diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-02 21:28:49 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-02-02 21:28:49 -0800 |
| commit | ad3fd9efe4c771d7fef97f1ae8e32a18edc3d432 (patch) | |
| tree | c5560df9e8608f2be7f3b7a3ad2774dd3737a754 | |
| parent | f38dd09a5225779ab936fcdca5a3bd919c35d93d (diff) | |
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68755-0.txt | 5159 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68755-0.zip | bin | 99081 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68755-h.zip | bin | 844745 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68755-h/68755-h.htm | 5466 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68755-h/images/001.jpg | bin | 56408 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68755-h/images/002.jpg | bin | 19300 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68755-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 695481 -> 0 bytes |
10 files changed, 17 insertions, 10625 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..1a87b0e --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #68755 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/68755) diff --git a/old/68755-0.txt b/old/68755-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 6b16401..0000000 --- a/old/68755-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,5159 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Your pay envelope, by John R. Meader - -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: Your pay envelope - -Author: John R. Meader - -Release Date: August 15, 2022 [eBook #68755] - -Language: English - -Produced by: deaurider 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 YOUR PAY ENVELOPE *** - - - - - - YOUR PAY ENVELOPE - - - BY - - JOHN R. MEADER - EDITOR OF “THE COMMON CAUSE” - - [Illustration] - - - NEW YORK - THE DEVIN-ADAIR COMPANY - 437 FIFTH AVENUE - 1914 - - - - - COPYRIGHT, 1914, BY - THE DEVIN-ADAIR COMPANY - - [Illustration] - - - - -CONTENTS - - - CHAPTER PAGE - - I. THE PROBLEM STATED 1 - - II. WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND ISN’T 9 - - III. THE WORKER’S WAGE 19 - - IV. HOW THE “ROBBING” IS DONE 32 - - V. YOUR OWN PAY ENVELOPE 41 - - VI. YOU “WAGE SLAVES”! 54 - - VII. YOUR BOSS UNDER SOCIALISM 67 - - VIII. SOME MORE “EQUALITY” 77 - - IX. A FEW “MINOR DETAILS” 87 - - X. LABOR’S FULL PRODUCT 101 - - XI. IS WRETCHEDNESS INCREASING? 116 - - XII. THE CLASS STRUGGLE 133 - - XIII. SHALL WE TAKE IT OR PAY FOR IT? 144 - - XIV. THE REVOLUTION 160 - - XV. WHAT WE ARE PROMISED 173 - - XVI. WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE WORLD? 189 - - XVII. THE REMEDY 200 - - - - -YOUR PAY ENVELOPE - - - - -CHAPTER I - -THE PROBLEM STATED - - - Dear Mr. Smith, - -I am glad that you have asked me if the soap-box orator told the truth -when he said that all the arguments against Socialism are either “lies” -or “foolish misrepresentations.” - -The soap-box orator wants you to believe that all the wise men in this -world are Socialists, and that those who do not accept the teachings of -Karl Marx are either ignoramuses or wicked men. - -You tell me that your “common sense” teaches you that “there are two -sides to every question.” This statement shows that you are an honest -and a practical man. You say that you are a worker, a trade unionist, a -Christian--all of which means that you are a good citizen. These frank -statements are the best introduction you could offer. It is this kind -of man who insists upon having “facts,” and who is not likely to be -carried away by theories--even by plausible theories. He insists upon -knowing that there are plenty of “facts” to back up the theories before -he accepts them. - -Hence, I am going to write to you at some length--to you and to all -the rest of the John Smiths. In these letters I shall express myself -as simply and as clearly as possible. I shall give you plenty of -facts--“the hardest of hard facts”--and a mass of cold, logical reasons -that cannot fail to appeal to “robust common sense” and the “love of -fair play.” - -As you have said, there are two sides to every question, and the -question of Socialism is no exception to this rule. The reason that -the soap-box orator attracts so large a crowd is because he tells the -people who listen to him a lot of things which they know are true. - -He tells them, for example, that wages and the expense of living have -not kept equable pace with each other--that the smaller rate of wage -which the worker received fifteen or twenty years ago may really have -been a higher rate of wage because the man who got it was able to -buy more with it. He tells us that it is a bad thing that children -should be compelled to work for a living at an age when they ought to -be in school or playing the games which nature intends children shall -play. He points to the employer as he rides by in his $4,000 touring -car, and he asks how long it has been since you have had a ride in -an automobile. He reads to you the newspaper report of an elaborate -dinner given by “society women” to their poodle dogs, and supplements -it with another item, from the same paper, telling the number of people -who have died of starvation during the past six months. With eloquent -words, vibrant with sympathy, he paints a picture that makes your -blood boil with indignation, and the worst of it is that the things he -describes are true. - -Every man, if his heart is in the proper place, knows that things are -not right. He knows that there are plenty of workers to-day who do -not earn money enough to enable them to live decently. He knows that -workingmen do not make their wives and children toil in the factories -for the mere joy of knowing that they are not idle. The worker is not -so blind to the advantages of education, that he does not want to see -his children well-educated. If he insists upon their going to work -instead of to school, it is because he needs the few dollars which they -can earn to supplement somewhat his own too meagre wage. - -The worker is justified in not being satisfied with his lot. If a man -is treated unjustly, he has a moral right to protest; and I am the -last person who would wish to deny him that right. At the same time, I -am going to take exception to one statement that the soap-box orator -makes. He tells us that Socialism is the one and only solution of all -the industrial and social evils of the world. He asserts that, if -enough of us will vote the Socialist ticket, we can get the industries -away from their present owners and own them ourselves, paying ourselves -for our labor by taking all the profits that now go to the men who -furnish the capital to carry on the business. - -If this were true--and that were all there was to it--I might be a -Socialist. It is because it is impossible for it to be true that I am -writing these letters; and, before I have finished, I think you will -admit that I shall have proved that the soap-box orator is talking -“through his hat.” - -I do not ask you to reject the teachings of Socialism because they -are new or untried. Every good thing was new once, and I am not so -foolish as to imagine that every possibly-good thing has been tried. -Indeed, a great many ideas and inventions that have proved of the -greatest advantage to the world were once denounced as impracticable. -The telephone is one of them. I can remember the time when the best -business men laughed at the idea of anybody’s buying stock in a -telephone company; they admitted that people could talk over the wire, -but it was impossible to make them believe that the instrument could be -made strong enough to carry the sound of the human voice more than a -few blocks. They said it was all right as a “toy,” but that it had no -“commercial utility”--which meant that they did not think they could -make any money out of it. - -To tell the truth, some of the basic ideas in Socialism are not at -all new. They are very, very old; but, if they were as old as a dozen -Methuselahs, this fact would not make them any more true. It is not the -age of a theory that makes it true; it is the principle underlying it. -And I propose to show you that, instead of being the combination of -all wisdom, the principles of Socialism are so unreasonable that it is -difficult to understand how any thinking man can accept them. - -To prove this, I shall resort chiefly to facts and very little to -theoretical argument. I shall not ask you to believe that a thing is -so, merely because I say that it is so. When I present an argument, -I shall explain all the facts upon which it is based, and you may -consider the argument on its own merits. - -In doing this, I must ask you to forget yourself. A prominent Socialist -writer has told us that it is necessary to “get out of the body to -think.” As he explains, “that means that when a problem is before you, -you should not let any personal prejudice, or class feeling, come -between that problem and your mind; that you should consider a case -upon the evidence alone, as a jury should.” - -I shall be satisfied if you will follow this advice. I can ask you to -do no more than to forget your own condition, your own troubles, your -own life-problems, and consider this question simply as a man--as a -jury-man, if you will. If you were asked to figure how much you can -earn in three days and two hours and fifteen minutes at your present -rate of wage, you would not think whether you were a Republican or a -Democrat, would you? You would simply apply the rules of arithmetic to -your sum, and I ask you to read my letters and decide, by the same kind -of unbiased judgment, whether I am right or wrong. - -By way of anticipation, let me assert that it is possible for us to -solve every problem that confronts us to-day without resorting to the -proposed “remedy” of Socialism. We have here a country, big enough and -productive enough to give all the people plenty of room and all they -want to eat. There are facilities to supply all the children with a -good education and ample opportunities for recreation. The fact that -so many of the people do not succeed in securing plenty, shows that -something is wrong. But, is the “wrong” in our system of industry, or -are we ourselves--and, when I say “we,” I mean the whole people, not -you and me alone--to blame for these conditions? That is the important -question. - -Socialism promises that it will right all wrongs and asserts that this -cannot be done in any other way. I do not believe that Socialism could -“make good,” and it is here my task to prove it. - - - - -CHAPTER II - -WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND ISN’T - - - Dear Mr. Smith, - -Before beginning our investigation of Socialism, we must define our -subject. To talk intelligibly about Socialism, I must first know that -you understand what Socialism is and what it isn’t. - -You may say that the soap-box orator has made all this very clear to -you, but you mustn’t be too certain about that. The soap-box orator -may know what Socialism really is, and what it proposes to accomplish, -and he may not. I have known soap-box orators who knew so little about -Socialism as to contend that it was nothing more than a political -movement which proposed to institute some much-needed reforms along -purely economic lines. And, there are other soap-box orators who, while -fully qualified to tell you all about Socialism, wouldn’t dream of -doing it for fear of frightening you. - -It may be true that all Socialists agree to some extent upon a few -basic principles; but they disagree about so many things that it is -almost impossible to pin them down to anything definite. If a Socialist -is cornered in an argument, he will try to elude you by asserting that -Socialists are “not agreed” upon the answer to the question you have -asked, or that “the issue is purely a matter of private opinion.” - -Have you noticed how cleverly Socialists can do this? - -A Socialist agitator is out on a still hunt for converts. He meets John -Jones and asks him why he does not join the Socialist party. - -“No,” says John, “I will not join the Socialist party, because it -stands for industrial unionism and I believe in the policy of the -American Federation of Labor.” - -“That’s all right,” replies the Socialist agitator. “There are plenty -of prominent Socialists who are enthusiastic members of the A. F. of -L.,” and he reels off the names of a dozen or more. Of course, John -Jones is persuaded that he was mistaken in his opinion of the Socialist -party, and he joins. - -Going a block or two further, the Socialist agitator meets Bill Brown, -and asks him why he does not carry a red card. Bill replies that he is -opposed to the Socialist party because of its friendliness for the A. -F. of L. - -“I am opposed to violence, but I am an industrial unionist,” he -asserts, “and shall have nothing to do with an organization that stands -for craft unionism.” - -What does the Socialist agitator do? From his pocket he extracts a -pamphlet written by Eugene V. Debs, in which Mr. Debs expounds the -doctrines of industrial unionism and shows that it is impossible for -a Socialist to be a conscientious craft unionist. So, realizing that, -as Socialism’s foremost advocate, Eugene V. Debs ought to know what -Socialism means, Bill Brown signs up. - -A few moments later, our Socialist agitator comes face to face with Joe -Black. - -“Come, Joe,” he says, as he grasps his hand, “you are a good Radical. -Why aren’t you in the Socialist party?” - -But Joe shakes his head. - -“Not for mine!” he asserts, emphatically. “I want nothing to do with a -party that is opposed to direct action. How is the worker to get what -he wants unless he takes it? I believe in _The Revolution_, but not in -the milk-and-water kind of revolution the Socialist party preaches.” - -“That’s where you are mistaken, Joe,” replies the Socialist agitator. -“Why, some of our leading Socialists believe just exactly as you -do. Here”--and the agitator draws from his pocket a copy of the -Haywood-Bohn pamphlet on “Industrial Unionism”--“take this with you and -read it. It will show you how we Socialists stand on the question of -the industrial revolution.” - -So Joe Black lines up, too. - -I might continue in this strain indefinitely, for there is scarcely a -question at issue upon which Socialists do not disagree so widely that -those who preach Socialism can manage to be all things to all people. - -But, you ask, what _does_ Socialism mean? - -Let me answer your question by first telling you what Socialism does -not mean. In this way, we shall more quickly get to the real meaning of -the term. - -I have met Socialists who told me that Socialism means absolutely -nothing but the promotion of a reform program: that it means shorter -hours and better pay, the elimination of child labor, the government -ownership of inter-state industry, the municipal ownership of municipal -utilities, and so on. - -If you read the program of “Immediate Demands” in the Socialist -platform, you may get the idea that this definition of Socialism is a -correct one. But you would be mistaken. The “Immediate Demands” of the -Socialist party are not Socialism, and no real Socialist pretends that -they are. Indeed, in the platform of 1908, the Socialists themselves -repudiated this idea. Let me quote the closing paragraph of this -program: - -“Such measures of relief as we may be able to force from capitalism -are but a preparation of the workers to seize the whole power of -government, in order that they may thereby lay hold of the whole system -of industry and thus come to their rightful inheritance.” - -Think the matter over calmly, John. Measures of relief that are nothing -more than “preparations” for an object cannot by any possibility be -that object itself--can they? - -Then, too, there are plenty of Socialists who have not the slightest -use for a program of “Immediate Demands.” The Socialist party has -found these demands useful in persuading people to vote for its -candidates, and, for this reason, it goes right on talking about -“Immediate Demands,” as if these “sops” to social reform were -simon-pure Socialism. - -The absurdity of this position is well pointed out by H. G. Wells: - -“You cannot change the world and at the same time not change the -world,” he says. “You will find Socialists about, or at any rate those -calling themselves Socialists, who will pretend that this is not so, -who will assure you that some odd little jobbing about municipal gas -and water is Socialism.... You might as well call a gas jet in the -lobby of a meeting house the glory of God in heaven!” - -If anybody should tell you that H. G. Wells is merely one Socialist out -of many millions, and that he does not know what he is talking about, -ask him if Wilhelm Liebknecht knew his Socialism any better. If your -Socialist is honest, he will have to admit that Wilhelm Liebknecht knew -what he was talking about, whether Wells does or not. - -Assuming this to be true, listen to what Liebknecht says: - -“The laboring class is exploited and oppressed by the capitalist class -and ... effectual reforms which will put an end to class government and -class exploitation are impossible” (quoted by Ejayh in _Weekly People_, -June 17, 1911). - -If your Socialist still insists that Liebknecht is not sufficiently -good authority, you can refer him to Karl Marx himself, for it was he -who said: - -“The working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate -working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that -they are fighting with effects; that they are retarding the downward -movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying -palliatives, not curing the malady.... Instead of the conservative -motto: ‘A fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage,’ they ought to -inscribe on their banners the revolutionary watchword: ‘Abolish the -wages system’” (quoted in _Appeal to Reason_). - -In brief, to quote Liebknecht again (_The Revolt_, May 6, 1911), -“pity for poverty, enthusiasm for equality and freedom, recognition -of social injustice and the desire to remove it, ... condemnation of -wealth, and respect for poverty,” government ownership or municipal -ownership, an agitation for a shorter work-day, the demand for a more -equitable wage, an extension of the suffrage--not one, nor all of these -things is Socialism. - -And if not, what _is_ Socialism? - -Socialism is an indictment of the whole system of modern civilization, -a plan to overthrow it, and a scheme to set up in its place a system -of society in which all means of production, distribution and exchange -shall be owned collectively and operated collectively. - -To attain this end--to effect the overthrow of all existing -institutions that the “more perfect” institutions of Socialism may take -their place--Socialists preach a gospel of class consciousness, by -which they hope to incite so strong a feeling of class hatred in the -heart of the worker that he will rise in revolt against his employer -and take from him all the means of production and distribution--by the -peaceful method of the ballot, if he can do it in that way; if not, by -violence and with bloodshed--the bloodshed Victor Berger threatened -when he advised the worker to “be prepared to back up his ballot with -his bullets.” - -This is what Socialists mean when they talk about _The Revolution_. -This is the method by which they hope to attain their goal, the -Co-operative Commonwealth, in which, if the plan of Socialism does not -miscarry, there will be but one class--the working class--and all human -beings will actually love one another so much that they will dwell -together in peace and harmony ever after. - -It is a beautiful picture--this idea of the lion and the lamb lying -down together. It is so enticing a promise that I might almost be -willing to go through a wee bit of a revolution myself in order to -attain it, if I could only believe that everything would work out in -the way Socialists predict that it will. - -It is right here, John, that I am compelled to part company with the -Socialists for good and all. I am just as thoroughly enamoured peace -and harmony as Debs or Haywood or Hillquit. Not one of these gentlemen -would welcome a world without social evils and social miseries more -heartily than I. But, when I sit down and start to figure out -the problem logically, I find that the evidence against Socialism -accumulates rapidly. Between you and me, John, Socialism could not do -what it promises to accomplish even if it had the chance. You don’t see -why it couldn’t? Well, I’ll show you. - - - - -CHAPTER III - -THE WORKER’S WAGE - - - My dear Mr. Smith, - -If you stop at the street corner to listen to a soap-boxer, there are -two things that he is pretty certain to tell you: first, that you are -a “wage slave,” and, second, that you are being “robbed” every day you -work. - -With a flood of words, carefully prepared to appeal to men in your -position, and with stories that are supposed to illustrate the points -he wants to make, the man on the street-corner will try to persuade you -that labor is the sole factor in wealth production--that the workers -produce all the wealth of the world--and that this wealth belongs -rightfully to those who made it. - -The agitator will tell you--what you already know--that there is a part -of the product of your toil that goes to your employer. This should -not surprise you. When you consented to work for three dollars a day, -it was with a clear understanding that you would do enough more than -three dollars’ worth of work a day to give your employer a fair return -upon his investment. I’ll wager, you never suspected that he had no -right to this share, but, instead, was stealing it from you, until the -soap-box orator began to tell you that you were being “robbed.” - -If you question the speaker as to the extent of this “robbery,” you -will get little satisfaction. Socialists all agree that the worker -is “robbed,” but they disagree very materially as to the amount of -which he is “robbed.” One Socialist (I. L. P. pamphlet, “Simple -Division”) tells you that the worker receives only _one-seventh_ of -what he produces. Another (Hazell, “A Summary of Marx’s ‘Capital’”) -asserts that labor obtains _one-fifth_ of its product. Still another -(Victor Grayson, Speech, June 4, 1908) announces that the worker takes -_one-quarter_ of what he really earns. Another English Socialist -(author of “The Basis and Policy of Socialism”) proves by statistics -that _one-third_ of the total product goes to the man who ought to -have it all. A more reasonable individual (Chiozza-Money, “Riches -and Poverty”) estimates the worker’s share as a “_trifle more -than one-half_,” while Suthers, who makes a specialty of answering -objections to Socialism, figures that the returns to labor represent -_two-thirds_ of the amount that the worker ought to receive (“Common -Objections to Socialism Answered”). - -You see what a hazy idea the Socialists have upon this question, how -chaotic and self-contradictory their statements are; yet it is upon -such “facts,” that the contentions or claims of Socialism depend. - -The soap-box man’s statements about the “robbery” of the worker are -based upon a principle that is taken from Karl Marx’s book, “Capital,” -which is the Bible of all real Socialists. Karl Marx said that “labor -is the source of all value,” and it is upon the truth of this statement -that the whole economic structure of Socialism rests. If it is true -that labor _is_ the source of all value, it is possible to argue that -the laborer is entitled to all he produces. If labor _is not_ the sole -source of value, the laborer is not entitled to all he produces and it -is nonsense to say that he is. Thus, the whole question of the fairness -of the principle upon which the modern wage system is based stands or -falls with this “law” of value. - -I suppose it is safe for me to assume that you have never read -“Capital.” I suppose it is just as safe to assume that you never will -read the three bulky tomes in which Marx has expounded the economic -system that we call “Socialism.” You needn’t be ashamed to admit this -fact. There are lots of others like you. Even the soap-boxer, who -quotes Marx so fluently and who upholds his theories so energetically, -has no advantage over you in this respect. It is a safe hundred to one -shot that he also has never read--and never will read--“Capital.” - -The German poet Heine tells us that when Hegel, the well-known -philosopher, lay on his death-bed, he declared: “Only one has -understood me.” But, immediately after, he added, irritably: “And he -did not understand me, either.” - -If this story had been told of Marx instead of Hegel, I should be -quite as ready to believe that it is true. If the soap-box orator -should attempt to explain the Marxian theory of value, he would have -no audience in five minutes. It is because he explains the effects -of this “law,” and not the principles supposed to underlie it, that -he finds so many people willing to listen to him. Nobody wants to be -“robbed,” and, when the Socialist orator asserts that all workers are -constantly being “robbed” of the larger portion of their earnings, we -are interested at once. - -So, if I am to make you understand the reason that this theory of the -Socialists is false, if I am to prove to you that you are not “robbed” -(at least not in the way the Socialists say you are), I must avoid -the technical words and often unintelligible expressions that have -made Marx’s “law of value” so difficult to comprehend. I must appeal -strictly to your common sense. Then, if you want to go more deeply into -the intricate detail in which Marx has framed his economic theories, -there are several books that will give you all the information you can -possibly digest. One of these is “Socialism: A Critical Analysis,” by -Professor Oscar D. Skelton of Queens University, Canada; another is -“Socialism” by Cathrein-Gettelmann. You will find them in any good -library. - -Marx separated value into two classes: _value in use_ and _value -in exchange_. “Use-value” means the value that an article has in -satisfying some human need. “Exchange value” means the value that an -article has when we come to exchange it for something else--for money -or for other articles. Thus, an article may be very valuable _for use_ -and still have no value _in exchange_. For example, both water and -air are necessary to human life and so are very useful, yet, should -we desire to exchange them for clothes or fuel, we should find it a -difficult matter to make such a bargain, simply because water and air -are usually free to all. - -Articles that have _exchange value_ are those for which men are willing -to give something “in exchange,” but as the articles we can’t sell -are frequently just as useful as those for which we can get a price -in the market, Marx argued that there must be something in one that -the other does not contain--some one factor upon which exchange-value -depends--and he decided that this common element is _human labor_ -(“Capital,” p. 4). - -Was Marx right in this assumption? Is it “labor that makes value”? - -When you go to the store to buy an article, you do not ask what it cost -the manufacturer to produce it, do you? You don’t care whether the -man who made this article has profited by its manufacture or not. It -doesn’t occur to you to ask how many hours of labor were put into it, -or how much the workers who made it were paid. The question uppermost -in your mind is: “How badly do I want it?” If you want it so badly -that you would rather own it than spend the same amount of money for -something else, you purchase it and take it away with you. If you -prefer to spend the money in other ways, you go away without buying -this article. - -Now, what is the principle that influences you to make this decision? -It is what this article is worth to you for your own use, is it not? - -Has labor anything to do in making you form this decision? Neither -capital nor labor has anything to do with the question. If the article -has cost the manufacturer ten times as much as you are asked to pay -for it, if ten times as much labor had been expended in making it, you -wouldn’t give one penny more than it is worth to you for its use, would -you? - -Let us take another illustration: - -Marx points out that labor--and he measures the value of labor by the -time necessary to perform a given piece of work--is the sole source of -exchange-value. As a result, Socialists propose to substitute what they -call labor certificates for our present system of money, so that a man -who spends four hours making cigars can buy with his labor certificates -anything that represents a proportionate amount of labor. - -Would this be a fair basis of exchange? - -Would it be fair if a man working four hours in making cigars were to -exchange the product of his labor for the gold or the diamonds that it -had taken some other man four hours to extract from the earth? And is -there no difference in the value of a silk dress and a cotton dress, -if both kinds of cloth take the same time and skill in the making? -Would it be fair to figure the value of any article on the amount of -labor-time expended in producing it? There are mines in which gold is -produced at a cost of less than $5 an ounce, and there are other mines -where it costs so much to extract the gold that there is no profit in -mining it. Is anybody so silly as to believe that the labor-time spent -in one mine is as productive of value as the time expended in the -other? - -Any farmer will tell you that it is impossible to make the varying -costs of agricultural products harmonize with the theories of Marx. In -raising wheat, or potatoes, a great deal depends upon the quality of -the land. If the land is very good, wheat may be grown at a cost of 50 -cents a bushel, and with much less labor than the farmer would expend -in raising wheat oh poorer land, though the latter crop might cost from -75 cents to a dollar a bushel to raise, if not more. - -It is not the cost of an article that determines its value. Its value -is based primarily upon its capacity to satisfy human wants. A useless -article has no exchange-value, no matter how much it has cost. An -article that has gone out of fashion possesses comparatively little -value, in spite of the fact that it represents the expenditure of -capital as well as actual labor which was “necessary labor” at the -time it was performed. The Socialists have to admit this fact--Marx -also admitted it (“Capital,” p. 189)--yet they do not seem to see the -inconsistency of saying that the value of an article is affected by -its loss of utility, while, at the same time, asserting that “a useful -article has value only because human labor ... has been embodied in -it.” If they told the truth they would say, “an article upon which -labor has been expended has value only because it is useful.” But this -would be to admit that their whole scheme is built upon a foundation of -sand. - -A commodity has value, not only because it has cost time and skill -to produce it, and therefore is difficult of attainment, but also -for the reason that it holds the one common property of all valuable -articles--utility. It is true that articles of value are seldom -produced without labor. It is not true that it is labor that makes them -valuable. In confessing this, Socialism acknowledges that the law of -Marx is contradicted by experience. Are we Simple Simons not to see -this very obvious contradiction? - -Take the commodity timber--because the woods which we use in building -houses and those which are used in making furniture possess radically -different values. - -If you were to go to a primitive country, John, you would find plenty -of trees that you could cut down, without asking anybody’s permission -and without paying anybody for the privilege. Suppose that you were -to take a gang of men into such a forest and were to cut down a lot of -trees. If you took no pains in selecting these trees, but cut various -kinds of wood, you would get different prices for the timber, and these -prices would not in any way depend upon the cost of production (cutting -down the trees) or the expense of transportation. As you know, there is -a market price for every kind of wood, yet one wood costs practically -no more than another to produce, and one may be transported as cheaply -as another. What does this price depend upon? Upon _utility_, does it -not? It is the _use-value_ of the wood that ultimately fixes its price. - -Then, too, you may take the products of the arts--the books we read and -the paintings we admire. Does the amount of labor-time expended in the -making fix the value of these commodities? An author may devote years -to writing a novel, and yet see it fall still-born from the press, -whereas another novelist, in a few months, may produce a story that -nets him $25,000. Does labor-time count as a factor in determining the -value of our books, our pictures, our musical compositions, or our -scientific discoveries? - -There is still another factor to be considered, John, and that is -the productive power of thought. Marx, as you would see were you to -analyze the first pages of his book, “Capital,” starts off with the -idea that all labor is common, manual labor. Later on, he encounters -the difficulty that labor when undirected is usually unproductive. -A thousand men, working without direction, will produce nothing -proportionate to the amount of physical strength they expend. Put a man -with brains and knowledge over them, and he will show them how to make -their labor fully productive. - -Even Marx recognized the fact that he must make some provision for -“skilled” and “mental” labor, so he grudgingly bridged over the gap by -stating that “skilled labor counts only as unskilled labor, a given -quantity of skilled labor being considered equal to a greater quantity -of simple labor” (“Capital,” p. 11). - -Socialists to-day try to deny that Marx intended to imply that the -term “labor” means “average manual labor.” They will tell you, if -you question them closely, that the term “labor” includes industrial -effort of every kind--mental as well as physical labor. This is a worse -absurdity than to say that manual labor is the source of all value. -If we are to admit that “labor” includes every kind of effort, the -assertion that all wealth should go to the laborers who produced it -simply means that all wealth ought to go to the human race. And so it -does. The only question remaining is: _How can it be distributed more -fairly?