represent -wealth. The house of representatives was to -represent the people, but the senate was to represent -wealth, and the house of representatives could enact no -legislation without the consent of the senate. Moreover, -the United States supreme court, over which the people -have absolutely no control, was created to construe the -laws made by congress.</p> - -<p class='c010'>That is the first reason why the people do not now control -their government—the framers of the constitution -did not intend that they should control it, and the rich -men of our day are taking advantage of their opportunity -to control it themselves. The second reason is -that the capitalist system, based, as it is, upon private -profits, makes it highly profitable for the capitalist class -to control the government. The robberies of capitalism -are committed through laws, and control of the government -is necessary to obtain and maintain the laws.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists would abolish the senate, thus vesting the -entire legislative power in the house of representatives. -They would take from the President the power to appoint -justices of the supreme court, and give the people -the right to elect all judges. They would take from the -United States supreme court the usurped power to declare -acts of congress unconstitutional, and give to the -people the power to say what acts of congress should -be set aside. They would make the constitution of the -United States amendable by majority vote, and they -would make every public official in the country, from -<span class='pageno' id='Page_55'>55</span>President down, subject to immediate recall at any time, -by the vote of the people.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists respectfully offer these reasons, among -others, for believing that under Socialism, the people -would be able to control their government. Another -reason is that, under Socialism, there would be no trust -senators or representatives, no representatives of great -private banking interests or other aggregations of private -capital, because there would be no such private interests.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The reasons are equally plain why, under Socialism, -we should not be as certain to have Socialist grafters -in office as we are now to have Democratic and Republican -grafters. But not one of these reasons is that -Socialists believe themselves to be more nearly honest -than anyone else. Socialists have no such delusion. -Socialists simply point to the fact that all of the present -grafting is to secure private profits. When the profit -system is abolished, and goods are made for use instead -of for profit, nothing will be left to graft for. Public -officials could still steal, of course; they could falsify -pay-rolls, and probably in many other ways rob the people. -But, in the first place, public officials now do little -of this sort of clumsy stealing, and, in the second place, -whatever stealing of this sort that may be done under -Socialism will be punished in precisely the same way -that it now is, except more vigorously. Moreover, Socialists -do not believe there will be much such stealing, -or that it will long continue. And so far as grafting is -concerned, when the private profit system that makes -grafting is abolished, grafting will be abolished along -with it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Let us now examine the charge that a Socialist government -<span class='pageno' id='Page_56'>56</span>would become tyrannical, despotic, destroy individual -liberty, and thus destroy civilization itself.</p> - -<p class='c010'>With all legislative power vested in the house of representatives -which is elected by the people, all judges -elected by the people and the United States supreme -court shorn of its usurped power to declare laws unconstitutional, -it is difficult to see how the government could -become tyrannical. It is still more difficult when it is -considered that, under the Socialist government, the people -would have these additional powers:</p> - -<p class='c010'>The power to recall, at any time, any official.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The power to enact, by direct vote, any laws that their -legislative bodies might refuse to enact.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The power, by direct vote, to repeal any law that their -legislative bodies had enacted.</p> - -<p class='c010'>And the power, by direct vote, to amend their constitutions, -both federal and state, any time they wished -to do so.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If there could be any tyranny or despotism under such -a form of government, gentlemen who profess to believe -so are entitled to make the most of it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Many good persons believe, however, that if Socialism -were to come, all individual liberty would be lost. Such -persons lack, not only a knowledge of Socialist plans, -but a sense of humor. They assume that we now have -individual liberty. They do not seem to realize that the -average boy, as soon as he is old enough to work, if not -before, is grabbed off by necessity and chucked into the -nearest job at hand. The boy may have preferred to -work at something else; perhaps even he is better fitted -for something else. But the pinch of necessity both compels -him to work and to take what he can find. He may -rattle around in two or three occupations before he finds -one in which he stays for life, but the other occupations, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_57'>57</span>like the first one, are not of his choosing. He takes -each of them simply because he must have work.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If Socialism would enable the head of every family -to earn as good a living as the $5,000–a-year man now -gets, the head of no family would be compelled to send -his children out to work until they had completed, at -least, the high school course. If boys were not compelled -to go to work so young, does it not seem likely -that, with added years, they would be better able to -choose an occupation that would be more nearly suited -both to their tastes and their abilities? And if we should -destroy the power of poverty to push boys into the occupation -nearest to them, should we be justly subject -to the charge that we had destroyed, or even impaired, -the boys’ individual liberty?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Persons who derive their knowledge of Socialism from -capitalist sources have strange, and sometimes awful, -ideas of what Socialism is setting out to do. They are -told, and many of them believe, that under Socialism, -the individual would be a mere puppet in the hands of -the government, not arising in the morning until the -ringing of the governmental alarm clock, doing during -the day whatever odd jobs might be assigned to him by -a governmental boss, and going to bed at night when -the boss told him to.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Suppose we shake up this trash and let the wind blow -through it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Who would thus tyrannize over the people? “The -Socialists,” it is answered. But who, at that time, will -the Socialists be? They will constitute at least a majority -of the people, will they not? The Socialists will -never gain control of the government until they become -a majority—the Milwaukee coalition plan of the old -capitalist parties can be depended upon to prevent that. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_58'>58</span>Then what you are asked to believe is that a majority of -the people will deliberately go about it to create and -afterwards maintain a form of government and industry -under which the majority as well as the minority will be -slaves.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Remember this: Socialism will never do anything that -at least a majority of the people do not want done. -This is not a promise, it is fact. A Socialist administration -could do nothing to which a majority of the people -objected. If such an act were attempted, the majority -would instantly recall the administration, wipe out -its laws, and assert its own will.</p> - -<p class='c010'>And, also, remember this: If the Socialists, after the -next election, were to control every department of the -government there would be no upheaval, no paralysis of -industry. Everybody would go to work the next morning -at his accustomed task. The business of socializing -industry would proceed in an orderly, deliberate manner. -One industry at a time would be taken over. Perhaps -the railroads would be taken over first. A year -might be required to take them over. But not a wheel -would stop turning while the laws were being changed.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Gentlemen who talk about the blotting out of individual -liberty under a Socialist government make this fatal -mistake. They assume that a minority would control -a Socialist government, precisely as a minority now controls -this government. And having made this error -they naturally easily proceed to the next error—the assumption -that if Socialists were to establish such a crazy -government, they would not suffer from it as much as -anyone else, and, therefore, would maintain it against -the will of the others.</p> - -<p class='c010'>There is absolutely no foundation for this “tyranny-loss-of-individual-liberty” -charge. A government controlled -<span class='pageno' id='Page_59'>59</span>by the people cannot tyrannize over the people, -nor can the abolition of poverty curtail, under democratic -government, the individual liberties of the people. Who -now has the most individual liberty—the man who is -poverty-stricken or the man who isn’t?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Yet Socialists make no pretense of a purpose to create -a world in which the worker may blithely amble up to -the governmental employment office and demand a job -picking a guitar. The worker may amble and demand, -but he will not get the job unless there is a guitar to -pick. In other words, Socialists expect to exercise ordinary -common sense in the conduct of industry. -Broadly speaking, the man who is best fitted to do certain -work will be given that work to do. It would be -absurd to plan or promise anything else. At the same -time, the destruction of poverty, and the multiplication -of the mass of manufactured goods that will follow the -satisfaction of all of the people’s needs, will give the -workers greater freedom in exercising their discretion in -the choice of an occupation.</p> - -<p class='c010'>At this point in the proceedings somebody always inquires, -“Who will do the dirty work?”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists do not expect ever to make the cleaning of -sewers as pleasant as the packing of geraniums. They -do expect, however, to offer such extraordinarily -good compensation for this extraordinarily unpleasant -work that the sewers will be cleaned. Why should anyone -expect that plan to fail, since the present plan does -not fail? We now offer very poor wages for this very -unpleasant work, yet the sewers do not go uncleaned. -Is it to be supposed that the same men who are now doing -this dirty work for low wages would refuse to do it for -high wages? Most certainly the government would be -compelled to offer wages high enough to get the dirty, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_60'>60</span>but important, work done. It is lack of work that now -makes men take dirty work at dirty wages. Under Socialism -there can be no lack of work, because the people -will own their own industrial machinery and will be free -to use it. Furthermore, machinery is now doing much -of the dirty work, and, as time goes on, will do more -of it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists are often asked what they will do with the -man who will not work. If facetiously inclined, they -usually reply that one thing they will certainly not do -with him is to make him a millionaire. But, really, the -question is absurd. What do the opponents of Socialism -believe a Socialist government would do with the -man who would not work? Do they believe such a man -would be given a hero medal, or be pensioned for life? -What is there to do with such a man, but to let him -starve? I mean a man having the ability to work and -having work offered to him, who would nevertheless refuse -to work.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But, outside the ranks of criminals, there is no such -man, nor will there ever be. Socialists would punish -thieves precisely as capitalists punish them, except for -the fact that Socialists would not discriminate in favor -of the biggest thieves. To answer the question in a -single sentence, Socialists would depend upon the spurs -afforded by the desires for food, clothing and shelter, -to keep most of the people at work, and the odd man -who might choose to steal would be treated in the ordinary -way—imprisoned.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But the question, “What will you do with the man -who will not work?” reveals a strange belief that is held -by those who do not hold much of a clutch upon the -facts of life. I have a very dear old aunt who believes -from the bottom of her honest heart that the great mass -<span class='pageno' id='Page_61'>61</span>of unemployed are either drunkards or loafers. In discussing -the problem of the unemployed with gentlemen -who are living upon the sunny side of the street, they -almost invariably fire this question, “Why don’t those -fellows get out into the country where the farmers are -crying for help and can’t get any?”</p> - -<p class='c010'>I was brought up on a farm, and I still remember that -not much farming was done in winter. The great demand -for extra help comes in mid-summer, when the -crops are harvested. During six or eight weeks there -is a demand from the farms for more help than they can -get. But what man who has a family in the tenements -of New York or Chicago can afford to pay his railroad -fare to Iowa, Nebraska, or even Ohio, to get six weeks’ -work?</p> - -<p class='c010'>In the first place, they have not the money with which -to pay their fare. These men live from hand to mouth -in the city, running in debt during the week, and paying -their debt with the wages they receive Saturday night. -If their fares were advanced by the farmers who wanted -to hire them they would have little or nothing left from -what they might earn on the farms, and, in the meantime, -their families in the cities would be starving. -Furthermore, farm-work is a trade of which these city -workers know nothing. They could learn the trade of -farming, of course, but they could not learn it in six -weeks. At any rate, in panic times there are more than -5,000,000 out of work in this country, and in no conceivable -circumstances is it possible that any considerable -part of this number could find work upon the farms even -six weeks of the year.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The fact is that the conditions of modern industrial -life are so hard that an increasing number of unorganized -workers are barely able to live, even when they -<span class='pageno' id='Page_62'>62</span>work. The constantly increasing cost of living, brought -about by the trusts through their control of markets and -prices, robs these men to the limit, and they have no -labor unions to increase their wages. Still, they do not -refuse to work, even for a bare, miserable living. On -the contrary, they are eager to work. So are the great -bulk of the unemployed eager to work for a miserable -living.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If, under these horrible conditions, men are willing to -work, what reason have we to suppose that any great -number would refuse to work under a Socialist government -for compensation that would enable each of them -to live as well as the $5,000–a-year man now lives? Gentlemen -who want to worry about this may worry about -it. Socialists are not worrying. If, under Socialism, a -few dyed-in-the-wool loafers should appear, Socialists -are prepared to deal with them. They do not propose to -cease their attempts to rid the world of poverty, merely -because of the possibility of the appearance of an occasional -loafer.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_63'>63</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER V<br> <span class='large'>HOW THE PEOPLE MAY ACQUIRE THE TRUSTS</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>Most men are not interested in private profits, because -they don’t get any. Profits are only for -capitalists, and the number of capitalists bears but an -insignificant proportion to the whole number of people. -Most men are wage-workers, of one sort or another, or -small farmers.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Yet we are living under a system that makes private -profits the basis of business. If profits are good, business -is good. If profits are only fair, business is only -fair. If profits are bad, business is bad. And, when -business is bad, the whole country suffers, though the -country has the men, the machinery and the land with -which business might be made good.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists liken the present business edifice to an inverted -pyramid resting upon its point—the point of -private profits. Socialists have observed that the steadiest -pyramids do not rest upon their points. They do -not believe the pyramids of Egypt would have stood as -long as they have if they had not been right side up. -Socialists therefore propose that the pyramid of business -shall be turned right side up. They believe it would -stand more nearly steady if placed upon the broad basis -of the people’s needs than it now does upon the pivot-point -of private profits.</p> - -<p class='c010'>That is all that Socialists mean when they talk about -the “revolutionary” character of their philosophy. -They want to make a revolutionary change in the basis -<span class='pageno' id='Page_64'>64</span>of business. They want goods produced solely to satisfy -the public need for goods, rather than to satisfy any -man’s greed for profits. They do not see how business -can be thus revolutionized, so long as a few men own all -of the great machinery with which goods are produced. -Socialists, therefore, propose that the ownership of all -the great machinery shall be acquired by the people, by -purchase, and thus transferred from a few to all.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Those who are not in favor of this program may be -divided into two classes. One class, desiring to cling -to the private profit system, is opposed, upon principle, -to the Socialist program. The other class, while eager -enough, perhaps, to be rid of present conditions, does -not believe the Socialist plan is practicable. The reason -why so many men believe the Socialist plan is impractical -is because so many men do not know what the Socialist -plan is. The newspapers, owned as they are by -capitalists, do not take the pains to tell the people much -about the plans of Socialism. Even so great a trust -lawyer as Samuel Untermyer of New York, apparently -did not know much about the plans of Socialism until -he debated Socialism in Carnegie Hall with Morris Hillquit. -Mr. Untermyer, in his opening statement, made -the colossal mistake of declaring that the Socialists had -no definite plan for transferring the industries of the -country from private to public ownership; that no one -knew whether they meant to take over all industries, or -whether they meant to take over only the trusts, while -leaving the small concerns that are now fighting the -trusts to compete with the government. In short, Mr. -Untermyer left the impression that in the matter of putting -their program into practice the Socialists were whirling -around in a fog.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Let us see who was whirling around in a fog.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_65'>65</span>Victor L. Berger, the Socialist congressman from Milwaukee, -introduced in the House of Representatives a -bill embodying the following features:</p> - -<p class='c012'>The government shall immediately proceed to take -over the ownership of all the trusts that control more -than 40 per cent. of the business in their respective -lines.</p> - -<p class='c012'>The price to be paid for these industries shall be -fixed by a commission of fifteen experts, whose duty -it shall be to determine the actual cash value of the -physical properties.</p> - -<p class='c012'>Payment for the properties shall be proffered in the -form of United States bonds, bearing 2 per cent. interest -payable in 50 years, and a sinking fund shall -be established to retire the bonds at maturity.</p> - -<p class='c012'>In the event of the refusal of any trust owner or -owners to sell to the government his or their properties -at the price fixed by the commission of experts, -the President of the United States is authorized to -use such measures as may be necessary to gain and -hold possession of the properties.</p> - -<p class='c012'>A Bureau of Industries is hereby created within -the Department of Commerce and Labor to operate -all industries owned by the government.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Mind you, this is but the barest skeleton of the Berger -bill. The bill itself may have no sense in it. But that -is not the point. Samuel Untermyer, great trust lawyer -and presumably well-read man, said that the Socialists -had no definite plan for taking over the industries of the -country. He made this statement in Carnegie Hall before -thousands of people. And there was not one word -of truth in it. If he had taken the slightest pains to inform -himself, he might easily have learned that the Socialists -<span class='pageno' id='Page_66'>66</span>have an exceedingly definite plan for taking over -the ownership of the nation’s industries.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But Mr. Untermyer took no pains to inform himself. -Ignorant as an Eskimo of the Socialist program, he just -went to Carnegie Hall and talked. What he did not -know, he guessed. What he could not guess right, he -guessed wrong. He could guess almost nothing right. -Mr. Hillquit made him look ridiculous. He was ridiculous. -He was more than ridiculous. He was an object -for pity. A great lawyer, having a great reputation to -sustain, discussing a great subject of which he had only -the most meager knowledge!</p> - -<p class='c010'>Mr. Hillquit riddled him, of course, but he did not -riddle much because, speaking Socialistically, Mr. Untermyer -is not much. But, unfortunately, only the 5,000 or -6,000 who heard the debate knew that Mr. Untermyer -had been riddled. Millions of New Yorkers who read -the capitalist newspapers the next morning received the -impression from the headlines that Untermyer had riddled -not only Hillquit but Socialism. “Socialists have -no definite plans for doing the things they want to do” -was the parroted charge. The charge was not true, but -the public did not know the charge was not true. The -capitalist newspapers would not let the public know. -The newspapers had good reasons for not letting the public -know. The newspapers are owned or backed by millionaires -who are interested in maintaining present -conditions. Socialism would interfere with these newspaper -millionaires as much as it would interfere with any -other millionaires. Yet it is from such sources that the -public receives most of its information with regard to -Socialism. It is because of this fact that the public -knows so much about Socialism that is not so.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It emphatically is not so that the Socialists have no -<span class='pageno' id='Page_67'>67</span>definite plan for taking over the management and control -of the industries of the country. They know precisely -what they are trying to do and how they are trying to -do it. They have not drafted all of the laws that would -be required under a Socialist republic for the next 500 -years, but they have formulated certain general principles -that, once established, will endure for centuries. I -shall endeavor to make these general principles plain.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists want to end class warfare. They want to -prevent one class from robbing any other class. They -do not see how class warfare can be ended so long as -a small class controls the means of life of the great class. -The means of life is the machinery and materials with -which men work. Socialists, therefore, purpose that the -means of life shall be owned by all of the people, through -the government.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If this program be put into effect, a start must be made -somewhere. Socialists purpose that the start be made -with the trusts. They propose that the start be made -with the trusts because the trusts have advanced furthest -along the road of evolution. The trusts have already -sloughed off the multitude of primitive, competitive -managers. They are concentrated. Only the slightest -shift will be necessary to concentrate the managements -a little more and vest them in the government. Besides, -the trusts control the bulk of the production of the great -necessaries of life. Get the trusts and we shall have -life. We shall have food. We shall have clothing. -We shall have shelter. We shall have all of these things, -because we shall have the machinery with which we may -make all of these things.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Long before Congressman Berger’s bill was drafted, -the cry of the Socialists was “Let the nation own the -trusts.” Among Socialists, this cry was as insistent and -as common as the cry of “Let us stand pat” was insistent -<span class='pageno' id='Page_68'>68</span>and common among the Hanna Republicans of -1896 and 1900. That Socialist cry showed where the -Socialists planned to begin. Congressman Berger’s bill -only echoed the cry and made it more definite. The Socialist -cry was “Let the nation own the trusts.” Congressman -Berger’s bill told what trusts were, within the -meaning of Socialist demands, and how to get them. -Berger’s bill declared that a trust should be construed to -mean any industry or combination of industries that controlled -40 per cent. or more of the national output of -its product. And, Berger’s bill also laid down the principle -that the easiest way to acquire the trusts is to buy -them. Moreover, his bill also sought to provide the governmental -machinery and the money with which to -do it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Never mind whether Berger’s bill was wise or foolish. -Never mind whether the Socialist program is wise or -foolish. We are now considering the charge that the -Socialists have no definite program. That is what Mr. -Untermyer said. That is what a thousand others say. -Is it not plain that they are all wrong? Who can doubt -that if the Berger bill were enacted into law, the trusts -could and would be taken over? The Berger bill is -plainer than any tariff bill that was ever written. Any -man of common sense can understand it. No man can -understand a tariff law. Yet tariff laws are administered. -They are definite enough to accomplish what the -protected manufacturers really want accomplished. -Even those who oppose high tariff laws do not contend -that they should be repealed because they lack definiteness.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The simple fact is that the Socialists want to take the -trusts first, because they are the most important and the -best adapted to immediate ownership by the people. For -<span class='pageno' id='Page_69'>69</span>the time being, small competitive manufacturers would -be compelled to compete with the government. If the -Socialist theory of production is a fallacy, the small -competitive producers would demonstrate it by providing -better working conditions for their employees and selling -goods more cheaply than the government. In that event, -Socialism would fall of its own weight and the nation -would restore present conditions.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If the Socialist theory of production is not a fallacy, -the competitive producers would be driven out of business -and sell their plants to the government for what -they were worth. They would be driven out of business, -because they could not afford to do business without a -profit. They could get no profit without appropriating -part of the product of their workers, and if they appropriated -part of the product of their workers, the workers -would shift over to the national industries where no -products were appropriated.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In short, if the national ownership of trusts were a -success, the day of the competitive manufacturer would -be short. He could not afford to do business with a competitor -who sought no profits. And this is precisely -what Socialists believe would take place. They believe -the national ownership of the trusts would be quickly -followed by the national ownership of every industry -that is now owned by some to skim a profit from the -labor of others.</p> - -<p class='c010'>This does not mean, however, that peanut stands would -be owned by the government. It does not necessarily -mean that farms would be owned by the government. -The Socialists are not fanatics over the mere principle -of government ownership. They appeal to the principle -only to accomplish an end. The end is the destruction -of the power of some to rob others. If there -<span class='pageno' id='Page_70'>70</span>is no robbery, there is no occasion for the application -of the principle. The ownership of a peanut stand gives -the owner no power to rob anybody. A man who tills -his own farm is robbing nobody. Neither the ownership -of the peanut stand nor the ownership of the farm -gives the owner the power to rob anybody, because -neither owner profits from the labor of an employee. -But if tenant farming should ever become a serious evil -in this country—and it is increasing all the while—the -Socialists, if they were in power, would take over the -ownership of all tenant farm lands. They would take -over the tenant farms for the same reason that they now -want to take over the trusts—because the landlords -were using the power of ownership to appropriate part -of the products of the tenants.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Let this do for the critics who say that Socialists have -no definite program for taking over the ownership of -the nation’s industries. There is another set of critics -who say that, if Socialists should ever take over the -industries, they could not run them. They say that the -change from private to public ownership would bring -chaos, that the government, as a manager of industry, -would break down, that red revolution would sweep the -world and that civilization would probably go down with -a crash.</p> - -<p class='c010'>I shall pause a moment to comment upon the lack of -humor that these gentlemen betray. They take themselves -so seriously. If they were called upon to attend -a dog beset with fleas, they would doubtless counsel the -dog to prize the fleas as it prized its life.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“Don’t bite off one of those fleas, my dear dog,” we -can hear them say. “You don’t know it, but they are -doing you good. Each flea-bite increases the speed with -which you pursue game. If fleas were not biting you -<span class='pageno' id='Page_71'>71</span>all the time, you might become so comfortable that you -would lie down in the sun, go to sleep, forget to eat, -and thus starve to death. Remember, the fleas are your -friends!”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Of course, the great capitalists who are opposing Socialism -are not to be likened to fleas, except as to the -facts that they are exceedingly agile and are working at -the same trade. But in a season of national mourning -over the high cost of living, is it not unseemly for these -gentlemen to provoke us to laughter by telling us that, if -we were to lose them, we ourselves should be lost? We -who work can never save ourselves. We can be saved -only by those who work us.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Let us get down to brass tacks. If the Socialists were -to gain control of this government to-morrow, probably -the first thing they would do toward carrying out their -program would be to call a national convention to draft -a twentieth century constitution to replace our present -eighteenth century one. The convention would abolish -the senate, vest the entire legislative power in the house -of representatives, destroy the United States Supreme -Court’s usurped power to declare acts of congress unconstitutional, -make all judges elective by the people -and establish the initiative, the referendum and recall. -Socialists would not attempt to establish Socialism without -first clearing the ground so that the people could control -their government absolutely.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The work of the convention having been approved by -the people, perhaps the first trust that would be taken -over would be the railroad trust. It would be a big job. -It would be so big a job that no other similar job would -be undertaken until the completion of the railroad job -was well under way, and the railroad job might require -a year or two. I mention this fact to show that it -<span class='pageno' id='Page_72'>72</span>would not be the purpose of a Socialist administration -to rip this country up from Maine to Southern California -within twenty-four hours from the fourth of -March. In fact, there would be no ripping or jarring, -as I shall soon show. Everything would proceed in an -orderly, lawful manner.</p> - -<p class='c010'>I say there would be no ripping or jarring, because -there would be no cessation of industry. Let us suppose, -for instance, that the ownership and control of the -railroads had been transferred from the present owners -to the government. What would happen? Absolutely -nothing in the nature of a jar. What happens now when -one group of capitalists sell a railroad to another group -of capitalists? Nothing, of course. The new owners -tell the general manager to keep on running trains, as -usual, or if they install a new general manager, they tell -him to keep on running trains. The trainmen, if they -did not read the newspapers, would not know the road -had changed hands.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The transition from private to public ownership would -be accomplished precisely as smoothly. The only -change would be in the orders that a Socialist administration -would give to the chief executive officer of the -railroads. That order, in substance, would be: “Don’t -try to make any profits out of the railroads. Run them -at cost. Give the men more wages and shorter hours, -and give the public the best possible service at the lowest -possible rate and with the least possible risk to human -life.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>If you can manufacture a riot out of such ingredients, -go to it. If you can figure out how such a proceeding -would disrupt civilization, proceed at your leisure.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The cards are all down. You now know what the -Socialists want to do. Where is the danger?</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_73'>73</span>“Oh,” the capitalist gentlemen say, “but you Socialists -are not business men, and business men are required -to manage industries. A Socialist government would -therefore fail.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Mayor Gaynor expressed much the same thought in a -statement about Socialism that he prepared for the New -York <cite>Times</cite>. Mr. Gaynor’s attitude toward Socialism is -tolerant—almost sympathetic—yet he asked:</p> - -<p class='c012'>“Who would run your Socialistic government? Where would -you get honest and competent men? Would the human understanding -and capacity be larger then than it is now?”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Wherever Socialism is discussed, such questions are -asked. They are evidently regarded as insuperable obstacles -to Socialism. As a matter of fact, they serve -only to show how little the questioners know of Socialism.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists do not purpose to establish hatcheries for -the breeding by special creation, of a class of super-men -to administer government and manage industry. They -will depend upon the regular run of the human race for -material with which to work out their ideas. But they -will approach the subjects of government and industry -from a different point of view. The capitalist’s conception -of honest and efficient government is that sort of -government that will best protect him in the enjoyment -of the unjust advantages that he has over the rest of the -people. The capitalist’s conception of honest and efficient -business management is that sort of business management -that will yield him the most profits upon the -least capital. The Socialist’s conception of the best government -is that which gives no man an advantage over -another, while giving every man the greatest opportunity -to exercise his faculties, together with the greatest degree -<span class='pageno' id='Page_74'>74</span>of personal liberty that is consistent with the liberty -of everybody else. And, the Socialist’s conception of -honest and efficient business management is that sort of -management that produces the most product under the -best working conditions at the least cost and distributes -it among the people without profit.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In answer to Mayor Gaynor and others, Socialists -therefore make these replies:</p> - -<p class='c010'>Capitalists are now able to get honest men who are -competent to administer the government in the interest -of the capitalist class. Why, then, should you doubt -that Socialists will be able to get honest men who will -be able to administer the government in the interest of -the working class? In either case, it is simply a matter -of executing the orders of the employer. Capitalism’s -employees obey its orders. Socialism’s employees will, -for the same reason, obey its orders. You tell your -employees to maintain the advantage that the few have -over the many, and they obey you. We shall tell our -employees to destroy the advantage that the few have -over the many. We believe they will obey us. If they -do not, we shall recall them. That is more than you -can now do.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Mayor Gaynor and others also ask if the “human understanding -and capacity” would be larger under Socialism -than they are now. Positively not. But we respectfully -beg leave to suggest that it is not a matter of understanding -or capacity. It is a matter of purpose and -intention. Men “understand” what they are given to -understand. If a man is told to understand the problem -of grinding human beings down to push dividends up, -he devotes his mind to this task and to no other. If the -same man were told to grind dividends down to the -vanishing point and hoist human beings high and dry -<span class='pageno' id='Page_75'>75</span>above the poverty point, he would probably understand -that, too. And, so far as capacity is concerned, we already -have the capacity for great productive effort. We -simply are not permitted to exercise enough of it to keep -us in comfort. Socialism would not increase the capacity -of the human mind, but it would give the nation an opportunity -to exercise the capacity it has.</p> - -<p class='c010'>To simmer the whole matter into a few words, Socialism -would endeavor to place government and industry -in the hands of men who would consider every problem -and every opportunity from the point of view of the -working class. It is the reverse of this method against -which Socialists complain. Capitalists are compelled to -consider the working class last in order that they may -consider themselves first. The interests of the capitalist -class and the working class, instead of being “identical,” -are hostile. The capitalist class seeks a maximum of -product for a minimum of wages. The working class -seeks a maximum of wages for a minimum of product. -The two classes are at war with each other for the possession -of the values that the working class creates.</p> - -<p class='c010'>And, since capitalists control both government and -industry, it is but natural that the interests of capitalists -should be considered first and the interests of workingmen -last.</p> - -<p class='c010'>A little thought is enough to dissipate the fear that -a Socialist government would fail, “because Socialists -are not business men, and business men are required to -manage industry.” Let us first inquire, what is meant -by a “business man”? Is he not, first and foremost, a -man who is expert in the squeezing out of profits? Of -course, he is. If he can produce enough profits to satisfy -his stockholders, he need know nothing about the -mechanics of the business itself. And, so long as business -<span class='pageno' id='Page_76'>76</span>is conducted upon the basis of private profits, it is -obvious that the men in charge of it must be “business” -men—men who understand the business of extracting -profits.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But, with business established upon a basis of public -usefulness, with no thought of private profits, of what -use would be such a business man? His executive and -organizing ability would be of the greatest value, but -his ability as a mere profit-getter would be of no value.</p> - -<p class='c010'>For purposes of illustration, let us consider Judge -Gary, the chief executive official of the United States -Steel Corporation. Judge Gary probably knows about -as much about making steel as you do about making -Stradivarius violins. He was educated as a lawyer, practised -law and was graduated to the bench. He knows a -steel rail from a gas tank, but, to save his life, he could -not make either. He is a lawyer—plus. A lawyer -with a business man’s instinct for profits. A lawyer -with a business man’s instinct for organization and administration.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Back of Judge Gary sits a cabinet of Wall Street directors -who, in a general way, tell him what to do. But, -like Judge Gary, these Wall street directors know nothing -about the making of steel. They are expert only in -the making of profits.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Now, a simple old person who had just dropped down -here from another planet might tell you that such men -could not possibly manage a great business like that of -the steel trust. Such a simple old person might tell you -that, under the management of such men, the plants of -the steel trusts would be as likely to turn out bologna -sausages or baled hay as steel. But we know, as a matter -of fact, that, under the management of such men, the -steel trust turns out nothing but steel. And why? Simply -<span class='pageno' id='Page_77'>77</span>because, below these managers are thousands of -highly trained men and hundreds of thousands of wage-workers -who, collectively, know all that is known about -the making of steel.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Here, then, comes this crushing question. If the Socialists -were to gain control of this government, and -upon behalf of the government, buy out the steel trust, -what would prevent the Socialist President from writing -such a letter as this to the chief executive officer of the -steel trust:</p> - -<p class='c012'>“Dear Judge Gary: Until further notice stay where you are and -do as you have been doing, except as to these particulars: Instead -of consulting with J. Pierpont Morgan and your Wall Street cabinet, -consult with me and my cabinet. Instead of making steel for profit, -make it solely for use. It will not be necessary for you to make -steel rails that break in order to keep steel stock from breaking on -the market. Make everything as good as you can, sell everything -you make at cost, increase the wages of your workingmen and -shorten their hours. Do everything you can, in fact, to make the -lot of the steel-worker as comfortable as may be.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Would such a letter create a riot? Would Judge -Gary indignantly resign and the workers flee?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Would the production of steel be interrupted for a -single moment?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Yet, in no more violent way than this would the Socialists -take over the ownership and control of any industry. -The men now in charge would be left in charge—at -least until better men could be found to take their -places. Probably, here and there, a man would have to -be changed. Not every man who can squeeze out profits -is good for anything else. But the men who could forget -profits and make good in usefulness—the men who -could look at their problems solely from the point of -view of the public—such men would be let alone. -They would not only be let alone, but they would be -<span class='pageno' id='Page_78'>78</span>given a better opportunity than they now have to make -good. Profits ever stand in the way of making good -in the real sense. Steel rails that break and kill passengers -are not made poor because the steel trust officials -do not know how to make them better. They are made -poor because it would decrease profits to make them better. -Every intelligent manager of industry knows of -many things that he might do to increase the worth of -his product, but most of this knowledge goes to waste -because it would interfere with profits.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Let no man fear that Socialism, if tried, would crumple -up because the government would be unable to find -competent managers of industry. Every industry will -continue to produce men who are competent to take -charge of its technical work. The matter of executive -heads is of secondary importance. The Postmaster -General of the United States, who, almost invariably, is -a mere politician, is at the head of one of the greatest -enterprises in the world, yet the mails go on. The men -who sort letters must know their business. The Postmaster -General need not know his. It would be better -if he did, of course, but even if he does not the mails -go on. So much more important, collectively, are the -real workers of the world than any man who figureheads -over them.</p> - -<p class='c010'>When E. H. Harriman died the Harriman heirs found -a man to head the Harriman system of railroads. The -man they found—Judge Lovett—is not even a railroad -man, but the Harriman lines go on. The Vanderbilts, -Goulds, Rockefellers and Morgans also find men -to manage their railroads and other industries. What -these capitalists have done, the President, his cabinet and -congress, will probably have little difficulty in doing.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Opponents of Socialism make ridiculous statements -<span class='pageno' id='Page_79'>79</span>about the slavery that they declare would exist if the -people, through the government, owned and operated -their own industries. The workingman is told that, under -Socialism, he would be ordered about from place to -place as if he were a child.</p> - -<p class='c010'>This charge is no more ridiculous than another charge -that is sometimes made, by which it is represented that, -under Socialism, the blacksmith would burst into an -opera house, demand the job of leading the orchestra, -and start a revolution if he were denied the job. The -fact is that, under Socialism, industry would proceed, -so far as these matters are concerned, in much the same -manner that it now proceeds. The workers would be -free to apply for the kinds of work for which they regarded -themselves as best fitted. So far as the necessities -of industry would permit, the applications of the -workers would be granted. But, in the long run, the -workers would have to work where they were needed, -precisely as they now have to work where they are -needed, and, then as now, particular tasks would be -given to those who were best fitted to perform them. -Under Socialism, the worker would have to apply for -work, at this place or that place, precisely as he does -now. The only difference would be that he would always -get work somewhere, that he would work fewer -hours, under better conditions, for more pay, and, that, -as a voter, he would have a voice in the management of -all industry.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Such are the replies made by Socialists to the chief -objections that are launched against Socialism. There -is another charge—not an objection—that should also -be considered. It is the charge that Socialists are dreamers, -striving to establish a Utopia. Nothing could be -more absurd. Socialists are evolutionists. They do not -<span class='pageno' id='Page_80'>80</span>believe in Utopias, because they do not believe there is or -can be such a thing as the last word in human progress. -They believe the world will always continue to go onward -and upward, precisely as it has always gone onward and -upward. Much as they are devoted to Socialism, they -have not the slightest belief that the world will stop with -Socialism. They believe Socialism will some day become -as outgrown and burdensome as capitalism now is, and -that, when that day comes, Socialism should and will give -way to something better.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The chief contention of Socialists is that Socialism is -the next step in civilization, that it represents a great advance -over capitalism, that it will end poverty and industrial -depressions, and that Socialism must come unless -civilization is to go backward.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_81'>81</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER VI<br> <span class='large'>THE “PRIVATE PROPERTY” BOGEY-MAN</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>Socialists want the people, through the government, -to own and operate the country’s great -industries. In making this proposal, however, they always -specify that they also want the people to own and -operate the government.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Upon this slight basis rests the charge that Socialists -oppose the right of the individual to own private property. -Gentlemen who own much private property—hundreds -of millions of dollars’ worth—energetically -try to frighten gentlemen whose holdings of private property -are chiefly confined to the clothes they stand in and -the chairs they sit in.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“Beware of those Socialists,” say these gentlemen. -“They are your worst enemies. They would deprive -you of the right to own private property. They would -have everybody own everything jointly, thus permitting -nobody to own anything individually. Look out for -them.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>We Socialists say to you: “Look out for the gentlemen -who are so fearful lest you shall lose the right to -own private property. If you will observe carefully, -you will note that they are the ones who own practically -all of the private property. You have hopes, perhaps, -but they have the property. Your hopes do not increase. -Their property does. Besides, we have no desire to deny -you the right to own private property. On the contrary, -we want to make your right worth something. It is -<span class='pageno' id='Page_82'>82</span>not worth anything now, because you don’t own anything -and can’t own anything. You are kept too busy making -a bare living.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>The imagination can picture no more seductive subject -than the right to own private property. The right to -own private property suggests the power to exercise the -right. The power to exercise the right a little suggests -the power to exercise it much. The power to exercise it -much suggests the power to put the world at one’s feet; -to reach out and get this, whatever it may be; to go there -and get that, wherever it may be. Nothing that is of -earth or on earth is beyond the dreams of one who owns -enough private property. Therefore, the subject may be -worth a little more than ordinary consideration.</p> - -<p class='c010'>What, then, is property? Let us look around us. -One man has property in land. So far as the eye can -see, maybe, the laws of the state defend him in his power -to say: “This is mine. I bought it. I paid for it. -No one can take it from me without my leave. No one -may even pick a flower from the hillside, or a berry from -a bush without my consent.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Property in land may be called property in natural resources—property -in things that man did not make.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Then there is property in things that man has made. -Property in food, property in clothing, property in -houses, and property in the mills and machinery with -which food, clothing, houses and all other manufactured -articles are made.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Now, why should anyone wish a property right in anything? -Why should anyone wish to say of anything on -earth: “This is mine. No one may take it from me -without my leave. No one may even use it without my -leave”?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Only that he may fully use and enjoy it. That is the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_83'>83</span>only valid reason that lies behind the desire to own anything. -Some things cannot be fully used and enjoyed -unless they are exclusively within the control of those -who use them. A home into which the world was at -liberty to enter would be no home. It might be a lodging -house or a hotel, but it would be no home. Therefore, -there is a valid reason why each individual should exclusively -control the house in which he lives. Such exclusive -control may arise from private ownership, as we -now understand the term, or it may arise from the right, -guaranteed by the state, to exclusive control so long as -its use is desired; but, from whatever it may arise, it -should exist.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It is the shame of the present civilization that it does -not exist. The great majority of human beings have not -the exclusive control of the houses in which they live. -Their clutch upon their habitations is of the flimsiest sort. -The sickness of the father may deprive them of the -power to pay rent and thus put them out. The ability of -some other man to pay a greater rental may put them out. -Any one of many incidents may deprive them of their -right to exclusive control of their domiciles.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Exclusive control of the furnishings of a home is also -necessary to their complete enjoyment. What is true of -house furnishings is true of clothing. Anything, in fact, -that is exclusively used by an individual cannot be completely -enjoyed unless it is exclusively controlled by that -individual.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Wherein lies the justice of permitting one individual -to own that which he does not use and cannot use, but -which some other individual must use? Why should -Mr. Morgan and his associates be permitted to own the -machinery with which the steel trust workers earn their -living? Why should Mr. Rockefeller and his associates -<span class='pageno' id='Page_84'>84</span>be permitted to own so many of the railroads with which -railroad men earn their living? Why should one man -be permitted to own block upon block of tenements, -while block upon block of tenement-dwellers own no -homes?</p> - -<p class='c010'>These questions cannot be answered by saying that the -world has always been run this way. In the first place, -it is not true. Never, during all the years of the world, -until less than a century ago, did a few men own the -tools with which all other men work. In fact, it is only -within the last 40 years that such ownership has divided -the population into a small master class and a vast servant -class. But even if the world had always been run as -it is running, that, in itself, would not make it right. -And anything that is wrong cannot be made right without -changing it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We Socialists are determined to change the laws relating -to private property. We assert that the present -laws are wrong. We are prepared to prove that they are -wrong. We are eager to demonstrate that the poverty -of the masses is the direct result of the ownership, by a -few, of a certain kind of property that should not be privately -owned. We refer, of course, to the industrial machinery -of the country, which is owned by those who do -not use it and used by those who do not own it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Our proposal, therefore, is this: We say that all property -that is collectively used should be collectively owned, -and that all property that is individually used should be -individually owned. The last clause should help out the -gentleman who is afraid that Socialism would rob him -of the ownership of his undershirt. The first clause will -help him to own an undershirt.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Please take this suggestion: Distrust any man who -advises you to distrust Socialism because of the fear that -<span class='pageno' id='Page_85'>85</span>it would destroy the individual’s right to own property. -Such a man is always either ignorant upon the subject of -Socialism or crooked upon the subject of capitalism. -There are no exceptions, for Socialism does not mean -what he says it means and would not do what he says -it would do.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialism would give such a meaning to the individual -right to own property as it has never had in all the -history of the world. Under Socialism, the individual -would not only have the right to own property, but he -would have the power to exercise the right. He would -own property. If Socialism would not give every head -of a family the power exclusively to control as good a -house as the $5,000–a-year man now lives in, Socialists -would have no use for Socialism. The actual ownership -of the house might or might not rest with the individual. -To prevent grafters from grabbing houses, it -might be deemed advisable to let the state hold the title. -But the state would protect the individual in the right -exclusively to control the house as long as he wished to -live in it, even if it were for a lifetime. If the people so -desired, the state might even go further and give the -children, after the death of their parents, the same right. -But no Socialist government would permit a landlord -class to fatten upon a homeless class.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Why? Because Socialists believe that no validity underlies -a private title to property except the validity that -is completed by the <i>use</i> of property. This statement, -like any other, can be made ridiculous by construing it -ridiculously. Socialists do not mean by this, for instance, -that if a man should take his family to the country -for the summer anybody would have a right to move -into his house, merely because he had temporarily ceased -to use it. But Socialists do mean that it is hostile to the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_86'>86</span>interests of the community for a small class to own so -much that they can never use.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists believe that the needs of the community are -so great that all of the resources of the community should -be available to the community. Therefore, they would -require occupancy, or use, as a pre-requisite to the perfection -of a title. Not that if a man, in spring, were to hang -up his winter underclothing for the summer, any neighbor -gentleman would thereby be given the right to appropriate -the same—nothing of the kind. This statement -with regard to use, like all other statements made by -Socialists, must be construed reasonably. We simply lay -down the principle that it is wrong to perpetuate conditions -under which a few are enabled to grab so much -more than they can use. Such grabbing hurts. What a -man cannot use he should not have. He thereby prevents -others from getting what they need.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Besides, what is grabbing but a bad habit? Mr. -Rockefeller’s $900,000,000, if expended exclusively for -bologna sausages, might buy enough to supply him for a -million years. If expended for golf balls, he might be -able to play golf, without buying a new ball, until he had -eaten the last sausage. If expended for clothing, he -might be able to wear a new suit, every fifteen minutes, -for the next 28,000,000 years. But what good do all of -these figures do Rockefeller? His capacity for consuming -wealth is extremely limited. It is only his capacity -for appropriating the wealth created by others that is -great. Every time Mr. Rockefeller’s watch ticks $2 -drop into his till—but he never sees them. He hardly -knows they are there. He has to hire a bookkeeper to -know they are there. So far as certainties are concerned, -Mr. Rockefeller knows only that when he wants bacon -and eggs, with a little hashed brown potatoes on the side, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_87'>87</span>he has the money to pay for them. In other words, the -few wants of his slight physical body are never in danger -of denial.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Mr. Rockefeller’s physical wants would be in no danger -of denial if he were worth only $50,000. Why, then, -does he want to own the rest of his $900,000,000 worth -of property? Plainly, it is only because he is a victim -of a bad habit. Some men want money because of the -power it gives them, but Rockefeller has never seemed to -care much about power. He simply has a mania for accumulation. -The more he gets, the more he can get—therefore, -he always wants to get more.</p> - -<p class='c010'>And, what does Rockefeller do with wealth, after he -gets it? Why, he lets us use it. He invests it in railroads, -or steel mills, or steamboats, or copper mines, or -restaurants, or whatever seems likely to bring him more -money. He does not use any of these properties much. -The same freight train that brings him a package of -breakfast food brings carloads of kitchen stoves and iron -bedsteads to those whose watches have to tick all day to -bring in $2. But the point is that while Mr. Rockefeller -uses his properties little and we use them much, he is continuously -charging us toll for their use and investing the -toll in more iron, more steel or more copper. If he -charged us no toll, we should have reason to be thankful -to him. If he should invest the toll in the necessities of -life and dole them out to us, we should, if we were beggars, -also have reason to be thankful to him. But he -invests his toll in more iron, more steel or more copper—toll -that the men who made it need to put blood into -their bodies and clothing on their families.</p> - -<p class='c010'>That is all that the private ownership of property does -for Mr. Rockefeller more than it does for anybody else. -The beefsteak upon his plate is no more secure from outside -<span class='pageno' id='Page_88'>88</span>attack than is the food upon the plate of the poorest -laborer. But the industrial machinery that Mr. Rockefeller -owns enables him to get, every time his watch ticks, -the equivalent of $2 worth of food, or clothing, or anything -else.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We stupid people who permit the private ownership of -industrial machinery should be exceedingly thankful to -Mr. Rockefeller and men of his type. To these gentlemen, -are thanks especially due from those persons who -believe that the constitution of the United States represents -the last gasp of wisdom and should not, therefore, -in any circumstances, be changed. Under the constitution -and laws of this country, as they stand to-day, Mr. -Rockefeller and his associates could legally starve us to -death, if they were so minded. Each of them could go -abroad, deposit $1,000,000 in the Bank of England, then -cable instructions to close down every industry they own, -which would mean every industry of importance in the -country, including the railroads. No one would have a -legal right to trespass upon their premises, and their -hoarded wealth would be sufficient to enable them to live -comfortably abroad to the end of their days, while the -people of America were starving to death.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Of course, the people of America would not starve to -death. Law or no law, the people of America would -break into the abandoned properties and operate them. -Without extended delay, they would change the law, including -the federal constitution, to justify their action. -But the theoretical possibility of such abandonment is -sufficient to illustrate the absurdity of our present laws -with regard to the ownership of private property.</p> - -<p class='c010'>When the constitution was adopted, even no such theoretical -possibility existed. It is true that we were -then almost exclusively an agricultural people, and some -<span class='pageno' id='Page_89'>89</span>of the best families had stolen millions of acres of the -most available land. But back of the most available land -were untold millions of acres of other land upon which -human life could be sustained—land that could be had -for the taking and clearing. The factory age had not -dawned. Every home was its own factory, in which -cloth was woven and clothing was made. Aside from -the stolen land which was privately owned, almost nothing -was privately owned that was not suitable for private -ownership. That was largely due, of course, to the -further fact that there was not, at that time, much wealth -in the country.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But, viewed from any angle, the unrestricted private -ownership of property is a curse to the people and always -has been. If it were not a curse, in the sense that it enables -some to rob others, no one who is in his senses -would be in favor of it. The desire to use property is a -legitimate reason for wishing to own it, but the desire -to own property that one does not use can arise from no -other motive than a purpose to use such ownership as -a bludgeon with which to rob the users.