_ - -This would take the very cornerstone away from the Socialist’s -structure and bring it tumbling about his ears. If we do this, there -is practically no room for argument left, for the number of persons -who in no way contribute to the industrial progress of the world--the -inheritors of wealth who are literally and positively idle--is so -small that there is no reason why we should give them much serious -consideration. - - - - -CHAPTER IV - -HOW THE “ROBBING” IS DONE - - - My dear Mr. Smith, - -After asserting that labor produces all value, and “showing” that -the laborer receives but a very small portion of the value which he -produces, Marx tells us that this unpaid-for labor--the labor-strength -and time of which the worker is robbed--is used by the Capitalist Class -(Marx’s term for the employer) in the further robbery of the worker. -This unpaid-for labor Marx calls “surplus value,” and he includes -under this term everything that the worker does not get in his own -pay-envelope--dividends, interest, rents and profits of all kinds. - -Of course, nobody will deny that “surplus value”--or, more correctly, -profit--may exist in industry. If the employer could not reap more from -the industry than the mere equivalent of wages paid, it would not be to -his interest to keep on paying wages. But the “surplus value” to which -I refer, and the thing that Marx means when he talks about “surplus -value,” are entirely different. - -To admit that Marx is right in his definition of surplus value, we -must first come to the conclusion that the worker is entitled to all -the value that is produced, and, as we have already seen, this is not -so. If it is not so, what has become of Marx’s surplus-value theory? -There may be industrial injustices; there are many instances in which -employers fail to pay those who work for them a just wage. I am willing -to admit that there are numerous cases of this kind. If I thought it -would add to the strength of my argument to particularize, I could -name many unjust employers. But it would do no good. Between the -abuses committed by individual capitalists and the “awful crimes of -capitalism” which Socialism depicts, there is a difference as great as -the distance from pole to pole. - -According to Marx’s theory, if a laborer can produce something equal to -the amount of his wage in six hours of work, the value of the product -which he turns out during the other six hours in his work-day is stolen -from him. “The extra six hours,” says Marx, “I shall call _surplus -labor_, which realizes itself in a _surplus product_ having a _surplus -value_” (“Capital,” p. 178). - -Have I made this clear, John? Do you see what Marx is driving at--that, -when you are helping your employer to pay his rent, the interest on the -money he has borrowed that he might keep you at work, the dividends to -his stockholders, or the profit to himself, you are helping him to rob -you--actually contributing to the robbery of yourself? - -The soap-box orator will talk to you by the hour about surplus value. -He will tell you that it makes no difference how much money there is -in your pay-envelope. So long as it does not contain every cent of -your employer’s profit, you are being “robbed.” “No wage can ever be -fair compensation for a day’s work!” he shouts. “Before there can be -justice on earth, the making of goods for profit must come to an end, -for this is the ‘tap-root’ from which all the evils of Society develop. -No dividends! No Interest! No Rents! No Profits! In a word, no Surplus -Value!” - -Marx, like the soap-boxer on the corner, includes all profits in the -category of robbery and exploitation. He admits that labor can do -nothing without capital, but he contends that capital itself is the -product of past labor and, therefore, ought rightfully to belong to the -laborers of the present day. “Capital,” he says, “is dead labor, that, -vampire-like, lives by sucking living labor” (“Capital,” p. 134). - -In this we have the assumption that all labor is performed by -“laborers” of the propertyless class, and that all capital is owned by -“capitalists.” - -This, as you know, is not true. - -There are plenty of laborers who have a respectable little store of -capital laid by for the proverbial rainy day, and many of them own -stock in the very concern that employs them. Not every man who lives -by the labor of his hands is existing on the verge of starvation, as -Socialists would have you believe, nor is it true that all labor is -performed by the “laboring class.” Many so-called “capitalists” are -truly sons of toil, the performers of manual labor and the producers of -wealth, even as Marx would define a “producer.” - -But, let us stop generalizing, and get down to cases. - -Marx says that all profit is robbery and exploitation. As an example of -the utter absurdity of this theory, let me cite an illustration which -Mr. G. W. de Tunzelmann once used in a debate with a prominent English -Socialist. - -He took the case of a man who buys a diamond for $498,000. The man pays -$2,000 to the diamond-cutter for cutting the stone, and, finally, sells -it for $550,000, making a 10 per cent. profit upon his outlay. If Marx -argues rightly, this sum of $50,000 was obtained by robbery, but--who -was robbed? Was it the diamond-cutter who was defrauded of a portion of -his wages? Should the entire $52,000 have gone to him for his part in -the transaction, while the capitalist got nothing? - -The Socialist who was debating with Mr. de Tunzelmann found it -impossible to answer this question intelligibly. “If the $50,000 did -not come from the diamond-cutter’s wages, where did it come from?” was -all he could say, and, John, it is all that any Socialist can say! - -Then, here is an illustration from my own experience: - -I have a friend who bought a painting from a young artist, paying -$300 for it. This was a very fair price to pay for the picture. The -artist was well satisfied with his bargain and my friend felt that the -work of art was well worth $300 to him. Several years passed, and the -comparatively obscure artist became a famous artist--so famous that -there were lots of people who wanted to buy his pictures, and my friend -found that he could sell his painting and get $2,000 for it. - -May we again ask: Who was robbed? The man who painted the picture -received its full value at the time; the man who bought the picture -from my friend was satisfied that he got good value for his money. If -Marx is right, my friend robbed somebody to the extent of $1,700. But -whom did he rob? - -As we have already seen, the value of an article is chiefly a -matter of utility as adfected (raised or lowered) by difficulty of -attainment--not the worker’s “difficulty of attainment,” not the -time and effort he had to expend to produce this article, but your -“difficulty of attainment,” or the effort you must make to secure it. -The part that the worker plays in the production of a commodity is of -minor importance when compared with the other factors which operate -in determining its value. It is the employer, and not the worker, -who assumes all the risk. It is the directing genius, and not the -mere physical force used in operating the industry, that determines -whether it shall succeed or fail. If this were not true, every business -enterprise would be a success, for it would be nothing more than the -proposition of getting money and men together and setting them to work. -But you know that this is not what happens in real life. - -Mr. Hyndman, the celebrated English Socialist, attempts to say that -such a thing is possible. In his manual of Socialism he asks us to -believe that a man who has $50,000 would find it a very simple matter -to live permanently by robbing other men of part of the products -of their labor. This man, he tells us, merely buys a mill of some -kind--_doesn’t it matter what kind of a mill he buys?_--employs a -manager and the necessary number of operatives, and then sits down and -lets the wheels go round. Don’t smile, John, for this is precisely what -Mr. Hyndman tells us the man does. “He has nothing to do but sit still -and watch the mill go,” he asserts, naively (see Mallock’s “Socialism,” -p. 13). - -Do you believe this? Socialists do. As a practical man, do you imagine -that any one method of employing capital will be just as successful -as any other? If the laborer produces all value, and an article is -valuable simply because of the labor there is in it, Mr. Hyndman and -his master, Karl Marx, and the soap-box orator, who is telling you how -to solve all of life’s problems by voting for the candidates on the -Socialist ticket, are right. If this is not true, they are wrong, and -you can’t get away from this conclusion. One might as well argue that -an engine is sufficient unto itself and needs neither working capital -in the form of fuel nor the directing hand of the engineer. - -There is another class of “capitalists” who receive comparatively -little attention from the Socialists. These are the employers who make -no profits upon their investment, who purchase material and pay their -workers’ wages and who do not earn enough to reimburse themselves for -their outlay. The commercial agencies which report business conditions -have records of many such cases. Men go into business and fail; people -put their money into stock companies and never receive dividends. The -work is done; the labor is performed; but there is no surplus value of -which the worker may be “robbed.” In this case are we to assume that -the unfortunate investors are robbed by their workmen? - -Marx maintains that all capitalists are robbers. Are we therefore -to believe that all capitalists are successful? We cannot deny that -capital, and even the product of labor, may be transferred by the -process of robbery. Before there can be any robbery, however, the -capital or the value of the product must exist, and it is beyond the -power of labor to call either _capital_ or _value_ into being. - - - - -CHAPTER V - -YOUR OWN PAY ENVELOPE - - - My dear Smith, - -Having seen that the Marxian theories of value are not the sanely -“scientific” laws that Socialists declare them to be, but are utter -absurdities that run counter to all laws of logic and even contradict -human experience, we shall now get down to your own individual pay -envelope, for that is the thing which most interests you. But, please -don’t imagine that, because we have stopped talking about Marx’s -theories for the moment, we have reached the end of our list of -Socialist fallacies. To tell the truth, we have just begun to enumerate -them. Silly as these ideas are in theory, they do not begin to attain -the full limit of their absurdity until we attempt to apply them to the -practical affairs of life. - -Last night I stood at the street corner and heard the soap-box orator -“educate” the crowd. He told them that the average earnings of every -worker in America was $2,500 a year--a trifle more than $48 a week--and -he asked the men if they had found any such sum of money in their -pay-envelope recently. - -You can imagine the answer he received to this question, John. Yet, -the soap-boxer still asserted that this was the amount each worker had -earned, and insisted that the difference between $48 and the sum he had -received represented the amount of which his employer was “robbing” -him. From the look on the faces of some of the men, I felt that the -agitator had made an impression upon them. He reeled off his statistics -so glibly that you really couldn’t blame them for believing him. - -Of course, he also told them that, under Socialism, nothing of this -kind could happen--that they would get their $2,500 a year, and more, -too, and that they would have to work only half as long a time each day -in order to earn this amount of money. “We must change the ‘system,’” -he cried. “We must stop the making of goods for profit! Then, and -then only, will you put an end to the exploitation that is the cause -of all your poverty and misery. It is the only way you can throw the -parasite-capitalist off your back. You are being robbed of four-fifths -of your wages, and you’re not allowed to keep even the little you get, -because capitalism, after robbing you by taking four-fifths of the -money you earn, puts the prices of everything you buy higher and higher -until there isn’t a penny of your earnings left for yourself, and you -don’t get a chance to live decently, at that.” - -You have heard this kind of talk. You may have thought that there was -some truth in it. You--like all the rest of us--are confronted with the -problem of the cost of living, and--like most of us--you wish that you -could earn more money. “Is it possible,” you ask, “that I am earning -four times as much as I get, and that I am being ‘robbed’ of the -greater part of it?” - -If you listen to the Socialists you will come to believe that this is -just what is happening. A Socialist paper published in Kansas has spent -a lot of money to advertise the fact that, when Socialism triumphs and -you get what you actually earn, you will be paid $2,000 a year for six -hours a day. - -This is a very conservative estimate--for a Socialist. As you may have -learned by this time, the writers and speakers who undertake to tell -the worker what is to happen to him under Socialism do not agree about -the amount of money he will get and the length of time he will have to -work in the Co-operative Commonwealth, any more than they do when they -try to estimate the extent of the “robbery” from which he is suffering. - -Usually, the rate of payment is fixed at $2,500 for four hours’ work a -day. A writer in a popular magazine fixes the sum the worker will be -paid at $5,000. Suthers, the English Socialist, promises the equivalent -of $10,000 a year, and there is a band of “comrades” on the Pacific -Coast who can demonstrate “scientifically” that a 3-hour day affords -sufficient time in which to earn a decent living and even the luxuries -of life. - -Well, do you believe any of these statements? I hope you are not such -a simpleton as to be fooled by the bald assertion of any speaker or -writer when you have, within your reach, the facts from which you can -learn the truth for yourself. - -Let us pursue this more rational method. Certainly, the Socialists -cannot object if we check off their calculations and find out if they -have made any mistakes in their figuring. - -According to the last United States Census report--and that ought to -be good enough authority for anybody--the total value of all the goods -manufactured in this country during the year 1909 was $20,672,052,000 -and the number of persons employed in making these goods was 7,405,513. -If we divide one by the other, we find an earning capacity of more -than $2,700 per man; but, unfortunately, that is not the way things -work out. There are certain expenses of manufacture that have to be -deducted from the “gross value” before we can even begin to calculate -the earning capacity of the worker. One little item we mustn’t forget -is called “Cost of Materials.” Another item is known as “Miscellaneous -Expenses.” After you have received your wages, you are perfectly -willing that your employer shall deduct these “expenses” before -figuring his own profits, are you not? - -In 1909, the “cost of materials” alone represented the tremendous -sum of $12,141,291,000 and the “cost of miscellaneous expenses” was -$1,945,676,000. When we subtract these two charges from the “gross -value,” we have $6,585,085,000 left, and if we divide this sum by the -number of workers, we find that the average product of the worker was -but $889.23. - -What did the worker actually get? The “cost of labor and salaries,” -in 1909, was $4,365,613,000, and, if we divide this by the number of -workers, we learn that the average is $589.52. - -This is quite different from the story the Socialists tell us. Had -all the industries in America been owned and operated collectively, -in 1909, the worker, at the best, could have received but $299.71 -more than he did, for, as you must admit, such factors as “cost of -materials” and “miscellaneous expenses” must needs be considered, even -under the collective system of industry. Certainly, the worker in the -textile mills could not produce the cotton and wool and silk, and the -shoe-worker could not raise the animals and prepare the leather, even -were Socialism to bring about all the marvelous changes it has promised. - -Yet, this is precisely what the Socialists do when they commence to -quote “facts.” It is useless for them to deny the charge, for there is -no other method by which they can figure an average earning capacity -of $2,500 for each worker. To do this it would be necessary for the -employer to get his cotton for nothing, his leather for nothing, and -everything he uses in making his product, for nothing. Moreover, it -presupposes that he can procure free fuel, free light, and, what is -still more improbable, that he has to pay nothing for new machinery -or for repairing the old. Do you think that the Socialist is showing -himself the “friend” of the worker when he fills his mind with such -“dope” as this? - -And, even, the figures we have worked out are not fair--to the -employer. He does not make a profit of more than $299 upon the labor -of each of his workers--not by any means! Out of the $299 must come -the cost of selling and transportation, bad debts, taxes, interest, -etc., so that, when we have deducted all these charges, we can scarcely -question Willey’s justification for the assertion (“Laborer and the -Capitalist,” p. 22) that capital actually receives no more than 6 -per cent net profits on its product. Moreover, as _The American -Federationist_ points out (July, 1905), the census figures fall short -of giving us the actual cost of manufactures, as the original “gross -value” upon which our calculations are based is itself “arrived at by -a constant duplication of value, owing to the fact that the finished -products of one plant become the material of some other factory, in -which they are changed into some higher form and again included in the -value of products.” - -I will admit that it is practically impossible to compile statistics -that will take such facts as these into consideration, and the -Socialists do not act fairly when they lead us to assume that all these -conditions have been considered in their figures. How many times do you -suppose the value of the same piece of leather is computed from the -time it becomes a hide until it is turned out, a finished product, from -the shoe factory. Yet, as we have seen, every time the value of this -material is included in the value of products it gives the manufacturer -credit for a sum of money that never reached him. - -Let us suppose that we were running all our industries under just such -a collective form of government as the Socialists propose to establish, -and that, as a result, we were bound to see that every worker got the -$5,000 a year he has been promised. Do you see what that would mean? -Figure it out for yourself--multiply the 7,405,513 workers in the -industrial plants by the $5,000 that each would have to be paid, and -then remember that the seven millions of workers represent only a small -proportion of the workers to whom this sum of money must be given by -the Co-operative Commonwealth. Even counting the seven millions alone, -we have a total of $37,027,505,000--almost twice as much as the “gross -value” of all manufactured products in this country to-day. - -It is true that we do not know just how many men, women and children -of working age there are who would have to be given a place in the -collective pay-roll. In view of the total population of the United -States, I do not think that any Socialist will accuse me of overstating -the case if I assert that there would be 30,000,000 people to be -provided for. - -What would this mean? Merely an annual pay-roll of -$150,000,000,000--that’s all. - -Easy, isn’t it! At present, we manufacture less than $21,000,000,000 -worth of goods--the consumable wealth produced in the United States -is estimated by Socialists to be but $30,000,000,000 (_Appeal to -Reason_, October 5, 1912); yet they ask us to get busy and undertake -to meet a pay-roll that is at least fully five times greater than the -total product to-day. And, if you want to be as conservative as the -most conservative Socialist statistician who is dreaming these dreams, -and allow that labor under Socialism will be rewarded with a meagre -$2,000 a year, you will still have a pay-roll of $60,000,000,000 to -provide for, or twice as much as we make. How are you going to meet -it? As a practical man, John, I ask you: _How?_ Certainly not from the -$21,000,000,000 produced each year in manufactures. If we add to this -the total wealth represented by the agricultural, mining and fishing -interests of this country, we shall still fall far short of the sum we -require. How is it to be done? - -Absurd as all these promises are, we have not yet reached the -limit--far from it! For example, we are told that in the Co-operative -Commonwealth we shall have to work only half as long as we do now. -In other words, the man who works eight hours a day now, will get -along swimmingly by working four hours, and still receive the income -promised--from $2,000 to $5,000 a year--for his effort. - -Are we to understand from this that, though the worker, with the best -machinery and the most scientific management now possible, succeeds -only in turning out less than $900 worth of goods in a year, he will be -able, under collective management, to turn out from two and one-half to -five times as great a product, while working just half as many hours? - -You know that this couldn’t be done. You know that, if you worked -half as many hours as you do now, some other man would have to put -in the other half of the day or only about half the usual product -would be manufactured. If, therefore, we entirely disregard the fact -that Socialists are promising to pay the individual worker more money -every year than several workers are now able to produce, we are still -confronted by a problem that defies solution. A certain amount of work -must be done to keep the needs of Society supplied. To do this work, a -certain amount of effort must be exerted, and, to exert this effort, a -certain amount of time is necessary. Yet, the Socialists want us to -assume that all of these appeals to common sense are absurd--that once -the making of goods for profit has ceased, there will be no difficulty -in meeting the industrial pay-roll, no matter how enormously its -proportions may have increased. - -And this leads up to still another very interesting phase of the -situation. We are told by the Socialists that the making of goods for -profit is to end, and that, in the Co-operative Commonwealth, such -problems as the high cost of living will trouble us no longer. Once let -the Socialists get control of our industries and we shall be compelled -to pay no more than a commodity is actually worth. - -Do you see into what a maze of absurdities the Socialists have led -you? They tell us that we are to get anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 a -year. An English Socialist promises the workers $10,000 a year, for -what does a few paltry thousands matter when a great army of voters -are to be fooled into casting their ballots for the Socialist ticket! -In addition, you are assured that your work-day is to be cut in half, -and you are further informed that, with the culmination of the profit -system, you will be able to purchase everything you want at materially -lower prices than are charged for such commodities to-day. - -Will you tell me, John, where the Socialists are going to get the -money to meet this enormous pay-roll, if they stop making goods for -profit? Wages are to be increased out of all proportion to the present -schedule; hours of labor are to be reduced to a minimum, and yet, -despite all this, the prices of all commodities are to be cheapened, -too. - -You don’t see how they are going to do it? No more do I! Suppose you -ask that wise little man on the street-corner. Maybe he can tell you! - - - - -CHAPTER VI - -YOU “WAGE SLAVES”! - - - My dear Smith, - -If you were to tell the soap-boxer that Socialism is an impracticable -scheme, and that it couldn’t “make good” whether we all wanted it or -not, he would become very indignant and would probably call you a -“blind fool,” if he did not shower upon you still more vituperative -epithets. If you ever find yourself in such a position, don’t let -the soap-boxer place you on the defensive. When you talk about the -impracticability of Socialism you put the Socialist just where he -doesn’t want to be, and, if you follow up your attack consistently -and strenuously, you will have him on the run before you know it. -Socialists like to theorize. They like to talk to people who don’t -ask for too many details, but they have little liking for the man who -demands definite plans and accurate specifications. - -You have a little house in a new suburban section. It is a small house -and it has a mortgage on it, but you are paying for it gradually and -it won’t be many years before it will be all your own. Even now the -payments and all the charges together call for a smaller monthly -expenditure than would be required if you rented a home not nearly as -comfortable as this one. - -Now, John, suppose I were to come to you and tell you that if you -would let me tear down your house I would build you another somewhere -else. Wouldn’t you be likely to ask me where the new house was to be -located, and what guarantee I would give you that it would be a more -satisfactory place of abode than the one which you now occupy? No -matter how well you may know me--no matter how much confidence you -may have in me as an individual--unless you are a very careless or a -very stupid person, you will refuse to consent to any change in your -domestic arrangements until you are certain that the proposition will -be advantageous to you. - -Such caution is entirely reasonable; this is the attitude you should -take; yet Socialism asks you to disregard all such conditions. It -expects you to believe that, when everything that represents modern -civilization has been thrown into a vast melting-pot called “The -Revolution,” something will come out of it that will be very much to -your profit. They won’t tell you how this is to be brought about. They -themselves have a vague idea in regard to what kind of a society we are -to evolve into, and they try to describe it to you under the general -terms of the “Co-operative Commonwealth.” As a matter of fact, however, -it is almost impossible to find any two Socialists who will agree, even -as to the main points of their program, and some of the socialistic -leaders are honest enough to admit that there is a poor chance that -they would be able to carry out this program successfully, even if -given the best of opportunities. For example, Edward Bernstein, who is -a sufficiently good Socialist to be selected to represent his party -in the German Reichstag, admits that, “_Socialism could not keep its -promise if it were placed in power to-morrow._” - -Remember this the next time the soap-box orator calls you a “wage -slave.” Ask for specifications. Insist upon his telling you if -Socialism would not introduce as hopeless a form of slavery as the -world has ever known, and--if not, why not? - -It is a catchy phrase, the term “wage slave.” It is a telling taunt -that does good service for Socialism wherever there are people simple -enough to be imposed upon. Yet if you, who are not a Socialist, -will study this question you can easily turn the tables upon the -limber-tongued agitator in a way to make him very unhappy. - -In the first place, the use of the term “wage slave” would naturally -lead us to suppose that, under Socialism, men will no longer work for a -wage; that they will become their own masters, employing themselves and -paying themselves the full product of their labor; in a word, that each -will be free with a freedom such as man has never before experienced. - -Knowing that this is the plan proposed by many prominent Socialist -thinkers, it is somewhat surprising to find publications purporting to -represent Socialism still promising the worker a “wage.” It is true -that they have greatly increased the amount of his remuneration until -they promise him anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000 a year, but they -combine to talk about the “wages” he will get. - -What does this mean? Simply that under Socialism he will still be a -wage earner. He may receive labor checks instead of United States -currency--or something equivalent in value--but, if such a system -were to be carried out, he could have no more freedom than he enjoys -to-day and from every indication it is not impossible that he might -have considerably less. A man is no less a wage slave because he works -for 90,000,000 and himself, than he is when he is employed by a single -individual. This is a fact that Socialism overlooks. - -Under the present system a man is free to choose his own method of -livelihood. If he does not like one trade, he can learn another. If he -wants to get out of the industrial sphere altogether and enter upon a -professional career, there are methods of accomplishing this purpose -within his reach, if he is willing to work hard enough to attain that -end. It is true that there are certain restrictions under existing -labor conditions--the area of selection is not as wide as it might be, -yet there is a great deal more scope for the development of individual -preference to-day than there could possibly be under Socialism. - -Let us see for ourselves. - -Socialism provides for the collective ownership of all means of -production, distribution and exchange. This means that the State--using -the term as “collective” State, of course--would organize all these -industries and would operate them upon a collective, which means a -democratic, basis. Under such conditions it is doubtless true that -every man would have an equal opportunity to earn a living, but it is -absurd for anybody to assert that this equality of opportunity would -also mean absolute freedom of choice. - -If you want evidence in support of this statement, you can get it--and -Socialist testimony at that. - -In 1906, the Fabian Society of London--an organization composed of -absolutely orthodox Socialists--issued a leaflet entitled, “Socialism -and Labor Policy.” Let us see what they have to say about the freedom -of choice we shall have under the collective régime. - -“Everybody should have a legal right to an opportunity of earning his -living in the society in which he has been born,” we read, “but no one -should or could have the right to ask that he should be employed at the -particular job which suits his peculiar taste and temperament. Each of -us must be prepared to do the work which Society wants doing, or take -the consequences of refusal.” - -Again, Sydney Webb, in his “Basis and Policy of Socialism” (p. 71), -says: - -“Instead of converting every man into an independent producer, working -when he likes and where he likes, we aim at enrolling every able-bodied -person directly in the service of the community, for such duties and -under such kind of organization, local or national, as may be suitable -to his capacity and social function. In fact, so far are we from -seeking to abolish the wage system, so understood, that we wish to -bring under it all those who now escape from it--the employers, and -those who live on rent or interest--and so make it universal. If a man -wants freedom to work or not to work just as he likes, he had better -emigrate to Robinson Crusoe’s island, or else become a millionaire. -To suppose that the industrial affairs of a complicated industrial -State can be run without strict subordination and discipline, without -obedience to orders, and without definite allowances for maintenance is -to dream not of Socialism, but of Anarchism.” - -And Sydney Webb is not alone in these conclusions. Ramsay MacDonald, -who is certainly one of the most conservative of Socialists, expresses -the same spirit when he tells us that “trade must be organized like a -fleet or education system” (“Socialism and Society,” p. 172); while -Suthers answers this particular “objection” by expressing the most -genuine contempt for those who would protest against the kind of -slavery that collectivism would introduce. He reminds us that the -people themselves would then be masters. Who would oppress the people? -The people themselves? Like so many other Socialists, he will not see -that slavery is slavery under whatever guise it may operate. - -The only attempts to escape this proposition have been most utopian -in character. Bebel, for example, asks us to believe that, in a -Socialist State, disagreeable work will be accomplished chiefly -by means of mechanical devices and that such undesirable tasks as -remained, and which could be performed only by personal action, would -be freely undertaken, as an effect of the unselfish spirit which will -prevail among the workers of the future. He even suggests that it -will be possible to inaugurate a kind of changing-off system so that -each member of society may in his turn submit to assignment to the -performance of the more disagreeable duties. - -While this suggestion may be equitable in theory, it is of no practical -value. Picture to yourself what kind of a community we should have -if each individual was compelled to submit himself by a changing-off -system to the most disagreeable avocations that you can imagine. Can -you say that “freedom” could exist under such a régime? Do you think -that such a system is possible outside of the penitentiary? - -Of still greater absurdity is Bebel’s promise (“Woman,” p. 271) that -the members of the social body shall become so perfectly developed -that, “without distinction of sex,” they “shall undertake all -functions” of society. As Cathrein says (p. 289), “this statement can -hardly be said to deserve a refutation.” - -“Let us only imagine what such industrial and technical ability -supposes,” he continues. “Every individual in his turn undertakes all -social functions. For instance, in a factory he is director, foreman, -fireman, bookkeeper, a simple laborer or hod-carrier; then he turns -to some other branch of industry or social calling--becomes editor, -compositor, telegrapher, painter, architect, actor, farmer, gardener, -astronomer, professor, chemist, druggist. With such a program is any -thorough knowledge of anything possible?” - -You know, John, that the efficient worker is the man who has mastered -a trade thoroughly, and you also know that the maintenance of his -efficiency depends upon his constant attention to the ever-changing -details of his particular trade. This means the application of a -lifetime, yet Socialists tell us that, merely by the adoption of the -collective system, all men will become so perfectly proficient in -everything that they will be fitted to undertake every kind of work. - -No, John, this is not a joke! I did not find it in _Puck_ or _Judge_. -It is Bebel and other equally bright lights of the Socialist -philosophy, who are responsible for these assertions. Even Marx himself -endeavors to prove (“Capital,” p. 453) that the “separate individual” -will be replaced by the “totally-developed individual,” and this -development will confer upon the workman “absolute availability” for -everything. If this is not a flight of imagination worthy of our old -friend Baron Munchausen, what is it? Even Professor Paulsen, who cannot -be called an anti-Socialist, protests in his “System of Ethics” (Vol. -II, p. 437) against the equalizing tendencies shown by those who are -trying to picture the future Co-operative Commonwealth. - -“In the society of the future,” he says, “the self-same individual -will be letter carrier to-day; to-morrow he must perform the -duties of a post-office clerk; on the third day he must act as -postmaster-general--but why use a title?--in short, he must undertake -all that business which at present the director of the national -post-office has in hand--he must prepare programs for international -post-office congresses, etc.; and on the fourth day he must again -return to the counter; on the fifth he condescends to be letter-carrier -once more but this time not in the metropolis, but in some -out-of-the-way place, for it is but meet that the sweets of city life -should fall to the lot of all in their turn. Thus it would be also with -the railroad department, in the mining and military department and -in every common factory. To-day the member of the socialistic State -descends into the bowels of the earth as a collier, or hammers at the -anvil, or punches tickets; to-morrow he wields the quill, balances -accounts, makes chemical experiments, drafts designs for machines -or issues general edicts on the quantity and quality of the social -productions.” - -So, you “wage slaves,” you have been told what is in store for you. -The utopian promises of some Socialist apologists are too ridiculous -to be credited by a sane individual. The only thing that remains is -the course which Sydney Webb and Ramsay MacDonald have outlined. The -worker will still work for a wage. The officials of the new State will -sanction the selection of his employment. He may take it or leave it, -live or starve to death, for there will be but one master to whom he -can turn for a job--the omnipotent State. It is the State that will -tell him what he is permitted to do, and he will have no right save -that of strict obedience. - -As the author of “The Case Against Socialism” says (pp. 290-1): “A man -might desire to be an electrical engineer. ‘No vacancies,’ says the -State. ‘Ah, but I am sure that I can prove myself to be a much better -man than some whom you have chosen,’ replies the applicant. ‘No outside -competitions allowed,’ says the State. ‘We want masons, and a mason you -must be.’ ‘But have I no personal freedom?’ replies the man. The answer -is that he belongs to the State, and, if the official is in the mood to -graciously explain matters further, the man will probably be told that -it is difficult enough to organize labor at all, and that the attempt -would become impossible if anyone was so selfish as to consider such a -trivial matter as his own inclinations.” - -What chance could a worker have under such circumstances? If he was not -satisfied, he would simply have to pocket his dissatisfaction and make -the best of it. What do you think of a body of men who, while planning -this fate for the American worker, have the nerve to talk to him about -“wage slavery”! Could anything be worse than this slavery with the -State as a master? - - - - -CHAPTER VII - -YOUR BOSS UNDER SOCIALISM - - - My dear Smith, - -Having seen what the condition of the “wage slave” will be under -Socialism, it is only fair that we should give a little attention -to that other class in the Co-operative Commonwealth, the “bossing -class.” The Socialist speaker on the street-corner assures us that, -when the Socialist ideal is realized, everything in society will be -democratically managed. It is in this way, they say, and in this way -alone, that true liberty can be realized. The fact that they do not -make clear is that, if you accept their definition, “liberty” means -liberty to do just as we are told and nothing more. - -And there will be no lack of people with power to tell you what to do. - -As Laurence Gronlund states in “The Co-operative Commonwealth” (p. -115), while the Commonwealth “guarantees suitable employment,” it -certainly cannot “guarantee a particular employment to everybody,” and -this, as your own good judgment must tell you, opens the way for the -creation of an army of state controllers in numbers hitherto undreamt -of. - -The theory that efficient work can be performed without direction is so -utopian that it has been discarded, even by the majority of Socialists. -The most that they are trying to do to-day is to develop a plan whereby -the actual worker and the army of bosses may exist without continuous -warfare. - -This brings us to the question: How are these bosses to be selected? -For of course, so many will want to be bosses that some definite mode -of selection must be resorted to. - -Some socialistic prognosticators assert that the candidates for the -directive positions will undergo a kind of civil service examination. -Other authorities state that they will be chosen by drawing lots; but, -as one writer has said, “in point of impracticability there is little -to choose between the two suggestions.” - -The favorite theory, however, is that the choice of bosses will be made -by popular election, and such a course would be eminently socialistic -in that it cynically and entirely ignores the claims of individual -efficiency. - -We know how inadequate a system of election may be, especially when -popularity becomes the important factor in the choice of a candidate. -It is not easy to imagine the complications that will ensue when every -question of management of social affairs must be determined by the vote -of the people. - -In “Two and Two Make Four” (p. 230), Bird S. Coler, a most practical -man of affairs, presents a sample of the questions upon which the -people might be called upon to vote, thus giving us an opportunity to -see how wisely we may be governed under Socialism: - -“Boris Humphiak says puddling is a hot, hard job, and he doesn’t see -why he should blister and sweat while Reginald Carnegie just sits in -a cool office talking to a stenographer. Comrade Carnegie explains to -Comrade Humphiak that the Carnegie labor is necessary, directive labor, -and can be performed in the office, while the Humphiak labor is manual -labor and must be performed in the puddling room. Comrade Humphiak -cannot see it. He says each man ought to take his turn at puddling and -at superintending. Let us vote on it. There are a thousand puddlers, -one superintendent. The vote is a thousand to one for the Humphiak -proposition. Comrade Carnegie goes down to the puddling room, tries to -puddle, to the intense joy of the other puddlers who cease labor in -order to enjoy his weak and inefficient attempts to puddle; and, when -blinded and exhausted, he overturns a vat of molten metal, those who -survive are sorry and those who do not, among whom is Comrade Carnegie, -do not care any more. Meanwhile, Comrade Humphiak goes into the office, -lights a cigar and neglects to give some orders, as a result of which -forgetfulness on his part, the mill burns down.” - -There is nothing absurd in the picture which Mr. Coler has drawn. -Complications just as serious would arise were the questions of -direction left to a popular vote; yet, if such matters are not settled -by the ballot, how are they to be adjusted? - -“Some kind of organization labor must have,” says Herbert Spencer (“A -Plea for Liberty,” p. 10), “and if it is not that which arises by -agreement under free competition it must be that which is imposed by -authority.... Without alternative, the work must be done, and without -alternative the benefit whatever it may be must be accepted.” - -Socialists like to talk about abolishing class distinction. They know -that this is one of the most attractive proposals that they can dangle -before the envious and the ignorant. Yet what have we here but the -establishment of two distinct classes--the directing or “bossing” -class, and the obeying or working class? That Socialism would institute -changes, there can be no doubt, but it would be a change in bosses, -not a change in methods. As Professor Flint has said (“Socialism,” p. -373), “it would place the masses of mankind completely at the mercy of -a comparatively small and highly centralized body of organizers and -administrators entrusted with such power as no human hand can safely -and righteously wield.” - -Hobhouse in “Democracy and Reaction” (p. 228), clearly defines what -this must mean: - -“As the ‘expert’ comes to the front and ‘efficiency’ becomes the -watchword of administration, all that was human in Socialism vanishes -out of it. Its tenderness for the losers in the race, its protests -against class tyranny, its revolt against commercial materialism,” -all the sources of the Socialist doctrines are gone like a dream, -and “instead we have the conception of society as a perfect piece of -machinery pulled by wires radiating from a single centre, and all men -and women are either ‘experts’ or puppets.” - -It is thus that humanity, liberty and justice must vanish under -Socialism, for the ultimate result, said Mr. Spencer (“A Plea for -Liberty,” p. 26), “must be a society like that of ancient Peru ... in -which the mass of the people, elaborately regimented in groups of 10, -50, 100, 500 and 1,000, ruled by officers of corresponding grades and -tied to their districts, were superintended in their private lives as -well as in their industries, and toiled hopelessly for the government -organization.” - -Not in practice alone, but in theory as well, the Socialist form of -government is nothing short of absolute despotism. The very fact -that the citizens of a nation--or of the world, should International -Socialism become possible--are divided into the two classes of -controllers and controlled necessarily provides for inequality in -rank and an unequal enjoyment of the right of liberty. Socialists urge -that, because the controlling class will derive their rights from the -voluntary act of the controlled, such a condition of affairs will be -freely undertaken. This may be possible in the beginning. It is quite -probable that those destined to be controlled may, through their -whole-hearted belief in Socialism, co-operate in the establishment of -the new régime. But, later, it would begin to be a different story. -Once having experienced the privilege of directing, it is quite beyond -the bounds of reason to suppose that the director will consent freely -to take his place in the servient class. A member of the official -class, once that class has become firmly established, would strenuously -resist any act threatening his position, and it would be doing an -injustice to Socialists to assume that some of them have not seen -this necessary consequence of their system. What would happen were -such a move contemplated is frankly stated by Professor Karl Pearson. -“Socialists,” he says (“Ethics of Free-thought,” p. 324), “have to -inculcate that spirit which would give offenders against the State -short shrift and the nearest lamp-post.” As Professor Flint remarks, -such a sentiment “gives expression to the thought which animated the -first tyrant.” - -If you were to read the works of the prominent Socialist writers, John, -you would find that Professor Pearson does not stand alone in his -opinion. Robert Blatchford, in his popular presentation of Socialism -(“Merrie England,” p. 75), goes just as far in asserting that man has -no right to demand any other freedom than that which the majority may -be willing to permit him to have. “Just as no man can have a right to -the land, because no man makes the land, so no man has a right to his -self, because he did not make that self.” - -In spite of the crudeness and illogical character of this statement, -it expresses only too forcibly the claim for the deification of -the Socialist State at the cost of the complete suppression of the -individual. - -What does all this mean? In the last analysis it means that, if there -is to be a servient class and a bossing class, it really is immaterial -whether the worker belongs to the minority or to the majority. In -either case, if he is selected as one to be bossed, such will be -his fate, for the only people who will actually count at all are the -officials who have been chosen, by one means or another, to become the -bosses. What will make the conditions of the worker under Socialism -infinitely worse than it is to-day, is the absence of any means of -associated action for redress. Under no circumstances could such an -existence be tolerable save in an ideal State in which benevolence -reigns supreme--a State where envy, hatred, tyranny, ambition, -indolence, folly and vanity no longer exist; a State where there are -only wise and good men; and in such a State even law and direction -might logically become unnecessary. - -The human race, John, is not fitted for such a State. Untold centuries -will pass before this ideal millennium can even remotely be realized. -In the meantime we are trying to improve conditions with the material -which we have at hand. With such material, even were all the theories -of Marx to be put into operation, human nature must be considered as a -factor, and it takes no prophet to foresee what a hopeless muddle we -should make of things if we tried to run society upon the principles -which Socialism proposes. Even John Spargo admits that “there is -no such thing as an ‘automatic democracy,’ and eternal vigilance -will be the price of liberty under Socialism, as it has ever been” -(“Socialism,” p. 217). - -Mr. Spargo is right as far as he goes, but he does not go far enough. -He does not tell us that under Socialism vigilance would no longer -be possible because it would not be tolerated; that with all trades -and industries in the hands of the government, with all men and -women dependent on the government for daily bread and compelled to -do the work assigned to them, the State will consist of two classes -only--state functionaries and ordinary people, controllers and -controlled, masters and slaves. In what manner could man protect -the rights of liberty under such a régime? What remedy could he -have against oppression when he would always be pitted against “the -State”--a State which would be placed in a position of being able to do -no wrong. - -“Wage slavery,” John? Isn’t this infinitely worse than any “wage -slavery” of which you have ever dreamt? - - - - -CHAPTER VIII - -SOME MORE “EQUALITY” - - - My dear John, - -If you want to see how mad a man can get and still live, ask the -soap-box orator if Socialism proposes to pay all kinds of workers the -same wage. Tell him that you have heard that, in the Co-operative -Commonwealth, there will be absolute equality of remuneration. - -If you put this question to the street-corner agitator, I’ll promise -that you will get all that you bargained for and more. But don’t -be frightened by his torrent of wrath and indignation. Quietly but -persistently press the question home. Have your quotations where -you can get at them easily, and be sure that they are strictly -“scientific”--that you have the right page of the book from which they -have been taken. If you will do this, and maintain your equanimity, you -can very soon take the wind out of the soap-boxer’s sails, because, -whatever some Socialists say to the contrary, equality of remuneration -is the only possible outcome of the socialistic system, and there are -plenty of simon-pure Marxists who admit as much. - -In my last letter I told you what Socialism means by “equality of -opportunity,” and I proved the truth of my statements by citing -quotations the authenticity of which no Socialist can deny. Not one of -these quotations was “torn from its context,” or otherwise mutilated, -though there may be some Socialists who will tell you that this is what -has happened. - -Having seen that “equality of opportunity” means merely the opportunity -to do the things that meet the approval of the bosses, we will now -consider the question of equality of reward; and again we shall let the -Socialists themselves tell us what Socialism really means to do towards -“solving” the wage problem. - -In the first place, let us refer to Karl Marx, for his orthodoxy -is probably above suspicion. We find that the great master of the -socialistic philosophy is a little uncertain as to what may happen -during the transitional period between capitalism and the realization -of the Socialist ideal. At this stage, he says, there may be -inequalities in rights, including remuneration, but about the ultimate -effect of collectivism, he has no such doubt. “In a higher phase -of communist society,” he says, “after the slavish subordination -of the individual under divisions of labor and consequently the -opposition between mental and bodily work has disappeared ... after -the individual has become more perfect in every respect ... then only -... society may inscribe on its banner: ‘From each one according to -his abilities, to each one according to his needs.’” (“Zur Kritik des -sozialdemokratischen Parteiprogramms.”) - -It is difficult to construe this statement of Marx to mean anything -except that the end of Socialism is practically complete equality in -matters of reward. Certainly this is the idea which Mr. Spargo has -formed from his study of the Marxist philosophy, for he tells us very -definitely in his book, “Socialism” (p. 233), that “it may be freely -admitted that the ideal to be aimed at ultimately must be approximate -equality of income.” - -George Bernard Shaw, the eminent English Socialist, also admits that -equality is the ultimate aim of Marxism. In a paper read before the -Fabian Society, in 1910, and published in the _Fabian News_ (January, -1911), Mr. Shaw defines Socialism as “a state of society in which the -income of the country would be divided equally among the inhabitants, -without regard to character, industry or any other consideration except -that they were human beings.” - -And, that there might be no misunderstanding about his attitude toward -this question, Mr. Shaw, talking to an interviewer for _The Labor -Leader_, said (March 31, 1912): “Socialism is the system of society -where all the income of the country is to be divided up in exactly -equal portions; every one to have it, whether idle or industrious, -young or old, good or bad ...; anyone who does not believe that, is -not a Socialist.... Those are the conditions on which I say I am a -Socialist. Those are the conditions on which Society should stand. The -point is not whether they are reasonable conditions or not. They are -the only workable conditions.” - -Mr. Shaw seemed to think it necessary to disarm possible criticism -by admitting that the conditions he proposes might be called -“unreasonable.” His fears are groundless. We do not dub his proposition -“unreasonable”--indeed, it embodies the only reasonable conditions -under which Socialism could be operated. The only unreasonable thing -about it is that it absolutely defies any attempt to bring it into -harmony with that other working proposition of Marxism: that every -worker shall receive the full products of his labor. If all are to -get the same reward, whether idle or industrious, whether valuable or -valueless to the community, it necessarily follows that some portion of -the proceeds of the industrious workers’ labor must go to the worker -whose labor has been profitless. - -Discouraging as such a system of payment would be to industry and -initiative, it still is, as a matter of fact, the only system that -Socialism can adopt if it is to show any regard for the preservation of -the collective character of the State. - -If all workers are paid alike, it is possible that a certain degree of -equality may be maintained. If, as Blatchford says in “Merrie England” -(p. 103), “the only difference between a Prime Minister and a collier -would be the difference of rank and occupation,” the mere worker may -feel that he is living in a State in which class distinction has been -largely eliminated. If, on the other hand, workers are to be paid -according to the nature and value of their productions, how long do -you think it will be before a new set of class distinctions will be -created? How long will it be before the skilled workman who draws the -fattest pay envelope will become the aristocrat, or, at least, will -assume a class distinction mid-way between the bossing class and the -class of unskilled laborers? - -The Socialists themselves have recognized the danger that the problem -of remuneration presents, and have tried to anticipate some of its -difficulties by suggesting possible solutions. The sophists among them, -of course, have sought to evade the issue, thus leaving the inquirer -to imagine that this question, like all the other difficulties that -confront the Collectivist, will settle itself when the moment of -emergency arises. The more honest and consistent Socialists, however, -are quite frank in their admission that equality of reward is the -inevitable consequence of Collectivism. Even Spargo, in the quotation -already referred to, admits that class formation must take place and -the old problems incidental to economic inequality reappear under -anything less than an “approximate equality of income.” - -Mrs. Annie Besant, who is a much-quoted Socialist, takes the same -stand. “Controversy,” she says (“Fabian Essays,” pp. 163-164), “will -probably arise as to the division: shall all shares be equal, or shall -the workers receive in proportion to the proposed dignity or indignity -of their work? Inequality would be odious.... The impossibility of -estimating the separate value of each man’s labor with any really valid -result, the friction which would arise, the jealousies which would be -provoked, the inevitable discontent, favoritism, and jobbery that would -prevail; all these things will drive the Communal Council into the -right path--equal remuneration of all workers.” - -And yet as early as 1830--years before Marx and Engels had begun to -prepare their “Communist Manifesto”--the French Communists addressed a -manifesto to the Chamber of Deputies in which it was stated that the -equal division of property would constitute “a greater violence, a more -revolting injustice, than the unequal division which was originally -effected by force of arms, by conquest.” - -The Socialist of the present day may well learn wisdom from the logic -of his French predecessors. It is a self-evident fact that production -must be most disastrously effected by equality of distribution. Where -is the incentive to come from if the industrious or the highly skilled -man is to be mulcted of a share of his earnings that it may be used -to equalize things with the “work-shy,” who happens to be indisposed -to earn a living for himself? As one writer suggests, “it is to be no -longer a question of ‘Every man for himself, and the devil take the -hindmost,’ but we are to go to the opposite extreme and endeavor to -establish an equally false doctrine of ‘Every man for his neighbor, and -the devil take the foremost.’” - -Marx seemingly attempts to provide for this contingency by preaching -the doctrine embraced in the formula, “From each according to his -ability, to each according to his needs.” Apparently, he recognizes -that it will be impossible to evade the inequalities naturally existing -between different individuals, and he endeavors to neutralize these -natural advantages by supposing that each is to produce “according to -his ability.” - -But, my dear John, you mustn’t be deluded by the suggestion that there -is a difference in these propositions. In both cases, the neutralizing -profits are to be taken from the most efficient producers and given -to those who are less efficient. If this were done there would soon -be an end to the Socialist promise that every worker is to get the -full product of his labor. If this rule of remuneration were to become -operative, the surplus product needed to supply the bad or idle worker -with the means of securing a reward “according to his needs,” would be -stolen from the proceeds of the industry of the more capable “comrades.” - -Yet H. M. Hyndman, the prominent English Socialist, sees no objection -to this arrangement. In a letter contributed to the London _Daily -Telegraph_ (October 14, 1907), Mr. Hyndman wrote: - -“Socialism will recognize no difference as to the share of the general -product between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ workman, but will give both -every opportunity to make themselves more valuable citizens and -comrades. Good and bad will alike be doing their social best for the -community, and will be entitled to their full participation in the -enjoyment of the wealth created by the work of the whole body.” - -Mr. Hyndman seems to assume that, under such a system of production, -there would be enough to go round--enough to satisfy all the wants of -every member of the community. Do you think this possible? - -Suppose that Socialism were adopted to-morrow, and that you, knowing -that your livelihood was assured, were working side by side with a man -who was producing about half as much as you. Would the fact that his -sloth and incapacity did not count against him inspire you to do your -best work, especially when you realized that the surplus product of -your toil was fated to compensate him for his failure to “make good”? - -It makes little difference from what point of view Socialism attempts -to solve its problem of remunerating the worker. No matter which -course it pursues, it courts disaster. Whether it rewards all equally -or continues to recognize the existence of natural inequalities, it -remains a system under which freedom is impossible. - -Do you like the prospect, John? - - - - -CHAPTER IX - -A FEW “MINOR” DETAILS - - - My dear John, - -When the Socialists promise to see that you get the full product of -your labor, there are a few minor details which they overlook. Not the -least of these is the detail as to how they are going to do it. - -If you should ask your friend, the soap-box man, where he gets the -figures which he reels off so glibly when he is talking to you about -the way you are robbed, he may find it difficult to answer; but the -difficulty he encounters when confronted with such a question is -nothing in comparison to that which he will experience if you ask him -to inform you how the Socialist bosses are going to figure out your -labor value in a way to assure you against robbery. It is easy for him -to say that under Socialism you will get all you produce, but don’t let -him get away with the idea that he can make such statements without -being called upon to prove them. - -It is a beautiful promise, this assurance of Socialism that every -worker in the Co-operative Commonwealth will get every penny that is -represented in his labor. It is a beautiful promise; but lots of people -have made beautiful promises and haven’t kept them. Can it be possible -that the bright little promiser who talks to you at the street corner -is one of the “four-flushers,” too? - -Ask him the next time he invites questions. Tell him that you are a -practical man, and that you want more definite details. - -Do you know what he will tell you? He will use a lot of words rounded -out into more or less eloquent periods, but, when you attempt to -analyze what he has said, you will find that all his wisdom could have -been expressed in a single sentence. In plain English, he tells you -that your request for details is nothing more or less than “a mark of -ignorance.” He wants you to believe that Socialism’s plan will be all -right for everybody, because, as the old negro said, “it jes’ works out -so.” - -Well, perhaps it will! Let us see. - -To test the truth of this theory, we must tackle one of the most -difficult problems that we shall be called upon to consider. But I -think, if we are patient, we shall be able to get to the bottom of -Marx’s complicated methods of reasoning, and so show that even the -promise to ascertain the full value of the worker’s labor--to say -nothing of the detail of giving it to him afterwards--is one of the -most glaring absurdities in the whole Socialist scheme. - -Marx tells us that value is determined by labor. - -What does he mean? - -He means that the value of a commodity is fixed by the labor that is -put into it. This is all right as far as this statement goes, but it -does not help us very much in determining the value of a particular -commodity. Before we can know what a commodity is worth, we must know -(according to Marx) what it cost to produce the mental and physical -energy that was used in making it. To do this, we must first know the -total cost of all the commodities which the worker consumed during the -period when he was performing this particular task. - -You know the old problem of the hen and the egg--which was first? The -Socialist’s labor-value puzzle is much more perplexing, because, in -addition to a lot of other things, you are called upon to find out -which was first, the worker or the commodity which he consumed--the -clothes he wore, the food he ate, the bed in which he slept while -acquiring the strength for the work that produced this commodity. - -If you were called upon to answer this question, to fix the value of -even a single article, you would find the task anything but an easy -one. Can you imagine what will happen when the government functionaries -sit down to figure out this problem for every kind of article that is -sold--anywhere in the world? - -But, don’t imagine that their task ends here. When they have once -succeeded in getting this puzzle solved, they will next be called upon -to find out how many persons have contributed their labor toward the -production of each and all of the commodities that have entered into -the transaction. - -Benedict Elder, in exposing this particular absurdity of Socialism -in _The Common Cause_ (September, 1912), illustrated his argument by -showing the difficulties that the Socialist statisticians will face -when they are called upon to find the value of the labor necessary in -producing an ordinary pin. As it is difficult to obtain a more striking -example, we may well follow Mr. Elder’s calculations. - -To find the value of the labor of making a pin, it is necessary to -begin by getting the exact time expended by every person who has -contributed a necessary part towards the production of the pin. -This includes the time of the man who sells the pin to you over -the counter--for, of course, there will have to be salesmen under -Socialism--the time spent by the miner who dug the metal from the earth -and by every other individual who has had anything to do in handling -it. Talk about tracing your ancestry back to the days of William the -Conqueror--that would be a “cinch” compared to this kind of mental -gymnastics! - -Yet our Socialist statisticians are not finished with their work, even -yet! Before they can tell the cashier how much to pay the worker so -as to give him the full value of his labor in producing the pin, they -must also determine how much labor-power each man spent in doing his -part of this work and how many commodities, and how much of each, the -man consumed to produce the labor-power necessary to complete the task -assigned to him. - -“Here,” says Mr. Elder, “we have indeed a monumental undertaking, -one that staggers the mind to contemplate, one that challenges a -combination of figures to express. Yet we are not fairly started at -our task.... We have taken but one commodity where the number of -commodities is practically infinite. We cannot follow the Socialists -many steps; their range becomes so vast, their intricacies so -bewildering, their complications so overwhelming, the throne of reason -would be threatened by the stupendous scale of thought demanded almost -at the outset. It is said that a German scientist once undertook to -figure out the number of possible moves on a chess-board. He reached -a point where the combination of figures required could no longer be -expressed in any known language, and then his mind unhinged. On the -chess-board there are just thirty-two pieces to be moved on sixty-four -spots.” - -The Socialist program may seem very plausible and extremely attractive -when the Socialist propagandist is describing it in broad generalities -and you do not examine its details too critically; but, when you -get down to cases, John, and begin to try to find out how all these -magnificent promises are to be kept, you will begin to feel that you -are in danger of joining the German scientist whose “mind unhinged.” - -Just for the sake of argument, let us admit that the Socialist -functionaries have finally succeeded in performing the apparently -impossible task of ascertaining exactly how much your labor-time has -been worth to the community. This fact equitably determined, the worker -would probably be given labor checks, for which he could secure other -things of equal value with his labor. For example, if it required -1,000,000 days’ labor to provide this year’s shoes for the community -and 2,000,000 pairs of shoes were made in that time, we can imagine -that a check for one day’s labor might exchange for two pairs of shoes. - -It is easy to see that it would require no small amount of book-keeping -to keep even this matter of detail adjusted fairly, especially when we -remember what intricate calculations are necessary to find out how many -persons contributed to the production of these shoes, and how the value -of the time of each worker must be figured. But the same difficulty -would present itself with every kind of commodity in any way dependent -upon the labor-power of man. - -If the labor checks that each worker receives are to be of real value, -they must be exchangeable for articles which the worker himself needs -or thinks he needs. In other words, our Socialist officials are also -to be called upon to ascertain what the public may be expected to -demand. This does not mean merely the articles that are necessary to -life--food, clothing, fuel, etc.--but everything that must be placed -at the disposal of a man if he is to enjoy unrestricted freedom of -choice as to the character of the articles which he purchases. Even -the smallest thing must be considered--the boy’s jumping-Jack and the -button-boots for the doll baby; for it is not admitted that any wants -of man--however small or great--are to be prohibited by the government. - -The ordinary playthings of the child represent a demand upon raw -material, and each of these demands must be considered in calculating -the total production for which arrangements must be made in advance. - -To accomplish this result the statistical expert will be compelled to -ascertain the actual needs of every family--indeed, of every individual -from one end of the country to the other, if not throughout the -entire world, since, of course, there would still be an interchange -of products between the various lands. A statistical estimate based -upon present conditions would be of little avail. To overcome the -difficulty, an accurate schedule of every article that will be needed -to meet the demands of the purchaser must be made. - -The taking of a census is a long and laborious task, and to its -completion years are devoted. Yet the census which the United States -government takes is mere child’s play compared with the schedules which -will have to be filled out, arranged and digested, if all the small -commodities which people want to buy, and which they buy to-day, are to -be ascertained and tabulated in preparation for production. - -As Cathrein points out (“Socialism,” p. 270), it will be necessary -to consider “the numerous articles of food which are required even -in the humblest family, the supplying of the kitchen with fuel and -cooking utensils, the fitting up of the drawing-room and bedrooms with -furniture and ornamentation, the lighting and heating, the stocking of -the pantry, etc., besides the necessary repairs. There must be included -the mending of clothes, furniture, etc.... The authorities will have to -supply needle and thread to replace the missing shirt-button. All these -items must be tabulated for the determination of the demand upon which -the great system of production is to be based. And all this would have -to be done not for one family alone, but for the millions of families -which constitute a modern State and for everyone of their members.... -Even a cursory glance at the immense department stores of our large -cities with their thousands of different articles, will convince anyone -of the great variety of modern requirements. - -“Moreover, the social demand is not at all constant; it varies -from month to month, from week to week, even from day to day. Many -requirements cannot be foreseen in the least; suddenly and unexpectedly -they make their presence felt. Weekly or even daily inquiries would -become necessary, or at least there would be needed numerous offices -where lists of requirements could be filed. - -“However, it would not suffice to provide for single families. The -needs of society at large, all the public requirements, would also -have to be satisfied. In the first place would come the arrangements -for transportation: streets and roads, bridges, railways, canals, -vehicles of all kinds. The care of all this would be incumbent on the -paternal State. What an amount of daily exertion to supply a large city -with meat, milk, fruit, vegetables, etc. Private hotels would also be -abolished. It would become the functions of public officials to provide -shelter, food, and service for every comer, unless travelling is to be -forbidden in the Socialist commonwealth. Then, again, the whole of the -building business will be in the hands of the State. Public and private -edifices, dwellings, schools, hospitals, insane asylums, storehouses, -theatres, museums, public halls, post and telegraph offices, railroad -stations, would have to be erected and kept in repair, or enlarged -as necessity required. And these buildings could not be handed over -to contractors as is generally done nowadays; the State alone could -take care of drawing up the plans and specifications, of gathering -the necessary materials and workmen, of directing and supervising -the erection. If the State is supposed to do all this systematically, -without squandering an immense amount of labor and materials, the -extent and quality of the requirements in the entire commonwealth must -be ascertained long beforehand by some responsible authority. - -“What the different cities and town administrations are doing now, -and as a rule through private contractors, in the matter of streets, -public health, water supply, lighting, baths, etc., would fall to the -care of the State. Physicians, surgeons, druggists, nurses, midwives, -would have to be appointed, and it would be incumbent upon the State to -provide for the professional education of a sufficient number of people -for all these offices. The State would have to find ways and means -to take care of education, of the press, literature, arts, theatres, -museums, etc.... To this would have to be added the management of -the farms, vineyards, vegetable gardens, cattle and stock raising, -the forests and fisheries, mining, smelting, and other industrial -processes. In all these departments, the requirements would have to -be accurately ascertained before there would be any question of a -systematic regulation of production.” - -There are several important items that have been omitted, but it -does not seem necessary to enumerate them. Enough has been shown -to demonstrate that, to perform all this work and to compile such -an overwhelming amount of statistical labor alone, a huge army of -public officials will be required, and they must be public officials -of such capability and integrity as not to be subject to the human -weaknesses that are responsible for so many of the blunders in work -of this kind--blunders that might prove fatal to the entire system of -production and even threaten the very existence of the nation. - -Do you think that human intelligence is equal to such a task? The -soap-box orator may call your attention to the fact that this work is -being done to-day. Yes, it is being done, but, as the Socialist so very -often asserts, many of our worst evils are due to the fact that the -work is being done so badly. - -The Socialist also assures us that he will remedy all these evils, -which means that Socialism will do the work much better than it is -being performed at the present time. Do you think that this is -possible? Do you believe that so gigantic a system of State machinery -can be organized and made to operate without a hitch? Is it possible -that a system of collective government composed of human units, all -subject to human frailties, can perform what private enterprise, with -its vast resources and its boundless ambition, has never been able to -accomplish, especially when no hope of extra recompense stimulates -these human units in the performance of their appointed tasks? - - - - -CHAPTER X - -LABOR’S FULL PRODUCT - - - My dear Smith, - -There is a good reason why the Socialists are unwilling to tell you -just what their State will be, or how it will work. _They themselves do -not know._ - -You can divide the present-day Socialists into two classes. The best -of them are utopian dreamers--theorists who hope that things will work -out all right, and who are willing to take a chance. The worst of them -are mere office-seekers, eager for place or pelf, and willing to become -special pleaders for the oppressed in return for their votes. - -There was a time when the Socialists were actuated by a high and -unselfish ideal. It was a fallacious ideal, it is true. They were -fighting for principles that would have worked the ruin of the nations -had they been put into practice. But, as you know, a man can be both -sincere and wrong at the same time. The early Socialists were sincere, -even though they were wrong. But those Socialists of to-day who have -turned the philosophy of Socialism into a purely political movement, -and who do not ask you to believe as they do so long as you vote as -they want you to vote, have neither high ideals nor good principles. -They are just as bad political grafters as have ever been harbored by -any of the old political parties. - -If the Socialists do not know much about the practical operations of -their utopian commonwealth, however, we can work out the problem for -ourselves. All that it is necessary to do, John, is to collect the -different pieces of the Socialist program and fit them together, just -as you did the jig-saw puzzles with which you used to amuse yourself -when a boy. - -For example, let us take still another phase of the Socialist promise -to see that every man shall get the full product of his labor. - -The Socialists have been quick to realize that this fallacy is the best -vote-catching device that they have yet invented. “You make it all,” -they explain, “and it is all yours.” - -“Yes, it is all yours!” they declare, “but do you get it? No, you do -not begin to get all of your earnings. If you are very lucky you may -get one-third of what you earn; if you are less lucky, you have to be -content with one-fifth. It is only under Socialism that you will get -_all_ your earnings.” - -This is the promise that Blatchford makes in “Merrie England” (p. 189). -It is this that countless Socialist writers have promised. It is this -promise that is used as a text by practically every soap-box orator -in this country--or in any other, for that matter. “The right to the -entire product of labor and capital together!” That is the main tenet -of the gospel of Socialism. - -Now, John, I am willing to admit for the sake of argument that there is -considerable justice in the worker’s demand for a larger portion of the -output of his industry. Of course, we cannot admit that he is entitled -to the entire output of labor and capital combined; but this point -need not delay us long, since he never will get it. He can’t expect -to have the full product now, and he needn’t expect to have it, even -if Socialism triumphs and the modern system of private ownership is -buried six feet