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Apply this test and it will be found never to fail. The -landlord owns land because he wants to live in idleness -from the fruits of those who till the land. The multimillionaire -owners of industrial machinery want to own -the industrial machinery because they want to use such -ownership to appropriate part of what their employees -produce. If private ownership did not give this advantage -to the owners, the owners would not care to own. -If it does give this advantage to the owners the workers -have a right to object. Moreover, the workers have a -right to insist that such ownership cease.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It is not enough to reply that a man has a right to own -any physical property that he can buy. Some burglars -<span class='pageno' id='Page_90'>90</span>have enough money to buy dark lanterns and “jimmies,” -paying for the same in perfectly lawful coin of the -United States. But merely because the private ownership -of burglars’ tools is not for the good of the people, -we have laws forbidding such ownership, and if the laws -be violated, we seize and confiscate the tools.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Some day, the fact may dawn upon us that, for every -dollar taken with burglars’ tools, a million dollars is -taken—quite legally, of course—by the owners of industrial -tools.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It may be a sore blow, of course, to a man who under -capitalism, has never been able to own a coffee grinder, -to tell him that, under Socialism, he would not be permitted -to own a steel mill. If so, let the blow fall at -once. He might as well know the worst now, as later. -But if there be those who are interested in owning homes, -furniture, clothing, motorboats, automobiles, and so -forth, let them be interested in Socialism. Socialism, by -no means, guarantees that every laborer shall go to his -work in a six-cylinder car, while his wife does the marketing -in a limousine, but it does guarantee that Socialism -would not prevent him from privately owning all -such property that he could earn.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We realize, of course, that this is but a small bait to -hold out to a man whom capitalism has given the “right” -to own the earth. Among gentlemen who would like -to own the earth, perhaps we shall therefore make little -progress. But among gentlemen who have been promised -the earth and are getting only hell, we may do better. -The time may come when they will tire of piling their -bones at the foot of the precipice of private property. -The time may come when they will realize that it would -be no more absurd to have private undershirts owned by -the public than it is to have the public’s industrial machinery -<span class='pageno' id='Page_91'>91</span>owned by private interests. Then we shall have -Socialism.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“And everything will be divided up equally, all around, -and in five years the same persons will be rich who are -now rich, and the same persons who are now poor will be -poor again.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>List to the croaking parrot that has just flown into -our happy home. Whenever and wherever there is a -discussion about Socialism, that wise old bird wheels in -and declares it is all a wicked scheme to rob the rich for -the benefit of the poor, and that in no event could it long -succeed. Poor old feathered imitation of a human intellect! -Brainless, yet not without a voice, it talks on -and on and on. Bereft of its feathers and its voice, it -might take its place upon a hook in the market place and -eventually work its way into some careless shopper’s -basket as a perfectly good partridge, or diminutive duck. -Placed upon the table and served as a delicacy, its worthlessness -would soon be understood. But clad as nature -clothed it and harping words that some one once dropped -into its ear, its voice is continuously mistaken for the -voice of wisdom and the progress of the world is commanded -to halt.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But the progress of the world does not halt. Those -who can think without inviting excruciating pain; those -who can reflect without bringing on a stroke of apoplexy, -are not compelled to think much or to reflect much to -realize that nothing the bird says about “dividing up” is -so. Who divided up the wealth that is represented in the -public buildings in Washington? What part of the -White House, pray, do you own? Do you own the south -veranda, or do you own the President’s bed? Maybe it -is the gilded lady upon the dome of the Capitol who calls -you “papa” or “mamma.” If not, the wealth represented -<span class='pageno' id='Page_92'>92</span>in the public buildings in Washington has not been -“divided up,” for you have not been given your share.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Under Socialism, the wealth of the nation would no -more be divided up than the wealth invested in the American -navy is divided up now. The industrial wealth of -the community, owned in common by the members of -the community, would be at the service of the community. -It would no more be at the service of an individual, -exclusive of any other or all other individuals, than the -postal department is now at the service of an individual -to the exclusion of any other individual. Nor would -any man or small set of men ever have a greater opportunity -to regain possession of the nation’s industrial -wealth than any man or small set of men now have to acquire -private ownership of the Capitol at Washington. -Any man may walk into the Capitol with all the freedom -that he might feel if it were his own. But let any man -try to sell off a wing as a lodging house and the Capitol -police would do their duty. Let Socialists once nationalize -the nation’s industries and they will cheerfully agree -to lay their heads on the block if individuals ever recover -possession of them.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Gentlemen who believe otherwise forget that under -Socialism there would no longer be the means by which a -few pile up great fortunes at the expense of the many. -The private ownership of property that is collectively -used is the means by which such fortunes are now accumulated. -With the means gone, how could the fortunes -reappear?</p> - -<p class='c010'>We Socialists are also often chided for what our opponents -are pleased to call our “gross materialism.” -Gentle folk like the Morgans, the Guggenheims, the -Ryans, the Havemeyers and others often grieve because -our vision seems to comprehend nothing but bread and -<span class='pageno' id='Page_93'>93</span>butter, clothing and furniture, houses and lots and pensions -for the aged.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Their grief is perhaps natural. We talk much about -those things. We are frankly committed to the task of -removing poverty from the world. Material things are -required to remove poverty. When poverty goes, of -course, a lot will go that is not material. All of the unhappiness -that is caused by poverty and the fear of poverty -will go. All of the ignorance that is caused by -poverty will go. All of the crimes that are caused by -ignorance and poverty will go. And much of the vice -will go.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Much of the vice? Did you ever consider how much -vice would go if capitalism were to go? Did you ever -realize to what extent vice is fostered by the profit system -to which Socialism is opposed? No? Then read -what Wirt W. Hallman, of Chicago, said before the -American Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis. -Here it is:</p> - -<p class='c012'>“If any city will take the profit out of vice, it will immediately -reduce the volume of vice at least 50 per cent. If, in addition, it will -make vice dangerous to men as well as women, to patrons, property-owners -and business men as well as to dive-keepers and women -street-walkers, it will reduce vice 75 per cent. or more, and will -reduce the wreckage of health and morals in much the same proportion.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialism will not only take the profit out of vice, but -it will take it out of everything. By enfranchising -woman and making her economically independent, no -woman would be compelled to sell herself to keep herself. -Socialism, in this and other enumerated respects, is therefore -not particularly materialistic.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But what if it were wholly materialistic? What if its -advocates thought of teaching nothing to the world but -the best means of supplying itself with bread and butter, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_94'>94</span>boots and shoes, caps and clothing, houses and lots? Do -you now require your grocer to teach you ethics? Does -your haberdasher supply you with spiritual food as well -as neckties? If your house were burning, would you -refuse the assistance of the fire department merely -because the fire department is exclusively materialistic?</p> - -<p class='c010'>The charge of “gross materialism” is but more sand -thrown in the eyes of those who could not be so easily -robbed if they could see Socialism. Socialists behold a -world that is and always has been poverty-stricken. -They say that for the first time in the history of the -world it is now possible to remove poverty. And those -gentlemen who might have to go to work if poverty were -removed rebuke the Socialists because they do not sing -psalms while talking about the bread and butter question. -Assuredly, no flattery is thereby intended, but indeed -what flattery this is. By inference, they tell the world -that we are super-men. We could tell the world all it -needs to know if it were not for the cussedness that -causes us to harp on bread and butter.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The real cause of such complaint is, of course, not that -we are teaching the world too little, but too much. We -could preach ethics and religion until the cows came -home and not arouse a croaker. We could preach nothing -until the cows dropped dead and still there would be -silence. But when we proclaim the right of the individual, -not only to work, but to possess all he creates, the -gentlemen who create nothing and own everything fire -at us every brick within reach.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Mr. John C. Spooner, once a United States Senator -from Wisconsin, but, happily, no longer such, feels particularly -aggrieved at the Socialist proposals commonly -<span class='pageno' id='Page_95'>95</span>known as the initiative, the referendum and the recall. -To engraft these measures upon our federal and state -constitutions would, he says, be an attempt to bring about -a “pure democracy,” meaning thereby a community the -members of which directly governed themselves. A -“pure democracy,” according to Mr. Spooner, was never -made to work on a great scale and cannot be made to -work to-day.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Mr. Spooner, who, in and out of office, has always -served the rich, is evidently still true to his allegiance. -If Mr. Spooner does not know that no Socialist, nor any -other person fit to be out of an idiot asylum, has ever -even suggested that the government of the United States -be converted into a pure democracy, the sum of his -knowledge is even less than the sum of his public services -up to date. Socialists, and those who have followed us -in advocating the initiative, the referendum and the recall -merely want to give the people power to do certain -things for themselves, provided their elected representatives -refuse to do them.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We do not propose to do away with representative -government. We do not propose to disband a single -legislative body. But we do propose to make every -elected official represent us. We do not care whether he -be a judge, a congressman or a President. He must -represent us. But merely because we are determined -these gentlemen shall represent us, other gentlemen like -Mr. Spooner seek to make the people believe we are trying -to go back to the old New England town meeting -days and collect 90,000,0000 people on the prairie somewhere -every time a law is to be passed or a fourth-class -postmaster appointed. The most charitable construction -that can be placed upon the attitude of Mr. Spooner and -<span class='pageno' id='Page_96'>96</span>men of his kind is that they are infinitely more foolish -than they believe Socialists to be.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Another point of view is suggested by a Denver gentleman -whose letter follows:</p> - -<p class='c012'>“In one of your articles on Socialism, you tell how Socialists -would govern—changes they would make in the constitution, and -so forth. I should like to ask what you Socialists, or your ancestors -had to do with making our present form of government? In other -words, what percentage of the Socialists have three generations of -American-born ancestors? Socialist leaders, in particular? A very -small percentage, I venture to say. Socialism is a result of immigration. -Americans still have faith in the constitution of the -United States.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>When all other attacks fail, the charge is gravely -made that “Socialism is un-American” and, therefore, a -“result of immigration.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Does it never occur to these gentlemen that the United -States are also the “result of immigration”? That the -English language, as we speak it here, is the result of immigration?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Would these gentlemen have us reject everything that -comes from Europe? If so, why do they not reject the -Declaration of Independence, which, though written by -Thomas Jefferson, yet breathes the spirit of Rousseau -and Voltaire, at whose feet he was proud to sit? Why -do they not reject the constitution of the United States -which is heavily saturated with the political principles of -the English? Why do they not reject the English common -law, which assuredly is not American? Why do -they not reject the multiplication table, the works of -Shakespeare and the wireless telegraph?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Why don’t they? Because they are not fools. They -are foolish, let us hope, only when they are talking about -Socialism. On this subject, their brains curdle. They -do not ask whether the principles upon which it is based -<span class='pageno' id='Page_97'>97</span>are true. Truth is not the test. The test is the place -where the principles were first proclaimed. If it could -be proved that they were first proclaimed at Muncie, Indiana, -by a gentleman who was born there immediately -after the landing of Columbus—then we might expect -these patriots to become Socialists even if Socialism had -not a leg to stand upon. But since Europeans chanced -to hit upon Socialism before we did, precisely as they -chanced to hit upon many another good thing before we -did, these gentlemen do not want Socialism, even though -it be true.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Well, let them reject it. Let them reject the sun, the -moon and the stars, if they want to. None of them was -made in America. Let them reject the Mississippi -River because it was discovered by De Soto, a foreigner. -Let them reject the Pacific Ocean because it was discovered -by Balboa, another foreigner. The march of the -sun and planets will probably not be seriously disturbed, -even if some gentlemen do reject them. Possibly the -Mississippi River may flow on. Certainly, the Socialist -party in America will not disband. It’s busy.</p> - -<p class='c010'>I cannot tell my correspondent what percentage of Socialists -have three generations of ancestors who were -born in America. I do not know. I do not care. I do -not know why he should care. I know some Socialists -who have fifteen generations of ancestors who were born -in America. I have seen some Socialists when they had -been in this country only fifteen minutes. So far as I -could discover, they were precisely like the Socialists who -had lived in this country, in person or by proxy, for 300 -years. They all believed that poverty was unnecessary -and that Socialism would remove it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Either that belief is true, or it isn’t. Whence it -sprang or by whom it is expressed makes no difference -<span class='pageno' id='Page_98'>98</span>with its truth or falsity. Yet, men who think they can -think, write or speak as this gentleman has written. -They mean well, of course, but they are suffering from -ingrowing Americanism. They are turning their eyes -upon themselves and their backs upon the world. If -America ever reaches the point where it will reject truth, -simply because it comes from abroad, while accepting -error for no other reason than that it is made at home, -America will not be worth bothering about.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_99'>99</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER VII<br> <span class='large'>SOCIALISM THE LONE FOE OF WAR</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>Ask the first man you meet if he is in favor of war -and he will tell you he is not. Mr. Wilson is opposed -to war. The Czar of Russia is opposed to war. -The King of Italy is opposed to war. The Sultan of -Turkey is opposed to war. The King of England and -the German Emperor are opposed to war. Every king -and emperor in the world is opposed to war. Mr. -Roosevelt, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Carnegie, Mr. -Taft—everybody, everywhere, is opposed to war.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Yet, Mr. Taft, not so long ago, flung an army in the -face of Mexico, and dispatched powerful warships to the -coast of Cuba. The King of Italy, not so long ago, -attacked, by land and sea, the people of Turkey. Mr. -Roosevelt and Mr. Bryan, a little longer ago, enlisted in -the war against Spain. Mr. Morgan, only a few years -ago, helped to furnish the sinews of war with which -Japan fought Russia. At this moment, the King of -England and the German Emperor are threatening their -respective nations with bankruptcy in order to augment -their enormous machinery for the slaying of men. And, -Mr. Carnegie, having grown rich, in part by the manufacture -of armor-plate for warships, is now using some -of his money to further a peace-movement that brings no -peace.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Plainly, here is something mystifying—a world that -wants to stop fighting and cannot. Why cannot it stop -fighting? Mr. Wilson cannot tell you. Mr. Morgan -<span class='pageno' id='Page_100'>100</span>will not tell you. Mr. Roosevelt has not told you. Mr. -Bryan and Mr. Carnegie seem not to know. No one -who should know seems to know. Yet, they must know. -Common sense says so. The men who make wars know -why they make them. Wars do not happen—they are -made. Somebody says: “Bring out the guns.” Somebody -says: “Begin shooting.” Somebody knows what -the shooting is about.</p> - -<p class='c010'>What is it about? Be careful, now. Don’t answer -too quickly. Don’t say “the flag” has been insulted. -Don’t say “the national honor” has been impugned. -These are old reasons, but they may not be true reasons. -We Socialists are willing to stake everything on the -statement that they are not true reasons. If we are -right, we are worth listening to. War is hell. During -the 132 years that we have been a nation, we have had -war hell at average intervals of 22 years. We are already -preparing for our next war. We are arming to -the teeth. It may not last so long as the Civil War, but -it will be bloodier. We have all of the most improved -machinery for making it bloodier.</p> - -<p class='c010'>On the sea we are armed as Farragut never was -armed. Any of our dreadnoughts could sink all of the -ships, for which and against which, Farragut ever -fought. And, on land, we are armed as Grant never was -armed. Grant drummed out his victories with muzzle-loading -rifles. No rifle could be fired rapidly. No bullet -could kill more than one man, nor any man unless -that man were near. But the modern rifle can be fired -25 times a minute, and it will kill at four miles. More -than that, a single bullet from a modern rifle will kill -every man in its path. It will shoot through 60 inches -of pine. It will string men like a needle stringing beads. -It will literally make a sieve of a soldier. Seventy bullet -<span class='pageno' id='Page_101'>101</span>holes and more were found in the body of many a man -who fell on the plains of Manchuria.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Toward such a war—or worse—we are speeding. -Indeed, it will be hell. But it will not be hell for the men -who make it. It will be hell for the men who fight it. -The men who make it will stay at home. Their blood -will drench no battlefield. Their bones will lie in the -mire with no sunken ship. But the blood of the workers -will drench every battlefield, and their skeletons will -march with the tides on the floor of the sea.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Good Christian gentlemen who abhor war hold out no -hope that war will soon cease. Good Christian gentlemen -who abhor war pretend not to know why, in a world -that is weary of war, war still persists. Or, if they do -pretend to know, they account for the persistence of -war by slandering the human race. They say the race -is bad. Its brain is full of greed. Its heart is full of -murder.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The mind of the race is not, nor ever has been filled -with the greed that kills.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The heart of the race is not, nor ever has been, filled -with the black blood of murder.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It is only a few whose minds and hearts have been -thus poisoned by greed for gain or lust for power. -Probably we should all have been thus poisoned if we -had been similarly circumstanced—if we had been great -capitalists. But most of us, lacking the capitalist’s instinct -for profits, never chanced to see the easy loot and -the waiting dagger lying side by side. The gentlemen -who have seen them have made our wars. And the gentlemen -who do see them are making our wars to-day and -preparing others for the future.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We Socialists make this charge flatly. We smear the -monstrous crime of war over the face of the capitalist -<span class='pageno' id='Page_102'>102</span>class. We mince no words. We say to the capitalist -class:</p> - -<p class='c010'>“Your pockets are filled with gold, but your hands are -covered with blood. You kill men to get money. You -don’t kill them, yourselves. As a class, you are too careful -of your sleek bodies. You might be killed if you -were less careful. But you cause other men to kill.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“And you do it in the meanest way. You do it by -appealing to their patriotism.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“You say: ‘It is sweet to die for one’s country.’</p> - -<p class='c010'>“You don’t dare say: ‘It is sweet to die for Havemeyer,’ -as many Americans died during the Sugar Trust -war to ‘free Cuba.’</p> - -<p class='c010'>“You don’t say: ‘It is sweet to die for Guggenheim -or Morgan,’ as many Americans would have died if -Taft’s army had crossed the Rio Grande.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“You don’t say: ‘It is sweet to die for the Tobacco -and other trusts,’ as many Americans died during the war -with the Philippines.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“You don’t dare say any of these things, because you -know, if you did, you would not get a recruit. You -know you would be more likely to get the boot.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>We Socialists, who make these charges, know they are -serious. They are as serious as we know how to make -them. If they lack any of the seriousness they should -have, it is because we lack some of the vocabulary we -should have. The facts upon which the charges are -made are serious enough to justify the full use of any -vocabulary ever made. The facts are the facts of -colossal murder for gain. And they are as old as history.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The small rich class that lives in luxury from the -labor of the great poor class has a reason for clinging -to the control of government. That reason is not far -<span class='pageno' id='Page_103'>103</span>to seek. Without the control of government, the small, -rich class would not be rich. Government, in the hands -of the rich, is a sort of two-handed claw with which -golden chestnuts are pulled out of the fire. One claw -is the governmental power to make and enforce laws. -The other claw is the power to grab by force that which -cannot be grabbed by laws.</p> - -<p class='c010'>One nation cannot make laws for another nation. -But the capitalists of one nation may possess property -that is wanted by the capitalists of another nation. Or -the capitalists of one nation may see a great opportunity -for personal profit in transferring to their own -nation the sovereignty that another nation holds over a -certain territory. That was why Great Britain made -war against the Boers. Certain rich English gentlemen -believed they could make more money if the British flag -waved over the diamond and gold fields of the Transvaal. -For no more nearly valid reason, the capitalist -class of Japan made war against the capitalist class of -Russia. Russia had stolen Korea and Japan wanted it. -Korea belonged to the Koreans, but that made no difference. -Two thieves struggled for it and one of them -has it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The moment that the capitalist class of one nation determines -to rob the capitalist class of another nation, the -machinery for inflaming the public mind is set in motion. -This machinery consists of tongues and printing presses. -Tongues and printing presses immediately begin to foment -hatred. Every man in each country is made to -feel that every man in the other country is his personal -enemy. But that is stating it too mildly. Every man -in each country is made to feel that every man in the -other country is as much worse than a personal enemy -as a nation is greater than an individual. Fervent appeals -<span class='pageno' id='Page_104'>104</span>are made to “patriotism.” “The flag” is waved. -It is not “sweet to die” for Cecil Rhodes, for Rothschild -or any one else—“It is sweet to die for one’s -country.” And thousands of men take the bait.</p> - -<p class='c010'>They bid farewell to their homes. They embark upon -transports. They sail strange seas. They disembark -upon strange shores. They see strange men. Men -whom they never saw before. Men against whom they -have no possible sort of grudge. Men who never -harmed them. Men whom they never harmed. Common -workingmen, like themselves.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But they shoot these men and are shot by these men. -They spill each other’s blood. They break each other’s -bones. They break the hearts of each other’s families. -And, when one army or the other has been crippled beyond -further fighting, there is peace. The peace of the -sword! The peace of death! The peace that leaves -the working classes of both countries poorer and the -capitalist class of only one country richer.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Was it not a great victory? Yes.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It was a great victory for the capitalists of the world -who lent money to both belligerents. (But it was not -a great victory for the workingmen of both countries, -who, through weary, weary years, will be shorn of part -of their earnings to pay the interest upon the war bonds.)</p> - -<p class='c010'>It was a great victory for the capitalist group who -plunged for plunder and got it. (But it was not a great -victory for the capitalist group that lost its plunder.)</p> - -<p class='c010'>It was a great victory for the generals, who, from a -safe distance, directed the fighting. (But it was not a -great victory for the workingmen who, at close quarters, -fell before the guns and were buried where they fell.)</p> - -<p class='c010'>It was no sort of a victory for the working class of -either country. At least, any victory that came to the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_105'>105</span>working class of either country was merely incidental. -Great Britain whipped the Boers, but the British people -did not get the gold mines and the diamond mines. The -Japanese whipped the Russians, but the Japanese workingmen -did not get any of the plunder for which the war -was fought. The Japanese capitalists got all of the -plunder. The common people of Japan were so poor, -after they had fought a “successful” war against Russia, -that, within six months of the termination of the -war, the Mikado urged the sternest self-denial upon -them as the only means of saving the country from bankruptcy. -And, notwithstanding the victory of the British -over the Boers, the common people of England were -never before so poor as they are to-day.</p> - -<p class='c010'>What is the use of blinking these facts? They are -facts. Nobody can disprove them. They stand. They -stand even in the face of the further fact that some wars -have helped the working class. The American Revolution -helped the working class of America. But the -American working class would not have been in need of -help if the English land-owning class who ruled the -British government had not been using the government -to plunder and oppress the people of America.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But that is only one side of the story. Let us look at -the American side. The common people of America -gained something from the war. They slipped from the -clutches of the English grafters. But they did not get -what they were promised. Read the Declaration of Independence -and see what they were promised. Read the -Constitution of the United States and see what they -were given. Between the Declaration of Independence -and the Constitution of the United States there is all -the difference that exists between blazing sunlight and -pale moonlight. No finer spirit was ever breathed into -<span class='pageno' id='Page_106'>106</span>words than that which appears in the Declaration of -Independence. Jefferson wrote it, and he wrote splendidly, -though the Declaration, as it stands, is not as he -first wrote it. Jefferson was so afire with the idea of -liberty that his associates upon the committee that -drafted the Declaration shrank from the light. They -compelled him to tone down his words. But the Declaration -as it stands spells Liberty with a big “L.” And, -Liberty with a big “L” can be nothing but a republic -in which the people, through their representatives, absolutely -rule.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The people, through their representatives, have never -ruled this country and do not rule it to-day. The Constitution -of the United States will not let them. It will -not let them vote directly for President. In the beginning, -the people did not even choose the electors who -elected the President. State Legislatures chose them. -No man except a legislator ever voted for the electors -who chose Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and -some others. To this day the Constitution denies the -right of the people to choose United States Senators and -Justices of the United States Supreme Court. In the -few states where the people practically choose United -States Senators they do so only by “going around the -end” of the Constitution. They exact a promise from -legislative candidates to elect the senators for whom the -people have expressed a preference. But this is wholly -extra-constitutional. If the legislators were to break -their promises, the United States Supreme Court would -be compelled to sustain them in their constitutional right -to do so.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Now, here is the point. Granted that the American -Revolution was of value to the American working class. -Granted that the ills that followed from American rule -<span class='pageno' id='Page_107'>107</span>were not so grievous as the ills inflicted by the ruling -class of England. Grant all this and more. Still, is -it not true that if it had not been for the ruling class -of England, there would have been no occasion for a -war? Is it not true that the English people, if they -had been in control of their own government, never -would have harmed the people of America? When did -the English people, or any other people, ever harm anybody? -When did a thievish, murderous ruling class -neglect to harm any people whose plunder seemed possible -and profitable?</p> - -<p class='c010'>The idea that the people of one country, if left to -themselves, would ever become embittered against the -people of another country, is absurd. Test this statement -by your own feelings. Are you so angry at some -Japanese peasant who is now patiently toiling upon his -little hillside in Japan, that you would like to go to Japan -and kill him? Is there any person in Germany whom -you never saw that you want to kill?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Of course not. But if you are a “patriotic” American -citizen, you may some day cross a sea to kill somebody. -If you believe in “following the flag,” the flag -may some day lead you into the hell of war. If you -believe “it is sweet to die for one’s country,” you may -some day be shot to pieces. But if so, you will not die -for your country. Your country wants you to live. -You will die for the ruling class of your country. If -you should expire from gunshot wounds in Mexico, you -might die for Mr. Guggenheim, or some other noble -citizen who will be far from the firing line. Wherever -you may die from war-wounds, you will die to put more -money into somebody else’s pockets.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It has always been so. Why did we go to war against -England in 1812? Because the English people had -<span class='pageno' id='Page_108'>108</span>wronged us? The English people, left to themselves, -never wronged anybody. We went to war with England -in 1812 because the ruling class of England, then -deep in the Napoleonic wars, were holding up American -ships upon the high seas to take off alleged British subjects -and jam them into the British Navy.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Such action, of course, was harmful to American -pride, but really it did not deeply concern the American -working class. Most of the workers lived and died -without ever having seen a ship. Nevertheless, the -American working class was summoned to the slaughter. -My paternal great-grandfather, a humble farmer in the -Hudson River Valley, was drafted into the ranks, and -to this day I honor him because he would not go without -being drafted. And, when the war was ended, the working -class of America was worse off than it was before.</p> - -<p class='c010'>So was the working class of England. Some were -dead. Some were shattered in health. The living lived -less well because they had to pay the cost of hell. The -impressment of alleged British subjects upon the high -seas ceased only because Great Britain chose to end it. -The treaty of peace contained no stipulation that she -should end it. Thus ceased this criminally stupid war, -which never would have begun if the people of England, -instead of a small ruling class, had ruled their own -country.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The war with Mexico was so monstrous that General -Grant, who fought in it, denounced it in the strongest -language at his command. In the second chapter of -the first volume of his “Memoirs,” after characterizing -the Mexican War as “unholy,” he says:</p> - -<p class='c012'>“The occupation, separation and annexation” (of Texas) “were, -from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy -to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed -<span class='pageno' id='Page_109'>109</span>for the American Union. Even if the annexation itself could be -justified, the manner in which the subsequent war was forced upon -Mexico cannot.... The Southern Rebellion was largely the -outgrowth of the Mexican War.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Do you get that? Two wars caused by slavery. -Seven hundred thousand men killed. Twenty billion -dollars’ worth of wealth either destroyed outright, or -consumed for interest upon the public debt, or paid for -subsequent pensions.</p> - -<p class='c010'>And for what?</p> - -<p class='c010'>To settle the question of slavery.</p> - -<p class='c010'>To settle the question of slavery that the men who -framed the national Constitution, most of whom were -slaveholders, permitted to exist.</p> - -<p class='c010'>To settle the question of slavery, which, never for -one moment, during all of those intervening years, was -anything but a curse even to the white working class.</p> - -<p class='c010'>And, what is chattel slavery? Merely a method of -appropriating the products of the labor of others. Who -were interested in maintaining it? Certainly not the -working class, no member of which ever owned a slave. -The capitalist class of the South was interested in it, -because its holdings were agricultural, and slave labor -was well adapted to agricultural undertakings. The capitalist -class of the North was not interested in maintaining -chattel slavery, because the investments of Northern -capitalists were chiefly in industrial undertakings, for -which black slave labor was not well suited. Yet, the -North never seriously objected to slavery, as such. Men -like Wendell Phillips, who did object to slavery, as such, -were mobbed in the North. If the North, like the -South, had been, so far as the great capitalists were -concerned, an agricultural country, there is no reason -whatever to suppose that the North would not have been -<span class='pageno' id='Page_110'>110</span>in favor of chattel slavery. What the North most objected -to was the effort of the South to extend slavery -into new states, as they were admitted. The Southern -aristocracy, in this manner, sought to prevent the loss -of its hold upon the government. The Northern capitalists -also desired to gain control of the government. -When the addition of new free states stripped the South -of its political supremacy, the South went to war. The -North resisted the attack to save the Union.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Remember, that is why the North went to war—to -save the Union, which had been attacked. It was not -to free the slaves and end slavery. We have this upon -the authority of no less a man than Lincoln. Lincoln -once sent word to the South that if it would permit him -to put one word into a peace-treaty, he would let the -South put in all the others. The one word that Lincoln -said he wanted to put in was “union.” Lincoln was -opposed to slavery, but he was not so much opposed to -it that he wanted to fight about it. It was only after the -South had fought Lincoln almost to a standstill that he -rose above the Constitution and destroyed an institution -that was not even mentioned in the Constitution—much -less prohibited by it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>That is what the Civil War was about—chattel -slavery.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Something that would not have existed if men had -not first existed who wished to ride upon the backs of -others.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Something that would not have existed if the representatives -of the ruling class who drafted the Constitution -had not been eager that it should persist.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Something that never for a moment benefited the -working class.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Yet, the working class fought the war—on one side -<span class='pageno' id='Page_111'>111</span>to preserve slavery for the benefit of others; on the -other side to maintain a union under which white men -and black men alike are always upon the brink of poverty.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Seven hundred thousand men followed the Stars and -Stripes and the Stars and Bars—to bloody graves. -Not one of them would have been killed in war if the -common people of each section had ruled each section. -The common people never owned slaves. They did well -if they owned themselves.</p> - -<p class='c010'>And now we come to the Spanish-American War. -We believe it was fought to “free Cuba.” We believe -it was fought to “avenge the <i>Maine</i>.” Don’t take too -much for granted. Even Senator Nelson, of Minnesota, -declared in the United States Senate in 1912 his -belief that the war with Spain was fomented by Americans -who held large interests in Cuba. He also declared -his belief that the Sugar Trust was trying to -foment another revolution for the purpose of bringing -about annexation and thus ridding itself of the 80 percent. -tariff that is now levied upon American sugar.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But there is more to the story. To this day, there is -no proof that the <i>Maine</i> was destroyed by Spaniards, -Cubans, or anyone outside of her. For fourteen years -the government of the United States did not seem to -want to know. The <i>Maine</i>, with the bones of 200 or -300 workingmen aboard her, was permitted to lie in the -mud of Havana harbor where she sank. And, when -the wreck was tardily raised, nobody was able to say -that the ship was not destroyed by the explosion of her -own magazines. Now, the hull of the old ship is down -far in the ocean, with no hope that the facts will be -known.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But the interests that wanted war had no doubt of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_112'>112</span>the facts in 1898. Their newspapers thundered their -theory every day. The <i>Maine</i> had been destroyed by -Spaniards! We must “Remember the <i>Maine</i>.” We -did remember the <i>Maine</i>, but we forgot ourselves. We -forgot to be sure we were right. And, even if we were -right, we forgot that the killing of a few thousands of -Spanish workingmen would be no fit punishment for the -crime of the Spanish ruling class that wrecked the <i>Maine</i>.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We also forgot to watch what Wall Street was doing -at the time. Read some paragraphs from the New York -<cite>Tribune</cite> of April 1, 6, 9 and 20, 1898:</p> - -<p class='c012'>“Mr. Guerra, of the Cuban Junta, was asked about the Spanish-Cuban -bonds against the revenues of the island. He replied that he -did not know their amount, which report fixed at $400,000,000....”</p> - -<p class='c012'>“These bonds are payable in gold, at 6 per cent. interest, ten years -after the war with Spain had ended....”</p> - -<p class='c012'>“The disposition of the bonds of the Cuban Republic has been a -question discussed in certain quarters during the last few days, and -the grave charge has been made that the bonds have been given -away indiscriminately in the United States to people of influence -who would therefore become interested in seeing the Republic of -Cuba on such terms with the United States as would make the bonds -valuable pieces of property.” (Kindly note that the bonds would be -worth nothing unless Spain were driven out of Cuba.) “Men of -business, newspaper, and even public officials, have been mentioned -as having received these bonds as a gift....”</p> - -<p class='c012'>“A congressman said in the house on Monday that he had $10,000 -worth of Cuban bonds in his pocket, while H. H. Kohlsaat, in an editorial -in one of the Chicago papers, charges the Junta with offering -a bribe of $2,000,000 of Cuban bonds to a Chicago man to use his -influence with the administration for the recognition of the Cuban -government.”</p> - -<p class='c012'>“Mr. Guerra made the somewhat startling statement that a man -representing certain individuals at Washington has sought to coerce -the Junta into selling $10,000,000 worth of bonds at 20 cents on the -dollar. ‘This man practically threatened us that unless we let him -have the bonds at the price quoted, Cuba would never receive recognition. -He said he was prepared to pay on the spot $2,000,000 in -American money for $10,000,000 of Cuban bonds, but his offer was -refused.’”</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_113'>113</span>You probably do not remember these items. Perhaps, -at that time, like many other citizens, you were too -busy “remembering the <i>Maine</i>.” If so, what do you -think of these items now? Do they mean anything to -you? Do they offer any explanation as to why this -government, after having paid little or no attention to -six rebellions in Cuba during a 50–year period, suddenly -determined to “free Cuba”?</p> - -<p class='c010'>In any event, remember that whatever Spain did to -Cuba was done by the ruling class and not by the people -of Spain. The ruling class was bent upon the robbery -of the Cubans. The people of Spain did not profit -from the robbery. Nor was the working class of the -United States helped by the expulsion of Spain from -Cuba. The Sugar Trust and some other great American -interests were helped, but the American working -class was not. The working class had only the pleasure -of doing the fighting, the dying and the bill-paying.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The American working class profited no more from -the war with the Philippines, which was fought solely -to provide a new field for the dollar-activities of American -capitalists. There is no American workingman who -now finds it easier to make a living because of the generally -improved conditions brought about by the war -with the Philippines. General conditions have not been -improved. They have been made worse to the extent -that the cost of the war is a burden upon industry. If -working-class interests had been consulted, the war never -would have been waged. No working class interest was -involved. The workers had everything to lose, including -life, by going to the front, and nothing to gain. But -they “followed the flag”—and some of them never -came back. They stayed—six feet under ground—that -the Tobacco Trust, the Timber Trust, and many -<span class='pageno' id='Page_114'>114</span>other great capitalist interests might stay on the islands -above the ground.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Look wherever you will, you cannot find a working -class interest that should or could cause workingmen to -slaughter each other. Nor is this situation new. It is -as old as war itself. It is a fact that men of sense and -honesty have always recognized. Tacitus said:</p> - -<p class='c010'>“Gold and power are the chief causes of war.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Dryden, the poet, said: “War seldom enters but where -wealth allures.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>And Carlyle, in this striking fashion, showed the utter -absence of working-class interest in war:</p> - -<p class='c012'>“To my own knowledge, for example, there dwell and toil in -the British village of Dumrudge, usually some five hundred souls. -From these, by certain ‘natural enemies’ of the French, there are -successively selected, during the French war, say, thirty able-bodied -men. Dumrudge, at her own expense, has suckled and nursed them. -She has not, without difficulty and sorrow, fed them up to manhood -and even trained them up to crafts, so that one can weave, -another build, another hammer, and the weakest can stand under -some thirty stone, avoirdupois.</p> - -<p class='c012'>“Nevertheless, amid much weeping and swearing, they are selected, -all dressed in red and shipped away, at public expense, -some two thousand miles, or, say, only to the south of Spain, -and fed there till wanted.</p> - -<p class='c012'>“And now, to the same spot in the South of Spain, are sent -thirty similar French artisans—in like manner wending their -ways, till at length, after infinite effort, the two parties come into -actual juxtaposition, and thirty stand facing thirty, each with a -gun in his hand. Straightway the order ‘Fire!’ is given, and they -blow the souls out of one another; and, in the place of sixty brisk, -useful craftsmen, the world has sixty dead carcasses, which it -must bury and anew shed tears for.</p> - -<p class='c012'>“Had these men any quarrel? Busy as the devil is, not the -smallest! They lived far enough apart; were the entirest strangers; -nay, in so wide a universe, there was even, unconsciously, -by commerce, some mutual helpfulness between them.</p> - -<p class='c012'>“How, then?</p> - -<p class='c012'>“Simpleton! Their governors had fallen out, and, instead of -shooting one another, had these poor blockheads shoot.”</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_115'>115</span>That is the cause of war between nations—“the governors -fall out.” And who are the governors? Nobody -but the representatives of the ruling class, who -clash in their race for plunder and deceive workingmen -into doing their fighting for them.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Now, let us go back a bit. You may recall that I said -that the ruling capitalist class uses government as a two-handed -claw with which to pull golden chestnuts out of -the fire. One hand of this claw is the power to make -and enforce laws. The other hand—the power to -wage war—is used to grab what cannot be grabbed -with laws. Wars between nations illustrate one form -of effort to get what laws cannot give. Here is another:</p> - -<p class='c010'>The United States is dotted with forts, arsenals and -armories. Far in the interior, where, by the widest -stretch of the imagination, no foreign army could come, -we see these grim reminders and prognosticators of -war. Under the Dick Military Law, the President of -the United States, without further legislation, can compel -every man in the United States, between the ages of -18 and 45 years, to enlist in the militia of his state and -serve under the orders of the President of the United -States. The President, therefore, has it in his power at -any time to raise an army of about 12,000,000 men and -place them in the field.</p> - -<p class='c010'>What for? To fight a foreign foe? Not much. -The Constitution of the United States forbids the President -to make war against a foreign nation without the -explicit authorization of Congress. But the Dick Law -authorizes the President to raise this enormous army -and to command it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Here is the question. At whom is this enormous potential -army aimed? Why is the land strewn with arsenals -<span class='pageno' id='Page_116'>116</span>and armories that could be of little or no service -in a foreign war?</p> - -<p class='c010'>To quote a word from Carlyle, “Simpleton,” do you -not know that all of these arrangements are made to -shoot you if the capitalist class should ever decide that -you should be shot? Nor, have you never noticed -against whom the state militia is invariably used?</p> - -<p class='c010'>If you have noticed none of these things, perhaps it -would be well for you to wake up. The militia of the -states is practically never used except to beat down workingmen -who have revolted against the outrageous -wrongs heaped upon them by their employers. American -workingmen do not readily revolt. Nowhere are -they any too prosperous. Millions believe from the bottoms -of their hearts that they are being robbed. Yet, -they keep on. Only when they are ground into the -dust, as they were by the Woolen Trust at Lawrence, -or by the Coal Trust in Pennsylvania, do they rebel.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Please, therefore, note this monstrous situation:</p> - -<p class='c010'>Under the laws of the land, the capitalists have a -right to grind their employees as deeply into the dust as -they can grind them.</p> - -<p class='c010'>While this process is going on the national and state -troops are quite still. But when human nature, unable -to bear up longer, explodes and a few window panes are -broken, the troops come scurrying to the scene. Soldiers -fill the streets, citizens are ordered this way and -that, guns are fired recklessly, perhaps a man or two or -a woman or two are killed; the soldiers deny the killing -and charge it to the strikers themselves, and eventually -the strike is broken.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Can you recall when the militia of a state was recently -used for anything else?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Now, we Socialists do not believe in violence, even by -<span class='pageno' id='Page_117'>117</span>strikers. We are supposed to be greedy for blood, but -we are not. We do believe, however, the best way to -end violence caused by robbery is to end the robbery. -We believe it is contemptible for a government to be -blind to robbery so long as it proceeds without an outcry -from the victim. We believe it is criminal for the -government to shoot the victim simply because, in his -distress, he breaks a pane of glass in the factory or mill -in which he was robbed. We can understand why such -crimes are committed, because we know that the same -capitalist interests that control industry also control government. -But, understanding the offense does not make -us approve it. We are against the great crime of war, -whether it be practiced upon a huge scale abroad, or upon -a small scale at home.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But the President is also opposed to war, the Czar of -Russia is also opposed to war, and the German Emperor -is also opposed to war. No Socialist can outdo any of -these gentlemen in deploring war. The smallest Socialist, -however, outdoes any of these gentlemen in making -good upon his declaration. Socialists will not go to -war. They will not join the army, the militia, or the -navy. All over the world this is true. They preach -against war in season and out of season. They -preach against anything that tends toward war. -They preach against dressing little boys as soldiers and -calling them “scouts.” And wherever Socialists hold -seats in national legislative bodies, their attitude is “No -men; no money.” They will vote for no bill that seeks -to draw another man or another dollar into the horrible -game of war.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Those who do not understand us, or who do not want -us to be understood, charge us with lack of patriotism. -If blood-letting for dollars be the test of patriotism, we -<span class='pageno' id='Page_118'>118</span>certainly are not patriotic. We refuse to kill men for -money, either for ourselves or for any one else. Nor -do we believe that Frenchmen, Englishmen, Germans or -any others are less our brothers than are Americans. -We regard all nationalities and races as members of the -great human family. We want this family to live in -peace. We preach peace. We live peace.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But how can there be peace when great groups of capitalists -are contending for profits? How can there be -peace when great groups of capitalists controlling their -respective governments, build great fleets and muster -great armies to struggle for trade and profits? How -can there be peace when these same capitalists, through -their control of government, teach even school children -that the warrior’s trade is glorious and that the citizen’s -duty is to “stand by the flag”? Our flag has often -stood where it had no moral right to stand. It has stood -for the wrongs of capitalism when it should have stood -for the rights of the people. Our flag will always stand -for the wrongs of capitalism, so long as capitalism controls -the government.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In such circumstances, there can be no assured peace. -Peace tribunals, like that of The Hague, may be established -until their sponsors are black in the face, but still -there will be no peace. There can be no peace. Profits -prevent. The gentlemen who attach themselves to these -tribunals want peace—if. Peace if it can be maintained -without hurting profits. Peace if it can be maintained -without restraining capitalistic brigands who wish -to descend upon the property of others. Peace if it -can be had without price.</p> - -<p class='c010'>So war continues in a world that is weary of war. -Heavier and heavier becomes the burden of armaments. -The workingman staggers under the weight of the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_119'>119</span>fourteen-inch gun. The workingman may go hungry. -The gun must be fed.</p> - -<div class='lg-container-b c014'> - <div class='linegroup'> - <div class='group'> - <div class='line'>“Whether your shell hits the target or not,</div> - <div class='line'>Your cost is six hundred dollars a shot.</div> - <div class='line'>You thing of noise and flame and power,</div> - <div class='line'>We feed you a hundred barrels of flour</div> - <div class='line'>Each time you roar. Your flame is fed</div> - <div class='line'>With twenty thousand loaves of bread.</div> - <div class='line'>Silence! A million hungry men</div> - <div class='line'>Seek bread to fill their mouths again.”<a id='r2'></a><a href='#f2' class='c013'><sup>[2]</sup></a></div> - </div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='footnote' id='f2'> -<p class='c010'><a href='#r2'>2</a>. P. F. McCarthy, in the New York <cite>World</cite>.</p> -</div> - -<p class='c010'>Only one machine can smash this gun, and that is the -printing press. The greatest gun can shoot only twenty -miles or so. The Socialist press can shoot and is shooting -around the world. When the working class controls -its printing presses, war will end.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Do you really want war to end, or is a string attached -to your wish? If you mean business, you can help end -it. But if you want the privilege of aiding in this great -work for humanity, you will have to vote the Socialist -ticket. It is the only ticket that always and everywhere -is sternly against war, as the Socialist party is the only -party opposed to the profit system that makes wars.</p> - -<p class='c010'>I cannot close this chapter without calling the attention -of readers to a book entitled “War—What For?” -by Mr. George R. Kirkpatrick. It is published by the -author at West Lafayette, Ohio. Between darkness and -daylight, one night, I read it all. I can never forget it. -If all the world had read it, there would be no more war.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_120'>120</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER VIII<br> <span class='large'>WHY SOCIALISTS OPPOSE “RADICAL” POLITICIANS</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>A “radical” politician, when he is not an utter -fraud, is a well-meaning man who lacks either -the courage or the insight to do well. He can see -wrongs, but he cannot see rights. Or, if he can see -rights, he dare not do right. Always, there is some -reason why he should not do right. The people are -not ready. The time is not propitious. Thus does he -appease his conscience, betray his followers and destroy -himself.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Abraham Lincoln, during all except the last two years -of his life, was such a man. I sometimes feel that this -is why so many modern “radicals” believe they are second -Lincolns. They seem to remember Lincoln only as -he was when he was too small for his task. Mr. Roosevelt, -in particular, is suspected of harboring the belief -that he is a second Lincoln. In a way and to a degree, -Mr. Roosevelt is right. The ground upon which Mr. -Roosevelt now stands is broadly comparable to the ground -upon which Mr. Lincoln stood before he signed the -Emancipation Proclamation. Mr. Lincoln hated chattel -slavery, but was willing to end the war with slavery intact. -Mr. Roosevelt hates the robbery of man by man, -but he shrinks from trying to seize the club with which -the robbery is committed. He is willing to pick at the -splinters upon the club, precisely as Mr. Lincoln was -long willing to content himself with efforts to restrict -the evil of slavery. And, Mr. Roosevelt, picking at -splinters, is no more useful in destroying poverty than -<span class='pageno' id='Page_121'>121</span>was Mr. Lincoln, when he picked at the splinters of -chattel slavery. The Civil War came on, in spite of all -that Lincoln did, because he did no more than to temporize -with the evil that was destined to cause the war. -Mr. Roosevelt, even as the leader of a new political -party, is doing no more than to temporize with the -monstrous evil of unnecessary poverty in America.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Let us look, even more closely, into the life of Lincoln. -The career of no other man of modern times is -so well suited to our purpose. We want to know -whether a “radical” like Roosevelt or Wilson should -be more highly regarded by the people than a revolutionist -like Debs or Berger. Lincoln, at different times -in his life, was both a “radical” and a revolutionist. -His “radical” beliefs put him into the White House. -One colossal revolutionary act put him into the hearts -of men. We Socialists feel that he nestles a little more -closely to our hearts than he does to some others. -When Lincoln ceased to temporize with chattel slavery -and struck it down, he became one of us. He actually -did to chattel slavery what we are trying to do to wage -slavery.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The magnitude of this act, as well as the usefulness -of a mere “radical” politician, may be measured by -what Lincoln’s life would have been without his name -at the bottom of the Emancipation Proclamation. Tradition -has it that Lincoln became a radical upon the -slavery question when, as a flatboatman upon the Mississippi, -he saw a negress sold upon the auction block at -New Orleans. Tradition has it that he said: “If I ever -have a chance to hit slavery, I will hit it and hit it hard.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>The fact is that when Mr. Lincoln began to get the -power to hit slavery, he did not hit it hard. He was a -“radical” politician and therefore could not hit it hard. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_122'>122</span>He was against slavery, but he was also against anything -that would end slavery. In the phrase of our -time, he wanted to “regulate” slavery. Men like John -Brown and William Lloyd Garrison wanted to end -slavery and advocated means that would have ended it, -but Lincoln, though he hated slavery as much as they -did, wanted only to restrict it. He was “radical.” -Brown and Garrison were revolutionary. Lincoln meant -well. Brown and Garrison were determined to do well.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But after Lincoln, even as President, had continued -to temporize with slavery; after he had sent word to the -Southern leaders that if they would let him write into -a treaty of peace the one word “union” he would let -them write all of the other words, including “slavery”—after -all of this, there came a change, and Lincoln -ceased to be a “radical.” Then, and not until then, did -he strike the blow that in his youth he declared he would -strike if ever the opportunity should come. With only -the briefest words he laid the Emancipation Proclamation -before his cabinet.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“I do not lay this before you for your advice,” he -said, “but only for your information. I have promised -my God that I will do this, and I shall do it.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Thus spoke the revolutionist. The time for “radicalism” -had passed. Slavery, during half a century of -“radicalism,” had expanded. Having the power to kill -chattel slavery and daring to use it, Lincoln killed chattel -slavery. He put himself into the hearts of men. He -wrote his name so big in history that the names of all -other men since his time seem small.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Yet Lincoln, if he had been content to remain merely -a “radical,” could have performed no service for his -country worth while, and Fame would have missed him -by many a mile. If the South had won, the North -<span class='pageno' id='Page_123'>123</span>would have blamed Lincoln. If the North had won, -without destroying chattel slavery, nothing would have -been settled, and Lincoln would have been given the -credit for settling nothing. Lincoln’s greatest opportunity -to serve his country lay in doing precisely what he -did, and it is to his eternal glory that he had both the -understanding and the courage to do it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The times again call loudly for such a man. Chattel -slavery is dead, but a greater slavery has grown up in its -place. Wage slavery is as much greater than chattel -slavery as the white people in this country are more -numerous than the black people. Poverty is widespread -and the fear of poverty is all but universal. No one -knows how much longer he will have employment. No -one can know how much longer he will have employment. -A few own all of the machinery without which -we cannot be employed. These few have it in their -power to say whether we shall be permitted to earn the -means of life. We may want to work as much as we -please, but we cannot work unless they please. They do -not please to let us work unless they believe they can see -a profit in so doing. That we need work means nothing -to those who own the great industries of the country. -Nor does the fact that the people need the things we -could make. They consider only the question: “Is there -profit in it?” By their answer, we eat or hunger, live -or die.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Such times could not help but call for great men, even -in little places. The times call for great men to take -charge of municipal affairs, lest the poor shall be tortured -with bad tenements and robbed of their last nickels -by little grafters while greater grafters are taking -their dollars. The times call for great men in state -offices, in judicial positions, in Congress and in the White -<span class='pageno' id='Page_124'>124</span>House. But, in response to the White House call, who -answered in 1912? Mr. Roosevelt answered. Mr. Wilson -answered.