underground. Neither Socialism nor any other system of -production will ever be able to make this promise good. - -Do you see what this means? It simply shows that the Socialist is -trying to fool you with promises that can never be kept. He tells you -that he will give you the entire value of the product. He does not tell -you how he is going to find out how much it is, and he is also very -careful to conceal the fact that, even if he knew exactly how much the -value of your labor-time amounted to, he couldn’t give you the full -amount that you produce. He couldn’t do it to-day, nor a hundred years -from to-day, nor a million years from to-day, simply because it is a -proposition that is just as impossible as to make 2 plus 2 equal 5. - -While the great mass of Socialist writers and speakers are so -unscrupulous that they continue to agree to espouse a policy which -they know they can never fulfil, there are other Socialists who are -more honest and who frankly admit that this program is entirely -impracticable. The latter are not the Socialists whose writings are -exploited for the instruction of possible converts, however. When a -man has caught Socialism and caught it bad, it is safe for him to read -what they have written; but, for the beginner, it is best to feed him -on the pre-digested and carefully censored output of the propaganda -committees. - -The soap-box orator informs you that under Socialism all industry will -be owned collectively and will be conducted in the interests of the -workers exclusively. What does the worker imagine that this means? He -pictures himself as a part owner of the factory in which he works. He -sees himself dividing the profits of that manufacturing concern with -the 50 or 100 or 500 persons now constituting the working force of the -establishment. Believing that this is what Socialism promises to do for -him, he becomes interested immediately. Naturally the soap-box orator -doesn’t try to correct this impression. - -Sydney Webb, however, tells a different story. He knows that Socialism -does not intend to do anything of this kind. Turn to “Fabian Tract No. -51” (p. 16), and you will read the following: - -“The whole of our creed is that industry should be carried on, not for -the profit of those engaged in it, whether masters or men, but for -the benefit of the community. We recognize no special right in the -miners as such to enjoy the mineral wealth on which they work. The -Leicester boot operatives can put in no special claim to the profits -of the Leicester boot factory, nor the shop-man in the co-operative -store for the surplus of its year’s trading. It is not for the miners, -bootmakers, or shop-assistants, as such, that we Socialists claim the -control and the profits of industry, but for the citizens.” - -This is quite a different proposition, isn’t it? Socialism doesn’t mean -that you are to be permitted to turn the factory in which you work into -a profit-producing concern for your own benefit. It does mean, however, -that the profit produced by all the concerns in the entire country -shall be lumped together, and, after all the losses and necessary -charges have been deducted, the sum left shall be divided among all the -people--a system under which you would receive one-fifty, one-seventy -or one-ninety millionth part, according to the population of the nation. - -This puts the matter in a less attractive light, but we have by no -means fully disclosed the iniquity of those who are trying to fool the -voters with false promises. Let us now try to find out what charges -must be deducted from the total profits before this division can be -made. - -Not all businesses are to-day successful. Some of them fail because -the people do not buy the articles which it was expected they would -buy, and it is quite possible that such mistakes might be made under -Socialism. It is entirely probable that some kind of mistakes would -be made, and that there would be approximately as great a proportion -of losses with collective management as we now have under individual -management. These items would, of course, have to be deducted before -the division of profits could be effected. - -The Socialists claim that a large part of the profits of which the -worker is robbed, goes to meet the expenses of rent and interest, -two factors that would not have to be considered in the Co-operative -Commonwealth. They do not seem to take into account the fact that the -money applied to rent, interest and profit is not stored away, or -otherwise taken out of circulation, even to-day. The greater part of -this sum finds its way back to industry by providing for extensions in -business, renewals of machinery, enlargements of factories, and the -establishment of new industries. - -There are items of expense that we cannot dodge even under Socialism. -Factories and machinery do not last forever. New methods must -constantly be adopted. An ever-increasing popular demand necessitates -an extension of manufacturing facilities. Do the Socialists expect us -to believe that, on the establishment of the Co-operative Commonwealth, -everything will be income and there will be no outlay--all profit and -no expenses? - -Then we must provide for the payment of the huge army of Socialist -officials, for there will be practically no end to the number of -overseers, superintendents, clerks, bookkeepers, auditors, cashiers, -and statisticians--to say nothing of the host of minor officials--all -of whom will have to be paid at the same rate, to say the least, as the -laborers. - -In talking about this kind of workers to-day, the Socialist agitator -is very apt to dub them a “non-producing class.” If you will examine -Socialist statistics carefully, you will find that the statisticians -almost invariably omit to consider the amount paid such workers as -an item of expense; that they are even likely to include the sum -represented by these salaries in the _profits_ of the employing class. -Should the time ever come when the Socialists themselves are called -upon to provide the pay-roll for the nation, they will discover that -the directive and executive workers, and all the persons employed to -carry out their part of the program, will call for the expenditure of -a tremendous sum of money. Tremendous as this amount would be to-day, -however, the present outlay for this purpose would be but a drop in the -bucket compared to the cost of the system that Socialism would have to -establish. - -Let us see what the Socialists themselves--the more frank and honest -kind of Socialists--have to say about this matter. - -Deville in “Socialism, Internationalism and Revolution,” says: “After -deducting from the product a portion to take the place of taxes, -a portion to replace the labor consumed, one to extend the scale -of production, one to insure against disasters, as floods, winds, -lightning, etc., one to support the incapable, one for administration, -one for sanitation, one for education, etc., the producers of both -sexes will distribute the balance among themselves in proportion of the -quantity of ordinary labor respectively furnished.” - -Mrs. Besant, in “Fabian Essays” (p. 163), has very similar ideas upon -this point. She says: - -“Out of the value of the communal produce must come rent of land -payable to the local authorities, rent of plant needed for working of -industries, wages advanced and fixed in the usual way, taxes, reserve -fund, accumulation fund, and the other charges necessary for the -carrying on of the communal business. All these deducted, the remaining -value should be divided among the communal workers as a ‘bonus.’” - -A “bonus”? Yes, but would there be any bonus? These who are familiar -with the history of the labor movement in France will naturally recall -Louis Blanc’s unfortunate experiment with the National workshops. - -In 1848 the Provisional Government issued a proclamation engaging to -guarantee work to all citizens and promising to put an end to the -sufferings of workmen by decreeing the formation of a permanent -Commission for the workers. - -Louis Blanc, who was at the head of this movement to abolish all -profits of capital and to establish the perfect equality of all workers -“without considering skill or activity,” developed the National -Workshops scheme. At first the workmen threw themselves into the -project with great heartiness, even working overtime; but this was -merely a temporary condition. To aid the great tailoring workshop, the -government gave it an order to provide 25,000 uniforms for the National -Guard. The building in which the work was conducted was provided -absolutely free of cost and the government advanced all the capital -required in the experiment. The price agreed upon was to be eleven -francs per uniform. Each of the 1,500 workmen was given two francs a -day as “subsistence money,” and was promised his _pro rata_ share in -the profits. - -But there were no profits. Instead, the uniforms actually cost, when -finished, sixteen francs apiece, and the government had to stand the -loss. You may read the whole story of the commercial disaster which the -attempt to introduce collective ownership brought upon France. The -experiment ended in a panic such as the nation had never known, and the -revolt of the workmen which followed was suppressed by the troops only -after 10,000 persons had been killed or wounded. - -Don’t you think that I am right when I say that it will take something -more than the mere assertion of a Deville or an Annie Besant to -persuade a sane and sensible people that collective ownership is more -practical to-day than it was some sixty years ago? - -The admissions that these Socialists have made seem conclusively frank; -yet Richardson, in “Industrial Problems” (p. 179), gives us a concrete -example that may throw an additional sidelight upon the situation. He -says: - -“In a Socialist State, if a laborer in ten hours can produce five pairs -of shoes, he could not have as his reward for that labor five pairs -of shoes. For while he was making these shoes, educational work had -to be done, hospitals had to be operated, the mentally and physically -incapable had to be cared for--all socially necessary labor had to be -carried on; and the cost of the maintenance of these things is a part -of the cost of the social product.” - -Richardson goes on to calculate how much the shoemaker “might get” for -his product; but he entirely overlooks the very grave possibility that -after all the items which Mrs. Besant and he have enumerated, and all -of Deville’s “etcetera” have been deducted, the worker “might get” -nothing at all. - -In short, are we not justified in questioning the wisdom of this -scheme? Under the present system the wages of a worker represents a -first charge against the business, and profits, interests and rent can -be paid only out of what is left (if anything is left) after he has -secured his share. - -The adoption of the Socialist system would change all this. The worker -might get a beggarly “subsistence wage,” to keep him alive and able to -work, but nothing else would be paid to him until all the expenses of -the State, including the cost of its numberless agents and officials, -had been deducted. Justly does Schaffle say (“The Quintessence of -Socialism,” p. 122): “The leading promise of social democracy is -practically and theoretically untenable; it is a delusive bait for the -extreme individualistic fanatic craving for equality among the masses.” - -After seeing all this, John, do you think it possible that the -condition of the worker could be improved by the adoption of Socialist -methods? In view of the very dubious prospect of a possible “bonus,” -what do you think of a man who would go to the lengths that Spargo goes -in his attempt to befuddle the brain of those who are too ignorant, -or too careless, to investigate this question for themselves. Under -Socialism, Spargo says (“Socialism,” p. 236): “If Jones prefers _objets -d’art_, and Smith prefers fast horses or a steam yacht, each will be -free to follow his inclination so far as his resources will permit.” - -Let us be thankful for this concession! We shall in this respect, at -least, be no worse off than we are to-day. At the present moment Jones -can buy his art objects, and Smith his fast horses or his steam yacht, -if the “resources” of Smith and Jones will permit. The question in -which we are interested, John, is not what you and Jones _will be -permitted_ to do, but what you _will be able_ to do, and I sadly fear -that Spargo, who must know the logical effects of Socialism, had a good -laugh at your expense when he penned those words. - - - - -CHAPTER XI - -IS WRETCHEDNESS INCREASING? - - - My dear John, - -If you listen to a Socialist speaker, or pick up a Socialist -periodical, you are pretty certain to come face to face with the -assertion that “the poor are now growing poorer and the rich richer -every day.” If you ask for further particulars, you will soon discover -that the chief reason why Socialists believe that this is what is -happening is because Karl Marx predicted that it is what was going to -happen. - -The great founder of Socialism was very certain that the development of -capitalism would tend to produce constantly-increasing “wretchedness, -oppression, slavery, degeneracy, and exploitation” of the working -class (“Capital,” p. 790); and while a few writers, like Kirkup in -the “History of Socialism” (p. 386), admit that “Marx made a serious -mistake,” because “facts and reasonable expectations combine clearly to -indicate that the democracy ... is marked by a growing intellectual, -moral and political capacity, and by an _increasing freedom and -prosperity_,” the great mass of Socialists agree with Snowden’s -assertion (“The Socialist’s Budget,” p. 8) that “the few cannot be rich -without making the many poor.” - -This principle, formulated by Marx, is known as “the law of the -concentration of capital,” and, if we are to accept this formula, we -must be able to prove that capital is being concentrated “in the hands -of a smaller and smaller number of capitalists, that large fortunes are -created at the expense of smaller fortunes, and that great capitalists -are increased by the extinction of small ones” (Tcherkesoff, “Pages of -Socialist History,” p. 23). - -In a few words, Marx insisted that capitalism was dividing the world -into two classes--the owning class and the toiling class--and that -the third, or middle class, was rapidly being eliminated, some few -of its members being absorbed into the upper-class while the great -majority, becoming impoverished, were destined to sink to the lowest of -proletarian depths. - -But is this what has happened in the half a century or so that has -passed since Marx formulated this “law of capitalistic development”? -If this “law” is ever to prove itself true, it is time, as Tcherkesoff -says, “that it should be exemplified by at least some few economic -phenomena”; yet during this period the number of small capitalists not -only has not diminished, but has actually increased, while the doctrine -of increasing misery, instead of being verified, is contradicted by -indisputable statistics which show, as Professor Hatton has asserted -(in his Cleveland, Ohio, debate), that “there is an increasing -betterment in the condition of the laboring classes.” Certainly none -but a most prejudiced Socialist will assert that there is any tangible -evidence to indicate that the people are dividing into two hostile -camps, especially in view of the fact--so easily demonstrated--that -fully 90 per cent. of the capitalists, big and little, have come -from the ranks of the workers, while the number of small investors -increases with such leaps and bounds as almost to defy the efforts of -the statistician to keep pace with them. It was these undeniable facts -that compelled Bernstein, though a Socialist, to take issue with Marx. -He saw that there was no “increasing misery” of the masses, that the -wealth of the world was not being centralized in a few hands; but that, -instead, the number of the possessing classes grows absolutely and -relatively. - -In all my letters, John, I have tried to avoid such things as abstruse -theories and dry statistics, but we have at last reached a point -where statistics are necessary if we are to get a clear view of the -situation. Such statistics are necessary, not only because they show -the absurdity of Marx’s predictions, but also for the reason that -without this knowledge we should be unable to protect ourselves against -the false testimony that Socialists are so ready to introduce as -“facts.” - -For example, John Spargo (in “Socialism”) quotes Lucien Sanial as -authority for the statement that, in 1900, there were 250,251 persons -in the United States who possessed $67,000,000,000, “out of a total of -$95,000,000,000, given as the national wealth; that is to say, .9 of -one per cent of the total number in all occupations owned 70.5 per cent -of the total national wealth. The middle class, consisting of 8,429,845 -persons, being 29 per cent of the total number in all occupations, -owned $24,000,000,000, or 25.3 per cent of the total national wealth. -The lowest class, the proletariat, consisting of 20,393,137 persons, -being 70.1 per cent of the total number in all occupations, owned but -$4,000,000,000, or 4.2 per cent of the total wealth.” In brief: “Of the -29,073,233 persons ten years old and over engaged in occupations, .9 of -1 per cent own 70.5 per cent of total wealth.” - -Mr. Spargo asks us to accept these figures as true because Mr. Sanial, -“an expert statistician,” says that they are authentic. Don’t let him -fool you, John. Mr. Sanial simply “guesses” that his statistics are -reliable, and, as he is a “red card” Socialist, he must either tell us -just where he got his authority for these figures or be ruled out of -court as a prejudiced “guesser.” - -And he can’t do it. He can’t do it, simply because there are no census -records, or other official figures, upon which to base his statistics -on wealth distribution between the classes, no accurate information -upon this subject within the reach of any human being. Yet it is upon -such “evidence” that Socialists rely to prove that Marx was a true -prophet! - -But this is an old trick. As Stuart P. West says (_The Common Cause_, -June, 1912), “the Socialist of the agitator-demagogue type has no fine -sensibilities about making his statements square with painstaking -inquiries into the truth. He makes broad assertions, backing them up -with a few statistics which are partly guess-work, partly half-truths, -and relies upon the lack of information among his audience to do the -rest.” - -So much for the unreliable character of Socialist figures in general. -Now, let us get down to facts. - -The Erfurt platform (1891) repeated Marx’s assertion that among -the workers there is a “growing insecurity of existence, misery, -oppression, slavery, degradation and exploitation.” If you thought -that this might be true, John, what would you expect to find? That the -worker was being pressed closer to the wall, would you not? That wages -increased slowly, so slowly as scarcely to approximate the bare cost -of subsistence; that there was a more rapid extension of the hours of -labor, with pauperism a general rather than an exceptional condition. -Let us see. - -In the United States, wages have practically doubled since 1860 and -the hours of labor have decreased from 15 to 30 per cent. In Norway, -Sweden, Germany, Japan, and several other countries, the increase in -wages since 1860 has also been fully (where not more than) 100 per -cent, while the hours of labor, especially since 1890, have shown a -tendency toward improvement consistent with such progress in the United -States (cf. _The Common Cause_, loc. cit.). - -The statistics on pauperism afford quite as telling an argument against -Marx’s prediction of the increasing misery. In the United States, in -1886, the ratio of paupers was 116.6 to each one hundred thousand -inhabitants. In 1903 the ratio had decreased to 101.4 per each one -hundred thousand inhabitants. - -In England the figures are even more impressive, for the ratio of -paupers fell from 62.7 per one thousand inhabitants in 1849 to 26.2 in -1905. As Mr. West says: “There were actually 200,000 fewer paupers in -1905 than in 1849, although the population of the country during these -fifty-six years almost doubled, and this in the face of the Marxian -predictions.” - -But if Marx missed fire in his prophesy regarding the general labor -situation, does not the “trustification of industry” show that he -was right in the prediction that the wealth of the world was to be -concentrated in the hands of the few? Not at all. The census figures of -manufactures in the United States--and these figures are representative -of world conditions in manufacturing--prove conclusively that the small -establishments are not being crushed out of existence. It is true -that there has been a steady concentration of industries through the -organization of the combinations known as “trusts,” and if it could -be shown that this concentration meant that the ownership of all the -industries was falling into the hands of a smaller number of persons, -there might be some ground for the Socialist contention that the few -are absorbing the wealth of the many. - -Ten years ago it looked as if this was what was happening, but, during -the past decade, the ownership of these corporations has changed -so completely that there can no longer be any doubt concerning the -outcome. Instead of being a device to promote the cause of Socialism -by concentrating the wealth of the nation in the hands of a few -interests, the modern “trust” has become in reality an agency for the -diffusion of wealth. - -Of course, as you know, John, a corporation--even a “trust”--is -owned by those who hold its stock. Every shareholder is a partner in -the concern; so, when we find that, instead of being owned by fewer -persons, the stock is distributed among increasing thousands of -persons, it is difficult to see where there is any evidence of marked -concentration of industrial wealth. - -If you take, for example, the great railway systems, you will find -that, whereas in 1901 nine of the leading roads were owned by -50,000 stockholders, in 1911 the stock in these companies was held -by 118,000 persons. In 1901 the stock in the fifteen industrial -corporations--popularly termed “trusts”--was held by 82,000 persons; in -1911 more than 247,000 individuals owned the stock in these companies. - -Think for a moment what these figures mean. “Twenty years ago,” said -Mr. West (_The Common Cause_, August, 1912), “before the movement -of combinations had begun, the steel properties of this country -were owned by not more than 5,000 persons.” (That might well be -called “concentration of industrial wealth,” John!) “Now the Steel -Corporation, which at the highest estimate does not represent more -than 60 per cent of the steel production of the United States, is -owned by 150,000 persons.” As another writer recently said: “If -the attorney-general should succeed in destroying the value of the -Steel Corporation’s securities, he would not only deprive thousands -of the provision they have made against old age, but stop the -wholesome movement that is making for the _popular ownership of -the big corporations and thus for the checking of dangerous wealth -concentration_.” - -You see how little evidence there is in support of the Socialist “law” -of concentration. - -Another contention of Marx and his followers is that concentration will -also show itself in the principal industry of humanity--agriculture. -Do the facts support this prediction? Certainly, not in England, or in -any other country in Europe. But how about the farmers of the United -States? Are they being absorbed and enslaved by a few capitalists? - -Once upon a time there was reason to fear that agriculture was to be -concentrated in the “bonanza” farms, but the years have gone and the -danger is past, “bonanza” farming having proved a failure. Instead, we -now have “intensive” farming--a method of raising crops that calls for -smaller, rather than larger, farms. - -To get a clear view of the agricultural situation in this country, we -shall not go back in the records to the date of Marx’s prediction. Such -figures would “show him up” in so ridiculous a light that I haven’t the -heart to subject his prophesy to this test. Instead, we will simply -retrace our steps to 1900, when we find that there were 5,737,372 farms -in the United States, the average size being 146.2 acres. In 1910--just -ten years later--the number of farms had increased to 6,340,357, and -the average holdings had decreased to 138 acres. - -If you desire to examine more detailed statistics, turn to _The -Common Cause_, (July, 1912), and read the evidence that Mr. West has -accumulated. “While the so-called law of concentration fails absolutely -to work out under these acreage statistics,” he says, “its failure -is still more complete when we compare the movement of acreage with -the movement of farm values. The average number of acres in the farm -came down from 146 in 1900 to 138 in 1910; but farm land (exclusive -of buildings), which was valued at $13,100,000,000 in 1900, rose to -$28,400,000,000 in 1910, an increase of 117.4 per cent. In other words, -the farm wealth of the country more than doubled during the ten-year -period while the average size of farm holdings considerably decreased. -The conclusion from these figures is, of course, inevitable: not only -has there been no concentration of wealth in land but, on the contrary, -there has been an astonishingly great and rapid diffusion of wealth.” - -Even Spargo, who is admittedly a well-informed Socialist, recognizes -the weakness of the Marxian theory when applied to agriculture, for -he says (“Socialism,” p. 134): “One thing seems certain, namely that -farm ownership is not on the decline. It is not being supplanted by -tenantry: the small farms are not being absorbed by larger ones.” - -This is in direct contradiction to the assertions of the majority of -Socialist agitators. With voice and pen they are still predicting the -downfall of the farmer, and this in spite of the frank admissions of -the more fair-minded and informed Socialists that the conditions they -describe do not exist. - -Quite as contrary to the facts are the Socialist assertions that the -slight increase in the proportion of mortgaged farms is proof of the -absorption of American farms by the “interests.” In asking us to -believe that this is what is happening, Socialists assume that we are -so ignorant as to real conditions that we can credit the theory that -a mortgage is an inevitable shortcut to bankruptcy, when, as a matter -of fact, it is more often the means by which the farmer rises from -the ranks of tenantry to the property-owning class. Indeed, Spargo -himself admits that this is so. In “Socialism” (p. 134), he says: “Now -while a mortgage is certainly not suggestive of independence, it may -be either a sign of decreasing or increasing independence. It may be -a step toward the ultimate loss of one’s farm or a step toward the -ultimate ownership of one. Much that has been written by Populist and -Socialist pamphleteers and editors upon this subject has been based -upon the entirely erroneous assumption that a mortgaged farm meant loss -of economic independence, whereas it often happens that it is a step -towards it.” - -Having seen how all the predictions of Marx break down when put to the -test of practical experience, we shall now consider one more fatal -mistake made by this great prophet of “scientific” Socialism. This is -what we may term the “verge of starvation” theory. - -According to this doctrine of the Socialists, the accumulation of -misery is keeping pace so literally with the accumulation of wealth -that the great mass of the workers are constantly sinking deeper and -deeper below the conditions of existence of their own class (see -“Communist Manifesto”). As a result, it is asserted, there are to-day -but comparatively few workers who are more than a week or two removed -from destitution, whereas, as Skelton shows (“Socialism: A Critical -Analysis,” p. 147), “no social fact is better established than that -the forty years which have passed since Marx penned this dismal -forecast have brought the working classes in every civilized country -not increasing degradation, misery, and enslavement, but increasing -material welfare, freedom and opportunity of development.” - -How is it in your case, John? Are you living on the verge of -starvation? If you were to be taken ill, or were to lose your job, -would your family be on the town within a week or two? I thought not, -and what is true in your case, is just as true in the majority of cases. - -There are statistics, too--and plenty of them--to prove that the -Socialists have an entirely erroneous impression of the financial -condition of the “masses.” First, let us take the savings bank -deposits; for, as you know, it is in this kind of a bank that the -worker usually puts his savings for safe keeping. The very rich do not -bother with a string of little accounts, and, accordingly, savings -bank deposits have always been accepted as a measure of the wealth -of the people of small or moderate means. Admitting this, what do we -find? That, in 1911, more than one in every ten persons in the United -States--counting all men, women and children--possessed a bank account, -the total amount of these accounts being no less than $4,212,584,000. - -The building and loan associations afford another means of deposit for -the savings of the worker, and, in 1911, the number of persons who held -shares in and paid dues to such associations was nearly 2,200,000, the -total assets of the societies being but a trifle less than one billion -dollars. - -If these facts are not sufficient, study the workers themselves; see -how they live and how they spend their money, and then ask yourself -if the Socialist is telling the truth when he says that this class of -citizens do not share in the increasing prosperity of the nation. - -The workers live far better to-day than the so-called middle class was -able to live half a century ago. As Willey states (“Laborer and the -Capitalist,” p. 190), there are servant girls at the present time who -own jewelry that costs more money than our grandmothers could afford to -spend for a wedding dress (quoted by Kress, “Questions of Socialists,” -p. 22). - -In addition to living under so much better conditions that most of the -workers now enjoy luxuries that the so-called well-to-do could ill have -afforded half a century ago, this class of citizens still manages to -find money for several other things. For example, the immigrant workers -succeed in saving enough out of their wages to send the vast sum of -$300,000,000 to foreign countries every year, while the enormous sums -spent by the workers each year in picture shows, candy and for drink in -the saloons would be sufficient to start every homeless man in America -upon the high road to the ownership of a home. - -Talk about locks and bolts against the masses, John--bars to prevent -them from enjoying the good things of life! Why, there would be none of -these good things of life--no enjoyment, no freedom of any kind--under -a system that placed a premium on laziness and saved its highest -rewards for the bosses--and that is what Socialism would do! - - - - -CHAPTER XII - -THE CLASS STRUGGLE - - - My dear John, - -It is almost impossible to find a Socialist agitator who does not -lay great stress upon the “class struggle.” I cannot remember having -listened to a single one of these gentry who has not asserted that -his “clear view of the economic situation” dates from the hour when -he first became “class-conscious”; and I do not think that many -Socialists will deny the statement that fully four-fifths of the -militant propaganda is an attempt to arouse the workers to this sense -of “class-consciousness.” - -Of course, the Socialists want you to believe that the revolution they -are preaching is really an evolutionary process by means of the ballot. -But, as you must have noticed, John, their promise of peaceful methods -is not borne out by the gospel of class-hatred which they preach under -the name of “the class struggle.” It is “class war” that they are -trying to incite; and in this, as one writer has said, “evolutionary -Socialists closely rival, even if they do not always equal, the members -of the revolutionary organizations.... _No graver mistake, therefore, -could be made in diagnosing Socialism than to regard evolutionary -Socialists_ (so-called) _as opposed to revolutionary methods_. The -whole gospel of the ‘class war’ as commonly preached by Socialists -... is a direct and malicious incitement to the ignorant to adopt -revolutionary methods” (“A Case Against Socialism,” p. 101). - -There are lots of things in Socialism that a man doesn’t have to -believe in order to be a Socialist, but class-consciousness is not one -of them. Before he can sign up, before he can get his red card, he must -affix his signature to a document in which he admits that he recognizes -the existence of a class struggle. - -Marx and Engels formulated this doctrine and preached it in their -“Communist Manifesto,” where they said: - -“The history of all past society is the history of class antagonism, -which took different forms in different epochs. But whatever form they -may have taken, the exploitation of one section of society by another -is a fact common to all previous centuries.... The first step in the -working-class revolution is the raising of the proletariat [workers] -to the position of the ruling class.... The proletariat will use its -political power to wrest by degrees all capital from the bourgeoisie -[employers] to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of -the State, _i. e._ of the proletariat organized as the ruling class.... -If the proletariat, forced by its struggle against the bourgeoisie to -organize as a class, makes itself by a revolution the ruling class, -and, as the ruling class, destroys by force the old conditions of -production, it destroys along with these conditions of production the -conditions of existence of class antagonism, class in general, and -therewith its own domination as a class” (pp. 20, 21). - -Here we have the doctrine of class-war in a nutshell. Believing -that the wealth of the world in every kind was destined to become -concentrated in the hands of the few, and that all the people -would of necessity be divided into two distinct classes, with -absolutely antagonistic interests, Marx assumed that a class-war must -result--the proletariat, or wage-earning class, waging war with the -property-owning class to compel the latter to give back the property it -had stolen and restore liberty to the “enslaved worker.” - -As you can see, John, the doctrine of the class-war is necessarily one -of the foundation stones of the Socialist gospel. Ferri recognized its -importance as you may ascertain if you will turn to page 145 of his -“Socialism and Positive Science,” where he says: - -“The other sociological theory by which Karl Marx has really dissipated -the clouds which obscured till now the heaven of Socialist aspirations, -and which has furnished to scientific Socialism the political compass -for steering itself with complete assurance in the contentions of the -life of every day, is the great historic law of the class struggle.” - -The _Manifesto_ of the Socialist Party of Great Britain takes the same -stand when it says that “the Socialists say that the present form of -property-holding divides society into two great classes”; while the -Social Democratic party of England repeats Marx’s assertion that “the -history of human society is a history of class struggles arising from -the antagonism of class interests,” and appeals to the workers to make -themselves “masters of their own country and of all the resources, -political and material” (Quelch, “The Social Democratic Party”). - -“There are in reality but two classes,” says the _Socialist Standard_ -(December, 1907), “those who live by labor and those who live upon -those who labor--the two classes of exploiter and exploited.” - -Here, then, is the crux of the whole question. The workers are told -that they are being robbed and exploited by the capitalists, and that -there can be nothing in common between the two classes. “The task -before us is not to appeal to the capitalist class to do something, -but to organize the workers for the overthrow of that class, so they -(the workers) may do something for themselves. The battle cry of the -workers’ party is not ‘the right to work,’ but ‘the right to the -product of our labor,’ and the right waits only upon their might” -(_Socialist Standard_, November 1, 1908). - -“The Capitalist class, in its mad race for profits,” says the American -Socialist party platform (1908), “is bound to exploit the workers to -the very limit of their endurance, and to sacrifice their physical, -moral and mental welfare to its own insatiable greed.” - -If we turn to France, we find Jaurès (“Studies in Socialism”) preaching -the same doctrine. “Society,” he says, “is to-day divided into classes -with opposing interests, one class owning the means of life and the -other nothing but their power to work. Never in the history of Society -was the working class so free from all traces of property as to-day.” - -I might go on indefinitely citing the words of prominent Socialists who -have preached Marx’s doctrine of class hatred; but, as the whole story -is summed up by our own “Rev.” George D. Herron, I shall (as a final -example) permit him to tell us what the class-struggle means to the -Socialists. He says: - -“There are no words that can make this fact hideous and ghastly enough, -or vivid and revolutionary enough--the fact that society and its -institutions are organized for the purpose of enabling some people to -live off of other people, the few to live off the many. There is no -language realistic enough, or possessed of sufficient integrity, to lay -bare the chasm between the class that works and the class that reaps -the fruit of that work; between the class that is grist for the great -world-mill of economic might and the class that harvests that grist. -And until the working class becomes conscious of itself as the only -class that has a right to be, until the worker understands that he is -exploited and bound by the power which his own unpaid labor places in -the hands that exploit and bind him ... our dreams and schemes of a -common good or better society are but philistine utopias, our social -and industrial reforms but self-deceit, and our weapons but the shadows -of stupidity and hypocrisy” (“From Revolution to Revolution,” p. 3). - -Now, John, as a matter of fact, have you in your experience as a -working man ever run across the class struggle as Socialists define it? - -I have put this question to scores of workers and the answer has always -been the same. Not one of them, unless he happened to be a red-card -Socialist who took the “class struggle” on faith, has ever found the -class-consciousness out of which the revolution is to generate. - -I do not deny that there is such a factor as class-interest in the -industrial world. We see this interest exhibited in the industrial -struggles that are almost daily taking place. The labor organizations -are evidence of the existence of a class interest, but, beyond this, -there is no class consciousness other than that which is incited by the -Socialist agitators in the hope that they may tempt the worker to deeds -of violence. - -Think of it, John! The Socialist agitator must know, if he has even -ordinary common sense, that the worker is not entitled to the whole -product of labor--that it is not labor that finally fixes the value of -a commodity. Yet, basing his arguments upon this self-evident fallacy, -he calls upon the workers to unite and overthrow the present industrial -system that they may take back from their employers the capital “of -which they have been robbed.” - -Nor will any real Socialist deny that this is the purpose of their -propaganda. Even Hyndman, who is anything but a rank revolutionist, -said in his celebrated debate, “Will Socialism Benefit the English -People?”: “We are accused of preaching discontent and stirring up -actual conflict. _We do preach discontent, and we mean, if we can, to -stir up actual conflict._” - -After this frank admission you will probably not be surprised to read -Jack London’s declaration of war: - -“We intend nothing less than to destroy existing society and to take -the whole world. If the law of the land permits, we fight for this end -peaceably, at the ballot box. If the law of the land does not permit -the peaceful destruction of society, and if we have force meted out to -us, we resort to force ourselves. In Russia the Revolutionists kill the -officers of the Government. I am a Revolutionist.” - -And Harry Quelch, in _Justice_ (October 21, 1893), voiced just as crude -an expression of the Marxian “gospel of hate”: - -“We are prepared to use any means, any weapon--from the ballot-box to -the bomb; from organized voting to organized revolt; from parliamentary -contests to political assassination--which opportunity offers and which -will help in the end we have in view. Let this be understood, we have -absolutely no scruples as to the means to be employed.” - -Frankly: Do you hate your employer? Would you harm a hair of his head -even if you had the chance? Do you curse him whenever you think of -him, crying with Archibald Crawford: “_Damn the Boss! Damn the Boss’s -son! Damn his family carriage! And damn his family, too!_”? Do you -think that Herron knows what he is talking about when he says that “our -whole system of life and labor, with all that we call civilization is -based on nothing else than war ... a war so terrible, so full of death, -that its blood is upon every human hand, upon every loaf of bread, and -upon every human institution”? Do you agree with the conclusion that -it is “only folly, or worse, falsehood, that prates of peace in such a -society”? (Quoted by _The Revolt_, April 25, 1912.) - -Yet this is but a sample of the “truth” as it is taught from the -soap-box. Wherever there is a militant propagandist, you will hear this -kind of an appeal. “In fact, the repetition of the bitter denunciation -of society is so constant,” says Peter W. Collins (_The Common Cause_, -January, 1912), “that on the mind of him who becomes an attendant at -the soap-box, this doctrine of class-hatred, of enmity among men, -gradually sinks into the mind and heart and the poison does its work, -as the dripping of water wears away a stone.” - -This is what the Socialist wants. His prime object is to create a -force among the toilers that may be welded into a great revolutionary -movement. In this appeal slumber the darkest and the most cruel -instincts of man’s nature. - -There is no room in this country for class-hatred. It does not exist -outside of the ranks of the Socialists. There is, in fact, more -class-hatred shown by the rival factions in the Socialist movement in -their squabbles with one another, than there is between employer and -employe. Yet, by means of cunning misrepresentation and perversion of -facts, all who come under the influence of Socialism--even the children -in the Socialist Sunday schools--are made to take this wrong outlook -upon life; their mental balance is upset; they are incited to develop -a feeling of bitter hatred against those from whom they have suffered -no harm. In this way, by sowing the poisonous seed of prejudice -and class-hatred, it is hoped later on to reap the harvest of THE -REVOLUTION. - - - - -CHAPTER XIII - -SHALL WE TAKE IT OR PAY FOR IT? - - - My dear John, - -While some of the more mild-mannered advocates of Socialism will try to -make you believe that the change from private ownership to collective -ownership will be accomplished without confiscating anybody’s property, -there are few among the authoritative Marxists who consider such a -course, even as a remote possibility. Marx didn’t think that it could -be done, as you will see if you will turn to Engels’ “Preface” to the -English translation of “Capital” (p. xiv), and in this theory he is -supported by almost every Socialist apologist of note. Once in a while -we encounter a socialistic writer who proposes to compensate owners if -they will permit themselves to be expropriated “with a good grace,” a -theory which assumes that, if the owners of property are not entirely -willing that their possessions shall be taken away from them, they will -be punished by being forcibly deprived of their goods, whether they -like it or not. - -And, if you want still more corroborative testimony, turn to “The -Ethics of Socialism,” by Belfort Bax, and on pages 127 and 128 you will -read: “The Socialist has a distinct aim in view. If he can carry the -initial stages towards his realization by means of the count-of-heads -majority, by all means let him do so. If, on the other hand, he sees -the possibility of carrying a salient portion of his program by -trampling on that majority, by all means let him do this also.” - -Not long ago I discussed this question with one of the conservative -Socialists who believe that those who own property will be very glad to -help on the new régime by relinquishing their possessions. - -“You are mistaken,” he said. “We do not intend to confiscate. We shall -pay for everything we take. The worst we shall do is to compel the -capitalists to give us their property at the price which the commission -of awards sets as a fair return.” - -“But will not that defeat your whole scheme?” I asked. “If you give the -owners of productive capital a fair monetary return for their property, -would you not automatically create a set of class distinctions that -would be quite as pronounced as those which exist to-day?” - -“Oh,” he said, “we do not propose to give them for their property money -that they could invest; we shall give them bonds.” - -“How does that make any difference?” I persisted. “Interest-bearing -bonds would have a more definite effect than actual money. By giving -such bonds you would establish a perpetually-idle class, and so defeat -the aims of your movement.” - -“But the bonds will not bear interest,” he replied. “Interest is -usury--a crime which will not be permitted in the Socialist State. -As Leatham says (“The Class War,” p. 11): ‘Everyone who lends his -neighbor £5 and exacts £5 5s. in return is a criminal.’ Holders of -bonds may dispose of them, if they can find anybody who is foolish -enough to want to hoard money, but--once the value of the bonds has -been spent--that will end the matter, and we shall have eliminated the -property-possessing parasites without violence or ‘confiscation.’” - -Is it possible to conceive of a more one-sided arrangement? Valuable -property is to be taken from its owners and in return they are to be -given bonds which may or may not possess real value. In case nobody can -be found to purchase them, the possessors will have to be content with -the satisfaction of framing the certificates as evidence that they were -once members of an “exploiting class.” - -In this, however, the Socialists are really most logical. To take -wealth from a citizen in one kind would be the height of folly, if -the same wealth were promptly returned to him in another kind. Such a -transfer of productive property would mean nothing to the community. -The only way in which the Socialist scheme can be carried out is to -eliminate entirely all private rights in property used for purposes -of production, distribution and exchange. If we admit the Socialist -contention that labor is entitled to all value produced, no matter how -it is produced, and that the worker is now the victim of spoliation, -the only logical attitude is a defence of confiscation. - -Most Socialists assume this position and excuse it on the ground that -such an act on the part of the Co-operative State would be eminently -just. - -Rev. Charles H. Vail, in “Modern Socialism” (p. 152), upholds this -method of reasoning. “As to the confiscation of property,” he says, -“the misconception here relates to the justice of confiscation, and is -due to a failure to comprehend the nature of capitalist accumulations. -The Socialist contends that all such is the result of spoliation -and exploitation. The capitalist is able to appropriate the product -of labor by reason of his ownership of certain means of production. -Private property, then, in the instruments of production is unjust. -The confiscation of private property is therefore just. If capital -represents the fleecings of labor, no one can contend that its holders -have claim to compensation on the ground of equity. The only grounds -upon which compensation can be argued is that of mercy or expediency.” - -Even the Socialist will admit that under existing laws confiscation -would be illegal. So long as they live under the present system they -may be willing to abide by these laws--at least to the extent of not -openly violating them and so subjecting themselves to the danger of -incarceration in capitalist prisons. They insist, however, that as -these laws were made for the protection of property-holders, there is -no reason why they should not change them and so make the ownership of -property just as great a crime as the theft of property is to-day. All -they wait for is the power to accomplish this purpose. - -In other words, they stand for the principle that might makes right, -and as you know, John, might doesn’t do anything of the kind. In taking -this position, Socialism proposes to violate natural right. A majority -might do this; a majority might compel a minority to relinquish the -rights that are inherent in natural law; but Socialism has no more -right to do this thing than it has to re-establish slavery. Natural -right does not depend upon a vote of a majority, but is grounded on -primary law, and is eternal, no matter what majorities may say to the -contrary. - -That the contrary is the position of Socialists upon this question is -fully attested by that eminent apostle of Socialism, Eugene V. Debs. In -_The International Socialist Review_ (February, 1912), Debs says: - -“As a revolutionist, I can have no respect for capitalist property -laws, nor the least scruple about violating them. I hold all such laws -to have been enacted by chicanery, fraud and corruption, with the sole -end in view of dispossessing, robbing and enslaving the working class. -But this does not imply that I propose making an individual law-breaker -of myself and butting my head against the stone wall of existing -property laws. That might be called force, but it would not be that. It -would be mere weakness and folly. If I had the force to overthrow these -despotic laws, I would use it without an instant’s hesitation or delay, -but I haven’t got it, and so I am law-abiding under protest--not from -scruple--and bide my time.” - -That the great majority of Socialists take the same position upon the -question of confiscation will scarcely be denied by those who are -at all familiar with the Socialist trend of thought. That they are -serious in their effort to incite disrespect for all property laws -is shown by the efforts that are made to teach the children in their -Sunday schools that all rent, profit and interest are no more than so -many forms of robbery. “The Red Catechism,” used in Socialist schools, -holds up to execration all those who are supposed to stand in the way -of the revolution. They are referred to as the “landlord class” and -the “capitalist class,” and in these categories everybody is included -who owns anything, however little, or who employs another person for a -wage, even though it be but the bellows-boy or a humble dressmaker’s -assistant. Thus, “The Red Catechism” asks: - -“When would Socialists allow anyone to have a machine?” - -“When a person can use a machine for her own use. For instance, -Socialists would let a dressmaker have a machine for her own work, but -not for the purpose of employing others to exploit and rob them,” is -the answer. - -How craftily the Socialist school-teachers impart their philosophy of -destruction to the boys and girls who are so unfortunate as to come -within their sphere of influence is told by a story, the truth of which -is vouched for by the special commissioners of the London _Standard_--a -paper which recently conducted a painstaking investigation of the -menacing character of Socialism. - -A well-known Socialist speaker and writer was addressing a meeting in -Islington, attended chiefly by children. A portion of his address ran -somewhat as follows: - -“The most interesting event of the week has been the train murder, -of which most of you have no doubt heard. Two men were seated in a -railway carriage. The one was rich; he had a diamond pin in his tie, -a thick gold chain across his waistcoat, money jingled in his pockets -when he moved. The other was poor, miserably poor; he wanted money -for everything--food, clothes, lodging. He asked the rich man to give -him of his superfluity; the rich man refused and so the poor man took -by force what he could not get by entreaty, and in the use of that -force--the only effective argument which the poor possess--the rich man -was killed. The shedding of blood is always to be deplored, but there -are times when it is warranted. Violence is a legitimate weapon for the -righting of social wrongs.” - -The address over, the lecturer went about among the children -questioning them with the object of finding out whether they had -grasped the meaning of his address. To a bright intelligent girl of -twelve, he said: - -“You heard what I said about the two men in the train?” - -“Yes,” was the reply. - -“Did you understand what I meant by my story?” - -“Oh, yes,” answered the girl. “You meant that if we hadn’t got -something that we wanted, and somebody else has got it, we could go and -take it from them.” And the lecturer, smiling his approval, passed on. - -There are Socialists who will indignantly repudiate all such ideas; -yet we have but to turn to some of the most respectable authorities on -Socialism to find ample evidence that the gentleman who lectured before -the children of Islington was scarcely more radical than many of the -more eminent advocates of Marxism. Bax, for example, in his “Ethics -of Socialism,” admits that “for him [the Socialist] it is indifferent -whether social and political ends are realized by lawful or lawless -means.” - -If it be said that this is a principle which was applied by Bax to -conditions in general, and had nothing to do with the conduct of -individuals, what is to be said of the advice which he gives (“Outlooks -from the New Standpoint”) to those who are searching for the “new” -standard of personal integrity. “The cheapest way of obtaining goods is -not to pay for them,” said Bax, “and if a buyer can avoid paying for -the goods he obtains, he has quite as much right to do so as the seller -has to receive double or treble their cost price and call it profit.” - -Karl Kautsky, who is regarded by many as the official interpreter of -Socialism, has also laid down laws for the guidance of Socialists in -ethical matters. He advances the theory that the moral law prevails -only when we have intercourse with members of our own class, or social -organization. “One of the most important duties is that of truthfulness -to comrades,” he says (_Neue Zeit_, October 3, 1903). “Towards enemies -this duty was never considered binding.” As the Socialist, even from -his Sunday school days is taught to regard every employer as his enemy, -the natural effect of such a principle, if put into operation in every -day affairs, is obvious. - -At the time this statement was made by Kautsky, some resentment was -expressed towards him because, as he himself relates (“Ethics and -the Materialistic Conception of History,” p. 157), his “statement -was interpreted as if he had attempted to establish a special social -democratic principle in opposition to the principle of the eternal -moral law which commands unconditional truthfulness to all men.” -“Whether this interpretation was right or wrong,” says Ming (“The -Morality of Modern Socialism,” p. 136), “we may judge from the -well-attested fact that in a Socialist meeting in Hamburg a motion made -to disavow Kautsky’s proposition was lost.” - -In view of all these facts, it is difficult to see what ground -Socialists can have for denying that they expect to put the process -of confiscation into effect. Of course, not all Socialists are -so radical as Bax, who takes occasion repeatedly to declare his -advocacy of this doctrine. “Now, justice being henceforth identified -with confiscation and injustice with the rights of property, there -remains only the question of ‘ways and means.’... The moral effect of -sudden expropriation would be much greater than that of any gradual -process.” To him there can be no middle-ground between “possession and -confiscation.” Unless a man accepts the doctrine that private ownership -is unjust and confiscation just, he cannot be a true Socialist (op. -cit., pp. 75-76). - -As we have seen, John, the principle of confiscation, once we have -accepted the proposition that private property is theft, is perfectly -logical and even the methods of compensation proposed by Socialists are -nothing more or less than confiscation in disguise. Cecil Chesterton -states this fact very clearly in _The Church Socialist Quarterly_ -(January, 1911), where he says: - -“Socialism means confiscation. Let no Socialist deceive himself about -that. However ‘evolutionary’ (whatever that may mean) the process may -be, whatever solatium to the present property-owners humanity and -a sense of justice may dictate, Socialism means confiscation. The -issue may be stated very concisely. However gradual the process of -transferring wealth from the rich class to the community, will the rich -at the end of that process be as wealthy as before, or won’t they? If -they will, then the end of Socialism has not been achieved. If they -won’t, then, under whatever form, their property has been confiscated.” - -Quite in keeping with this presentation of the case is the resolution -passed by the Socialist Federation of Australasia, held in Melbourne, -in June, 1912. It read: - -“The Federation vehemently protests against the working class being -misled by the Labor or other parties into the belief that it is -possible to socialize the instruments of production by a gigantic -scheme of ‘buying out,’ or compensation to the possessing class, -and warns the workers against endorsing such a Utopian, immoral and -impracticable scheme.” This, says The Socialist (March, 1911), the -organ of _the Socialist_ Labor party of England, “is a condensed -statement of the position laid down in our manifesto of 1908.” - -Even Morris Hillquit, a conservative American Socialist, is compelled -to admit that confiscation is likely to become the order of the day -once Socialists are in power. “It is not unlikely that in countries in -which the social transformation will be accomplished peacefully, the -State will compensate the expropriated proprietors, while every violent -revolution will be followed by confiscation. The Socialists have not -much concern about this issue” (“Socialism in Theory and Practice,” p. -140). - -It may be true, as Hillquit says, that Socialists “are not much -concerned” with the charge that they are planning to set up a State -in which the Divine law, “Thou shalt not steal,” is to be set at -naught--a State that will take from the successful and the thrifty -the possessions they have accumulated--a State against the actions of -which there can be no redress. But what have you to say as a decent -law-abiding citizen, John? What? - -Before leaving this subject, John, there is still another difficulty -to be considered: if the Socialist State proposes to pay for the -property it seizes, where is the money to come from for even an -inadequate scheme of compensation? Do you think that the new State -would be content to assume the additional burden imposed by such a -debt as would be represented by all these obligations? No matter how -extortionate the new methods of taxation might be, if they stop short -of relative confiscation, it would take many decades to extinguish this -liability. Is it not more likely that history would repeat itself, and -that the story of the French Revolution would be repeated in the new -Co-operative Commonwealth? In France, in the days of the Revolution, -there was compensation for the expropriated in the beginning, but -this speedily resolved itself into expropriation without indemnity. -Nor must it be forgotten that, whatever provisions might be made, -the State would be bound by its principles to prevent those whom -it compensated from investing their funds, or engaging in business -competition; transferring their money or bonds, or bequeathing their -possessions to others; for, if this were not done, compensation -would prove to be the means of re-establishing the very system which -Socialism seeks to destroy. - - - - -CHAPTER XIV - -THE REVOLUTION - - - My dear John, - -You will meet many Socialists who will tell you that the Marxist creed -anticipates that no force will be required in bringing about the change -from capitalism to collectivism--no violence, no bloodshed. If anybody -attempts to make you believe that the Socialist purpose is a peaceful -one, refer him to “The Communist Manifesto,” which was drafted by Marx -and Engels, and terminates with these words: - -“The Communists do not seek to conceal their views and aims. They -declare openly that their purpose can be obtained only by violent -overthrow of all existing arrangements of society. Let the ruling -classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have -nothing to lose in it but their chains; they have a world to win.” - -If you are still told, as I have been, that such language was used by -the founders of Socialism, not because they meant to incite violence, -but simply to arouse the interests of the worker in their propaganda, -call your Socialist’s attention to the transactions of The Hague -Congress in 1872, when Marx declared: - -“In most countries of Europe violence must be the lever of our -social reform. We must finally have recourse to violence, in order -to establish the rule of labor.... The revolution must be universal, -and we find a conspicuous example in the Commune of Paris, which has -failed because in other capitals--Berlin and Madrid--a simultaneous -revolutionary movement did not break out in connection with this mighty -upheaval of the proletariat of Paris.” - -Indeed, John, so revolutionary a program can never be brought about -by anything less than the most violent of revolutions. It is true -that there are Socialists who profess to believe that this end can -be achieved by legal and political means; yet they themselves admit -that this rule will hold good only in times and in countries where -the purposes of the revolution can be accomplished by such peaceful -methods. Where political means are wanting, or the Socialist majority -is insufficient to overawe completely all opposition, recourse to -violence must be had. - -We must not forget that, as Professor Woolsey says (“Communism and -Socialism,” p. 228), “there never was a revolution since history -told the story of the world so complete as this” (namely, that which -Socialism proposes to effect); and, as he later remarks (p. 280), -nothing short of the persuasion of violent revolution “can lead holders -of property ... to acquiesce in so complete an overthrow of society and -downfall of themselves, as modern Socialism contemplates.” - -Personally, with your knowledge of human nature, can you conceive of -any other method by which Socialism can accomplish its aims? Do you -deem it possible that such world-wide dispossession can come without a -struggle on the part of those who are to be excluded from the enjoyment -of what they have been brought up to believe they rightfully possess? -Is it reasonable to expect that all holders of productive property, -both large and small, will placidly surrender at the request of the -Socialist demagogues? You don’t believe this could happen? Neither do -the Socialists. In his “History of Socialism” (p. 10), Kirkup, who is -anything but an extreme radical, admits that “the prevailing Socialism -of the day is in large part based on the frankest and most outspoken -revolutionary materialism”; while Hyndman, who is conspicuously the -advocate of political action, writes in “Social Democracy” (p. 22): “We -are not so foolish as to say we will not use force if it would bring -us to a better period more rapidly. We do not say we are such men of -peace.” - -Our own Charles H. Kerr, the head of the great American Socialist -publishing house, takes a similar stand. In discussing the means by -which American Socialists plan to overthrow capitalism, he says (“What -to Read on Socialism,” p. 10): - -“As to the means by which the capitalist class is to be overthrown, -the real question worth considering is what means will prove most -effective. If it could best be done by working for ‘one thing at a -time’ and bidding for the votes of the people who have no idea what the -class-struggle means, we should no doubt favor that method. But history -has made it very clear that such a method is a dead failure.... If, -on the other hand, the working class could best gain power by taking -up arms, just as the capitalist class did when it dislodged the -land-holding nobility from power, why not?” - -These advocates of a violent revolution are mild-spoken, indeed, as -compared to many of the better-known apologists of Socialism. Bebel, -for example, in “Unsere Ziele” (p. 44), speaks more emphatically. - -“We must not shudder at the thought of the possible employment of -violence; we must not raise an alarm cry at the suppression of -‘existing rights’, at violent expropriation, etc. History teaches us -that at all times new ideas were realized, as a rule, by a violent -conflict with the defenders of the past, and that the combatants for -new ideas struck blows as deadly as possible at the defenders of -antiquity. Not without reason does Karl Marx in his work on ‘Capital’ -exclaim: - -“‘Violence is the midwife that waits on every ancient society that is -to give birth to a new one; violence is itself a social factor.’” - -Dietzgen, too, advocates nothing short of revolution, and sees no -reason why violence should be condemned under such conditions. - -“Oh, ye short-sighted and narrow-minded who cannot give up the fad -of the moderate organic progress!” he says. “Don’t you perceive that -all our great liberal passions sink to the level of mere trifling, -because the great question of social salvation is in the order of the -day? Don’t you perceive that struggle and destruction must precede -peace and construction, and that chaotic accumulation of material is -the necessary condition of systematic organization, just as the calm -precedes the tempest and the latter the general purification of the -air?... History stands still because she gathers force for a great -catastrophe.” - -Both the “Red Catechism” and Joynés’ “Socialist Catechism” teach the -same doctrine. In the “Red Catechism,” one looks in vain for any hint -of contemplated compensation or peaceful methods of expropriation. - -“How are the forms of government changed?” is asked. - -“By means of revolution,” is the answer. - -And in the “Socialist Catechism,” we find these words: - -“Q. What is the revolution for which the Socialists strive? A. A -revolution which will render impossible the individual appropriation -of the products of associated labor and consequent exploitation and -enslavement of the laborers.... Q. _How are forms of government -changed, so as to readjust them to the economical changes in the -forms of production which have been silently evolving in the body of -society?_ A. _By means of revolution._ Q. _Give an instance of this?_ -A. _The French Revolution of 1789._” - -And even the Socialist hymn-books, the books from which the children in -the Socialist schools sing, are filled with such sentiments as: - - “They’ll know full soon, the kind of vermin, - Our bullets hit in that last fight.” - -Or, as another Socialist song has it: - - “Rise in your might, brothers, bear it no longer, - Assemble in masses throughout the whole land; - Teach the vile blood-suckers who are the stronger - When workers and robbers confronted shall stand.” - -Certainly, Kirkup is not far from the true Socialist ideal when he -asserts (“History of Socialism,” p. 160), that “a great revolutionary -catastrophe is to close the capitalistic era”; even though he adds, -“this must be regarded as a very bad preparation for the time of social -peace which is forthwith to follow.” - -It is not easy for Socialists to evade this issue, especially in -view of the fact that the instructions they have received from their -leaders so invariably tend to incite violence. “If the people have not -a scrapnel to shoot, they have broken bottles to throw,” said Victor -Grayson at Huddersfield, on August 12, 1907. “Chemistry,” says Hyndman -(“Historical Basis of Socialism,” p. 443), “has placed at the disposal -of the desperate and the needy cheap and powerful explosives, the full -effects of which are as yet unknown. Every day adds new discoveries -in this field; the dynamite of ideas is accompanied in the background -by the dynamite of material force. These modern explosives may easily -prove to capitalism what gunpowder was to feudalism.” - -If there remained any doubt as to the precise purposes of Socialism, -the attitude which its press and its speakers assume toward the -use of violence during the French Revolution and the Paris Commune -would afford evidence in plenty. Marx lauded the uprising of 1871 and -praised its bloodthirsty crimes as the work of heroes. “Workingmen’s -Paris, with its Commune, will be forever celebrated as the glorious -harbinger of a new society,” he said, in “The Civil War in France” (p. -78); and there is practically no end to the quotations that might be -presented from the writings of Socialists who support Marx’s position. -Herron refers to the Commune as “a sort of glad and beatific moment, -a momentary and prophetic spring-time in the long procession of the -changing forms of parasitism and hypocrisy and brute force which we -know as law and government” (_Boston Address_, 1903). - -Quelch, too, in _Justice_ (London, March 18, 1911), signalizes the -Paris Commune as “a glorious event, which should ever be borne in mind -and celebrated by the proletariat of all civilized countries,” while -the _Appeal to Reason_, when asked why American Socialists celebrated -the anniversary of the Commune, replied (August 29, 1893): - -“Because it represented a rise of the working class and served as a -splendid example of what working men can accomplish.” - -And this glorious event, this “glad and beatific moment,” is thus -described by Mazzini, the Italian patriot: - -“A people was wallowing about as if drunk, raging against itself and -lacerating its limbs with its teeth, while howling triumphant cries, -dancing an infernal dance before the grave which it had dug with its -own hand, killing, torturing, burning and committing crimes without -sense, shame or hope. It put one in mind of the most horrid visions of -Dante’s Hell.” - -The Socialist historian, Benham, describes the events of the Commune -in his “Proletarian Revolt,” and the following summary of this -description, with the pages for reference, appears in “Questions of -Socialists and Their Answers” (p. 108), by Rev. William Stephens Kress: - - Forty thousand Parisians were killed in battle (p. 211); public - buildings and priceless works of art were burned or destroyed; - Napoleon’s column was torn down; the movable property of people - who had fled the city was confiscated (p. 101); churches were - pillaged (p. 57); Jesuits were robbed of 400,000 francs (p. 43); - 12 unfriendly journals were suppressed (p. 75); 300 of the clergy - were imprisoned (p. 59); 200 priests were held as hostages (p. 118); - priests were murdered (pp. 169, 171, 172, 181) ... Deguery, the Curé - of the Madeline, when catechised by Rigault, judge of the Council of - Discipline, said: “We teach the religion of our Lord Jesus Christ.” To - which Rigault replied: “There are no Lords. We do not know any Lords.” - When Archbishop Darboy was questioned, he answered: “I am a servant - of God.” Rigault asked: “Where does he live?” To which the Archbishop - replied: “Everywhere.” Rigault then gave command: “Send this man to - the Conciergerie, and issue a warrant for the arrest of his Master, - one called God, who has no permanent residence, and is consequently, - contrary to law, living in a perpetual state of vagabondage” (p. - 57). Archbishop Darboy was ordered shot. When the order was given to - fire he blessed the soldiers. “That’s your benediction, is it? Now - take mine,” said Lolive, one of the soldiers, as he fired a pistol - bullet into the Archbishop’s body (p. 158). Mr. Washburne, American - Minister to France, said of Darboy: “He was one of the most charming - and agreeable of men and was beloved alike by rich and poor. He had - spent his whole life in acts of charity and benevolence” (p. 158). - Speaking of the deadly hatred on the part of the Communards of all - things religious, Benham remarks: “The actions of the Commune were - proofs positive that they subscribed to the skeptical tenets which - hold priests to be the advocates of human ignorance and a bar to the - progress of the race” (p. 59). - -It is such scenes of bloodshed and injustice--just this kind of triumph -of might over right--that Socialists would have repeated. They cannot -deny this, John, because this program, horrible as it may seem to us, -is perfectly logical from the Socialist point of view. “According to -Socialist ethics,” says Ming (“The Morality of Modern Socialism,” -p. 344), “all means are morally good which lead to the victory of -the proletariat. Why, then, should violence not be justified if it -brings success? The working class is the only class that has the right -and power to be; it is society, the nation, the true public, while -capitalism is but a cancer of the social organism. Why should it not -employ violence when deemed an effective means for emancipation, -conquest of power and introduction of collectivism?” - -No, John, it is not when Socialists advocate violence that they are -illogical; it is when they deny that they advocate and plan to resort -to violence in accomplishing their purposes that they show a lack of -logic. - - - - -CHAPTER XV - -WHAT WE ARE PROMISED - - - My dear John, - -We have already seen how impossible many of the basic theories of -Socialism are; but, heretofore, we have been dealing with definite -proposals, and not with the general application of the Socialist ideas. -To return to the simile of the jig-saw puzzle, John, we may say that we -now have all the pieces properly cut out before us. What we have to do -is to fit them together and see what kind of a picture they give us. - -Of course, we shall not be able to do this without some protests from -Socialists. They do not like us to test their theories by constructing -an imaginary Commonwealth, even though we use no other material than -the facts which they themselves have given us--the admitted principles -of international Socialism--in its construction. Indeed, Socialists -insist that it is a mark of imbecility for anyone to ask for such a -picture to say nothing of complaining because it is not available. -“Only the ignorant would ask for a cut-and-dried plan of a state -that can exist only in its completeness in the distant future,” says -Suthers, in his popular propaganda booklet, “Common Objections to -Socialism Answered.” “Why is it impossible to produce a cut-and-dried -plan? Simply because comprehensive prophesy of the future is beyond -human power.... Is there a man alive to-day who can forecast the -details of all the events that will register themselves in his single -consciousness to-morrow?... It were a silly waste of time for any -Socialist to spend his life in drawing up cut-and-dried plans of a -distant future.... They (the critics) say that one says one thing and -one another. God of brains, what else do they expect?” - -“For all his heat,” says Kelleher (“Common Ownership,” p. 105), “Mr. -Suthers is far from answering a very serious objection, or rather, -consciously or unconsciously, from dealing with the real point of the -objection at all. It is not the mere details of the socialistic state -that the critics of Socialism are demanding to have explained, but its -essential constitution. It is no reply to say that we do not require or -expect to know the details about the future under the existing system. -We do not, but we know the conditions in which these details will work -themselves out, and rightly or wrongly we accept them, because, with -all their faults, we are convinced that they are the best that are -available for us.” - -Moreover, not all the Socialists have been as loath to forecast the -details of the proposed Co-operative Commonwealth as Mr. Suthers. H. -G. Wells has given us a rather elaborate series of prognostications in -his “New Worlds for Old,” and the following--Mrs. Besant’s picture of -the future which Socialism proposes--is said by Bliss to be “one of the -best short ideals of Socialism yet written.” In quoting this “prophecy” -I have found it necessary to abridge it slightly, but you will find all -the details that have been omitted in Mrs. Besant’s contribution to the -“Fabian Essays.” - -“The unemployed have been transformed into communal workers--in -the country on great farms, improvements of the bonanza farms in -America--in the towns in various trades. Public stores for agricultural -and industrial products are open in all convenient places, and filled -with the goods thus communally produced. The great industries, worked -as Trusts, are controlled by the state instead of by capitalist -rings.... After a while the private producers will disappear, not -because there will be any law against individualistic production, -but because it will not pay. The best form of management during -the transition period, and possibly for a long time to come, will -be through the Communal Councils which will appoint committees to -superintend the various branches of industry. These committees will -engage the necessary manager and foreman for each shop, factory, etc., -and will hold power of dismissal as of appointment.... This (making -the worker accommodate himself to the demand for labor), however, -hardly solves the general question as to the apportioning of laborers -to the various forms of labor. But a solution has been found by the -ingenious author of ‘Looking Backward.’ Leaving young men and women -free to choose their employments, he would equalize the rates of -volunteering by equalizing the attractions of the trades.... But there -are unpleasant and indispensable forms of labor which, one would -imagine, can attract none--mining, sewer-cleaning, etc. These might be -rendered attractive by making the hours of labor in them much shorter -than the normal working day of pleasanter occupations.... Further, much -of the most disagreeable and laborious work might be done by machinery, -as it would be now if it were not cheaper to exploit a helot class.... -In truth, the extension of machinery is very likely to solve many of -the problems connected with differential advantages in employment; and -it seems certain that in the very near future the skilled worker will -not be the man who is able to perform a particular set of operations, -but the man who has been trained in the use of machinery.... Out of -the value of the communal produce ... all charges and expenses are -deducted, and the remaining value should be divided among the communal -workers as a ‘bonus.’ It would be obviously inconvenient, if not -impossible, for the district authority to sub-divide this value and -allot so much to each of its separate undertakings--so much left-over -from gas works for the men employed there, so much from the tramways -for the men employed on them, and so on. It would be far simpler and -easier for the municipal employes to be regarded as a single body, in -the service of a single employer, the local authority; and that the -surplus from the whole businesses carried on by the Communal Council -should be divided without distinction among the whole of the communal -employes.” - -Taking Mrs. Besant as a guide and calling upon other Socialist -authorities for further directions, let us see if we can put our -jig-saw puzzle together and thus ascertain what kind of a place the -Co-operative Commonwealth is likely to be. - -In the first place, John, it is scarcely probable that any Socialist -will deny that all means of production, distribution and exchange -will be in the hands of the collective state. This means that all -the manufacturing will be done by the communal authorities acting -for the people; that all the methods of disposing of these products, -through shops or otherwise, will be under the same direction, and -that all means of transportation--railways, steamships, etc.--will, -like the Post Office to-day, be in the hands of the people or their -representatives. So far, in all probability, we shall meet with no -denial from the Socialists. - -In the matter of land, however, our Socialist authorities are not so -thoroughly in agreement. For example, when they are talking with the -farmer, or other small land owner, who does not wish to have his real -estate expropriated, some Socialists are quite willing to admit that -their program makes no provision for the confiscation of farm lands. -As you have seen, however, the Socialists are quite ready to hide any -feature in their scheme that seems likely to arouse opposition in -the minds of the small property holders. Yet, land being invariably -included in “means of production” by all authoritative Socialists, it -is not easy to see how any real Socialist can promise to exclude farm -lands from the general plan of confiscation. It is far easier to assume -that the _Appeal to Reason_ and the Socialist propagandists who write -propaganda matter to induce the farmer to vote the Socialist ticket are -not telling him the truth about this phase of the question. - -Then, too, when we remember the Socialist proposition that all labor in -the Co-operative Commonwealth shall be performed collectively and not -under the direction of an employer, it is pretty difficult to imagine -how a farmer will be able to operate a farm when he is prevented from -employing others to help him. Certainly, Mrs. Besant’s suggestion is -the more logical one--farm lands must be expropriated and the industry -of agriculture pursued on great farms, operating on the bonanza farm -basis which has already proved such a gigantic failure in this country. - -With all means of production, distribution and exchange in the hands of -the Commonwealth, there would naturally be but one source of employment -for labor--The Commonwealth. If you wanted a job, John, you would have -to go to the employment bureau of the Commonwealth and present your -application, upon which you would be assigned to such a position as -might chance to be open at the time your application was received. You -are a machinist, but it might chance that machinists are not much in -demand on the day you apply for the job. Accordingly, you would be sent -to paint houses, or to build streets; anything that happened to be open -would be assigned to you and you would have to take it or starve to -death, because the Commonwealth, as we have seen in a previous letter, -could not be expected to find for every applicant the particular kind -of work that he preferred to perform. - -Under our present system, inadequate as it is in some respects, a man -can select the work that he prefers, and there is no limit to the -heights that he can ascend, provided he shows an ability to occupy a -higher position in the industrial world. To-day merit counts; to-day -knowledge and initiative, as well as industry, mean something. But, -under the system that Socialism proposes, it would be the favor of the -bosses or, at least, the votes of one’s associates that could alone -secure promotion. - -Election of bosses by popular vote may sound all right in theory, -but I seriously fear that the scheme would not operate successfully -if applied practically. Popularity would be a poor substitute for -proficiency, especially in view of the fact that it would probably be -the easiest boss and not the most exacting boss, who would secure the -votes of the most people. Try to picture what would happen under these -conditions, and you will have taken the first step toward a clear -understanding of industrial conditions under Socialism. - -But, let us suppose, for argument’s sake, that you have secured -employment at a trade that is fairly satisfactory to you and that -the more important industrial problems have been reasonably well -adjusted. At the end of the work-week you receive the labor check -which represents the “full value” of the products which have been -produced. We have already seen how difficult the Socialists will find -it to determine the full value of the work of each operative and -to measure it for exchange, so there is no need to emphasize this -question further. We will suppose that the apparently insurmountable -difficulties have been satisfactorily overcome, and that you are well -pleased with the share you receive in your labor check. - -Now, what are you going to do with it? - -We are told that the laborer will be permitted to purchase whatever he -pleases--as much or as little as he has a mind to buy. Of course he -can buy only from the State because everything--all the stores, shops, -factories, farms, etc.--will be owned and operated by the government. -“Our cities cannot give us to-day two things so simple as pure water -and clean streets,” remarks Father Kress. “By what magic will they be -made capable of doing the thousands of things implied in production and -distribution?” - -Imagine yourself, your pay check in your hand, going in to the gigantic -government warehouse, or as Mrs. Besant prefers to call them, “public -stores for agricultural and industrial products.” The fact that you are -to be permitted to buy anything you like, or can, with the amount in -hand, presupposes that everything you desire will be kept in stock. But -what if you do not find it? The clerk could not promise to get it for -you, because it is not impossible that the committee on manufactures -may have decided that you ought not to have it. Caviare and Limburger -cheese are two commodities that are extremely pleasing to some people’s -palate, while there are other people who could not be induced to eat -them for pay. Suppose the committee on manufactures was composed -chiefly of persons who saw no excuse for the existence of caviare or -Limburger cheese. Is it likely that they would take the trouble to see -that the supply of these commodities did not run short, especially -when, in a Commonwealth where there was no competition, there is no -need to make any special effort to please purchasers? - -Freedom to purchase is impossible unless every possible want is -provided for. Perhaps this condition would exist in the Co-operative -Commonwealth. Perhaps it wouldn’t! - -Let us take another example, John. - -Suppose you wanted to build a house. At present you can do this in -accordance with any plans that please you. You don’t have to ask -anybody’s advice if you don’t want to. But would things be like this -under Socialism? You might want to build a bookcase in the centre of -the room instead of around the walls. You might have very good reasons -for wishing to do this. But do you think it would be a simple matter to -convince the committee on carpentering that your plan should be carried -out, if they happened to disapprove of your ideas? Under our present -system you can get almost any kind of work done if you are willing -and able to pay for it. All you have to do is to find the laborer and -employ him. Under Socialism, it wouldn’t be a single laborer that -would have to be seen, but a committee whose consent would have to be -obtained before any laborer could undertake your work. - -The Socialists tell us that Socialism will inspire inventors, writers -and other mental workers to a degree never before dreamt of. - -Is this possible? - -An invention to-day stands a fair chance of being put on the market -so long as it has the slightest evidence of practicability; somebody -can usually be found to furnish the money for the experiments needed -to perfect the scheme of the inventor. But how would it be in a -Commonwealth where the practicability of an invention and its value -as a social factor would have to be determined by a special committee -before it could be produced and its merits tested by actual experience? -We know how much money has been spent in the experimental work of many -inventors. We know, too, that, in the majority of cases, inventions -have been perfected in the face of widespread scepticism. Few people -believed that the telephone would ever be made of practical value. Even -when the telephone had succeeded and become an absolute necessity, the -great mass of the people laughed at the idea of wireless telegraphy. Do -you think that a committee on inventions would have passed favorably -upon such ideas, and would have authorized the necessary appropriations -for perfecting them in the face of such strong popular opposition? - -Socialists also tell us that freedom is the choicest jewel in our -possession; that freedom of press, speech and assemblage are rights -which are inherent in human nature and which must be defended, with our -lives if need be. But what do we find under Socialism? Could there be -any freedom of press when the Socialist State owned every press, when -the Socialist State employed every printer, when the Socialist State -controlled every sheet of white paper? - -Before a printed word could be given to the world, it would have -to pass the censorship of the special bureau entrusted with these -responsibilities. Such a committee would have to determine whether an -author’s work was worth printing or not; and suppose, by any chance, -an author or an editor desired to give expression to opinions that -did not harmonize perfectly with those of the ruling majority, do you -suppose that the State-owned presses would be permitted to run in the -publication of such theories? - -There is one thing, John, that you can depend upon; and that is that -the Socialist scheme makes absolutely no provision for freedom. The -Socialists talk as if we were “wage slaves,” but no conditions existing -to-day--not excepting the worst--represent such galling servitude -as would exist under the despotic bureaucracy that Socialism would -develop. It is true that you might be guaranteed against unemployment -so long as you were willing to take the kind of work provided for -you. It is true that you might exchange your labor checks for the -commodities that other workers had produced--so long as you desired -to purchase the kind of things that the officials of the Commonwealth -wanted you to buy. It is true that you might be permitted to write and -speak and teach, so long as you desired to promulgate ideas approved by -the majority. Once you begin to think along the lines advocated by the -minority, what do you think would happen to you? If a full stomach were -all that man required for his happiness, the Co-operative Commonwealth -might seem to offer an enviable state of existence. It is because -Socialists believe that a full stomach is the highest aim of man, -that they fail to recognize the inadequate character of their proposed -Commonwealth. - -It is an elaborate program that Socialism has planned--a program -that provides for free services on every hand, free amusements, free -excursions, free transportation, free professional services, etc. -Education, of course, will be free, not only the tuition and the books -but the clothes the children wear and the victuals they eat. “Will the -State be able to carry out this program?” asked Godkin in _The Forum_ -(June, 1894). “It cannot give more than it gets; will we be rich enough -to pay the extravagant bills of Socialism?” It is assumed by Socialists -that the wealth of the State will be unlimited, but on what foundations -is this assumption based? - -I have called your attention to merely a few of the problems that -suggest themselves when we attempt to consider what kind of an -existence Socialism has planned for us. There are hundreds of other -examples that will occur to you if you stop to think the matter over -seriously. If this is the kind of life you want to live--the kind of -freedom you think you would enjoy--you are welcome to it. - - - - -CHAPTER XVI - -WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE WORLD? - - - My dear John, - -While I think I have shown you that Socialism is not what it pretends -to be--a certain remedy for all the social evils of our day--and that -it is utterly impossible for Socialism to keep its promises by making -this world over into a veritable kingdom of God on earth, we must not -make the mistake of dismissing all the contentions of the Socialists as -so many exhibitions of mental aberration. There is madness in some of -their doctrines--it is a crazy kind of a future that they have planned -for us; but behind all their absurdities there is a well-justified -protest against a series of social and industrial abuses from which the -great body of humanity is suffering, as from so many hideous sores. - -Mind you, John, I do not say that Socialists never exaggerate existing -conditions. We have already seen how prone they are to try to make us -put the most gloomy construction on the social outlook, and how ready -they are to twist statistics into all kinds of strange contortions to -make them fit their theories, in an endeavor to prove that the evils -which exist are ever so much more glaring than they really are. - -But the evils exist. The worker does not get an adequate share of the -wealth which he contributes to produce. The problem of unemployment -cries for solution from one end of the world to the other. In every -State and country the evils of child labor demand a remedy. Everywhere -numbers of men and women work under conditions that are a disgrace -to our boasted civilization, and in all parts of the land workers -are compelled to live in an environment and under circumstances that -absolutely preclude the attainment of the ideals toward which humanity -is supposed to be tending. - -In a word, we cannot deny that something is radically wrong with -the world. So far we may go hand in hand with the Socialist. To the -extent that he demands reform measures which shall give to the worker -greater opportunities for development and happiness, we must heartily -concur. But is the Socialist right when he asserts that these wrongs -are the inevitable result of the system which he calls “capitalism”? -Is it impossible, as he insists, that these wrongs may be righted -except by the overthrow of our present system and the substitution of -collective ownership of all means of production for our privately-owned -competitive method of managing things? - -When the Socialist tells us that Individualism is responsible for -all these evils, he is right. When he tells us that these evils are -inherent in the system which permits individual ownership of productive -properties, he is wrong. It is not the competitive system that is -responsible for all our social and industrial abuses. These unjust -features of modern life are the direct result of the vicious practices -which selfish and cruel individuals have adopted in their relations to -their fellow-men, but which do not necessarily have any place in the -system itself. - -If you were to study the development of political economy, you would -discover that the marked degradation of the workers, as well as much -of the callousness of the prosperous to the sufferings of the poor are -the direct result of the economic ideas promulgated by the Liberal -philosophers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. “Liberty, -fraternity and equality,” are terms to conjure with; but, once we apply -these principles to the practical affairs of life, we have started -society upon a downward course which can be checked only by a complete -reversal of such ideas. - -The French Deists sought to remove all trammels from man that he might -follow nature without restraint. They, and the economists who followed -them--Adam Smith, Ricardo, Bentham, Mill, and others--saw no room for -morality, religion, or even ethics, in political economy. The natural -effect of such principles was to foster the selfish impulses of man -rather than enforce conformity to the standards of conduct which are -embodied in the eternal laws of justice. These principles taught men -that the matter of prime importance was self-interest; they encouraged -cruelty and greed; they opened the way for the practice of unregulated -competition and stultified the Christian ideals of self-renunciation -and human brotherhood. - -A political economy without ethics, without a rule of right except as -set down in man-made law, can have none of the elements of justice -save, possibly, through sheer accident. Legal morality and the morality -for which Christianity has always stood are as opposed as the two -poles in many particulars. Where the principles of true morality -are recognized, there is no inherent antagonism between capital and -labor. They have interests that are mutual, and there is no excuse for -turning the industrial world into a battleground upon which strength -and cunning usurp the place of love and justice. The moment that the -higher ideals of life are subordinated to the passion of greed, the -degradation of the weaker and less cunning becomes inevitable. - -History shows us that this is precisely what has happened. Instead of -becoming a means to progress, the competitive system, through lack of -control, has resulted in a form of unlicensed competition which, as J. -J. Welsh asserts (“Socialism, Individualism and Catholicism,” p. 19), -may be “rightly described as commercial cannibalism.... It delivers -up weak, unorganized labor into the hands of organized and omnipotent -capital.... Without regard for the skill of the worker, the value of -his labor, or the requirements of a decent human life, the competitive -principle justifies the capitalist in paying the workman the least, -which, in the circumstances, he can compel him to accept. The employer -shelters himself under the law of supply and demand, as though that -were the supreme regulator of the remuneration and conditions of labor. -There is no savor of morality in such a principle. It gives an unfair -advantage to the few rich, who control the instruments of production, -over the defenceless masses, and it makes a question of strict -justice--the remuneration and the actual subsistence of the toiler and -his family--depend upon a trial of strength between two contending -parties.” - -There is no right-minded man who is not ready to join the Socialists in -their condemnation of the effects of the operations of this principle -of unrestrained competition. Were we compelled to believe that there -was no way by which this system could be changed, but that the human -sorrow and merciless injustice resulting from the exploitation of -the weak by the strong must continue unchecked until our system of -production and distribution has been completely overthrown, there -are comparatively few of us who would not go still further and urge -the adoption of the collective methods of industry. It is because we -believe that it is our unregulated competition, and not the principle -of individual ownership itself, which is destructive of right and -justice, that we do not and cannot join hands with the Socialists. As -we shall see, it is possible to bring about a correction of the abuses -from which countless thousands have suffered and are still suffering. -As we shall see, there are instruments within our reach with which we -may check the unbounded lust of greed which has made this generous -earth a vale of woe and mourning for the poor. - -While we do not agree with socialistic principles, therefore, we -recognize the justice embodied in the Socialist protest; and, much as -we deplore the spirit which has exaggerated our evils with a view to -inciting class hatred and a revolution that can result only in violence -and bloodshed, we should be blind if we did not appreciate the fact -that it is this protesting sentiment that has been to a marked degree -responsible for the moral awakening that will eventually set things -right. - -For example, there can be no doubt that there is justification for -the Socialist declaration regarding the unequal distribution of -wealth. The facts in the case are too notorious to permit of denial, -when multitudes are suffering all the woes of destitution, when many -are starving for lack of life’s bare necessities, and while the few -are able to waste in extravagance the means which would relieve -the sufferings of countless thousands if properly applied. “The -pestilential principle that each man has the right to dispose of his -wealth without regard to the common good is the cause of the widespread -mischief,” says Welsh. - -This unjust principle is also responsible for the inadequate rate of -wage and the horrible conditions which exist so generally among the -miserable multitude. There are those who may deny that such conditions -prevail; but our own eyes and ears, to say nothing of the great mass of -statistical information which is within our reach, prove conclusively -that there are untold thousands of children who are born into the -world without a chance of life or happiness; that vast multitudes -of young women, unable to sustain life in the unequal struggle for -existence, are driven to the streets for the sustenance which they -find it impossible to earn by honest toil; that men and women, who are -entitled in strict justice to a wage that will support them and those -dependent on them, are deprived of all their natural rights through no -fault of their own. For them there is no such thing as decent food, -clothing and shelter possible, to say nothing of the hope of ever being -able to meet the higher but no less natural requirements of life. - -Christianity has always held that it is the duty of each and all to -preserve life decently and that anything that tends to make this -impossible is a crime. “This idea of class duties and class comforts -is either explicitly or implicitly referred to as the final test in -every question of distribution or exchange,” says Ashley, who quoted -Langenstein in evidence of the fact that these principles of industrial -justice were recognized prior to the fourteenth century. “Everyone,” -says the latter, “can determine for himself the just price of the -wares he has to sell by simply reckoning what he needs in order to -support himself in his rank of life”; and those who have read the -writings of the Church Fathers do not need to be told that Christianity -has ever maintained the necessity of recognizing the right of the -worker to a living wage. These traditional teachings are embodied -in the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, who repudiates the principle -that competition alone determines the morality of the so-called free -contract. - -“There is a dictate of nature more imperious and more ancient than -any bargain between man and man, that the remuneration must be enough -to support the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comforts,” says -the Pope. “If, through necessity or fear of a worse evil, the workman -accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will give -him no better, he is the victim of force and injustice.” - -The Socialists claim that the Marxian gospel affords the only possible -relief for the victims of this force and injustice. As I have already -asserted, if this were true, a great many more of us would be -Marxists. As it is, however, there is a remedy which we may adopt with -safety, and with every assurance that it may be applied successfully if -we but get together and work together in the right way. - - - - -CHAPTER XVII - -THE REMEDY - - - My dear John, - -As we have seen, it is not necessary that we should study life through -the smoked glasses of Socialism to realize that all is not well with -the world. Indeed, we have no need to look further than our own -everyday experiences to witness misery that is heart-rending, to see -evils that imperatively demand relief. That such conditions exist, -nobody can deny; and the Socialists have made good use of this fact -in shaping their appeal for “universal justice.” Certainly, it is an -argument that cannot fail to touch the human heart that is at all moved -to sympathy. - -If such evil conditions exist, it is our duty to remedy them, and with -as little delay as possible. Sympathy is not enough. We must act and -act at once--but how? It is a question that we who are not Socialists -are frequently asked. “If the Socialists are wrong,” our friends -inquire, “what have you to offer as a substitute?” - -One of the greatest weaknesses in the Socialist position is due to the -fact that it persists in looking at life from the wrong perspective. -Instead of finding the right point of view, it examines life’s canvas -from so close a range that it loses all sense of proportion. Assuming -this attitude toward current events, the abuses apparent are magnified -to such a degree as to make it appear that Marx was correct in -asserting that the capitalist system is rotten to the core, and that -the only hope for relief lies in collective ownership. - -Are the Socialist contentions true? Is everything in this country -tending towards hopeless bankruptcy? - -Fortunately there are facts in plenty which answer these questions. -There never was a period in the world’s history in which greater -progress was made toward modifying--if not actually eliminating--the -burdens that have caused so much misery to the poor. You must remember, -John, that the evils against which Socialists inveigh so bitterly are -not new evils. They had their origin generations ago; they have been -promoted by the sophistical theories of Economic Liberalism; and, if -they now seem more indefensible than they did to our grandfathers and -great-grandfathers, it is because our intenser conceptions of the -ideals of human brotherhood compel us to view life with closer scrutiny. - -In truth, while the indictment of Socialism is warranted in one sense -of the word, it is by no means entirely justified. If we were doing -nothing to improve conditions for the workers and for the relief of the -poor, the outlook would be a hopeless one; but, when we realize that, -while Socialism itself is doing practically nothing but denouncing -and slandering society (where it does not actually oppose our reform -measures), we are working steadily toward the solution of our social -problems, we can see good reason to believe that our civilization is -far from being the failure it has been pictured. - -No better evidence of the extent of the world’s material progress can -be found than in labor’s advancement during the past century. To-day, -there is still much to be done before we can attain the ideal embodied -in the expression, “a fair day’s pay”; yet it is interesting to note -that we should have to go back no further than the first quarter of -the eighteenth century to find an Act of the Court of Massachusetts -under which employers could adopt a maximum wage schedule. In a word, -this law prevented an employer from giving more than the specified -sum per day; yet no effort was made to prevent him from paying the -lowest wages for which a laborer could be induced to work. Between -this condition and the minimum wage agitation with which we are now -familiar, there is a contrast that speaks eloquently in evidence of our -social progress. - -In England, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the situation -of labor was worse than it has ever been in this country. Forbidden by -law to establish any safeguard in the form of organization for his own -protection, the employe was absolutely at the mercy of his employer. -The result was a condition of affairs that was barbaric. If the -employer paid the rate of wage agreed in money, or even in “truck,” he -was under no further legal responsibility; and, as the introduction of -improved machinery in many trades was beginning to make it possible for -women and children to perform the duties which hitherto had fallen only -upon men, an employer was able to make the worker accept terms that -made proper sustenance impossible. - -At the dawn of the nineteenth century, this was the condition of -things: the laborer was (1) prohibited from forming protective -combinations or unions; (2) compelled to work sixteen hours out of each -twenty-four; (3) forced to accept as recompense wages which were wholly -inadequate to provide the most vital necessities of life; and, as -though these conditions were not sufficiently oppressive, (4) employers -were permitted to make payment at long intervals, or in “truck,” _and -could charge interest at the rate of 260 per cent per annum on all -cash advances made to the needy worker_. Apparently, this was the time -when Marx ought to have appeared with his doctrine of wage slavery and -his incitement to class hatred. But, when we compare these conditions -with those which exist to-day, we can readily see that, while things -are still far from being “ideal,” the worker assuredly is not sinking -steadily into deeper depths of degradation. - -Even in this country the conditions of the laborer were far from -enviable a century ago. As McMaster tells us in his “History of the -People of the United States”: - -“His house was meaner, his food coarser, his clothing was of commoner -stuff, his wages lower, and his hours of daily labor far longer than -those of the men who in our time perform like service. Down to the -opening of the nineteenth century, a farm hand was paid $3 a month. A -strong boy could be had for $1 a month. Women who went out to service -received $10 a year; type-setters were given $1 per day. The hours -of work were from sunrise to sunset, and, as the sun rose later and -set earlier in the Winter than in the Summer, _wages in December -were one-third less than in July_. On such pittances it was only by -the strictest economy that a mechanic could keep his children from -starvation and himself from jail,” for these were the days when a man -could be arrested upon the complaint of a creditor and, being lodged -in jail, could be kept there until the indebtedness was paid--a system -which actually permitted life imprisonment for debt. - -If I were to tell you of the indescribably vile conditions under -which the workers of those days toiled and lived, you would find it -difficult to believe that human beings could bear such burdens and -survive. If you are interested in investigating this subject, there -are books in the libraries that will tell you the story in all its -damning details. And this is the perspective from which you should -view life. It is, to say the least, “unscientific” to exaggerate the -weak spots in present-day civilization to such an extent as to convey -the impression that the evils criticized are the worst that have ever -been known, when a few hours’ study of history would be sufficient to -disclose the fact that circumstances are now infinitely less oppressive -than they have been in the past. At the same time the knowledge that -things are incalculably better than they were even half a century ago, -and that they are steadily improving, must not blind us to the fact -that there is still much to be done--more perhaps than has yet been -accomplished--and that it is our duty as good citizens to do our part -in remedying all our social defects. - -But what are we to do? - -Let history answer. - -Do you imagine that it was the individual capitalist--the “heartless -and greedy sweater”--who was responsible for all the improvements -that have occurred in our industrial conditions? No, it was the worker -himself who secured all these reforms. The worker, chiefly through his -own effort, has brought about the reformation that we witness to-day, -and it is the worker who must carry on the campaign until all the -abuses of which we complain have been eliminated. - -It is from the pages of history that we learn the story of the past; it -is to the pages of history that we must turn for advice as to what we -must do in the future. Let us see what history tells us. - -In the first place we learn that, despite all the legal prohibitions -then existing, the workers organized new associations. In the beginning -these organizations were merely “friendly societies,” ostensibly formed -to provide aid for the men in time of sickness or other misfortune; but -behind this purpose was the inception of the peaceful revolution that -was to rescue labor from the mire of degradation into which it had been -so pitilessly thrust. - -Here then we have our first lesson: _the duty of the worker to -organize_. As Portenar says in his “Problems of Organized Labor” -(p. 4), “the trade union came into being because it was needed; -because the helpless individual found in concerted action with other -individuals his best, if not his only, means of resistance to the -arbitrary exercise of power, to injustice, to cruelty. It was a hard -fight. Wealth, and the merciless power of wealth; the state law, -forbidding workmen to co-operate for the purpose of increasing wages -and fixing maxima, with its interpreters zealous for its rigorous -enforcement; legislative bodies deaf to the cries of those who were -denied the privilege of a voice in the selection of their members; and -the broken-spirited timidity of