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists do not regard either Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. -Wilson as a fraudulent “radical,” in the sense that they -believe either of them to be intent upon wantonly fooling -the people. We regard Mr. Roosevelt as being something -of a self-seeker. We regard him as the embodiment -of inconsistency. We know that when he was -President he never tried to do some of the things that -he later promised to do if we would again make him -President. We know he does not now promise to try -to take away the club with which robbery is committed. -He is still picking at the splinters, taking care to lay no -hand upon the club itself. And, so far as concerns Mr. -Wilson, we regard him as an amiable, cultured gentleman, -who, meaning well, as he doubtless does, lacks the -understanding without which he can not do well. We -also call attention to the fact that immediately following -Mr. Wilson’s nomination he began to placate the great -grafters. He invited them to his home to hold counsel -with him. And, in his speech of acceptance, he all but -laid himself at their feet. He said nothing worth saying. -He confined himself to platitudes. He swore allegiance -to the “rule of right” as applied to government, -without giving the slightest indication of his definition -of right. Wall Street applauded him. Stocks went -up. But would stocks have gone up if Wall Street had -believed that, under Wilson, grafters would not be permitted -to continue to rob you?</p> - -<p class='c010'>We Socialists may be extremely absurd persons, but, -as we look about us, we see two or three things that -should be done at once.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We believe every man should have the continuous -<span class='pageno' id='Page_125'>125</span>right to work. We believe this right should be guaranteed -by law. The law prohibits stealing and vagrancy. -Why should not the law, therefore, guarantee the right -to avoid the necessity for becoming either a thief or a -vagrant?</p> - -<p class='c010'>We also believe that after a man has worked he should -not be robbed. We believe if nobody were robbed, there -would be in this country neither millionaires nor paupers. -From the fact that there are in this country so many -millionaires and so many paupers or near-paupers, we -deduce that the extent of the robbery of the many by the -few is appalling.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We want this stopped. We don’t demand that it be -stopped a hundred years hence—we demand that it be -stopped now. We are interested in our posterity, but -we are also interested in ourselves. We want to enjoy -life a little. This world looks good to us. We know -it could be good to us. We demand that it shall be -good to us. Nor are we appeased by the promise of -some “radical” like Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Wilson that -if we will elect him President, he will try to make the -world a little less bad for us. The promise of a 1 per -cent. or a 5 per cent. reduction in robbery constitutes no -blandishment. We demand a 100 per cent. reduction in -robbery. We are tired of robbery. We mean to end -it. We shall end it. We cannot fail, because we have -a weapon with which the robbed class never before -fought. We have the gigantic printing press. Our ancestors -had a puny press, or none at all. We shall -carry our word far. Wherever our word goes it will -wake. Sooner or later, the robbed will understand. -Then robbery will cease. Millions of people who understand -how to stop robbery will never consent to let a -few continue to rob them.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_126'>126</span>Such is our demand—a 100 per cent. reduction in -robbery and the right of the individual to continuous -work. Yet, so far as we know, we want no more than -is wanted by every other man who is not robbing anybody. -We know of no man who is willing to be denied -the right to work. We know of no man who is willing -to be robbed. We differ from you Republicans and -Democrats only in this: You seem to be willing to take -an eternity to end robbery and secure a guarantee to the -right to labor. We tell you that if you take an eternity -to get these rights you will never get them. We also -tell you that with either Mr. Wilson, Mr. Roosevelt or -any other so-called “radical” in the White House the -working class will remain poverty-stricken.</p> - -<p class='c010'>These gentlemen want to make you an omelette, but -they do not want to break any eggs. They are afraid -to break eggs. Breaking eggs means destroying the -great fundamental laws that capitalists use to rob you. -Yet, how are you ever to have an omelette unless eggs -are broken? How can you be helped without hurting -those who are now hurting you?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Make no mistake—anything that will make it much -easier for you to live by working will make it much -harder for capitalists to live without working. Picking -at the splinters of this poverty-problem will not do. -The wrong is great; the remedy must be equally great.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Anything that will not hurt the capitalist class much -will not help you much.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Between you and the capitalist class there can be no -peace.</p> - -<p class='c010'>So long as either of you exists, there can be only war.</p> - -<p class='c010'>You will continue to fight for the right to live.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The capitalist class will continue to refuse you the -right to live except at the price of a profit.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_127'>127</span>This ultimatum, which has never appealed to your -stomach, will some day not appeal to your brain.</p> - -<p class='c010'>You will begin to ask questions.</p> - -<p class='c010'>You will ask if you were born only that Mr. Morgan, -Mr. Armour or Mr. Ryan might be made a little richer.</p> - -<p class='c010'>You will ask if it is right that you should die when -you can no longer make others richer.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Your common sense will tell you that you were not -born to make anybody richer.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Your common sense will tell you that you have a -right to live, whether anybody be thereby made richer.</p> - -<p class='c010'>And, when that time comes, you will be in no mood -to listen to the remedies of “radical” gentlemen like -Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Wilson.</p> - -<p class='c010'>You will no longer want wage slavery “regulated”—you -will want it destroyed.</p> - -<p class='c010'>You will call for another Lincoln to destroy wage -slavery as the first Lincoln destroyed chattel slavery.</p> - -<p class='c010'>And your call will be answered, because you will answer -it yourself.</p> - -<p class='c010'>You will place in office not only a man but <i>men</i> who -will work your will. You will know what you want -and you will get it, because you will know how to get it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The reason you have never gotten what you want is -because you have never known how to get it. You want -the right to work without being robbed. You do not -seem to realize that it is the existence of the capitalist -system that causes you to be robbed. In an indefinite -sort of way you seem to believe that it is possible for a -small class of bondholders and share-holders to live in -luxury without working and, at the same time, take nothing -from the product of your labor. If dividends grew -upon one tree and wages upon another, your belief would -be justified. But, inasmuch as dividends and wages -<span class='pageno' id='Page_128'>128</span>grow upon the same tree, your belief is not justified. -Both are the products of your labor. If the bondholders -were to take everything you produce, you would have -nothing. If you were to take everything you produce, -the bondholders and other capitalists would have nothing.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Such being the fact, what possible benefit can come to -the American people through the election to the Presidency -of Woodrow Wilson? Mr. Wilson is not opposed -to the capitalist system. He believes one class -should own all of the great industries of the country -while another class toils in them. Believing thus, he -necessarily believes no man has a right to work, however -sore may be his need, unless some other man thinks -he can see a profit in hiring him. If he did not so believe, -he would not have stood for the Presidency upon -the Democratic platform. The importance of securing -to each individual the right to work would have prevented -him from so standing. He would have proclaimed -to the country an amendment to the platform -in some such words as these:</p> - -<p class='c010'>“<i>If you elect me President, I will urge the passage -of a law that will make it a felony for any capitalist to -refuse work at wages representing the market price of -the product, except at such times as his steel plants, railroads, -or other industries, are running at full capacity.</i>”</p> - -<p class='c010'>He would also have added:</p> - -<p class='c010'>“<i>When a man’s right to work is involved, I care not -whether the man who hires him makes a profit or not. -Life comes before profits. Work comes before life. -I am for men.</i>”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Not one word of which Mr. Wilson ever said. Mr. -Wilson believes in profits first and life, if at all, afterward. -He may not believe he does, but he does. That -<span class='pageno' id='Page_129'>129</span>is what his attitude amounts to. He wants both profits -and life if we can get them. But if either must fall, it -must be life. Life must always fall when work falls. -Mr. Wilson stands for absolutely nothing that will put -the worker’s right to work before the capitalist’s greed -for profits. Let him or any of his friends point out a -word in his platform, or any of his public utterances, -to the contrary. There is no such word, because it has -never been spoken or written by Mr. Wilson or anybody -who is back of him or in front of him.</p> - -<p class='c010'>More astounding do these facts become as we consider -them. Here is a great nation, eager to earn its -bread. Of the many millions who compose this nation, -not one in ten ever has or ever will receive a profit upon -anything. More than nine-tenths of our many millions -are wage-laborers or farmers. Naturally, they care -nothing about profits. If everybody were continuously -employed at good wages, and the balance-sheets, at the -end of the year, should show not one dollar left for -dividends, nobody except the capitalists would shed a -tear. So little does the working class really care about -profits. So convinced is the working class that the right -to work, together with the right to be protected from -robbery, should come ahead of everything else. <i>Yet -this very working class that cares nothing about profits; -that cares and needs to care so much about the continuous -right to work; that cares and needs to care so much -about the right to be protected from robbery—this -very working class gave Mr. Wilson almost every vote -he received!</i></p> - -<p class='c010'>Do the people of America know how to get what they -want?</p> - -<p class='c010'>The people of America want the continuous right to -work.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_130'>130</span>Mr. Wilson offers them fine phrases about the “rule -of right”—phrases that Wall Street applauds because -Wall Street knows such phrases mean the continued rule -of wrong.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The people of America want the right to be protected -from robbery, and Mr. Wilson offers them an anti-trust -plank, in which they are solemnly assured that if they -will only wait until Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Morgan and -other similar gentlemen are in jail, they will be very -happy.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Is it not absurd? Indeed, it is not. It is pitiful. It -is pitiful that a people should so long have been kept in -ignorance of both the nature of their social malady and -its cure. Yet, how could they be otherwise than ignorant? -They depend for such information upon their -newspapers, magazines, public officials, and public speakers. -Until recently, almost all of these sources were -poisoned against the people. They were poisoned -against the people because they were controlled, in one -way or another, by the capitalist class. They are still -almost all poisoned in the interest of the capitalist class. -The truth about Socialism is carefully suppressed. The -false is carefully put forward. Wrongs are admitted, -but rights are not recognized. The people are robbed, -yes—but who robs them? Why, the trusts and the -high-tariff gentlemen, certainly. Therefore, if we lower -the tariff and place the trust gentlemen in jail, we shall -be happy.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Nobody seems moved to recall whether we were happy -when the tariff was low and there were no trusts.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Nobody seems to recall that the working class has -never been happy; that it has always been the prey of a -master class which has resorted first to one method and -then to another to plunder. In fact, nobody but Socialists -<span class='pageno' id='Page_131'>131</span>seems to do any serious thinking until his favorite -“radical” President has passed into history without -doing the slightest thing to alleviate poverty.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Grover Cleveland was regarded, each time he was -elected, as radical. In Cleveland’s day, not to be in -favor of highway robbery in office was regarded as -proof of radicalism. That is why Cleveland’s dictum -that “a public office is a public trust” attracted national -attention. It was a new note. But in neither of Cleveland’s -terms did he do anything to improve the condition -of the American people. They were as poor when he -finally left office as they were when he first took office. -Moreover, there was good reason for their poverty. -Cleveland never lost an opportunity to betray them. He -sold bonds in secret to Mr. Morgan to the great profit -of Mr. Morgan and the great loss of the American -people. He hurled troops against strikers and placed -thousands of deputy United States Marshals under the -orders of railway managers who were trying to prevent -their employees from obtaining living wages.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Benjamin Harrison was never regarded as a radical, -but in 1888 he was regarded as an improvement upon -Cleveland. After Harrison had done nothing for four -years, Cleveland was believed to be an improvement upon -Harrison. Four years more of Cleveland were enough -to send him out of office with the condemnation of everybody -but the grafters in both parties.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Business revived somewhat under the Presidency of -McKinley, but the revival was not so much due to anything -that Mr. McKinley did as it was to the fact that -the time had come for the pendulum to swing back from -panic to “prosperity.” Nor did the revival solve the -problem of poverty. Nothing was settled because nothing -was changed. Not so many men were denied the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_132'>132</span>right to work, but those who worked toiled only for a -“full dinner pail.” They paid all they received to live -poorly. Only their employers fared wonderfully well. -For them there was real prosperity.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Which brings us to Mr. Roosevelt and his Progressive -party.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Mr. Roosevelt was the first President of the type that -is now regarded as “radical.” He held office seven -years and a half. He had “a perfectly corking time.” -He did business with all of the bosses, including Hanna, -Quay, Cannon, Payne, Aldrich and a host of others, but -we have his word for it that his intentions were good. -Maybe they were. For the sake of argument, let it be -granted that they were. Let it be conceded that he believed -the things he did would enable the average man -to earn a living more certainly and more easily. Still, -is it not a fact that the things he did failed to accomplish -what he expected they would?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Is it not a fact that it is to-day more difficult for most -persons to make a living than it was when Mr. Roosevelt -became President?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Is not the cost of living vastly more?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Are not more millions of men out of work?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Is there not greater uncertainty with regard to continuity -of employment?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Are not more men, women and children living upon -the hunger line, or close to it?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Each of these questions must be answered in the -affirmative. Mr. Roosevelt, himself, would not dare, -even if he were so inclined, to answer them in the negative. -The facts are notorious and scandalous. They -are scandalous because poverty, in this rich country, is -unnecessary.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Yet, Mr. Roosevelt is not wholly to blame. He is -<span class='pageno' id='Page_133'>133</span>only partly to blame. A President is not the government. -He is only part of the government. As part of -the government, Mr. Roosevelt advocated measures, -some of which were enacted into law, that he believed -would do good. Subsequent events have proved that -he was in error. The measures he believed would help -have not helped. If they had helped, times would be -better than they were, instead of worse.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Therefore, we are brought face to face with these -questions:</p> - -<p class='c010'>“<i>If Mr. Roosevelt, during seven and one-half years -in the White House, could do nothing to make the conditions -of the average man’s life easier, how long should -we have to elect him President in order to give him -time to do something worth while?</i></p> - -<p class='c010'>“<i>If we were to elect him for life, are you sure that -the rest of his lifetime would be long enough?</i></p> - -<p class='c010'>“<i>In any event, are you prepared to wait so long to -be helped?</i>”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Mr. Roosevelt’s friends, following this thought, reply -that he is not the same man that he was when he -left the White House; that he has grown, with vision -enlarged.</p> - -<p class='c010'>No, he is not the same man. The American people -have forced him into the advocacy of some things. -They have forced even some Socialist measures upon -him. The initiative, the referendum and the recall are -Socialist measures. For a good many years, Mr. Roosevelt -tried to damn them with faint praise combined -with a medley of doubts and strangling provisos. But -after these measures, in one winter, fought their way -into every state capitol west of the Mississippi, as well -as into some of the state capitols of the East, Mr. Roosevelt -saw a great light. Then he became in favor of them.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_134'>134</span>When Mr. Roosevelt was President he had nothing -to say against the courts. He criticised individual -judges, as he criticised Judge Anderson of Indianapolis, -whom he called “a damned jackass and a crook.” But -Judge Anderson, be it remembered, had just decided -against Mr. Roosevelt in the libel suit that he brought -against several newspapers because of articles reflecting -upon the part played by himself and others in the acquisition -of the Panama Canal property.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Now Mr. Roosevelt is convinced that our judicial system -is in need of reform. In reaching this opinion, -however, he is somewhat late. The courts are no longer -popular. The people have not yet begun to strike at -them, but they are watching them out of the corners of -their eyes. Mr. Roosevelt senses the situation and responds -with a proposition to give the people the right to -recall, or set aside, the decisions of <i>state</i> courts. He -says nothing about giving the people the right to recall -the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, -though he must know this court is the chief judicial -offender. Yet we are asked to believe that Mr. Roosevelt, -in belatedly joining the fight against the tyrannical -power of the courts, is but giving proof of the greatness -to which he has grown and the increased fearlessness -with which he fights.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The women of the country have forced Mr. Roosevelt -into the advocacy of woman suffrage. Mr. Roosevelt -used to say that Mrs. Roosevelt was “only lukewarm” -toward woman suffrage, and that his interest in -it was the same. After the women of California gained -the ballot, and Mr. Roosevelt again became a candidate -for the Presidency, he changed from “lukewarm” to -very hot. From that moment, woman suffrage became -not only a right, but a necessity. Of course, the fact -<span class='pageno' id='Page_135'>135</span>that women vote in several western states that he hoped -to carry had no part whatever in changing his opinion. -Mr. Roosevelt is not that kind of a man.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Mr. Roosevelt’s 1912 platform—or “contract with -the people,” as he calls it—bristles with new devices and -new plans for the public good. Some of Mr. Roosevelt’s -plans would probably help a little—provided he could -get a Congress that would put them into effect, and -courts that would declare them constitutional. Mr. -Lincoln probably could have helped the black slaves a -little if he had made it a legal obligation upon slave owners -to provide each negro, semi-annually, with a red necktie -and a paste diamond. Mr. Lincoln might have gone -even further and provided that each negro should be supplied, -during the water-melon season, with all the melons -he could eat. Instead, he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Mr. Roosevelt’s present political program is by no -means an emancipation proclamation to the American -people. It unties no knots, nor cuts any. It bristles -with Socialists’ phrases, but it does not bristle with Socialist -remedies. “This country belongs to the people -who inhabit it”—an assertion that appears in Mr. -Roosevelt’s platform—is a Socialist phrase. But Mr. -Roosevelt’s method of giving the people their own is not -Socialistic. The Socialist method is to give it to them. -Mr. Roosevelt’s method is to appoint “strong” commissions -to regulate the country that the people own, but -do not control or enjoy. Again and again in his platform -Mr. Roosevelt fervently advocates a “strong” -commission to do this or do that.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If the word “strong” in a platform were sufficient to -make a commission “strong” in action we might expect -the commissions that Mr. Roosevelt advocates to be as -<span class='pageno' id='Page_136'>136</span>strong as any commission can be that is trying to regulate -other people’s property.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But we do not believe the word “strong” in a platform -makes a commission strong. Mr. Roosevelt, always -preaching strenuosity, nevertheless appointed, during -his Presidency, some exceedingly poor officials.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Since Mr. Roosevelt, the originator of “strong” commissions -as a cure for the poverty that is produced by -robbery, failed as he did, what should we expect from -such commissions if they were appointed by Presidents -of the ordinary Wall Street stripe?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Simmered down, Mr. Roosevelt’s Progressive Party -stands simply for this: We are still to have trusts and -tariffs, but only such trusts and tariffs as Mr. Roosevelt -wants. We are still to have a master class who own all -of the industries and a servant class who do all of the -work, but masters and servants must conduct themselves -as Mr. Roosevelt provides. Masters may still hold out -for profits and servants may die for lack of opportunity -to work, but so long as Mr. Roosevelt, at Armageddon, is -“fighting for the Lord,” what of it?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Such is not Mr. Roosevelt’s reasoning, but it might as -well be. Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Wilson, like all other -“radical” politicians, are incapable of rendering any -great service to the American people for the simple -reason that they do not strike at the great wrong. The -great wrong is the ownership, by a small class, of the -great class’s means of life. A people who cannot support -themselves without asking the permission of others -are little more than slaves. We are such a people.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“Radicals” who promise, if given power, to free us, -only mock us. Such gentlemen are not radicals at all. -The word “radical” is derived from a Greek word -meaning “root.” A real radical is one who goes to the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_137'>137</span>roots of things. But radicals like Mr. Roosevelt and -Mr. Wilson go to the roots of nothing.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The only way to go to the root of anything is to go -to it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Lincoln went to the root of the chattel slavery question.</p> - -<p class='c010'>When he had finished, the chattel slavery question was -no longer a question—it was a corpse. After wasting -years of his life as an anti-slavery “radical” he became -an anti-slavery revolutionist and destroyed slavery. -Lincoln, during the last two years of his life, became a -real radical. A real radical and a revolutionist are but -different names for the same thing.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The working class is suffering from robbery. The -working class has always suffered from robbery. -Never has there been a time when a little crowd of grafters -were not feeding upon the workers.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In the beginning, the working class were held as -chattel slaves, the only possible cure for which was the -utter destruction of chattel slavery.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Then the workers became the serfs of feudal lords, -the only possible cure for which was the destruction of -feudalism.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Now the toilers are robbed by the private ownership -of the means of production, the only possible cure for -which is the destruction of such ownership and the substitution -of public ownership through the agency of government.</p> - -<p class='c010'>No tinkering will do. Tinkering could not and did -not settle the white man’s or the black man’s slavery -question. Nothing but the absolute destruction of the -capitalist system can remove the poverty, the ignorance, -the crime and the vice that are inevitable products of the -system.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_138'>138</span>But do not expect capitalists to remove this system for -you. They will not.</p> - -<p class='c010'>You never saw a tiger feed its prey. You never saw -a burglar mend a victim’s roof. You may see both of -these sights some day. If you should, you may, perhaps, -prepare yourself to behold the more marvelous spectacle -of the capitalist class financing the campaign of a genuine -radical who is bent upon taking the capitalist class off -your back.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But until you see a tiger feeding its prey, you may well -ask yourself whether “radicals” whose campaigns are -financed by great capitalists are radical enough to do you -any good.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Certainly one side or the other is always doomed to -disappointment; either the capitalists who put up the -money or the workers who put up the votes. The capitalists -are still doing quite well. Are you?</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_139'>139</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER IX<br> <span class='large'>THE TRUTH ABOUT THE COAL QUESTION</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>Almost anyone can make anybody believe anything -that is not so. It is only the truth that makes poor -headway in this world. Our national motto seems to be: -“When there are no more blunderers or liars to be heard, -let us listen to common sense.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>The anthracite coal situation is a case in point. So -long ago as 1902 this situation had become maddening. -As the result of a prolonged strike to obtain living wages -for the miners, the country, at the beginning of winter, -was threatened with a coal famine. So serious was the -situation that a “Get-Coal Conference” was held at Detroit. -Among the delegates were Victor L. Berger, the -first Socialist congressman, and a number of other Socialists. -These Socialist delegates told the conference -what to do. They said:</p> - -<p class='c010'>“Go into politics. Make the governmental ownership -of the coal mines and the railroads a political matter. -Take over the ownership of these mines and railroads -and operate them for the benefit of the people, rather than -for the benefit of millionaires. Do that and you will -have solved your coal problem.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>But that was the truth, mind you. As truth, it had no -chance of acceptance at that time. Truth never has a -chance the first time, the second time or the third time. -Truth has attained its great reputation for rising every -time it is crushed only because it has been so often -crushed.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_140'>140</span>And the truth that these men spoke in Detroit years -ago was forthwith crushed, not only in Detroit, but all -over the country. What was the use of believing? Were -there not plenty of blunderers about? Were there not -plenty of blind alleys in which to go?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Indeed, there were. The people went into one of them. -Or, rather, they remained in the blind alley in which they -had long been. That was the blind alley of private ownership -of the coal mines and railroads. Plenty of blind -men could see a delightful opening at the end of this blind -alley. They were very sure that it led somewhere. It -must lead somewhere. Certainly, no great difficulty -could be encountered in managing these millionaires. -The Inter-State Commerce Commission would fix them -if nothing else could fix them. If the Inter-State Commerce -Commission should prove too weak for the task, -the courts would not prove too weak. At any rate, there -was no danger ahead. It was entirely safe to leave the nation’s -coal supply in the hands of a few men who had already -abundantly proved their disinclination to treat -either their employees or the public honestly.</p> - -<p class='c010'>For ten straight years thereafter we fought the Coal -Trust in the courts. We enjoined it, we indicted it, we -prosecuted it. To what purpose? To no purpose. In -1912, the United States Supreme Court brought an end -to the proceedings by handing down a decision that was -said to be a “great victory” for the Government. But -it was one of those great anti-trust victories that do not -hurt the trusts nor help the people. This “victory” did -not hurt the Coal Trust. The price of coal did not go -down a nickel. On the contrary, the prices of coal road -stocks immediately went higher. Wall Street knew the -decision would not interrupt the Coal Trust in its plundering, -and backed its opinion with its money. Wall -<span class='pageno' id='Page_141'>141</span>Street quickly realized what we have not yet fully realized—that -the court had prohibited only a certain method -of stealing, while leaving the trust free to adopt any one -of a hundred other methods, each of which is as suitable -to its purposes as the method that has been put under the -ban.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The trust lawyers quickly juggled out one of the hundred -other methods of stealing and the robbery of the -people continued as if there had been no decision by the -United States Supreme Court. Immediately, there was -a loud demand from the “radical” press that the anti-trust -law be so amended that it would prohibit the new -form of robbery. Again the Socialists repeated their -warning against reliance upon laws that seek to regulate -trusts. Again the Socialists urged the people to settle -the coal question for all time by owning and operating -the coal mines and the railroads that carry the coal to -the people. Between the advice given by Socialists and -the advice given by radicals, there was all the difference -that there is between night and day. The “radicals” -advised the people to leave the coal in the hands of a few -multi-millionaires and then fight in the courts to get it -back. The Socialists assured the people that if they -would take possession of their own coal they would not be -compelled to fight to get it back. But the advice given -by the Socialists contained too much truth to find ready -acceptance. There being not fewer than a hundred ways -in which the trust could rob the people, it seemed so much -more reasonable to let the trust try these various ways, -one by one, and prosecute the trust gentlemen for each -separate form of robbery. Ten years were required to -“win” the anti-trust case that was finally decided in -1912, so we shall require at least 1,000 years to obtain -supreme court decisions prohibiting a hundred different -<span class='pageno' id='Page_142'>142</span>methods of Coal Trust robbery. But good, able “radical” -gentlemen assured the people that the way to kill -the Coal Trust was to choke it with court decisions and -the people believed what they were told. Almost always -the people believe what they are told unless what they are -told is true. It is only the truth that must fight its way -in this world. So many powerful, selfish persons are always -eager to foist the lie that feathers their nests. -Truth is always besmirched by those whom it would destroy, -and too often despised by those whom it would -help.