those in whose behalf the union was -created; these were the forces to be contended with and overcome.” - -But the trade union was born, and the trade union has won many a -victory. But for this weapon of defense--and sometimes of offense--the -condition of the worker would not have been what it is to-day. Through -its efforts legislation has been secured. Through its efforts public -opinion has been shaped, and it is to its efforts that we must look -primarily for future betterment of labor’s condition. - -The first step, therefore, is one of organization; and, this step once -taken, our subsequent progress follows logically. As the strength of -the organized workers increases, more demands can be made, and with a -much better prospect that they will be recognized. Legislatures, like -parliaments, are no longer deaf and blind to the requirements of the -workers. We have seen the circumstances under which the laborer existed -in the past. We know from personal experience the hardships suffered by -those who live under the lessened burden of to-day. - -“Looking broadly to labor legislation as it has occurred in this -country,” said Carroll D. Wright, “it may be well to sum up its general -features. Such legislation has fixed the hours of labor for women -and certain minors in manufacturing establishments; it has adjusted -the contracts of labor; it has protected employes by insisting that -all dangerous machinery shall be guarded ... it has created boards -of factory inspectors whose powers and duties have added much to the -health and safety of the operatives; it has in many instances provided -for weekly payments ... it has regulated the employment of prisoners; -protected the employment of children; ... provided for the ventilation -of factories and workshops; established industrial schools; ... -modified the common-law rules relative to the liability of employers -for injuries of their employes; fixed the compensation of railroad -corporations for negligently causing the death of employes, and has -provided for their protection against accident and death.” - -In spite of all that has been accomplished, however, we must increase -enormously our efforts along these lines, and so open up new avenues of -progress. The question of the hours of labor requires adjustment; child -labor, sweating, the home industries, the standardization of wages on -a “living” basis, are but a few of the problems which must be settled; -and the only way to settle them is by means of legislation. - -We must not forget, however, that laws are of little use unless they -are enforced. We already have laws on our statute books which would -quickly put an end to some of our abuses were they to be applied -adequately. This teaches us that, unless legislation is supported by -public opinion, it will be practically useless. Until public sentiment -forbids, laws are evaded; and a statute that is a “dead letter” is a -pretty sterile “reform measure.” - -It is here that we find the next duty of the worker. Personally, and -through his organization, he must carry out a campaign of education -that will help to develop a more alert social conscience--that will -arouse all good citizens to the justice of his demands, and so -frustrate the efforts of the rascals who, greed-inspired, exist chiefly -to set the moral laws at naught. - -To-day, this program can be carried out more easily than ever before in -human history. The social conscience is already awakening and in his -efforts to win more support for his righteous cause, the worker will -derive aid from the churches as well as from the many organizations -that have come into existence during the past decade solely to cast -their influence in behalf of social-welfare movements. The social -question to-day includes the industrial question. Moreover, it is -more than an economic and political question. It has its moral and -religious phases and so appeals directly to all public-spirited men and -women. By organization, legislation and education, a still wider and -ever-widening interest can be excited, until one by one the merciless -evils--now the source of so much woe--have been eliminated. - -The objection may be raised that the program outlined is anything but -a simple one. I will admit that this is so; but I can assure you, -John, that the difficulties presented by the remedial measures I have -suggested are really not as great as those which we should experience -were we to attempt to carry out the plan which the Socialists have -arranged for us. The program I have outlined represents a sane solution -of our industrial problems; and the better acquainted with Socialism -you become the more firmly you will be convinced that the so-called -“palliatives” afford the only safe remedy for existing evils. There -can be no short-cut to the end we seek. Many forces operate to produce -present conditions and they must be considered and co-ordinated. It -is because the Socialists have failed to recognize this fact and make -provision for it that they have lost their way and wandered into such a -tangle of absurdities. - - - - -INDEX - - - Agriculture, Concentration in, 125 sqq. - - American Federation of Labor, 10 sq. - - _American Federationist_, value of goods manufactured in U. S., 47 sq. - - _Appeal to Reason_, estimates consumable wealth in U. S., 50; - lauds Paris Commune, 168 sq. - - Ashley, W. J., on principles of industrial justice, 197. - - - Bax, Belfort, on aims of Socialism, 145; - end of Socialism justifies every means, 153 sq., 155. - - Bebel, August, proposes “changing-off” system, 61 sqq.; - defends violence, 164. - - Benham, Charles, describes Paris Commune, 169 sq. - - Bentham, Jeremy, 192. - - Berger, Victor, advocates violence, 17. - - Bernstein, Ed., declares Socialism could not keep its promise, 56; - takes issue with Marx, 118 sq. - - Besant, Mrs. Annie, equal remuneration of all workers, 83; - the worker’s share of the products, 110 sqq.; - forecast of the future Socialist state, 175 sqq. - - Blatchford, Robert, individuals have no inherent right to freedom, 74; - equality of payment under Socialism, 81 sq. - - Blanc, Louis, National Workshops scheme, 110 sqq. - - Bohn, Frank, 12. - - Bonanza Farms, 126, 175, 180. - - Bosses, Selection of, under Socialism, 68 sqq.; 181. - - Building and Loan Deposits, 130 sq. - - - Capital, 39 sq. - - “Capital,” see Marx, Karl. - - “Capitalism,” see Individualism. - - Capitalistic Development, Law of, 117 sqq. - - “Case Against Socialism,” choice of occupation under Socialism, 65 sq. - - Cathrein-Gettelmann, 23; - on “changing-off” system, 62 sq.; - impracticableness of Socialism, 95 sqq. - - Census, U. S. Industrial, 45. - - Changing-off System, 62 sq. - - Chesterton, Cecil, Socialism is confiscation, 156. - - Chiozza-Money, on “robbery of worker,” 20 sq. - - Christianity and Labor, 197 sqq. - - Class Consciousness, 16, 133 sqq. - - Class Distinctions, 71. - - Classes in U. S., 119 sq. - - Class Hatred, see Class Consciousness. - - Coler, Bird S., on “changing-off” system, 69 sq. - - Collective Ownership, 59 sqq. - - Collins, Peter W., Socialist method of sowing class hatred, 142 sq. - - _Common Cause, The_, 90 sqq.; - Socialist statistics, 121; - increase of wages in recent times, 122; - wider distribution of wealth today, 124, 126 sq. - - Commune, see Paris Commune. - - “Communist Manifesto,” 83; - misery keeps pace with wealth, 129; - class antagonism, 134 sq.; - advocates violent overthrow of existing society, 160. - - Communists, French, attack equal division of property, 83. - - Compensation, see Confiscation. - - Competitive System, 193 sq. - - Concentration of Capital, 117 sqq. - - Confiscation, 144 sqq. - - Co-operative Commonwealth, definition, 17; - estimated pay roll, 49 sqq.; - length of working day in, 50 sqq.; - choice of occupation in, 67 sqq.; - feasibility of, 158; - forecast of, 175 sqq. - - Cost of Labor, 46 sq. - - Cost of Materials, 45 sq. - - Consumable Wealth of U. S., 49 sq. - - Crawford, Archibald, advocates class hatred, 142. - - - _Daily Telegraph_ (London), 85. - - Debs, Eugene V., 11; - no respect for property laws, 149 sq. - - De Tunzelmann, G. W., attacks “robbery” theory, 36. - - Deville, division of produce under Socialism, 109 sq. - - Dietzgen, Joseph, advocates violence, 164 sq. - - Division of Profits, 77 sqq. - - - Earnings of Workers, see Wages. - - Economic Liberalism, 191 sqq. - - Elder, Benedict, difficulty of calculating value of labor, 92 sqq. - - Engels, Friedrich, preaches class antagonism, 134 sq. - - Employment under Socialism, 180 sqq. - - Equality of Opportunity, 59, 78 sqq. - - Equality of Remuneration, 77 sqq. - - Erfurt Platform, exploitation of poor by rich, 121. - - Ethics of Socialism, 149 sq., 153 sq., 157 sq., 171 sq. - - Exchange Value, 23 sqq. - - Expropriation, see Confiscation. - - - Fabian Essays, equal remuneration of workers, 83; - individual has no rights, 105 sq.; - division of profits, 110. - - Fabian Society, on freedom in choice of occupation, 59. - - Farms in U. S., 125 sqq. - - Ferri, Enrico, advocates class antagonism, 136. - - Five thousand dollars a year, 44, 48 sq. - - Flint, Robert, Socialism a despotism under bosses, 71, 74. - - Four-hour day, 44. - - Freedom of choice of occupation, 59 sqq. - - Freedom of Press and Speech, 186 sq. - - Freedom to purchase, 182 sqq. - - French Revolution, 158. - - - Godkin, E. L., Socialism and state solvency, 188. - - Grayson, Victor, on “robbery” of worker, 20; - defends violence, 167. - - Gronlund, Lawrence, no choice of occupation under Socialism, 67 sq. - - - Hague Congress (Socialist) of 1872, violence to be lever of social - reform, 161. - - Hatton, condition of laboring classes improves, 118. - - Haywood, Wm. D., 12. - - Hazell, on “robbery” of workers, 20. - - Herron, George D., working class alone entitled to existence, 138 sq., - 141; - lauds Paris Commune, 168. - - Hillquit, Morris, thinks confiscation probable, 157. - - Hobhouse, L. T., society divided into “experts” and puppets under - Socialism, 71 sq. - - Hours of Labor, 43 sq., 51, 204. - - Hyndman, H. M., maintains all investments are successful, 38 sq.; - wealth divided equally among good and bad workmen, 85 sq.; - advocates class conflict, 140 sq.; - ready to use violence, 163; - even dynamite, 167. - - - “Immediate Demands,” 13 sq. - - Imprisonment for Debt, 205. - - “Increasing Misery,” 122. - - Individualism, 191 sqq. - - Industrial Unionism, 11 sq. - - Industries, Ownership of, 123 sqq. - - Intensive Farming, 126. - - Interest a Crime, 146. - - _International Socialist Review_, no respect for present laws, 149 sq. - - Inventions, effect of Socialism on, 185 sq. - - - Jaurès, on class antagonism, 138. - - Joynes, advocates violence, 165. - - _Justice_ (London), all weapons legitimate, 141; - lauds Paris Commune, 168. - - - Kautsky, Karl, moral law binding only between members of the same - class, 154 sq. - - Kelleher, Rev. J., on constitution of Socialist state, 174 sq. - - Kerr, Chas. H., all weapons defensible to overthrow existing society, - 163 sq. - - Kirkup, Thomas, attacks Marx’s law of the concentration of capital, - 116 sq.; - Socialism is revolutionary materialism, 163; - revolution to end present era, 167. - - Kress, Rev. W. S., present distribution of wealth compared with past - conditions, 131; - description of Paris Commune, 169 sqq.; - the satisfaction of public wants under Socialism, 182 sq. - - - Labor Certificates, 26. - - Labor Conditions in early 19th Century, 204 sqq. - - Labor, Full Product of, under Socialism, 87 sqq., 102 sqq. - - “Labor is Source of All Value,” 21 sqq. - - Labor Time, 26 sq. - - Labor Value, 88 sqq. - - Langenstein, principles of industrial justice, 197. - - Laws, Disrespect for, among Socialists, 149 sq. - - Leatham, interest is criminal, 146. - - Legislation, Labor, in U. S., 209 sq. - - Leo XIII, Pope, on morality of free contract, 198. - - Liberty under Socialism, see Freedom of Choice. - - Liebknecht, Wilhelm, on aims of Socialism, 14 sqq. - - London, Jack, proclaims class war, 141. - - - MacDonald, Ramsay, on worker’s freedom under Socialism, 61; - selection of workers, 65. - - Mallock, W. H., 38. - - Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, 136. - - Manufactures in U. S., 45 sq. - - Marx, Karl, on real aim of Socialism, 15; - on value, 21 - sqq.; - on skilled labor, 30; - on “robbery” of worker, 32 sqq.; - supports “changing-off” system, 63 sq.; - equality of remuneration, 78 sq.; - law of concentration of capital, 116 sqq.; - advocates class antagonism, 134 sq.; - defends violence, 160 sq., 164; - lauds Paris Commune, 168. - - Massachusetts, Act of Court of, fixing maximum wage, 203. - - Maximum Wage, early in 19th Century, 203. - - Mazzini, Giuseppe, describes Paris Commune, 169. - - McMaster, J. B., Labor Conditions in U. S., in early 19th century, - 205. - - Mill, J. S., 192. - - Ming, Rev. John J., S. J., Socialists hold moral principles bind - only members of same class, 155; - ethics of Socialism, 171. - - Minimum Wage, 203. - - Miscellaneous Expenses of Manufacture, 45 sq. - - Mortgaged Farms, 128. - - Municipal Ownership, 13 sq. - - - National Workshops experiment, 40 sqq. - - Natural Rights, 149. - - Necessary Labor, 27. - - _Neue Zeit_, moral law binds only members of same class, 154. - - - Opportunity Under Socialism, see Equality of Opportunity. - - Organization of Labor, 203 sq., 207 sqq. - - - Paris Commune, 161, 168 sqq. - - Paulsen, Friedrich, ridicules “changing-off” system, 64 sq. - - Pauperism, decrease in recent times, 122 sq. - - Pearson, Karl, no mercy under Socialism for offenders against the - State, 73 sq. - - Peru, Ancient, Society in, illustrates working of Socialist state, 72. - - Portenar, A. J., on development of trade unions, 207 sq. - - Product of Manufactures in U. S., 45 sq. - - - Quelch, means to be used in class war, 141; - lauds Paris Commune, 168. - - - Railways, Ownership of, 124. - - “Red Catechism,” ownership of machines under Socialism, 150 sq.; - advocates revolution, 165. - - Remuneration, 77 sqq. - - _Revolt, The_, advocates class war, 142. - - Revolution, The, definition, 17, 143, 160 sqq.; 165 sq. - - Ricardo, David, 192. - - Richardson, N. A., workers’ share of products under Socialism, 112 sq. - - “Robbery” of Worker, 20 sqq., 34 sqq., 42 sq. - - - Sanial, Lucien, distribution of wealth in U. S. in 1900, 119 sq. - - Savings of Workers, in U. S. Savings Banks, 130 sq.; - in building societies, 130. - - Schäffle, Albert, condemns Socialist promises, 113 sq. - - Shaw, George Bernard, equality of income primary tenet of Socialism, - 79 sqq. - - Simple Labor, 30. - - Six-Hour Day, 33. - - Skelton, Oscar D., 23; - Marx’s forecast of increasing misery of poor discredited, 129. - - Skilled Labor, Payment of, under Socialism, 30, 77 sqq. - - Smith, Adam, 192. - - Snowden, riches of the few means the poverty of the many, 117. - - Social Conscience, 211 sq. - - _Socialist, The_, advocates confiscation, 157. - - “Socialist Catechism,” revolution necessary to end exploitation of - workers, 165. - - Socialist Federation of Australasia, advocates confiscation, 156 sq. - - Socialist Hymn Book, 166. - - Socialist Platform, in Germany, see Erfurt Platform; - in U. S., 134; in Great Britain, 136. - - Socialist Schools, 143, 150 sqq., 166. - - _Socialist Standard, The_, workers to organize for overthrow of - Capitalists, 137. - - Spargo, John, constant danger to liberty under Socialism, 76; - equality of income aim of Socialism, 79; - freedom to indulge tastes under Socialism, 114 sq.; - admits weakness of Marxian theory as applied to agriculture, 127 sq. - - Spencer, Herbert, only two methods of organizing labor, 70 sqq.; - liberty and justice must die under Socialism, 72. - - _Standard, The_ (London), investigates menacing character of - Socialism, 151. - - Steel Corporation, U. S., Ownership of, 125. - - Surplus Value, Theory of, 32 sqq. - - Suthers, on “robbery” of workers, 21; - remuneration under Socialism, 44; - no details concerning future Co-operative Commonwealth, 174. - - - Tcherkesoff, Concentration of Capital, 117 sq. - - Ten Thousand Dollars a Year, 44. - - Three-hour Day, 44. - - Trade Unions, 207 sqq. - - Trusts, 123. - - Twenty-five hundred dollars a year, 42, 44. - - Two thousand dollars a year, 43. - - - Unemployment, 190. - - Unskilled Labor, 30. - - Use Value, 23 sqq. - - Utility, 24 sqq. - - Utility, Loss of, 27 sq. - - - Vail, Rev. Charles H., defends confiscation of property, 147 sq. - - Value of Farms in U. S., 127. - - Value of Goods Manufactured in U. S., 45 sqq. - - Value, Theory of, 23 sqq., 68. - - Verge of Starvation, 35. - - Violence as a political weapon, 16, 160 sqq. - - - Wages, Socialist prophecies, 42 sqq.; - average in U. S. in 1909, 46 sqq.; - under Socialism, 52, 57 sq., 60; - increase in recent times, 121 sq., 202 sqq. - - Wealth, Distribution of, in U. S., in 1900, 119 sq. - - Wealth Production, U. S., 49 sq. - - Webb, Sydney, on freedom of worker under Socialism, 60 sq.; - selection of workers, 65; - industry is for benefit of community, not for profit of masters or - workingmen, 105 sq. - - Welsh, Rev. J. J., unbridled competition is commercial cannibalism, - 193 sq.; - man may not dispose wealth regardless of common good, 196. - - Wells, H. G., on true aims of Socialism, 14; - forecast of Socialist state, 175. - - West, Stuart P., on Socialist assertions and statistics, 120 sqq.; - wider distribution of wealth today, 124, 126 sq. - - Woman, to undertake same tasks as man under Socialism, 62. - - Willey, 47; - present distribution of wealth compared with past conditions, 131. - - Woolsey, Rev. J. D., foretells violent opposition to Socialist plans, - 162. - - Wright, Carroll D., labor legislation in U. S., 209 sq. - - - -Transcriber’s Notes - -Page 72: “absolute depotism” changed to “absolute despotism” - -Page 130: “associations affords” changed to “associations afford” - -Page 133: “he first become” changed to “he first became” - -Page 170: “which Rignault” changed to “which Rigault” - -Page 185: “slighest evidence” changed to “slightest evidence” - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK YOUR PAY ENVELOPE *** - -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/68755-0.zip b/old/68755-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index f8c67be..0000000 --- a/old/68755-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68755-h.zip b/old/68755-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 00c35be..0000000 --- a/old/68755-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68755-h/68755-h.htm b/old/68755-h/68755-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index f4c7181..0000000 --- a/old/68755-h/68755-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,5466 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> -<head> - <meta charset="UTF-8" /> - <title> - Your Pay Envelope, by John R. Meader—A Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover" /> - <style> /* <![CDATA[ */ - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; -} - -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; - text-indent: 1em; -} - -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} -.p0 {text-indent: 0em;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} -@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } - - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} -h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} - -ul.index { list-style-type: none; margin-top: 2em;} -li.ifrst { - margin-top: 1em; - text-indent: -2em; - padding-left: 1em; -} -li.isuba { - text-indent: -2em; - padding-left: 2em; -} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; -} -table.autotable { border-collapse: collapse; width: 60%;} -table.autotable td, -table.autotable th { padding: 4px; } -.x-ebookmaker table {width: 95%;} - -.tdl {text-align: left;} -.tdr {text-align: right;} -.page {width: 3em;} - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; - text-indent: 0; -} - -.blockquot { - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 5%; -} - -.center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0em;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - -/* Images */ - -img { - max-width: 100%; - height: auto; -} -.w10 {width: 10%;} -.x-ebookmaker .w10 {width: 13%;} - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center; - page-break-inside: avoid; - max-width: 100%; -} - -/* Poetry */ -.poetry {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%; text-indent: 0em;} -/* uncomment the next line for centered poetry in browsers */ -/* .poetry {display: inline-block;} */ -/* large inline blocks don't split well on paged devices */ -@media print { .poetry {display: block;} } -.x-ebookmaker .poetry {display: block;} - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - -.big {font-size: 1.2em;} -.small {font-size: 0.8em;} - -abbr[title] { - text-decoration: none; -} - - /* ]]> */ </style> -</head> -<body> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Your pay envelope, by John R. Meader</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: Your pay envelope</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: John R. Meader</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: August 15, 2022 [eBook #68755]</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: deaurider 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 YOUR PAY ENVELOPE ***</div> - - - - -<h1>YOUR PAY ENVELOPE</h1> - - -<p class="center p2 small">BY</p> -<p class="center"><span class="big">JOHN R. MEADER</span><br /> -<span class="small">EDITOR OF “THE COMMON CAUSE”</span></p> -<p class="center p4"><span class="figcenter" id="img001"> - <img src="images/001.jpg" class="w10" alt="publisher mark" /> -</span></p> -<p class="center p4">NEW YORK<br /> -<span class="big">THE DEVIN-ADAIR COMPANY</span><br /> -437 FIFTH AVENUE<br /> -1914<br /> -</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> - - -<p class="center p2"> -<span class="smcap">Copyright, 1914, by</span><br /> -THE DEVIN-ADAIR COMPANY<br /> -</p></div> - -<p class="center p2"><span class="figcenter" id="img002"> - <img src="images/002.jpg" class="w10" alt="union mark" /> -</span></p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS</h2> -</div> - - -<table class="autotable"> -<tr><th class="tdr">CHAPTER</th><th></th><th class="tdr">PAGE</th></tr> -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">I.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_I"><span class="smcap">The Problem Stated</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">II.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_II"><span class="smcap">What Socialism Is and Isn’t</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_9">9</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">III.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_III"><span class="smcap">The Worker’s Wage</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_19">19</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">IV.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV"><span class="smcap">How the “Robbing” Is Done</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_32">32</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">V.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_V"><span class="smcap">Your Own Pay Envelope</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_41">41</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">VI.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI"><span class="smcap">You “Wage Slaves”!</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_54">54</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">VII.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII"><span class="smcap">Your Boss Under Socialism</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_67">67</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII">VIII.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII"><span class="smcap">Some More “Equality”</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_77">77</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_IX">IX.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_IX"><span class="smcap">A Few “Minor Details”</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_87">87</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_X">X.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_X"><span class="smcap">Labor’s Full Product</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_101">101</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_XI">XI.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_XI"><span class="smcap">Is Wretchedness Increasing?</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_116">116</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_XII">XII.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_XII"><span class="smcap">The Class Struggle</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_133">133</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIII">XIII.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIII"><span class="smcap">Shall We Take It or Pay for It?</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_144">144</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIV">XIV.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIV"><span class="smcap">The Revolution</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_160">160</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_XV">XV.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_XV"><span class="smcap">What We are Promised</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_173">173</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_XVI">XVI.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_XVI"><span class="smcap">What’s Wrong with the World?</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_189">189</a></td></tr> - -<tr><td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_XVII">XVII.</a></td><td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAPTER_XVII"><span class="smcap">The Remedy</span></a></td><td class="tdr page"><a href="#Page_200">200</a></td></tr> -</table> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="YOUR_PAY_ENVELOPE">YOUR PAY ENVELOPE</h2> -</div> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I<br /><span class="small">THE PROBLEM STATED</span></h2> -</div> - - -<p class="p0"> -Dear Mr. Smith,<br /> -</p> - -<p>I am glad that you have asked me if the soap-box orator told the truth -when he said that all the arguments against Socialism are either “lies” -or “foolish misrepresentations.”</p> - -<p>The soap-box orator wants you to believe that all the wise men in this -world are Socialists, and that those who do not accept the teachings of -Karl Marx are either ignoramuses or wicked men.</p> - -<p>You tell me that your “common sense” teaches you that “there are two -sides to every question.” This statement shows that you are an honest -and a practical man. You say that you are a worker, a trade unionist, a -Christian—all of which means that you are a good citizen. These frank -statements are the best introduction you could offer. It<span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</span> is this kind -of man who insists upon having “facts,” and who is not likely to be -carried away by theories—even by plausible theories. He insists upon -knowing that there are plenty of “facts” to back up the theories before -he accepts them.</p> - -<p>Hence, I am going to write to you at some length—to you and to all -the rest of the John Smiths. In these letters I shall express myself -as simply and as clearly as possible. I shall give you plenty of -facts—“the hardest of hard facts”—and a mass of cold, logical reasons -that cannot fail to appeal to “robust common sense” and the “love of -fair play.”</p> - -<p>As you have said, there are two sides to every question, and the -question of Socialism is no exception to this rule. The reason that -the soap-box orator attracts so large a crowd is because he tells the -people who listen to him a lot of things which they know are true.</p> - -<p>He tells them, for example, that wages and the expense of living have -not kept equable pace with each other—that the smaller rate of wage -which the worker received fifteen or twenty years ago may really have -been a higher rate of wage because<span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</span> the man who got it was able to -buy more with it. He tells us that it is a bad thing that children -should be compelled to work for a living at an age when they ought to -be in school or playing the games which nature intends children shall -play. He points to the employer as he rides by in his $4,000 touring -car, and he asks how long it has been since you have had a ride in -an automobile. He reads to you the newspaper report of an elaborate -dinner given by “society women” to their poodle dogs, and supplements -it with another item, from the same paper, telling the number of people -who have died of starvation during the past six months. With eloquent -words, vibrant with sympathy, he paints a picture that makes your -blood boil with indignation, and the worst of it is that the things he -describes are true.</p> - -<p>Every man, if his heart is in the proper place, knows that things are -not right. He knows that there are plenty of workers to-day who do -not earn money enough to enable them to live decently. He knows that -workingmen do not make their wives and children toil in the factories -for the mere joy of knowing that they are not idle. The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</span> worker is not -so blind to the advantages of education, that he does not want to see -his children well-educated. If he insists upon their going to work -instead of to school, it is because he needs the few dollars which they -can earn to supplement somewhat his own too meagre wage.</p> - -<p>The worker is justified in not being satisfied with his lot. If a man -is treated unjustly, he has a moral right to protest; and I am the -last person who would wish to deny him that right. At the same time, I -am going to take exception to one statement that the soap-box orator -makes. He tells us that Socialism is the one and only solution of all -the industrial and social evils of the world. He asserts that, if -enough of us will vote the Socialist ticket, we can get the industries -away from their present owners and own them ourselves, paying ourselves -for our labor by taking all the profits that now go to the men who -furnish the capital to carry on the business.</p> - -<p>If this were true—and that were all there was to it—I might be a -Socialist. It is because it is impossible for it to be true that I am -writing these letters; and, before I have finished, I think you will -admit that I shall<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</span> have proved that the soap-box orator is talking -“through his hat.”</p> - -<p>I do not ask you to reject the teachings of Socialism because they -are new or untried. Every good thing was new once, and I am not so -foolish as to imagine that every possibly-good thing has been tried. -Indeed, a great many ideas and inventions that have proved of the -greatest advantage to the world were once denounced as impracticable. -The telephone is one of them. I can remember the time when the best -business men laughed at the idea of anybody’s buying stock in a -telephone company; they admitted that people could talk over the wire, -but it was impossible to make them believe that the instrument could be -made strong enough to carry the sound of the human voice more than a -few blocks. They said it was all right as a “toy,” but that it had no -“commercial utility”—which meant that they did not think they could -make any money out of it.</p> - -<p>To tell the truth, some of the basic ideas in Socialism are not at -all new. They are very, very old; but, if they were as old as a dozen -Methuselahs, this fact would not make them any more true. It is not the -age<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</span> of a theory that makes it true; it is the principle underlying it. -And I propose to show you that, instead of being the combination of -all wisdom, the principles of Socialism are so unreasonable that it is -difficult to understand how any thinking man can accept them.</p> - -<p>To prove this, I shall resort chiefly to facts and very little to -theoretical argument. I shall not ask you to believe that a thing is -so, merely because I say that it is so. When I present an argument, -I shall explain all the facts upon which it is based, and you may -consider the argument on its own merits.</p> - -<p>In doing this, I must ask you to forget yourself. A prominent Socialist -writer has told us that it is necessary to “get out of the body to -think.” As he explains, “that means that when a problem is before you, -you should not let any personal prejudice, or class feeling, come -between that problem and your mind; that you should consider a case -upon the evidence alone, as a jury should.”</p> - -<p>I shall be satisfied if you will follow this advice. I can ask you to -do no more than to forget your own condition, your own troubles, your -own life-problems, and consider<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</span> this question simply as a man—as a -jury-man, if you will. If you were asked to figure how much you can -earn in three days and two hours and fifteen minutes at your present -rate of wage, you would not think whether you were a Republican or a -Democrat, would you? You would simply apply the rules of arithmetic to -your sum, and I ask you to read my letters and decide, by the same kind -of unbiased judgment, whether I am right or wrong.</p> - -<p>By way of anticipation, let me assert that it is possible for us to -solve every problem that confronts us to-day without resorting to the -proposed “remedy” of Socialism. We have here a country, big enough and -productive enough to give all the people plenty of room and all they -want to eat. There are facilities to supply all the children with a -good education and ample opportunities for recreation. The fact that -so many of the people do not succeed in securing plenty, shows that -something is wrong. But, is the “wrong” in our system of industry, or -are we ourselves—and, when I say “we,” I mean the whole people, not -you and me alone—to blame for these conditions? That is the important -question.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</span></p> - -<p>Socialism promises that it will right all wrongs and asserts that this -cannot be done in any other way. I do not believe that Socialism could -“make good,” and it is here my task to prove it.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II<br /><span class="small">WHAT SOCIALISM IS AND ISN’T</span></h2> -</div> - - - -<p class="p0"> -Dear Mr. Smith,<br /> -</p> - -<p>Before beginning our investigation of Socialism, we must define our -subject. To talk intelligibly about Socialism, I must first know that -you understand what Socialism is and what it isn’t.</p> - -<p>You may say that the soap-box orator has made all this very clear to -you, but you mustn’t be too certain about that. The soap-box orator -may know what Socialism really is, and what it proposes to accomplish, -and he may not. I have known soap-box orators who knew so little about -Socialism as to contend that it was nothing more than a political -movement which proposed to institute some much-needed reforms along -purely economic lines. And, there are other soap-box orators who, while -fully qualified to tell you all about Socialism, wouldn’t dream of -doing it for fear of frightening you.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</span></p> - -<p>It may be true that all Socialists agree to some extent upon a few -basic principles; but they disagree about so many things that it is -almost impossible to pin them down to anything definite. If a Socialist -is cornered in an argument, he will try to elude you by asserting that -Socialists are “not agreed” upon the answer to the question you have -asked, or that “the issue is purely a matter of private opinion.”</p> - -<p>Have you noticed how cleverly Socialists can do this?</p> - -<p>A Socialist agitator is out on a still hunt for converts. He meets John -Jones and asks him why he does not join the Socialist party.</p> - -<p>“No,” says John, “I will not join the Socialist party, because it -stands for industrial unionism and I believe in the policy of the -American Federation of Labor.”</p> - -<p>“That’s all right,” replies the Socialist agitator. “There are plenty -of prominent Socialists who are enthusiastic members of the A. F. of -L.,” and he reels off the names of a dozen or more. Of course, John -Jones is persuaded that he was mistaken in his opinion of the Socialist -party, and he joins.</p> - -<p>Going a block or two further, the Socialist<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</span> agitator meets Bill Brown, -and asks him why he does not carry a red card. Bill replies that he is -opposed to the Socialist party because of its friendliness for the A. -F. of L.</p> - -<p>“I am opposed to violence, but I am an industrial unionist,” he -asserts, “and shall have nothing to do with an organization that stands -for craft unionism.”</p> - -<p>What does the Socialist agitator do? From his pocket he extracts a -pamphlet written by Eugene V. Debs, in which Mr. Debs expounds the -doctrines of industrial unionism and shows that it is impossible for -a Socialist to be a conscientious craft unionist. So, realizing that, -as Socialism’s foremost advocate, Eugene V. Debs ought to know what -Socialism means, Bill Brown signs up.</p> - -<p>A few moments later, our Socialist agitator comes face to face with Joe -Black.</p> - -<p>“Come, Joe,” he says, as he grasps his hand, “you are a good Radical. -Why aren’t you in the Socialist party?”</p> - -<p>But Joe shakes his head.</p> - -<p>“Not for mine!” he asserts, emphatically. “I want nothing to do with -a party that is opposed to direct action. How is the worker to get -what he wants unless he takes it? I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</span> believe in <i>The Revolution</i>, -but not in the milk-and-water kind of revolution the Socialist party -preaches.”