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Thus we have a naked view of two classes of men—the -anthracite coal operators and their victims. The coal -operators are conscienceless robbers. They hold within -the hollows of their hands the anthracite coal supply of -this country. They own it or control it as you own or -control a gas range that you have bought or rented. The -coal supply of this country is their property. And though -you must draw upon it or freeze in winter, you cannot -have a pound of coal except at their price. And their -price is always all they believe they can get out of you -without a riot. The cost of production does not matter. -Your necessities do not matter. They want all they can -get.</p> - -<p class='c010'>These naked millionaires are not attractive persons. -Who would be an attractive person if he had their -power? Are you so sure you would be an attractive -person if you had their power? Do not be too sure. -Give any man such an opportunity to squeeze millions -out of a people and it is very likely that he will squeeze -them. There is little or nothing in this “good man,” -“bad man” theory. The blackest Coal Trust magnate -is just what you and the Coal Trust have made him. If -anything, you are more to blame than he. He gets all -<span class='pageno' id='Page_143'>143</span>of his power from the laws. And the men whom you -elect make the laws. They make the laws which say -that a few men—or, so far as that is concerned, one -man—may own all of the anthracite coal mines in the -country.</p> - -<p class='c010'>These laws are certainly very comfortable for the Coal -Trust gentlemen. If you are satisfied, they are. If you -don’t move to change them, they will never move to -change them. But, if you are fit to cast a ballot, you -know that the present conditions can never be changed -until the laws that made the conditions are changed.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Let us now take a close view of the Coal Trust victims. -You are one of them. You are tired of the Coal -Trust. You have no sort of notion that it is anything except -the robber concern that everybody believes it to be. -You would be much better pleased if the government -owned the mines. You would be still better pleased if -the government owned not only the mines but the railroads -that carry coal from the mines. You know that in -the Panama Canal Zone, where the government sells all -of the supplies, the cost of living is much less than it -is here. You believe all of this and more. But what -are you doing to translate your belief into accomplished -fact?</p> - -<p class='c010'>You are doing nothing. The only way in which you -can translate this belief into accomplished fact is to express -your belief in political action. You must vote for -that which you believe. You must support a political -party that advocates the ownership by the government of -the coal mines and the railroads. If you vote for a party -that believes in permitting the ownership of the coal -mines and the railroads to remain where it is you are voting -for the Coal Trust. How long do you believe it will -take you to beat the Coal Trust by voting for the Coal -<span class='pageno' id='Page_144'>144</span>Trust? Do you know of any way in which the Coal -Trust can be beaten except by voting against it?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Of course, the newspapers that you read will tell you -there are other ways of beating the robber Coal Trust than -by voting against it. They will tell you that the Coal -Trust can be “regulated” or indicted and convicted into -decency. Ask your newspapers what makes them think so. -We have many great trusts in this country—has a single -one of them ever been regulated into decency? Have -they been so ruthlessly pursued in court that they were -willing to be decent? You know the answer. You know -there is not a decent great trust in the country. You -know that every attempt to drive them into decency has -failed. Yet your newspapers have the impudence to tell -you that it is not necessary that the government should -own the anthracite mines and the railroads.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It would be difficult to imagine a more amazing situation. -Here we have in this country two sharply contrasted -classes of opinion.</p> - -<p class='c010'>One opinion is that institutions like the Coal Trust -should be regulated or destroyed—compelled to go back -to competition.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The other opinion is that institutions like the Coal Trust -can neither be regulated nor compelled to break up into -small parts and compete.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The men who hold the first opinion can not point to a -single instance wherein their belief has been justified by -events. The men who hold the second opinion have only -common sense with which to back up their assertion that, -if the government owned the coal mines and the railroads, -Coal Trust magnates and railway multi-millionaires -could not rob us.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But in this instance, as in all others where the robbery -of the many by the few is concerned, truth is put upon the -defensive. The grafters, as they might naturally be expected -<span class='pageno' id='Page_145'>145</span>to do, not only shower upon the truth-tellers their -scorn and derision, but even the people who are being -robbed are doubtful or suspicious. They are not so certain -that if robbers be stopped robbery will be stopped. -They suspect the statement that, if nothing be taken from -something, something will remain untouched. They -want us to prove, not only that two and two make four, -but that nothing from four leaves four.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But they don’t ask the “regulation” send-them-to-jail -gentlemen to prove anything. When these grafters say -two from four leave four nobody expresses a doubt. Everybody -is ready to believe that that which has never been -done can be easily done. Few are ready to believe that -that which might easily be done can be done at all.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The public attitude toward the Coal Trust and the -railroads constitutes possibly the only exception to this -rule. The Coal Trust and the railroads have so wronged -the people that the people would doubtless welcome their -ownership by the government. If the people were to vote -directly upon the question: “Shall the government take -over the ownership of the anthracite coal mines and the -railroads?” it is probable that the affirmative majority -would be not less than two to one. Yet, notwithstanding -the fact that the coal question can be solved only with -ballots, the Socialists are the only ones who seem ever to -try with their ballots to solve it. The rest of the people, -while opposed to the conditions that exist, vote the tickets -of parties that are pledged to maintain the conditions -that exist.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Every man who voted for Wilson, Roosevelt or Taft -voted to keep the coal supply of the nation in private -hands and the railroads in private hands.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Those who voted for Mr. Wilson voted to “destroy” -the Coal Trust and “send the trust magnates to prison.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Those who voted for Mr. Roosevelt voted to permit the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_146'>146</span>Coal Trust to continue to own the nation’s coal supply, -provided only that it be “good.” Otherwise, a “strong” -commission appointed by Mr. Roosevelt would proceed to -administer “social justice.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Those who voted for Mr. Taft voted to break the Coal -Trust into bits.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Candidly, let us ask, did either of these plans suit anybody? -Is there anybody who would not have vastly preferred -that the government take over the ownership of the -anthracite coal mines and operate them for the benefit of -the people? A plan of governmental ownership and operation -would have settled the coal question instantly. A -government that can dig the Panama Canal can dig -coal.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But there is no likelihood whatever that Mr. Wilson’s -plan to destroy the Coal Trust and all other trusts will -settle the coal question at all. The Coal Trust cares -nothing for courts. Mr. Hearst attacked the Coal Trust -more vigorously in the courts than any President ever attacked -any trusts in the courts. Mr. Hearst came out of -court absolutely empty-handed. He gained a few paper -victories, but he gained no substantial victory. He never -halted for a moment the upward flight of the price of -coal.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Mr. Wilson, if he try ever so hard, can do no better. -So long as the principle of the private ownership of the -anthracite coal fields is admitted—and Mr. Wilson admits -this principle as fully as does anybody—nothing -can be done. Corporations can be split up into bits, it is -true, as the Standard Oil Company was split up, but what -do such splits amount to? Absolutely nothing. The -ownership is not changed. The dominating owners continue -to handle the pieces as they formerly handled the -whole.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_147'>147</span>Suppose Mr. Wilson try to enforce the criminal clause -of the Sherman Anti-Trust law and put the coal magnates -into jail? Suppose he try to compel the component parts -of the Coal Trust actually to compete with each other. -What will happen?</p> - -<p class='c010'>This will happen. The component parts of the Coal -Trust will refuse to compete. The men who are at the -head of the coal companies are business associates of long -standing. They know each other well, and they know -well that none of them can make any money by fighting -any of the others. So, when one gentleman announces -a schedule of coal prices, none of the others will undercut -him. All of the other coal companies will announce the -same prices, because the owners of each company will -also be the owners of all the other companies.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Did you ever stop to consider what position the government -will then be in? Will not its hands be tied? -Can the government go into court and demand that the -other companies cut their prices? Suppose the other -companies say they cannot cut their prices without losing -money? Suppose the other companies say nothing at all, -except: “This coal belongs to us. We have quite as -much right to fix our own price upon it as has the government -to fix its own price upon postage stamps. That -other coal companies have fixed the same price we have -is no more the government’s business than it is because -several grocers fix the same price upon sugar, bacon, tea -or coffee.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>It will then be up to the government to prove that the -identicality of prices is the result of conspiracy. If conspiracy -cannot be proved, the government can do nothing. -In such a case, the government would never be able to -prove conspiracy. The coal operators would not conspire -over the telephone, or on the street corners. There -<span class='pageno' id='Page_148'>148</span>would be little for them to conspire about, anyway. All -of them would be financially interested in all of the companies, -precisely as Mr. Rockefeller is financially interested -in all of the constituent companies of the Standard -Oil Company. The matter of price-fixing would probably -be left to the dominating personality of the group, -precisely as it is now left, more or less, to the strongest -man among them. And, the prices he fixed would speedily -become the prices of all.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Thus do we perceive a peculiar feature of the human -mind. Individually, we know what we should like to do -about the Coal Trust and the railroads. We know we -should like to own and operate them. But collectively we -know no such thing. We do not get together. We act -as if that which each of us believes were believed by no -other than himself. We are like butter that will not -“gather” or bees that will not “hive.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>There is every reason why we who are paying outrageous -prices for coal should get together on the matter -of public ownership. The cost of mining coal is less than -$2 a ton. In 1902 Mr. George F. Baer—the “Divine -Right” gentleman—testified that the cost was $2, and -some other witnesses testified that it was as low as $1.43 -a ton. Probably no one but the coal magnates know -exactly what the cost is, but now and then a fact leaks -out that is illuminating. Such a fact was discovered in -1912 by a staff correspondent whom the New York -<cite>World</cite> sent into the coal regions.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The <cite>World</cite> man found that the Coal Trust sells coal -to its employees at a reduced price. This is not philanthropy, -because if the Coal Trust charged full price for -coal, it would soon be compelled to pay the miners more -wages—they live like dogs, and not much more can be -taken from them until it is first given to them. At any -<span class='pageno' id='Page_149'>149</span>rate, the <cite>World</cite> man found that the price of coal, to miners, -is only $2 a ton.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Now, it is fair to assume that the Coal Trust is not -losing any money on the $2 coal that it is selling to its -employees. It is more likely that it is making a nickel -or two. At any rate, $2 a ton may be considered the extreme -limit of the cost of mining a ton of anthracite.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Whenever the people of this country are ready to listen -to the truth about the coal question, the retail price of coal -can quickly be more than cut in two. The actual cost of -mining coal and transporting it to any point within 500 -miles of the mines probably is not more than $3 a ton. -If the people, through the government, owned and operated -the mines, the government could afford to sell coal -at this price, plus the local cost of delivery. The wages -of the miners could be doubled—as they should be—and -coal could still be sold by the government at $5 a -ton. In any calculation about the coal problem, the miners -should not be forgotten. The Coal Trust will never -take care of them, but they have a right to demand that -they shall be taken care of.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The business of mining coal is dangerous and disagreeable -to the last degree. Coal miners, when they are at -work, seldom see the day. They go from the night of the -surface to the night of the mines. They breathe such -dust as never blew in the filthiest street. When a fall of -slate comes or an explosion of firedamp, their mangled -bodies are all that is left for their weeping widows and -orphans at the mouth of the mine. If they escape death -by accident, they cannot escape the death that comes from -the unhealthfulness of their calling. No life insurance -company wants much to do with a coal miner except at -the highest rates. No tuberculosis exhibit is complete -without the blackened lungs of a coal miner in a jar of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_150'>150</span>alcohol. There is nothing for a coal miner when he is -alive but a cheerless existence of the greatest drudgery—and -nothing for him when he is dead but an unmarked -grave on the hillside. Yet 76,000 human beings thus -spend their lives in the anthracite coal mines, and hundreds -of other thousands in the bituminous mines. All -of this great toll of human misery that the nation may -burn coal.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If the nation could not get along without coal, there -might be some excuse for this colossal sacrifice. Even -then, it would be hard for those who might be compelled -to make the sacrifice and, if we were to be fair about it, -we might have some difficulty in determining who should -go to the mines and who should go to the opera. If we -were to be fair about it, perhaps some of those who now -go to the opera would go to the mines sometimes. But -the nation could easily get along without sending anybody -into the mines. Water power and fuel oil will do -everything that coal is now doing.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Please consider the water power question. In a report -made to President Taft in 1912 by Commissioner of Corporations -Herbert K. Smith, these statements appear:</p> - -<p class='c010'>Steam and gas engines are creating in this country approximately -19,000,000 horsepower.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Water wheels, in this country, are developing 6,000,000 -horsepower.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The water power of this country, capable of development, -is approximately 19,000,000 horsepower.</p> - -<p class='c010'>These statements mean that there is enough undeveloped -water power in this country to more than take the -place of every coal-burning steam engine. This water -power, if converted into electricity, would do everything -that steam does and more. It would run machinery. It -would light streets. It would heat houses. Moreover, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_151'>151</span>the water power, once developed, would not have to be -dug out of the ground every year. “White coal,” as the -Italians call water power, is mined by the sun and thrown -into the furnace by the force of gravitation. Railroads -need not haul it. Nobody need deliver it. It hauls and -delivers itself.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But that is not all. If there were not an ounce of water -power in this country, still we should not be dependent -upon coal for heat and power. Oil will burn quite as -well as coal—in fact, a good deal better. Dr. Rudolph -Diesel, of Munich, in 1912 declared before the Institute -of Mechanical Engineers in London that exhaustive researches -had indicated the presence of as much oil in the -globe as there is coal; that new oil fields were constantly -being discovered, Borneo, Mexico and even Egypt, in -addition to other known lands, containing great fields; -that “the world’s production of crude oil had increased -three and a half times as rapidly as the production of -coal, and that the ratio of increase was becoming steadily -greater.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Why then do we continue to burn coal? For the same -reason that we continue to do a number of other foolish -things. Because we do not manage this country in which -we live. The men who are managing it are managing it -for profit. If there were a greater profit for the Coal -Trust in switching from coal to water power or oil they -would switch us quickly enough. If we were to change -to oil, it would be a simple matter to lay oil pipes in the -streets precisely as we now lay water and gas pipes, and -heat our houses with oil sprays blown into our furnaces -with jets of steam. Certainly, there would be no difficulty -in heating houses from a central heating plant that -burned oil. Plenty of western cities have such central -heating plants now that burn coal. And the idea is a good -<span class='pageno' id='Page_152'>152</span>one, too. The central plant decreases the danger of fire, -besides doing away with dust and the necessity of shoveling -coal into the furnace of each house.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But gentlemen like the Coal Trust barons figure this -way: “We have a certain amount of money invested -here. We are looking only for the highest rate of interest -that we can get upon our investment. We might serve -the people better if we were to turn to water power development -or the burning of oil, but it is doubtful if we -should obtain a greater rate of interest upon our investment. -Certainly, we should lose a lot by junking our -coal mines, as we should be compelled to do if we were -to prove their worthlessness—so, we’ll just keep on -dealing in coal.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>And, the people of the United States, through their -failure to “get together” politically behind some party -that stands for what they all want—the people of the -United States are getting the worst of it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If the people of the United States want their government—which -is actually themselves, though they do not -seem to know it—if the people of the United States -want their government to take over and to operate the coal -mines solely for the benefit of the people of the United -States, they can do it simply by standing together and -talking and voting for what they want.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In the meantime, it would be a splendid thing for the -country if the Coal Trust would increase the price of coal -a dollar a month until such time as the people become -enough interested in their own problems to solve them.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_153'>153</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER X<br> <span class='large'>DEATHBEDS AND DIVIDENDS</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>Stock market reports do not show a relationship -between deathbeds and dividends. Such a relationship -exists, however. In this country, many are made to -die miserably in order that a few may live magnificently. -Every year, more than half a million human beings are -compelled to die in order that a few thousands may make, -every year, perhaps half a billion dollars. More than -three millions are kept sick in order that a handful may -be kept rich.</p> - -<p class='c010'>This is not mere rhetoric. It is fact. Irving Fisher, -Professor of Political Economy at Yale, and President of -the Committee of One Hundred on National Health, is -one of the authorities for the figures. In his report on -national vitality, to the Conservation Commission, he declared -that in this country, every year, 600,000 human beings -die whose lives might be saved; that there are constantly -3,000,000 ill who might be well.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Dr. Woods Hutchinson, New York physician, endorses -these estimates. Moreover, the estimates are confirmed -by the actual experience of New Zealand. New Zealand’s -death-rate is 9.5 to the thousand. Our death-rate -is 16.5 to the thousand. If New Zealand’s population -were as great as our own, the number of deaths each -year, under her present rate, would be 630,000 fewer than -the number of Americans who die each year. Yet the -climate of New Zealand is no more healthful than is that -of America. New Zealand simply does not sacrifice her -people to private greed. America does.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_154'>154</span>Plenty of laymen know how typhoid could be made a -dead disease. Germany has already made typhoid all -but a dead disease in Germany. Yet, in this country, tuberculosis, -typhoid and other diseases that could easily be -prevented, are permitted to go on, killing their millions.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Why? Because capitalism stands in the way. Because -deathbeds could not be decreased in number without -decreasing dividends in size. Because we can reduce the -death-rate only by acting through our governments—national, -state and municipal—and big business, rather -than ourselves, controls these governments. Big business, -desiring to keep the special privileges it has and to -get more, puts men into office whom it believes will do its -bidding. Usually, these men know nothing and care -nothing about promoting the public health. They are -politicians. If they do know something about promoting -the public health, and attempt to apply their knowledge at -the expense of somebody’s dividends, there is a fight. If -it is a disease-infected tenement that it is desired to tear -down, the injunction is brought into play.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Such a situation seems appalling. It is appalling. It -borders upon the monstrous that a people who have at last -learned how to prevent the great diseases should not be -permitted to apply their knowledge. That the people -endure such a condition can be explained only on the -theory that they realize neither the ease with which modern -science could extend their lives, nor the identity of the -few who put dividends above life.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In order that there shall be no doubt concerning the -power of present knowledge, if applied, to destroy some -of the great diseases and cripple others, I shall set down -here a question that I asked of Professor Irving Fisher, -Dr. Woods Hutchinson, and Dr. J. N. McCormack. Dr. -McCormack is an eminent physician, who devotes his -<span class='pageno' id='Page_155'>155</span>entire time to lecturing throughout the United States, under -the auspices of the American Medical Association -and the Committee of One Hundred. His topic is the -advisability of applying modern knowledge to the public -health problem. Here is the question:</p> - -<p class='c010'>“If you had the power of a czar, could you destroy tuberculosis -and typhoid fever, and also greatly reduce the -number of deaths from pneumonia?”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Professor Fisher and Dr. McCormack replied promptly -in the affirmative. Evidently, I might as well have asked -Dr. Hutchinson if, having a glass of water, he could -drink it. He was most matter of fact. Without a doubt, -tuberculosis could be destroyed. So could typhoid fever, -which is solely a filth disease that no one can get without -eating or drinking matter that has passed through the -stomach of a typhoid victim. Parenthetically, I may say -that I heard Dr. Hutchinson tell a committee of the -United States Senate that if a National Department of -Health were established and properly administered, half -of the crime would cease in twenty-five years. Dr. -Hutchinson also said that it was entirely possible to save -the babies that died from preventable diseases—dysentery, -for instance. The lowest estimate of the number -of babies who die every year from preventable diseases is -100,000.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Ask the same question of any physician in the country -who is worth his salt and he will give the same answer. -Thus well known are the methods by which the great diseases -might be destroyed.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The way to wipe out tuberculosis quickly, for instance, -would be to destroy every habitation that is known to be -hopelessly infected—and there are many such—permit -no habitation to be erected without provision for sufficient -sunlight and air; permit no factory or other workplace -<span class='pageno' id='Page_156'>156</span>to be erected without sufficient provision for sunlight -and fresh air—and destroy such workplaces as now -exist without this provision; reduce the cost of living so -that the millions who now cannot afford to live in sanitary -homes and buy adequate food could do so; isolate -the infected and educate the people with regard to the -necessity of sleeping with their bedroom windows wide -open.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If this program were put through, tuberculosis would -cease as soon as those who are now infected should either -have recovered or died. It is because such a program -has not been put through that, according to Professor -Fisher, there are always 500,000 Americans suffering -from tuberculosis, and the annual death-roll from the disease -is 150,000. Any municipal government, if it were -disposed to do so and the courts were willing to let it do -so, could put through the housing part of the program -in a single summer. The dangerous habitations could -be condemned. The government, if necessary, could -build and rent at cost, sanitary houses in the suburbs, as -the government of New Zealand does for its people. -Congress, the President and the courts, if they were disposed -to do so, could reduce the cost of living. If the -government can teach farmers by mail how to prevent -hog-cholera, there would seem to be no reason why it -should not teach human beings by mail to breathe fresh air -both night and day.</p> - -<p class='c010'>What stands in the way of immediately putting through -such a program? Nothing in the world except the men -whose property would be destroyed, or whose stealings -in food-prices would be stopped. The property loss -would be enormous. (Think of calling the destruction -of a lot of death-traps a “loss.”) The “value” of the -property destroyed might be a billion dollars. Maybe it -<span class='pageno' id='Page_157'>157</span>would be two billions. What difference need it make if -it should take five billion dollars’ worth of labor, lumber, -bricks, steel and other materials to replace death-traps -with life-traps? One hundred and fifty thousand lives -would be saved every year from tuberculosis alone, and -the rebuilding operations would create greater prosperity -for labor than was ever created by any act of Congress.</p> - -<p class='c010'>A hundred years ago, no one knew how to stamp out -tuberculosis. What good does it do us to know how? -We are not permitted to apply our knowledge. We can -peck away if we want to, at the edge of the problem, but -we mustn’t strike at the middle. If we should, we might -cut somebody’s dividends. We might interfere with the -“vested interests” of the owners of the cellars in which -25,000 New York families live, or with the owners of the -101,000 windowless rooms in which New Yorkers live, -or with the owners of the unsanitary houses and factories -in other cities. Our public officials know better than to -try to do anything really radical in the health line. They -have condemned just enough pestholes to know how dangerous -it is to political prospects to grapple with property, -and enforced just enough of the factory laws to know -how dangerous it is to try to enforce factory laws at all.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In New York City, according to Tenement House Commissioner -Murphy, 45 persons are burned alive every -year in death-trap tenements. A new tenement house -law prohibits the erection of death-traps, and in the new -tenements there are no cremations. But the old death-traps -are permitted to stand. In ten years, 450 more persons -will have been burned alive. In 10 years, 1,500,000 -more Americans will have died from tuberculosis.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“Of the people living in the United States to-day,” -said J. Pease Norton, Assistant Professor of Political -Economy at Yale, “more than 8,000,000 will die of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_158'>158</span>tuberculosis.” Between the ages of 20 and 30, every -third death is from consumption, and, at all ages, the -mortality from the same disease is one in nine.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We now censure ancient kings for having slaughtered -men in war for private profit. But what ancient king -ever made such a record in war as our dividend-takers -make in peace? What ancient king, in his whole lifetime, -ever slew 8,000,000 men? What modern war -marked the end of so many men as tuberculosis kills in a -year? During the four years of the Civil War, only a -little more than 200,000 men were killed in battle. Tuberculosis -kills 300,000 Americans every two years. -Other diseases that could be prevented if dividends were -out of the way bring up the total of avoidable deaths in -this country to 1,200,000 every two years.</p> - -<p class='c010'>What if our Government did nothing to end a war -that was killing 600,000 Americans each year? What -if a few contractors who were making millions out of the -war controlled elections, administrations and the courts -and would not let the government end the war?</p> - -<p class='c010'>What difference does it make whether foreign foes and -army contractors kill these millions, or whether domestic -dividend-takers and their governments kill them? Dead -men not only “tell no tales,” but they have no preferences. -It is as bad to be dead from one cause as from -another.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“During the next ten years,” said Professor Norton, -“more than 6,000,000 infants less than two years old -will end their little spans of life, while mothers sit by and -watch in utter helplessness. And yet this number could -probably be decreased by as much as half. But nothing -is done.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Dr. Cressey L. Wilbur, Chief Statistician for Vital -Statistics for the Federal Census Bureau, says that at -<span class='pageno' id='Page_159'>159</span>least 100,000 and perhaps 200,000 children less than five -years old die in this country every year from preventable -causes.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Our national government freights the mails with circulars -telling how to cure hog-cholera and kill the insects -that prey on fruit trees; but in all the years since the -Revolutionary War, it has never sent a circular to a -mother telling her how to keep her baby alive. The -state and the municipal governments have done something, -but they have usually stopped when they reached -the big money bags. Not a state or a city has made it -impossible for a baby to be given bad milk. Not a state -or a city has rid itself of unsanitary habitations. Not a -state or a city has condemned all the workshops in which -men and women work at the peril of their lives. Not a -state or a city has even enforced its own factory-inspection -laws.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If the men whom big business has put in office were -even intelligently interested in public health, probably -50,000 babies could be saved each year without tearing -down a rookery or providing a single better house. A -little intelligent effort and a few thousand dollars would -suffice.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Dr. Hutchinson tells what a little intelligent effort -and a few dollars did for the babies of the small English -city of Huddersfield. A few years ago a physician was -elected mayor. One of his first acts was to announce that -he would give a prize of ten shillings to the mother of -every child born during the mayor’s administration, provided -the babies were brought to his office in perfect -health, on the first anniversary of their birth. The only -other stipulation was that no mother should be eligible to -a prize who did not immediately report to the mayor the -birth of her infant.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_160'>160</span>Though the prize was small, there was no lack of mothers -who were willing to be takers. The doctor-mayor -established what amounted to a correspondence school -for mothers, and, at the birth of each child, began to send -circulars telling how to take care of the baby; what to -feed it and what not to feed it; what to do if the baby appeared -so-and-so—and so on. Moreover, he kept a city -physician on the circuit to look in at each home as often -as possible, to see how the babies appeared and give the -mothers further advice.</p> - -<p class='c010'>That’s all there is to this story—except that he brought -down the death-rate for babies from 130 to 55; saved 75 -babies each year to each thousand born. More than that -he helped the babies who would have lived anyway. -Good care, says the doctor, will increase the strength of -strong babies from 15 to 25 per cent.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Any American government could do as much. By -condemning unsanitary homes any American government -could do more. All that is necessary is the desire—and -the permission of those who control the governments. -The people that cast the ballots are willing to give the -permission, but the ballots they cast perpetuate the conditions -against which they complain. Otherwise, there -would be no death-trap houses; nor impure food; nor extortionate -food-prices; nor unsanitary workplaces. And -somebody would go to jail if an ice trust, desiring to cripple -competitors who might cut prices, should send ships -up a river to destroy the ice. It was brought out in -court that the New York Ice Trust did that. The ice -trust was convicted under the State anti-trust law. But -nobody is in jail. And ice is still selling at a price that -kills the children of the poor.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The only way to get big business on the side of public -health is to get public health and private profit on the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_161'>161</span>same side. Health makes efficiency, efficiency makes -profit, and whenever public health can be bought at a -price that seems likely to yield a profit in efficiency, big -business will buy. That is the way Professor Fisher -figures it out and here is a case that he cites in point:</p> - -<p class='c010'>The girls in one of the Chicago telephone exchanges -that is located in a particularly smoky and dusty part of -the city complained to the manager of the smoke and -dust. He cheerfully advised them to forget the smoke -and dust and go on with their work, which, having more -hunger than money, they did.</p> - -<p class='c010'>A few months later a growing volume of complaints -against bad service caused the manager to investigate. -He found that the smoke and dust were interfering with -the operation of the switchboards. The little brass tags -were so gummed that frequently they did not fall when -subscribers called. Nor did the grime on the “plugs” -with which connections are made constitute a good medium -for the flow of electricity.</p> - -<p class='c010'>When the manager learned what the smoke and dust -were doing to his human machines he did nothing. But -when he learned what smoke and dust were doing to his -metallic machines he wasted no time. He laid the matter -before his superiors, with the result that a plan was -installed for the filtration, through water, of every particle -of air that entered the exchange.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It is not to the interest of big business as a whole that -the people should have pure food. The markets are -flooded with unwholesome food that an honest law, -honestly administered, would have barred. Professor -Fisher relates an incident that shows how afraid the big -meat dealers are of the pure food law.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The professor was sitting in the lobby of a hotel not -distant from New York. The proprietor of the hotel -<span class='pageno' id='Page_162'>162</span>called up a New York meat dealer on the long-distance -‘phone to complain that some bad beef had been sent to -the hotel. He said he had never yet fed his patrons on -rotten beef and he didn’t intend to begin. The beef must -be taken away and the charge deducted from his bill. -The man at the other end of the wire evidently offered -no opposition, and the receiver was hung up.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Soon the telephone rang again. New York was on the -wire. The conversation was brief. All that Professor -Fisher could hear was the hotel man’s single remark: -“I’ll see what I can do and let you know.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>The hotel man rang off and immediately called up a -local restaurant. Then Professor Fisher heard this -cheerful statement go over the wire:</p> - -<p class='c010'>“I’ve got some beef here that ain’t just right, and -the New York people who sent it to me wanted me to -see if I couldn’t sell it for them up here ... Oh, -it’ll hang together yet, but ’tain’t what I want for my -people; you might use it, though ... I don’t know -what the price will be. You’ll have to make your bargain -with them, but it won’t be much.... All -right, send over and get it.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>And this—and a thousand times more than this—under -the Pure Food Law! Such crimes could not occur -if the government, when it tried to enact a decent -law, had not been thrown flat on its back. The pity of -it is that when big business and a government come into -collision over public health matters, the government is -usually thrown on its back.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“I doubt,” said Dr. Hutchinson, “whether there is a -local health officer at any post of entry in the United -States who, if a case of plague, cholera or yellow fever -should appear on a ship, would not think three or four -times before he reported it. And if he did report it, as -<span class='pageno' id='Page_163'>163</span>the law requires him to do, his act would cost him his -position. Business interests would cause his removal.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>This is not mere talk. Nor is it simply prophecy. -It is history. So long as New Orleans was subject to -periodical outbreaks of yellow fever, the health authorities -were compelled not only to fight the disease, but -to fight the business interests that denied its existence. -Dr. Hutchinson says that business interests once caused -the removal of the State health officer of Louisiana, -merely because he insisted that yellow fever existed in -the State—which it did.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Dr. Hutchinson himself, as State health officer of -Oregon, in 1905–6, had to fight big business to conserve -public health. Big business whipped him. His experiences -were not novel, but one of them will be related -for the simple reason that it was not novel, and therefore -shows the sort of opposition that health officers, -all over the land, are compelled to encounter.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Soon after taking office Dr. Hutchinson began an investigation -of the water supplies of the chief cities of -Oregon. His report showed that the water that private -corporations were serving to municipalities carried -typhoid infection.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Immediately the business interests of the State turned -their guns upon him. Through the newspapers, which -they controlled by reason of advertising contracts, they -denounced him as an “enemy of the State.” “The fair -fame of the commonwealth” was being traduced by a -reckless maligner. He was even dared to show his face -in one city. An attempt was made to remove him from -office, but the governor happened to be a man who could -not be browbeaten, and Dr. Hutchinson remained.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But while the business interests of Oregon were not -able to get the governor, they got somebody. The city -<span class='pageno' id='Page_164'>164</span>officials who could have purified the water took no step -to do so. If they had merely recognized the existence -of infected water and urged the people to boil it, some -service would have been performed. But the municipal -officials upheld the “fair fame” of their various communities -by denying that the water was infected. Notwithstanding -their denials typhoid soon broke out. The -outbreak at Eugene, the seat of the State university, was -particularly severe. Several students died.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Yet the San Francisco plague case must long stand as -the classic illustration of the manner in which business -fights government when a great disease comes. Black -plague—the deadliest known to the Orient; a disease -that, more than once, has killed 5,000,000 persons during -a single outbreak—appeared in San Francisco in -1900. The local board of health quarantined the Chinese -district, and the news went out over the country. -The horror of horrors had arrived! The black plague! -It sent a shudder over the land.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It sent a greater shudder over the business interests -of San Francisco. These business interests quickly saw -visions of quarantines against the State and cessation -of tourist traffic. An appeal was made to a Federal -Judge to declare the quarantine illegal. He promptly -did so. In giving his decision, he went out of his way -to make this statement:</p> - -<p class='c010'>“If it were within the province of this court to decide -the point, I should hold that there is not now, and -never has been, a case of plague in this city.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>The local board of health that discovered the plague -was removed, as was the State board of health that confirmed -the prevalence of the disease. The governor of -the State sent a remarkable message to the Legislature -in which he denounced those who said plague existed in -<span class='pageno' id='Page_165'>165</span>San Francisco, and appointed a committee of physicians -and big business men to go to the California metropolis -and make an “impartial” investigation. The business -men on the committee included the biggest bankers and -merchants in California. They reported in the most positive -terms that there was no plague.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Dr. Kinyoun, the Marine Hospital Surgeon in charge, -held his ground. Dr. Kinyoun was shortly transferred -to Detroit. His successor said there was plague. His -successor was shortly transferred to a distant city.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Of course, no one now denies that black plague was -in San Francisco precisely when Dr. Kinyoun said it -was. Even the eminent bankers and merchants who certified -that it wasn’t there admit that they were in -“error.” It is nowhere denied that there were more than -200 cases. It is nowhere denied that there were more -than 100 deaths.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Such is the situation that has been imposed upon us by -a system that places private profits above human life. -Having painfully accumulated the knowledge with which -we could combat the great disease, we are unable to -apply it because we do not own and therefore cannot -manage our own country.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“We look with horror on the black plague of the -Middle Ages,” said Professor Norton. “The black -plague was but a passing cloud, compared with the white -plague visitation.”</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_166'>166</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER XI<br> <span class='large'>IF NOT SOCIALISM—WHAT?</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>I have never seen you, but I know you. Your -knuckles are bloody from continued knocking at -the door of happiness. The harder you knock, the -bloodier your knuckles become. But the door does not -open. It stands like an iron gate between you and -the desires of your soul.</p> - -<p class='c010'>What is the matter with this world? Was it made -wrong? Is it a barren spot to which too many have been -sent? After Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Morgan had been -sent, should you have been kept? Is this their world and -are you an intruder here?</p> - -<p class='c010'>You are not an intruder here. You know that. You -have as good a right here as anyone else. But perhaps, -nevertheless, this world was made wrong? If you had -the power to make worlds, could you make a better one? -Could you make fairer skies? Could you make greener -fields? Could you improve the sun? Could you make -better people?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Perhaps you could do none of these things? If not, -what is the matter with this world? Look at it again. -Here it is—spinning beneath your feet as it has spun -since the dawn of time, and, never before, since the dawn -of time, has it been such a world as it is now. Never -before, since the dawn of time, was it so well suited to -your purposes as it is now.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Your ancestors enjoyed no material thing that they had -not wearily created with their hands. You need create -<span class='pageno' id='Page_167'>167</span>nothing with your hands. You need but to touch with -the tips of your fingers the iron hands that can make -what man could never make so well. Whatever machinery -can make, you can have. And, to drive this machinery, -you have the forces of the sun, as they come to -you in the form of steam and electricity.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Make no mistake—good, bad or indifferent as this -world may be, it is at least moving. None of your ancestors -ever lived in such a world. And none of your -descendants will ever live in such a world as we live in -to-day.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Edison once pictured to me the world that he already -sees dawning. It was a wonderful world, because it was -filled with wonderful machinery. Cloth would go into -one end of a machine and come out at the other end -finished suits of clothes, boxed and ready for the market. -Every machine, instead of making a part of a thing, -would make the complete thing and put it together. The -world would be smothered with wealth.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But there was one disquieting feature about his world. -There was not much room in it for men. Each machine, -attended by but a single man, would do the work -of hundreds of men. Moreover, that one man need not -be skilled. He need be but the merest automaton. Only -the inventor of the machine need have brains.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Maybe Edison was dreaming. The easy way is to say -he was dreaming. I, who know him, have my doubts. -Edison always dreams before he does, but everything -that he dreams seems pitifully small beside what he does. -He dreamed of the electric light before he made it, but -his dream was paltry beside the light he made. And, the -dynamo of his dream was a wheelbarrow beside the -dynamo that to-day sings its shrill song around the world.</p> - -<p class='c010'>This much, however, is not a dream. Some of the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_168'>168</span>automatic machinery that Edison spoke of is already -here. One man behind a machine is doing the work of -hundreds of men. Men are becoming a drug upon the -labor market. More than five millions are often out of -work. As invention proceeds, the percentage of the -population who cannot find work must increase.</p> - -<p class='c010'>What is going to become of these men? Do you expect -them to starve quietly? Do you believe they will -make no outcry? Do you believe they will raise no hand -against a world that raises both hands against them? -Moreover, what kind of a world is it in which the greater -the machinery, the greater the curse to the men who run -machinery? We do not yet live in such a world, it is -true, but if Edison be not in error, we shall soon live in -it? What shall we do when machinery does everything?</p> - -<p class='c010'>This may seem like a far cry, but it isn’t. The germ -of the Socialist philosophy is contained in this one word -“machinery.” Let us put the spot-light upon that word -and show everything that is in it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Suppose there were one machine in this country that -was capable of producing every material thing that human -beings need or desire. Suppose the machine were -so wonderfully automatic that it could be perfectly operated -by pushing a button, once a day, in a Wall Street -office.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Beside this push-button, suppose there were another -button that operated all of the railroads in the country; -passenger trains automatically starting and stopping at -the appointed places; freight trains automatically taking -on and discharging their cargoes. Not a human being -at work anywhere.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Imagine also one man owning this great machine and -the railroads.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The rest of the race, if it were to remain law-abiding, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_169'>169</span>would be compelled to change the law or starve to death, -would it not? What else could the race do? Nobody -would have any work. Nobody would therefore have -anything with which to buy. The single giant machine -might be capable of producing, with the push-button help -of its owner, more necessities and luxuries than the entire -race could consume. The automatic railway system -might be capable of delivering to every door everything -that everybody might want. The single owner might -have more billions of dollars than Mr. Rockefeller has -cents. But nobody else would have anything.</p> - -<p class='c010'>What I am trying to show is that the private ownership -of machinery is a gigantic wrong. If it were not a -wrong, the world would be helped by the private ownership -of a single machine fitted to produce every material -thing that the race needs. If the people owned such a -machine, there would certainly be no more poverty. -There would be no more poverty because the people -would get what the machine produced.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If this be plain, let us further consider the present situation.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We live in a wonderful world.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It is big enough and rich enough to enable everybody -in it to live in comfort.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But hundreds of millions throughout the world do not -live in comfort because the progress of the world has -brought relatively little to them.</p> - -<p class='c010'>They have no share of stock in the earth—somebody -who has a little piece of paper in his hand claims the ownership -of the spot of earth upon which they wish to lay -their heads and charges them rent for using it.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Another little group own all of the machinery, handing -out jobs here and there to the men who offer to work -for the least.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_170'>170</span>Nor is this a chance situation. A small class has always -robbed the great class. It has been and is the rule -of the world. The methods of robbery have been -changed. Method after method has been abandoned as -the people awakened to the means by which they were -being robbed. But robbery has never been abandoned. -The small, greedy, cunning class that will not be content -with what it can earn is here to-day, playing the old -game with a new method.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Socialists declare the new method is to own the industrial -machinery with which all other men must work. -You may not agree with this. Probably you do not. -If you do not, will you kindly answer some questions?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Why do a few men, who will work with no machinery, -want to own all of the machinery in the country?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Would these men care to own any machinery if there -were not an opportunity in such ownership to get money?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Where can the money they get come from except from -the wealth that is produced by the men who work with -their machinery?</p> - -<p class='c010'>So long as a few men own all of the machinery, must -not all other men be at their mercy?</p> - -<p class='c010'>How can anyone get a job so long as the men who own -the machinery say he can have no job?</p> - -<p class='c010'>How can anyone demand a wage that represents the -full value of his product so long as the capitalist refuses -to pay any wages that do not assure a profit to him?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Mr. Roosevelt and some others would have you believe -that all of these wrongs can be “regulated” into rights. -They would have you believe that only “strong” commissions -are necessary to make all of these wrongs right. -But Mr. Roosevelt and some others do not know what -they are talking about. This is not a matter of opinion -but a matter of fact. Men have talked as they talk since -<span class='pageno' id='Page_171'>171</span>robbery began. History records no instance of one of -them that made good. During all of the years that Mr. -Roosevelt was in the White House, he never appointed -a commission that was “strong” enough to make good.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We have it upon the authority of no less a man than -Dr. Wiley that Mr. Roosevelt’s commission to prevent -the poisoning of food was not strong enough to make -good. The food-poisoning went on.</p> - -<p class='c010'>I mention Mr. Roosevelt’s food commission because it -is a shining example of what his “strong” commission -theory of government cannot do. Mr. Roosevelt, unquestionably, -is and was opposed to the poisoning of -food. He appointed a commission to stop one kind of -poisoning. But, for reasons that you, as well as anyone -else, can surmise, the commission decided in favor of the -food-poisoners instead of in favor of the public. Which -brings us to this question: If Mr. Roosevelt could not -appoint a commission “strong” enough even to prevent -the poisoning of food, what reason have you to believe -that he or anyone else could appoint a commission strong -enough to prevent capitalists from robbing workingmen?</p> - -<p class='c010'>You who oppose Socialism do so, no doubt, largely -because you believe the people could not advantageously -own and manage their own industrial machinery. We -who advocate Socialism reply that it is much easier to -manage what you own than it is to manage what someone -else owns. The facts of history show that it is practically -impossible to manage what someone else owns. -That is what we are trying to do to-day—and we -are failing at it. We are trying to manage the trusts. -Fight as we will, the trusts are managing us. They fix -almost every fact in our lives. They begin fixing the -facts of our lives even before we are born. They -determine even whether all of us shall be born. It -<span class='pageno' id='Page_172'>172</span>is a well-known fact that when times are bad, the -birth-rate decreases. Having the power to make bad -times, the trusts also have the power to diminish the -number of births. The trust panic of 1907 unquestionably -prevented thousands of children from being born. -No one can ever know how many, but we do know that -both marriages and births decreased.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In view of such facts as these, is it not idle to talk -about “regulating” the property of others? Is it not -stupid to believe that in such regulation lies our greatest -hope of material well-being? You must admit that, thus -far, the process of regulation has gone on painfully -slowly. If poverty, the fear of poverty and enforced -idleness are any indications of the progress of the country, -it is difficult to see that we have made any progress. -Never before were so many millions of men out of work -in this country as there were during the panic of 1907. -Never before were so many millions of human beings so -uncertain of their future. A few men hold us all in the -hollows of their hands. Our destinies lie, not in ourselves, -but in them.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Is it not so? Don’t be blinded by “commissions,” -political pow-wow and nonsense—is it not so? If it is -so, how much progress have we made toward getting rid -of poverty by trying to regulate property that we do not -own? We have been playing the game of “regulation” -for more than a generation. It has done nothing for -you. How many more generations do you expect to -live? Are you willing to go to your grave with this -pestilential question of poverty still weighing upon your -heart? Are you willing to go out of the world feeling -that you never really lived in it—that it was only a place -where you toiled and sweat and suffered while others -lived?</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_173'>173</span>We Socialists put it to you as a common-sense affirmation -that your time can come now if you and all others -like you will join in a political effort to make it come.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Any political partisan will make you the same promise, -but you know, from sad experience, that their promises -are worthless. We ask you to consider whether our -promises are worthless.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We promise you, for instance, that if you will give us -power you need never again want for work. If the -people, through the government, owned the trusts and -other great industries, why should anybody ever again -want for work? Thenceforward, the great plants would -always be open. No factory door would ever be closed -so long as there was a demand for the product of the -factory. If the demand for goods were greater than the -capacity of the factories, the number of factories would -be increased. Nothing is simpler than to increase the -number of factories. Only men and materials are required. -We have an abundance of each.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But we promise you more. We promise you that, if -you will give us power, we will give you not only the -continuous opportunity to work, but we will give you -continuous freedom from robbery. Again, nothing is -simpler than to work without robbery. All that is -necessary is to enable the worker to go to work without -walking into anyone’s clutches. No one can now go to -work without walking into many men’s clutches. When -a man goes to work for the Steel Trust, he walks into the -clutches of everybody who owns the stocks or the bonds -of the trust. When a man goes to work for a railway -company, he walks into the clutches of every person who -owns the stocks or the bonds of the railway company. -In other words, the stock and bondholders of these institutions, -by virtue of their control of the machinery involved, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_174'>174</span>have it in their power to say whether the worker -shall work or not work. They say he shall not work unless -they can make a profit upon his labor. The worker -cannot haggle too long because he must labor or starve. -Therefore, he comes to terms. He walks into the -clutches of those who want to rob him of part of what he -produces. He consents to work for a wage that represents -only a part of what he has produced.</p> - -<p class='c010'>That is robbery. You may call it business, but it is -robbery. If robbery is anything, it is the taking of the -property of another against his will. The worker knows -his wage is not all he earns. He resents the fact that he -must toil long and hard for a poor living, while his employer -lives in luxury without doing any useful labor. -But the worker has no alternative. He must consent. -He does consent.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Under Socialism, there would be no such robbery, because -goods would not be produced for profit. Goods -would be produced only because the people wanted them. -Whatever the people wanted would be produced, not in -niggardly volume, but in abundance.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Decent homes, for instance, would be produced. Millions -of people in the great cities now live in houses that -are death-traps. They are not houses, in the sense that -country dwellers understand the word, but dingy rooms, -piled one upon another in great blocks. Light seldom -enters some of them. Fresh air can hardly get into any -of them. The germs of tuberculosis abound. The -germs of other diseases swirl through the dust of the -streets. The death-rate is abnormally high—particularly -the death-rate of children. Yet, nothing would be -simpler, if the profit-seeking capitalists were shorn of -their power, than to give every human being in this country -a decent home.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_175'>175</span>The best material out of which to make a house is -cement or brick. Either is better than wood because -wood both rots and burns. There is practically no limit -to the number of cement and brick houses that could be -built in this country. Every State contains enough clay -and other materials to build enough houses to supply the -whole country. If the five millions of men who were -out of work for many years following the panic of 1907 -could have been employed at house-building, they themselves -would not only have been prosperous, but the -American people would have been housed as they had -never been housed before. If the two millions of men -who are always denied employment, even in so-called -“good” times, were continuously engaged in house-building, -good houses would be so numerous that we should -not know what to do with them.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The same facts apply to all other necessities of life. -The nation needs bread. Some are starving for it all -the while. Yet what is simpler than the furnishing of -bread? We know how to grow wheat. With the scientific -knowledge that the government could devote to -wheat growing, combined with the improved machinery -that a rich government could bring to bear upon the problem, -the wheat-production of the country could easily be -multiplied by four. Little Holland and little Belgium, -with no better soil than our own, raise almost four times -as much wheat to the acre as we do. And, with wheat -once grown, nothing is more simple than to make it into -flour. Probably we already have enough milling machinery -to make all the flour we need. If not, we could -easily build four times as many mills. We should never -be unable to build more mills until we had no unemployed -men to set to work. And, if we had no unemployed -men to set to work, we should have, for the first -<span class='pageno' id='Page_176'>176</span>time in the history of the world, a completely happy nation.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Do you doubt any of these statements? How can -you doubt them? We have the men. We have the materials. -The only trouble is that they are kept apart. -They are kept apart because a few men control things -and will not allow men and material to come together -unless that means a profit for the few men. We Socialists -purpose to put them together. If they were put -together, how much longer do you believe the people -would have to shiver in winter for lack of woolen clothing? -There is no secret about raising sheep. We have -vast areas upon which we could raise more than we shall -ever need. Even a concern like the Woolen Trust—the -head of which was indicted for conspiring to “plant” -dynamite at Lawrence to besmirch the strikers—even -such a concern enables some of us to wear wool in the -winter time. How many more do you believe would -wear wool if the United States government were to take -the place of this concern as a manufacturer of woolen -goods? Do you believe anybody would be compelled to -suffer from cold for lack of woolen clothing? How can -you so believe? The government, if necessary, could -build four woolen mills for every one that exists. The -government could not fail to supply the people’s needs. -And, with all goods sold at cost, prices would be so low -that the people could buy.</p> - -<p class='c010'>These, and many other possibilities, are entirely within -your reach. You can realize them now. Will you -kindly tell when you expect to realize them by voting -for the candidates of any other party except the Socialist -party? No other party except the Socialist party proposes -to put men and materials together. Every other -party except the Socialist party proposes that a small -<span class='pageno' id='Page_177'>177</span>class of men shall continue to own all of the great industrial -machinery, while the rest shall continue to be -robbed as the price of its use. Every other party except -the Socialist party proposes that a small body of men -shall continue to graft off the rest by wringing profits -from them. No party except the Socialist party puts the -people above profits.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Even Mr. Roosevelt and his party do not. Mr. -Roosevelt stands as firmly for the principle of profits as -does Mr. Morgan. Mr. Roosevelt differs from the most -besotted reactionary only in his hallucination that he -could appoint “strong” commissions that would successfully -regulate other people’s property. Mr. Roosevelt -does not seem to recognize that, so long as profits -are in the capitalist system, the workers must not only be -robbed of part of what they produce, but that they must -be periodically denied even the right to work at any wage. -Nor does he seem to realize that, if he were to reduce -the profits to the point where there was not much robbery, -the capitalists would no longer have any incentive -for remaining in business.</p> - -<p class='c010'>With profits eliminated, or cut to the vanishing point, -the capitalist system cannot stand.</p> - -<p class='c010'>With profits not eliminated or cut near the vanishing -point, the people cannot stand.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Therefore, Mr. Roosevelt is trying to bring about the -impossible. He is trying to prevent the people from being -robbed without destroying the power of the capitalist -to live by robbery. Mr. Roosevelt probably would like -to decrease, somewhat, the extent to which capitalists -practice robbery. But he is not willing to take away -from them the power to rob.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If Mr. Roosevelt were chasing burglars instead of the -Presidency, we should first laugh at him and then put a -<span class='pageno' id='Page_178'>178</span>new man on the force in his place. Imagine a policeman -trying to prevent burglary by “regulating” the -burglars, saying to them in a hissing voice: “Now, -gentlemen, this burglary must stop. We really can have -no more of it. None of you must carry a ‘jimmy’ more -than four feet long. Any burglar caught with more -than twenty skeleton keys will be sent to prison.”</p> - -<p class='c010'>Yet that is practically what Mr. Roosevelt says to the -capitalists. The “jimmy” of the capitalist is his ownership -of the tools with which his employees work, but -Mr. Roosevelt makes no move to take this instrument -from the men who are despoiling the workers. All that -Mr. Roosevelt purposes to do is to place a limit upon the -amount that the capitalist can legally abstract. And he -depends upon “strong” commissions to keep the ferocious -capitalist in order.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We Socialists have no faith in such measures. We -frankly predict their failure, precisely as twenty years -ago we predicted the failure of the Sherman Anti-Trust -Law. We were then known to so few of our own -people that not many persons had the pleasure of calling -us fools. Now, nobody wants to call us fools for that. -We are now fools because we do not believe in Wilson -or in Roosevelt.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We are not content to await the verdict of time, but we -await it with confidence. We dislike to waste twenty-five -more years in chasing up this Roosevelt blind alley, -but if you should determine to make the trip—which we -hope you will not—we shall still be on the main track -when you come back.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If somebody else had the key to your house and would -not let you in unless you paid him his price, you would -not value highly the services of a policeman who should -tell you that the way to deal with the gentleman was to -<span class='pageno' id='Page_179'>179</span>“regulate” him. If the gentlemen had locked you out -upon an average of four times a week, you would feel -even less kindly disposed toward such a policeman.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We Socialists feel that the capitalist class has keys that -belong to the American people, and that it has used and is -using those keys to prevent the people from using their -own, except upon the payment of tribute.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We feel that the capitalist class holds the keys to our -workshops and will not let us enter except upon such -tribute terms as they can wring from us.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We feel that the capitalist class has the keys to our coal -fields and will not let us be warm in winter except upon -the payment of money that should go, perhaps, for food -or clothing.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We feel that the capitalist class has the keys of our -national pantry and compels those to go hungry whom it -has denied the right to work.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In short, we feel that the capitalists have the keys of -our happiness—so far as happiness depends upon material -things—and are compelling us to subsist upon uncertainty -and fear, when security and contentment lie -just at our elbows, awaiting the turn of the keys.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We Socialists are ready to stand behind any party that -will pledge itself to return these keys to the people, reserving -only the right to be convinced that the pledge is -made in good faith and will be kept.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If Mr. Roosevelt will promise to use his best efforts to -take from the capitalists the private ownership of industry, -we Socialists shall believe he means business and -shall begin to respect him.</p> - -<p class='c010'>If Mr. Wilson will make a similar promise, we shall -feel the same toward him.</p> - -<p class='c010'>But if Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Wilson should make -such a promise, they would have absolutely no capitalist -<span class='pageno' id='Page_180'>180</span>support. Mr. Perkins would not be with Mr. Roosevelt. -Mr. Ryan would not be with Mr. Wilson. So far as -great capitalists are concerned, Armageddon and Sea -Girt would look a good deal like a baseball park two -weeks after the close of the season.</p> - -<p class='c010'>All the world over, the Socialist party is the only political -organization that frankly stands up to the guns and -demands the keys. It is the only party that minces no -words and looks for no favors from the rich. The Socialist -party is avowedly and earnestly committed to the -task of compelling the capitalist class to surrender the -power with which it robs. And, anyone who believes -that power does not lie in the private ownership of industrial -machinery need only try to become rich without -owning any such machinery or gambling in its products. -We Socialists are willing to stake our lives on the statement -that if you will transfer the ownership of industry -from the capitalist class to the people, those who now -constitute the capitalist class will never get another dollar -that they do not work for or steal in common burglar or -pickpocket fashion. If we are in error about the significance -of the private ownership of industry, the transfer -of such ownership to the people would not hurt the capitalist -class. But the capitalist class evidently does not -believe the Socialists are wrong in holding this belief, -because the capitalists are fighting us tooth and nail.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Nothing is the matter with this world. Whatever is -the matter is with you. You can begin to get results -now if you will begin to vote right now. The election of -Victor L. Berger to Congress in 1910 threw more of the -fear of God into the capitalist class of this country than -any other event that has happened in a generation. If -fifty Socialists were in Congress, the old parties would -outdo each other in offering concessions to the people.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_181'>181</span>As an illustration of what fifty Socialist Congressmen -could do I will relate an incident that took place in Washington -in the winter of 1912.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Berger, by playing shrewd politics, had brought about -a congressional investigation of the Lawrence woolen -mill strike. He had brought to Washington a carload of -little tots from the mills—boys and girls—and they -had spent the day telling a committee of the House of -Representatives of their wrongs. The stories were heartbreaking. -Here was a stunted little boy who declared -he worked in a temperature of 140 degrees for $5 a week. -A young girl—the daughter of a mill-worker—told of -an insult offered to her by a soldier and of her own arrest -when she struck him. A skilled weaver described the -difficulty of keeping life in his four children on a diet of -bread and molasses. Every story was different in detail, -but all were alike in the depths of poverty that they -revealed. The testimony bore heavily upon those who -listened, and when the session was suspended for the day -the members of Congress hastened quickly from the -room.</p> - -<p class='c010'>As Berger walked rapidly toward the door an old man -stopped him. Apparently he was a business man, 55 or -60 years old. Certainly he was not a workingman. But -he had heard the day’s testimony and he could not remain -silent.</p> - -<p class='c010'>“Mr. Berger,” he said, “I have always been against -you and all Socialists. I was sorry when I heard you -had been elected to Congress. But if you brought about -this investigation, as I am informed you did, I want to -say to you that if you were never to do another thing -during your term, your election would have been more -than justified. I hope your people will keep you in Congress -as long as you live.”</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_182'>182</span>How many more men would change their minds if -there were fifty Socialists in Congress? How many -capitalists would change their minds as to how far they -could safely go in robbing the people?</p> - -<p class='c010'>Three millions of votes for the Socialist ticket would -by no means elect a Socialist president. But they would -squeeze out more justice from the capitalist parties than -the people have had since this government began.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Moreover, if you want the world during your own lifetime -you will have to take it during your own lifetime. -It will not do you much good to let your grandchildren -take it during their lifetime.</p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_183'>183</span> - <h2 class='c005'>APPENDIX.<br> NATIONAL SOCIALIST PLATFORM</h2> -</div> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c002'> - <div>(Adopted at Indianapolis, May, 1912)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>The Socialist Party of the United States declares that the -capitalist system has outgrown its historical function, and has -become utterly incapable of meeting the problems now confronting -society. We denounce this outgrown system as incompetent -and corrupt and the source of unspeakable misery and suffering -to the whole working class.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Under this system the industrial equipment of the nation has -passed into the absolute control of a plutocracy which exacts an annual -tribute of millions of dollars from the producers. Unafraid -of any organized resistance, it stretches out its greedy hands over -the still undeveloped resources of the nation—the land, the mines, -the forests and the water-powers of every State in the Union.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In spite of the multiplication of labor-saving machines and improved -methods in industry which cheapen the cost of production, -the share of the producers grows ever less, and the prices of all the -necessities of life steadily increase. The boasted prosperity of this -nation is for the owning class alone. To the rest it means only -greater hardship and misery. The high cost of living is felt in -every home. Millions of wage-workers have seen the purchasing -power of their wages decrease until life has become a desperate -battle for mere existence.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Multitudes of unemployed walk the streets of our cities or trudge -from State to State awaiting the will of the masters to move the -wheels of industry.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The farmers in every State are plundered by the increasing prices -exacted for tools and machinery and by extortionate rents, freight -rates and storage charges.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Capitalist concentration is mercilessly crushing the class of small -business men and driving its members into the ranks of propertyless -wage workers. The overwhelming majority of the people of America -are being forced under a yoke of bondage by this soulless industrial -despotism.</p> - -<p class='c010'>It is this capitalist system that is responsible for the increasing -burden of armaments, the poverty, slums, child-labor, most of the -insanity, crime and prostitution, and much of the disease that afflicts -mankind.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_184'>184</span>Under this system the working class is exposed to poisonous conditions, -to frightful and needless perils to life and limb, is walled -around with court decisions, injunctions and unjust laws, and is -preyed upon incessantly for the benefit of the controlling oligarchy -of wealth. Under it also, the children of the working class are -doomed to ignorance, drudging toil and darkened lives.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In the face of these evils, so manifest that all thoughtful observers -are appalled at them, the legislative representatives of the Republican, -Democratic, and all reform parties remain the faithful servants -of the oppressors. Measures designed to secure to the wage earners -of this nation as humane and just treatment as is already enjoyed -by the wage earners of all other civilized nations have been smothered -in committee without debate, and laws ostensibly designed to -bring relief to the farmers and general consumers are juggled and -transformed into instruments for the exaction of further tribute. -The growing unrest under oppression has driven these two old -parties to the enactment of a variety of regulative measures, none -of which has limited in any appreciable degree the power of the -plutocracy, and some of which have been perverted into means for -increasing that power. Anti-trust laws, railroad restrictions and -regulations, with the prosecutions, indictments and investigations -based upon such legislation, have proved to be utterly futile and -ridiculous. Nor has this plutocracy been seriously restrained or -even threatened by any Republican or Democratic executive. It has -continued to grow in power and insolence alike under the administrations -of Cleveland, McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In addition to this legislative juggling and this executive connivance, -the courts of America have sanctioned and strengthened the -hold of this plutocracy as the Dred Scott and other decisions -strengthened the slave power before the Civil War.</p> - -<p class='c010'>We declare, therefore, that the longer sufferance of these conditions -is impossible, and we purpose to end them all. We declare -them to be the product of the present system in which industry is -carried on for private greed, instead of for the welfare of society. -We declare, furthermore, that for these evils there will be and can -be no remedy and no substantial relief except through Socialism, -under which industry will be carried on for the common good and -every worker receive the full social value of the wealth he creates.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Society is divided into warring groups and classes, based upon -material interests. Fundamentally, this struggle is a conflict between -the two main classes, one of which, the capitalist class, owns -the means of production, and the other, the working class, must use -these means of production on terms dictated by the owners.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The capitalist class, though few in numbers, absolutely controls -the Government-legislative, executive and judicial. This class owns -<span class='pageno' id='Page_185'>185</span>the machinery of gathering and disseminating news through its organized -press. It subsidizes seats of learning—the colleges and -schools—and even religious and moral agencies. It has also the -added prestige which established customs give to any order of society, -right or wrong.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The working class, which includes all those who are forced to -work for a living, whether by hand or by brain, in shop, mine or on -the soil, vastly outnumbers the capitalist class. Lacking effective -organization and class solidarity, this class is unable to enforce its -will. Given such class solidarity and effective organization, the -workers will have the power to make all laws and control all industry -in their own interest.</p> - -<p class='c010'>All political parties are the expression of economic class interests. -All other parties than the Socialist Party represents one or another -group of the ruling capitalist class. Their political conflicts reflect -merely superficial rivalries between competing capitalist groups. -However they result, these conflicts have no issue of real value to -the workers. Whether the Democrats or Republicans win politically, -it is the capitalist class that is victorious economically.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The Socialist Party is the political expression of the economic -interests of the workers. Its defeats have been their defeats, and -its victories their victories. It is a party founded on the science and -laws of social development. It proposes that, since all social necessities -to-day are socially produced, the means of their production -shall be socially owned and democratically controlled.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In the face of the economic and political aggressions of the capitalist -class the only reliance left the workers is that of their economic -organizations and their political power. By the intelligent and -class-conscious use of these they may resist successfully the capitalist -class, break the fetters of wage slavery, and fit themselves for the -future society, which is to displace the capitalist system. The Socialist -Party appreciates the full significance of class organization and -urges the wage earners, the working farmers and all other useful -workers everywhere to organize for economic and political action, -and we pledge ourselves to support the toilers of the fields as well -as those in the shops, factories and mines of the nation in their -struggle for economic justice.</p> - -<p class='c010'>In the defeat or victory of the working class party in this new -struggle for freedom lies the defeat or triumph of the common people -of all economic groups, as well as the failure or the triumph of -popular government. Thus the Socialist Party is the party of the -present day revolution, which marks the transition from economic -individualism to Socialism, from wage slavery to free co-operation, -from capitalist oligarchy to industrial democracy.</p> - -<p class='c010'>As measures calculated to strengthen the working class in its -<span class='pageno' id='Page_186'>186</span>fight for the realization of its ultimate aim, the Co-operative Commonwealth, -and to increase the power of resistance against capitalist -oppression, we advocate and pledge ourselves and our elected officers -to the following program:</p> - -<h3 class='c015'><span class='sc'>Collective Ownership</span></h3> - -<p class='c016'>1. The collective ownership and democratic management of railroads, -wire and wireless telegraphs and telephones, express services, -steamboat lines and all other social means of transportation and -communication and of all large scale industries.</p> - -<p class='c010'>2. The immediate acquirement by the municipalities, the States -or the federal government of all grain elevators, stock yards, storage -warehouses and other distributing agencies, in order to reduce the -present extortionate cost of living.</p> - -<p class='c010'>3. The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, -oil wells, forests and water power.</p> - -<p class='c010'>4. The further conservation and development of natural resources -for the use and benefit of all the people:</p> - -<p class='c010'>(<i>a</i>) By scientific forestation and timber protection.</p> - -<p class='c010'>(<i>b</i>) By the reclamation of arid and swamp tracts.</p> - -<p class='c010'>(<i>c</i>) By the storage of flood waters and the utilization of water -power.</p> - -<p class='c010'>(<i>d</i>) By the stoppage of the present extravagant waste of the -soil and of the products of mines and oil wells.</p> - -<p class='c010'>(<i>e</i>) By the development of highway and waterway systems.</p> - -<p class='c010'>5. The collective ownership of land wherever practicable, and, in -cases where such ownership is impracticable, the appropriation by -taxation of the annual rental value of all land held for speculation.</p> - -<p class='c010'>6. The collective ownership and democratic management of the -banking and currency system.</p> - -<h3 class='c015'><span class='sc'>Unemployment</span></h3> - -<p class='c016'>The immediate government relief of the unemployed by the extension -of all useful public works. All persons employed on such -works to be engaged directly by the government under a workday -of not more than eight hours and not less than the prevailing union -wages. The government also to establish employment bureaus; to -lend money to States and municipalities without interest for the -purpose of carrying on public works, and to take such other measures -within its power as will lessen the widespread misery of the -workers caused by the misrule of the capitalist class.</p> - -<h3 class='c015'><span class='sc'>Industrial Demands</span></h3> - -<p class='c016'>The conservation of human resources, particularly of the lives and -well-being of the workers and their families:</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_187'>187</span>1. By shortening the workday in keeping with the increased productiveness -of machinery.</p> - -<p class='c010'>2. By securing to every worker a rest period of not less than a -day and a half in each week.</p> - -<p class='c010'>3. By securing a more effective inspection of workshops, factories -and mines.</p> - -<p class='c010'>4. By forbidding the employment of children under 16 years of -age.</p> - -<p class='c010'>5. By the co-operative organization of industries in federal penitentiaries -and workshops for the benefit of convicts and their dependents.</p> - -<p class='c010'>6. By forbidding the interstate transportation of the products of -child-labor, of convict labor and of all uninspected factories and -mines.</p> - -<p class='c010'>7. By abolishing the profit system in government work, and substituting -either the direct hire of labor or the awarding of contracts -to co-operative groups of workers.</p> - -<p class='c010'>8. By establishing minimum wage scales.</p> - -<p class='c010'>9. By abolishing official charity and substituting a non-contributory -system of old age pensions, a general system of insurance by -the State of all its members against unemployment and invalidism -and a system of compulsory insurance by employers of their workers, -without cost to the latter, against industrial disease, accidents -and death.</p> - -<h3 class='c015'><span class='sc'>Political Demands</span></h3> - -<p class='c016'>The absolute freedom of press, speech and assemblage.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The adoption of a gradual income tax, the increase of the rates of -the present corporation tax and the extension of inheritance taxes, -graduated in proportion to the value of the estate and to nearness -of kin—the proceeds of these taxes to be employed in the socialization -of industry.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The abolition of the monopoly ownership of patents and the substitution -of collective ownership, with direct rewards to inventors -by premiums or royalties.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Unrestricted and equal suffrage for men and women.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The adoption of the initiative, referendum and recall and of proportional -representation, nationally as well as locally.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The abolition of the Senate and the veto power of the President.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The election of the President and the Vice President by direct -vote of the people.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The abolition of the power usurped by the Supreme Court of the -United States to pass upon the constitutionality of the legislation -enacted by Congress. National laws to be repealed only by act of -Congress or by the voters in a majority of the States.</p> - -<p class='c010'><span class='pageno' id='Page_188'>188</span>The granting of the right of suffrage in the District of Columbia -with representation in Congress and a democratic form of municipal -government for purely local affairs.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The extension of democratic government to all United States territory.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The enactment of further measures for general education and particularly -for vocational education in useful pursuits. The Bureau -of Education to be made a department.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The enactment of further measures for the conservation of health. -The creation of an independent Bureau of Health with such restrictions -as will secure full liberty for all schools of practice.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The separation of the present Bureau of Labor from the Department -of Commerce and Labor and its elevation to the rank of a department.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Abolition of the federal district courts and the United States Circuit -Courts of Appeals. State courts to have jurisdiction in all -cases arising between citizens of the several States and foreign corporations. -The election of all judges for short terms.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The immediate curbing of the power of the courts to issue injunctions.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The free administration of justice.</p> - -<p class='c010'>The calling of a convention for the revision of the Constitution -of the United States.</p> - -<p class='c010'>Such measures of relief as we may be able to force from capitalism -are but a preparation of the workers to seize the whole powers of -government in order that they may thereby lay hold of the whole -system of socialized industry and thus come to their rightful inheritance.</p> -<div class='pbb'> - <hr class='pb c003'> -</div> -<div class='border'> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>Perhaps you have a friend -who believes he knows what Socialism -is, but doesn’t. If so, a copy of -“The Truth About Socialism” will be -mailed to him for twenty-five cents. -Prices for larger numbers follow:</p> - -<table class='table1'> - <tr> - <th class='c006'><span class='sc'>Quantities</span></th> - <th class='c007'> </th> - <th class='c017'><span class='sc'>Price</span></th> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>5</td> - <td class='c007'>copies (prepaid)</td> - <td class='c017'>$1.00</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>25</td> - <td class='c007'>copies f.o.b. New York</td> - <td class='c017'>$4.50</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c006'>100</td> - <td class='c007'>copies f.o.b. New York</td> - <td class='c017'>$15.00</td> - </tr> -</table> - -</div> - -<div class='border'> - -<p class='drop-capa0_0_6 c009'>The Socialist Party maintains -a National office, for the purpose, -among other things, of furnishing -any desired information about the party. -Upon request, it will furnish lists of -Socialist books, newspapers and magazines. -Services of this sort are rendered not only -freely, but gladly. Address,</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div><span class='sc'>National Sec’y of the Socialist Party</span></div> - <div>111 North Market Street</div> - <div><span class='sc'>Chicago</span></div> - </div> -</div> - -</div> - -<div class='chapter ph2'> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c004'> - <div>The Truth About Socialism</div> - <div class='c003'><span class='large'>As the reviewers see it</span></div> - </div> -</div> - -</div> - -<p class='c018'>Philadelphia <cite>North American</cite></p> - -<p class='c010'>Nothing in the current and accepted literature of economics -avails entirely to controvert the arguments and offset -the data here presented, in lucid and almost colloquial -form. Mr. Benson’s book takes on readily the aspect of -a burning and a shining light.</p> - -<p class='c018'>New York <cite>Globe</cite></p> - -<p class='c010'>Many writers have told the truth about Socialism, but -not many have told it so racily and with such fire and no -beating about the bush as Mr. Benson....</p> - -<p class='c010'>In writing his book he has evidently had in mind every -doubt that was ever expressed about Socialism, every -question, foolish or otherwise, that was ever asked.... -He has sought to write about Socialism sensibly and -practically and in the present tense.</p> - -<p class='c018'>J. B. Kerfoot in <cite>Life</cite></p> - -<p class='c010'>But the book that did the biting, a reading of which -inspired this review ... lays before us not a -theory, but a programme ... instead of being -merely intellectually alive, Mr. Benson’s book is emotively -living and magnetically, radio-actively in earnest. And -unless you are mighty thin-blooded or mighty thick-skinned -it will raise a good, big itchy lump either on your enthusiasm -or your combativeness.</p> - -<p class='c018'>Horace Traubel in <cite>The Conservator</cite></p> - -<p class='c010'>The man who can’t make out Socialism after reading -Benson ought to suspect himself. There’s something -wrong with his machinery. There’s an idiot around -somewhere. And that idiot’s not Benson.</p> - -<p class='c018'>Detroit <cite>Times</cite></p> - -<p class='c010'>The book will appeal to the thoughtful who desire a -concise expression of Socialist thought and argument. He -has written clearly and forcibly; he discusses his subject -from the practical, not the technical side.</p> - -<p class='c018'>Springfield <cite>Union</cite></p> - -<p class='c010'>It is a clearly written statement and the book may be -regarded as authoritative.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c002'> - <div>Send for catalogue of miscellaneous books published by</div> - <div>B. W. HUEBSCH, 225 Fifth avenue, New York</div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='pbb'> - <hr class='pb c003'> -</div> -<div class='tnotes x-ebookmaker'> - -<div class='chapter ph2'> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c004'> - <div>TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES</div> - </div> -</div> - -</div> - - <ol class='ol_1 c002'> - <li>Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling. - - </li> - <li>Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed. - </li> - </ol> - -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRUTH ABOUT SOCIALISM ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin-top:1em; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> - </body> - <!-- created with ppgen.py 3.57c_GHS_H5 on 2022-11-14 03:01:47 GMT --> -</html> diff --git a/old/69480-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/69480-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index d85e734..0000000 --- a/old/69480-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/69480-h/images/i_copyright.jpg b/old/69480-h/images/i_copyright.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b405ac1..0000000 --- a/old/69480-h/images/i_copyright.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/69480-h/images/i_title.jpg b/old/69480-h/images/i_title.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index d02cdc6..0000000 --- a/old/69480-h/images/i_title.jpg +++ /dev/null |