</p> - -<p>“That’s where you are mistaken, Joe,” replies the Socialist agitator. -“Why, some of our leading Socialists believe just exactly as you -do. Here”—and the agitator draws from his pocket a copy of the -Haywood-Bohn pamphlet on “Industrial Unionism”—“take this with you and -read it. It will show you how we Socialists stand on the question of -the industrial revolution.”</p> - -<p>So Joe Black lines up, too.</p> - -<p>I might continue in this strain indefinitely, for there is scarcely a -question at issue upon which Socialists do not disagree so widely that -those who preach Socialism can manage to be all things to all people.</p> - -<p>But, you ask, what <i>does</i> Socialism mean?</p> - -<p>Let me answer your question by first telling you what Socialism does -not mean. In this way, we shall more quickly get to the real meaning of -the term.</p> - -<p>I have met Socialists who told me that Socialism means absolutely -nothing but the promotion of a reform program: that it means shorter -hours and better pay, the elimination of child labor, the government<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</span> -ownership of inter-state industry, the municipal ownership of municipal -utilities, and so on.</p> - -<p>If you read the program of “Immediate Demands” in the Socialist -platform, you may get the idea that this definition of Socialism is a -correct one. But you would be mistaken. The “Immediate Demands” of the -Socialist party are not Socialism, and no real Socialist pretends that -they are. Indeed, in the platform of 1908, the Socialists themselves -repudiated this idea. Let me quote the closing paragraph of this -program:</p> - -<p>“Such measures of relief as we may be able to force from capitalism -are but a preparation of the workers to seize the whole power of -government, in order that they may thereby lay hold of the whole system -of industry and thus come to their rightful inheritance.”</p> - -<p>Think the matter over calmly, John. Measures of relief that are nothing -more than “preparations” for an object cannot by any possibility be -that object itself—can they?</p> - -<p>Then, too, there are plenty of Socialists who have not the slightest -use for a program<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</span> of “Immediate Demands.” The Socialist party has -found these demands useful in persuading people to vote for its -candidates, and, for this reason, it goes right on talking about -“Immediate Demands,” as if these “sops” to social reform were -simon-pure Socialism.</p> - -<p>The absurdity of this position is well pointed out by H. G. Wells:</p> - -<p>“You cannot change the world and at the same time not change the -world,” he says. “You will find Socialists about, or at any rate those -calling themselves Socialists, who will pretend that this is not so, -who will assure you that some odd little jobbing about municipal gas -and water is Socialism.... You might as well call a gas jet in the -lobby of a meeting house the glory of God in heaven!”</p> - -<p>If anybody should tell you that H. G. Wells is merely one Socialist out -of many millions, and that he does not know what he is talking about, -ask him if Wilhelm Liebknecht knew his Socialism any better. If your -Socialist is honest, he will have to admit that Wilhelm Liebknecht knew -what he was talking about, whether Wells does or not.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</span></p> - -<p>Assuming this to be true, listen to what Liebknecht says:</p> - -<p>“The laboring class is exploited and oppressed by the capitalist class -and ... effectual reforms which will put an end to class government -and class exploitation are impossible” (quoted by Ejayh in <i>Weekly -People</i>, June 17, 1911).</p> - -<p>If your Socialist still insists that Liebknecht is not sufficiently -good authority, you can refer him to Karl Marx himself, for it was he -who said:</p> - -<p>“The working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate -working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that -they are fighting with effects; that they are retarding the downward -movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying -palliatives, not curing the malady.... Instead of the conservative -motto: ‘A fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage,’ they ought to -inscribe on their banners the revolutionary watchword: ‘Abolish the -wages system’” (quoted in <i>Appeal to Reason</i>).</p> - -<p>In brief, to quote Liebknecht again (<i>The Revolt</i>, May 6, 1911), -“pity for poverty, enthusiasm for equality and freedom, recognition<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</span> -of social injustice and the desire to remove it, ... condemnation of -wealth, and respect for poverty,” government ownership or municipal -ownership, an agitation for a shorter work-day, the demand for a more -equitable wage, an extension of the suffrage—not one, nor all of these -things is Socialism.</p> - -<p>And if not, what <i>is</i> Socialism?</p> - -<p>Socialism is an indictment of the whole system of modern civilization, -a plan to overthrow it, and a scheme to set up in its place a system -of society in which all means of production, distribution and exchange -shall be owned collectively and operated collectively.</p> - -<p>To attain this end—to effect the overthrow of all existing -institutions that the “more perfect” institutions of Socialism may take -their place—Socialists preach a gospel of class consciousness, by -which they hope to incite so strong a feeling of class hatred in the -heart of the worker that he will rise in revolt against his employer -and take from him all the means of production and distribution—by the -peaceful method of the ballot, if he can do it in that way; if not, by -violence and with bloodshed—the bloodshed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</span> Victor Berger threatened -when he advised the worker to “be prepared to back up his ballot with -his bullets.”</p> - -<p>This is what Socialists mean when they talk about <i>The -Revolution</i>. This is the method by which they hope to attain their -goal, the Co-operative Commonwealth, in which, if the plan of Socialism -does not miscarry, there will be but one class—the working class—and -all human beings will actually love one another so much that they will -dwell together in peace and harmony ever after.</p> - -<p>It is a beautiful picture—this idea of the lion and the lamb lying -down together. It is so enticing a promise that I might almost be -willing to go through a wee bit of a revolution myself in order to -attain it, if I could only believe that everything would work out in -the way Socialists predict that it will.</p> - -<p>It is right here, John, that I am compelled to part company with the -Socialists for good and all. I am just as thoroughly enamoured peace -and harmony as Debs or Haywood or Hillquit. Not one of these gentlemen -would welcome a world without social evils and social miseries more -heartily than I. But, when I sit down and start to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</span> figure out -the problem logically, I find that the evidence against Socialism -accumulates rapidly. Between you and me, John, Socialism could not do -what it promises to accomplish even if it had the chance. You don’t see -why it couldn’t? Well, I’ll show you.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III<br /><span class="small">THE WORKER’S WAGE</span></h2> -</div> - - -<p class="p0"> -My dear Mr. Smith,<br /> -</p> - -<p>If you stop at the street corner to listen to a soap-boxer, there are -two things that he is pretty certain to tell you: first, that you are -a “wage slave,” and, second, that you are being “robbed” every day you -work.</p> - -<p>With a flood of words, carefully prepared to appeal to men in your -position, and with stories that are supposed to illustrate the points -he wants to make, the man on the street-corner will try to persuade you -that labor is the sole factor in wealth production—that the workers -produce all the wealth of the world—and that this wealth belongs -rightfully to those who made it.</p> - -<p>The agitator will tell you—what you already know—that there is a part -of the product of your toil that goes to your employer. This should -not surprise you. When you consented to work for three dollars a day, -it was with a clear understanding<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</span> that you would do enough more than -three dollars’ worth of work a day to give your employer a fair return -upon his investment. I’ll wager, you never suspected that he had no -right to this share, but, instead, was stealing it from you, until the -soap-box orator began to tell you that you were being “robbed.”</p> - -<p>If you question the speaker as to the extent of this “robbery,” you -will get little satisfaction. Socialists all agree that the worker is -“robbed,” but they disagree very materially as to the amount of which -he is “robbed.” One Socialist (I. L. P. pamphlet, “Simple Division”) -tells you that the worker receives only <i>one-seventh</i> of what he -produces. Another (Hazell, “A Summary of Marx’s ‘Capital’”) asserts -that labor obtains <i>one-fifth</i> of its product. Still another -(Victor Grayson, Speech, June 4, 1908) announces that the worker takes -<i>one-quarter</i> of what he really earns. Another English Socialist -(author of “The Basis and Policy of Socialism”) proves by statistics -that <i>one-third</i> of the total product goes to the man who ought -to have it all. A more reasonable individual (Chiozza-Money, “Riches -and Poverty”) estimates the worker’s share as a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</span> “<i>trifle more than -one-half</i>,” while Suthers, who makes a specialty of answering -objections to Socialism, figures that the returns to labor represent -<i>two-thirds</i> of the amount that the worker ought to receive -(“Common Objections to Socialism Answered”).</p> - -<p>You see what a hazy idea the Socialists have upon this question, how -chaotic and self-contradictory their statements are; yet it is upon -such “facts,” that the contentions or claims of Socialism depend.</p> - -<p>The soap-box man’s statements about the “robbery” of the worker are -based upon a principle that is taken from Karl Marx’s book, “Capital,” -which is the Bible of all real Socialists. Karl Marx said that “labor -is the source of all value,” and it is upon the truth of this statement -that the whole economic structure of Socialism rests. If it is true -that labor <i>is</i> the source of all value, it is possible to argue -that the laborer is entitled to all he produces. If labor <i>is not</i> -the sole source of value, the laborer is not entitled to all he -produces and it is nonsense to say that he is. Thus, the whole question -of the fairness of the principle upon which the modern wage system is -based stands or falls with this “law” of value.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</span></p> - -<p>I suppose it is safe for me to assume that you have never read -“Capital.” I suppose it is just as safe to assume that you never will -read the three bulky tomes in which Marx has expounded the economic -system that we call “Socialism.” You needn’t be ashamed to admit this -fact. There are lots of others like you. Even the soap-boxer, who -quotes Marx so fluently and who upholds his theories so energetically, -has no advantage over you in this respect. It is a safe hundred to one -shot that he also has never read—and never will read—“Capital.”</p> - -<p>The German poet Heine tells us that when Hegel, the well-known -philosopher, lay on his death-bed, he declared: “Only one has -understood me.” But, immediately after, he added, irritably: “And he -did not understand me, either.”</p> - -<p>If this story had been told of Marx instead of Hegel, I should be -quite as ready to believe that it is true. If the soap-box orator -should attempt to explain the Marxian theory of value, he would have -no audience in five minutes. It is because he explains the effects -of this “law,” and not the principles supposed to underlie it, that -he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</span> finds so many people willing to listen to him. Nobody wants to be -“robbed,” and, when the Socialist orator asserts that all workers are -constantly being “robbed” of the larger portion of their earnings, we -are interested at once.</p> - -<p>So, if I am to make you understand the reason that this theory of the -Socialists is false, if I am to prove to you that you are not “robbed” -(at least not in the way the Socialists say you are), I must avoid -the technical words and often unintelligible expressions that have -made Marx’s “law of value” so difficult to comprehend. I must appeal -strictly to your common sense. Then, if you want to go more deeply into -the intricate detail in which Marx has framed his economic theories, -there are several books that will give you all the information you can -possibly digest. One of these is “Socialism: A Critical Analysis,” by -Professor Oscar D. Skelton of Queens University, Canada; another is -“Socialism” by Cathrein-Gettelmann. You will find them in any good -library.</p> - -<p>Marx separated value into two classes: <i>value in use</i> and <i>value -in exchange</i>. “Use-value” means the value that an article has in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</span> -satisfying some human need. “Exchange value” means the value that an -article has when we come to exchange it for something else—for money -or for other articles. Thus, an article may be very valuable <i>for -use</i> and still have no value <i>in exchange</i>. For example, both -water and air are necessary to human life and so are very useful, yet, -should we desire to exchange them for clothes or fuel, we should find -it a difficult matter to make such a bargain, simply because water and -air are usually free to all.</p> - -<p>Articles that have <i>exchange value</i> are those for which men -are willing to give something “in exchange,” but as the articles we -can’t sell are frequently just as useful as those for which we can -get a price in the market, Marx argued that there must be something -in one that the other does not contain—some one factor upon which -exchange-value depends—and he decided that this common element is -<i>human labor</i> (“Capital,” p. 4).</p> - -<p>Was Marx right in this assumption? Is it “labor that makes value”?</p> - -<p>When you go to the store to buy an article, you do not ask what it cost -the manufacturer to produce it, do you? You don’t<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</span> care whether the -man who made this article has profited by its manufacture or not. It -doesn’t occur to you to ask how many hours of labor were put into it, -or how much the workers who made it were paid. The question uppermost -in your mind is: “How badly do I want it?” If you want it so badly -that you would rather own it than spend the same amount of money for -something else, you purchase it and take it away with you. If you -prefer to spend the money in other ways, you go away without buying -this article.</p> - -<p>Now, what is the principle that influences you to make this decision? -It is what this article is worth to you for your own use, is it not?</p> - -<p>Has labor anything to do in making you form this decision? Neither -capital nor labor has anything to do with the question. If the article -has cost the manufacturer ten times as much as you are asked to pay -for it, if ten times as much labor had been expended in making it, you -wouldn’t give one penny more than it is worth to you for its use, would -you?</p> - -<p>Let us take another illustration:</p> - -<p>Marx points out that labor—and he measures<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</span> the value of labor by the -time necessary to perform a given piece of work—is the sole source of -exchange-value. As a result, Socialists propose to substitute what they -call labor certificates for our present system of money, so that a man -who spends four hours making cigars can buy with his labor certificates -anything that represents a proportionate amount of labor.</p> - -<p>Would this be a fair basis of exchange?</p> - -<p>Would it be fair if a man working four hours in making cigars were to -exchange the product of his labor for the gold or the diamonds that it -had taken some other man four hours to extract from the earth? And is -there no difference in the value of a silk dress and a cotton dress, -if both kinds of cloth take the same time and skill in the making? -Would it be fair to figure the value of any article on the amount of -labor-time expended in producing it? There are mines in which gold is -produced at a cost of less than $5 an ounce, and there are other mines -where it costs so much to extract the gold that there is no profit in -mining it. Is anybody so silly as to believe that the labor-time spent -in one mine is as productive of value as the time expended in the -other?</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</span></p> - -<p>Any farmer will tell you that it is impossible to make the varying -costs of agricultural products harmonize with the theories of Marx. In -raising wheat, or potatoes, a great deal depends upon the quality of -the land. If the land is very good, wheat may be grown at a cost of 50 -cents a bushel, and with much less labor than the farmer would expend -in raising wheat oh poorer land, though the latter crop might cost from -75 cents to a dollar a bushel to raise, if not more.</p> - -<p>It is not the cost of an article that determines its value. Its value -is based primarily upon its capacity to satisfy human wants. A useless -article has no exchange-value, no matter how much it has cost. An -article that has gone out of fashion possesses comparatively little -value, in spite of the fact that it represents the expenditure of -capital as well as actual labor which was “necessary labor” at the -time it was performed. The Socialists have to admit this fact—Marx -also admitted it (“Capital,” p. 189)—yet they do not seem to see the -inconsistency of saying that the value of an article is affected by -its loss of utility, while, at the same time, asserting that “a useful -article has value<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</span> only because human labor ... has been embodied in -it.” If they told the truth they would say, “an article upon which -labor has been expended has value only because it is useful.” But this -would be to admit that their whole scheme is built upon a foundation of -sand.</p> - -<p>A commodity has value, not only because it has cost time and skill -to produce it, and therefore is difficult of attainment, but also -for the reason that it holds the one common property of all valuable -articles—utility. It is true that articles of value are seldom -produced without labor. It is not true that it is labor that makes them -valuable. In confessing this, Socialism acknowledges that the law of -Marx is contradicted by experience. Are we Simple Simons not to see -this very obvious contradiction?</p> - -<p>Take the commodity timber—because the woods which we use in building -houses and those which are used in making furniture possess radically -different values.</p> - -<p>If you were to go to a primitive country, John, you would find plenty -of trees that you could cut down, without asking anybody’s permission -and without paying anybody for the privilege. Suppose that you<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</span> were -to take a gang of men into such a forest and were to cut down a lot of -trees. If you took no pains in selecting these trees, but cut various -kinds of wood, you would get different prices for the timber, and these -prices would not in any way depend upon the cost of production (cutting -down the trees) or the expense of transportation. As you know, there is -a market price for every kind of wood, yet one wood costs practically -no more than another to produce, and one may be transported as cheaply -as another. What does this price depend upon? Upon <i>utility</i>, does -it not? It is the <i>use-value</i> of the wood that ultimately fixes -its price.</p> - -<p>Then, too, you may take the products of the arts—the books we read and -the paintings we admire. Does the amount of labor-time expended in the -making fix the value of these commodities? An author may devote years -to writing a novel, and yet see it fall still-born from the press, -whereas another novelist, in a few months, may produce a story that -nets him $25,000. Does labor-time count as a factor in determining the -value of our books, our pictures, our musical compositions, or our -scientific discoveries?</p> - -<p>There is still another factor to be considered,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</span> John, and that is -the productive power of thought. Marx, as you would see were you to -analyze the first pages of his book, “Capital,” starts off with the -idea that all labor is common, manual labor. Later on, he encounters -the difficulty that labor when undirected is usually unproductive. -A thousand men, working without direction, will produce nothing -proportionate to the amount of physical strength they expend. Put a man -with brains and knowledge over them, and he will show them how to make -their labor fully productive.</p> - -<p>Even Marx recognized the fact that he must make some provision for -“skilled” and “mental” labor, so he grudgingly bridged over the gap by -stating that “skilled labor counts only as unskilled labor, a given -quantity of skilled labor being considered equal to a greater quantity -of simple labor” (“Capital,” p. 11).</p> - -<p>Socialists to-day try to deny that Marx intended to imply that the -term “labor” means “average manual labor.” They will tell you, if -you question them closely, that the term “labor” includes industrial -effort of every kind—mental as well as physical labor. This is a worse -absurdity than to say<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</span> that manual labor is the source of all value. -If we are to admit that “labor” includes every kind of effort, the -assertion that all wealth should go to the laborers who produced it -simply means that all wealth ought to go to the human race. And so it -does. The only question remaining is: <i>How can it be distributed more -fairly?</i></p> - -<p>This would take the very cornerstone away from the Socialist’s -structure and bring it tumbling about his ears. If we do this, there -is practically no room for argument left, for the number of persons -who in no way contribute to the industrial progress of the world—the -inheritors of wealth who are literally and positively idle—is so -small that there is no reason why we should give them much serious -consideration.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV<br /><span class="small">HOW THE “ROBBING” IS DONE</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="p0"> -My dear Mr. Smith,<br /> -</p> - -<p>After asserting that labor produces all value, and “showing” that -the laborer receives but a very small portion of the value which he -produces, Marx tells us that this unpaid-for labor—the labor-strength -and time of which the worker is robbed—is used by the Capitalist Class -(Marx’s term for the employer) in the further robbery of the worker. -This unpaid-for labor Marx calls “surplus value,” and he includes -under this term everything that the worker does not get in his own -pay-envelope—dividends, interest, rents and profits of all kinds.</p> - -<p>Of course, nobody will deny that “surplus value”—or, more correctly, -profit—may exist in industry. If the employer could not reap more from -the industry than the mere equivalent of wages paid, it would not be to -his interest to keep on paying wages. But the “surplus value” to which -I refer, and the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</span> thing that Marx means when he talks about “surplus -value,” are entirely different.</p> - -<p>To admit that Marx is right in his definition of surplus value, we -must first come to the conclusion that the worker is entitled to all -the value that is produced, and, as we have already seen, this is not -so. If it is not so, what has become of Marx’s surplus-value theory? -There may be industrial injustices; there are many instances in which -employers fail to pay those who work for them a just wage. I am willing -to admit that there are numerous cases of this kind. If I thought it -would add to the strength of my argument to particularize, I could -name many unjust employers. But it would do no good. Between the -abuses committed by individual capitalists and the “awful crimes of -capitalism” which Socialism depicts, there is a difference as great as -the distance from pole to pole.</p> - -<p>According to Marx’s theory, if a laborer can produce something equal to -the amount of his wage in six hours of work, the value of the product -which he turns out during the other six hours in his work-day is stolen -from him. “The extra six hours,” says Marx, “I shall call <i>surplus -labor</i>, which realizes itself<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</span> in a <i>surplus product</i> having a -<i>surplus value</i>” (“Capital,” p. 178).</p> - -<p>Have I made this clear, John? Do you see what Marx is driving at—that, -when you are helping your employer to pay his rent, the interest on the -money he has borrowed that he might keep you at work, the dividends to -his stockholders, or the profit to himself, you are helping him to rob -you—actually contributing to the robbery of yourself?</p> - -<p>The soap-box orator will talk to you by the hour about surplus value. -He will tell you that it makes no difference how much money there is -in your pay-envelope. So long as it does not contain every cent of -your employer’s profit, you are being “robbed.” “No wage can ever be -fair compensation for a day’s work!” he shouts. “Before there can be -justice on earth, the making of goods for profit must come to an end, -for this is the ‘tap-root’ from which all the evils of Society develop. -No dividends! No Interest! No Rents! No Profits! In a word, no Surplus -Value!”</p> - -<p>Marx, like the soap-boxer on the corner, includes all profits in the -category of robbery and exploitation. He admits that labor<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</span> can do -nothing without capital, but he contends that capital itself is the -product of past labor and, therefore, ought rightfully to belong to the -laborers of the present day. “Capital,” he says, “is dead labor, that, -vampire-like, lives by sucking living labor” (“Capital,” p. 134).</p> - -<p>In this we have the assumption that all labor is performed by -“laborers” of the propertyless class, and that all capital is owned by -“capitalists.”</p> - -<p>This, as you know, is not true.</p> - -<p>There are plenty of laborers who have a respectable little store of -capital laid by for the proverbial rainy day, and many of them own -stock in the very concern that employs them. Not every man who lives -by the labor of his hands is existing on the verge of starvation, as -Socialists would have you believe, nor is it true that all labor is -performed by the “laboring class.” Many so-called “capitalists” are -truly sons of toil, the performers of manual labor and the producers of -wealth, even as Marx would define a “producer.”</p> - -<p>But, let us stop generalizing, and get down to cases.</p> - -<p>Marx says that all profit is robbery and exploitation. As an example of -the utter<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</span> absurdity of this theory, let me cite an illustration which -Mr. G. W. de Tunzelmann once used in a debate with a prominent English -Socialist.</p> - -<p>He took the case of a man who buys a diamond for $498,000. The man pays -$2,000 to the diamond-cutter for cutting the stone, and, finally, sells -it for $550,000, making a 10 per cent. profit upon his outlay. If Marx -argues rightly, this sum of $50,000 was obtained by robbery, but—who -was robbed? Was it the diamond-cutter who was defrauded of a portion of -his wages? Should the entire $52,000 have gone to him for his part in -the transaction, while the capitalist got nothing?</p> - -<p>The Socialist who was debating with Mr. de Tunzelmann found it -impossible to answer this question intelligibly. “If the $50,000 did -not come from the diamond-cutter’s wages, where did it come from?” was -all he could say, and, John, it is all that any Socialist can say!</p> - -<p>Then, here is an illustration from my own experience:</p> - -<p>I have a friend who bought a painting from a young artist, paying -$300 for it. This was a very fair price to pay for the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</span> picture. The -artist was well satisfied with his bargain and my friend felt that the -work of art was well worth $300 to him. Several years passed, and the -comparatively obscure artist became a famous artist—so famous that -there were lots of people who wanted to buy his pictures, and my friend -found that he could sell his painting and get $2,000 for it.</p> - -<p>May we again ask: Who was robbed? The man who painted the picture -received its full value at the time; the man who bought the picture -from my friend was satisfied that he got good value for his money. If -Marx is right, my friend robbed somebody to the extent of $1,700. But -whom did he rob?</p> - -<p>As we have already seen, the value of an article is chiefly a -matter of utility as adfected (raised or lowered) by difficulty of -attainment—not the worker’s “difficulty of attainment,” not the -time and effort he had to expend to produce this article, but your -“difficulty of attainment,” or the effort you must make to secure it. -The part that the worker plays in the production of a commodity is of -minor importance when compared with the other factors which operate<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</span> -in determining its value. It is the employer, and not the worker, -who assumes all the risk. It is the directing genius, and not the -mere physical force used in operating the industry, that determines -whether it shall succeed or fail. If this were not true, every business -enterprise would be a success, for it would be nothing more than the -proposition of getting money and men together and setting them to work. -But you know that this is not what happens in real life.</p> - -<p>Mr. Hyndman, the celebrated English Socialist, attempts to say that -such a thing is possible. In his manual of Socialism he asks us to -believe that a man who has $50,000 would find it a very simple matter -to live permanently by robbing other men of part of the products -of their labor. This man, he tells us, merely buys a mill of some -kind—<i>doesn’t it matter what kind of a mill he buys?</i>—employs a -manager and the necessary number of operatives, and then sits down and -lets the wheels go round. Don’t smile, John, for this is precisely what -Mr. Hyndman tells us the man does. “He has nothing to do but sit still -and watch the mill go,” he asserts, naively (see Mallock’s “Socialism,” -p. 13).</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</span></p> - -<p>Do you believe this? Socialists do. As a practical man, do you imagine -that any one method of employing capital will be just as successful -as any other? If the laborer produces all value, and an article is -valuable simply because of the labor there is in it, Mr. Hyndman and -his master, Karl Marx, and the soap-box orator, who is telling you how -to solve all of life’s problems by voting for the candidates on the -Socialist ticket, are right. If this is not true, they are wrong, and -you can’t get away from this conclusion. One might as well argue that -an engine is sufficient unto itself and needs neither working capital -in the form of fuel nor the directing hand of the engineer.</p> - -<p>There is another class of “capitalists” who receive comparatively -little attention from the Socialists. These are the employers who make -no profits upon their investment, who purchase material and pay their -workers’ wages and who do not earn enough to reimburse themselves for -their outlay. The commercial agencies which report business conditions -have records of many such cases. Men go into business and fail; people -put their money into stock companies and never receive dividends. The -work is done; the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</span> labor is performed; but there is no surplus value of -which the worker may be “robbed.” In this case are we to assume that -the unfortunate investors are robbed by their workmen?</p> - -<p>Marx maintains that all capitalists are robbers. Are we therefore -to believe that all capitalists are successful? We cannot deny that -capital, and even the product of labor, may be transferred by the -process of robbery. Before there can be any robbery, however, the -capital or the value of the product must exist, and it is beyond the -power of labor to call either <i>capital</i> or <i>value</i> into -being.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V<br /><span class="small">YOUR OWN PAY ENVELOPE</span></h2> -</div> - - -<p class="p0"> -My dear Smith,<br /> -</p> - -<p>Having seen that the Marxian theories of value are not the sanely -“scientific” laws that Socialists declare them to be, but are utter -absurdities that run counter to all laws of logic and even contradict -human experience, we shall now get down to your own individual pay -envelope, for that is the thing which most interests you. But, please -don’t imagine that, because we have stopped talking about Marx’s -theories for the moment, we have reached the end of our list of -Socialist fallacies. To tell the truth, we have just begun to enumerate -them. Silly as these ideas are in theory, they do not begin to attain -the full limit of their absurdity until we attempt to apply them to the -practical affairs of life.</p> - -<p>Last night I stood at the street corner and heard the soap-box orator -“educate” the crowd. He told them that the average earnings<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</span> of every -worker in America was $2,500 a year—a trifle more than $48 a week—and -he asked the men if they had found any such sum of money in their -pay-envelope recently.</p> - -<p>You can imagine the answer he received to this question, John. Yet, -the soap-boxer still asserted that this was the amount each worker had -earned, and insisted that the difference between $48 and the sum he had -received represented the amount of which his employer was “robbing” -him. From the look on the faces of some of the men, I felt that the -agitator had made an impression upon them. He reeled off his statistics -so glibly that you really couldn’t blame them for believing him.</p> - -<p>Of course, he also told them that, under Socialism, nothing of this -kind could happen—that they would get their $2,500 a year, and more, -too, and that they would have to work only half as long a time each day -in order to earn this amount of money. “We must change the ‘system,’” -he cried. “We must stop the making of goods for profit! Then, and -then only, will you put an end to the exploitation that is the cause -of all your poverty and misery. It is the only way you can throw the -parasite-capitalist<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</span> off your back. You are being robbed of four-fifths -of your wages, and you’re not allowed to keep even the little you get, -because capitalism, after robbing you by taking four-fifths of the -money you earn, puts the prices of everything you buy higher and higher -until there isn’t a penny of your earnings left for yourself, and you -don’t get a chance to live decently, at that.”</p> - -<p>You have heard this kind of talk. You may have thought that there was -some truth in it. You—like all the rest of us—are confronted with the -problem of the cost of living, and—like most of us—you wish that you -could earn more money. “Is it possible,” you ask, “that I am earning -four times as much as I get, and that I am being ‘robbed’ of the -greater part of it?”</p> - -<p>If you listen to the Socialists you will come to believe that this is -just what is happening. A Socialist paper published in Kansas has spent -a lot of money to advertise the fact that, when Socialism triumphs and -you get what you actually earn, you will be paid $2,000 a year for six -hours a day.</p> - -<p>This is a very conservative estimate—for a Socialist. As you may have -learned by this time, the writers and speakers who undertake<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</span> to tell -the worker what is to happen to him under Socialism do not agree about -the amount of money he will get and the length of time he will have to -work in the Co-operative Commonwealth, any more than they do when they -try to estimate the extent of the “robbery” from which he is suffering.</p> - -<p>Usually, the rate of payment is fixed at $2,500 for four hours’ work a -day. A writer in a popular magazine fixes the sum the worker will be -paid at $5,000. Suthers, the English Socialist, promises the equivalent -of $10,000 a year, and there is a band of “comrades” on the Pacific -Coast who can demonstrate “scientifically” that a 3-hour day affords -sufficient time in which to earn a decent living and even the luxuries -of life.</p> - -<p>Well, do you believe any of these statements? I hope you are not such -a simpleton as to be fooled by the bald assertion of any speaker or -writer when you have, within your reach, the facts from which you can -learn the truth for yourself.</p> - -<p>Let us pursue this more rational method. Certainly, the Socialists -cannot object if we check off their calculations and find out if<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</span> they -have made any mistakes in their figuring.</p> - -<p>According to the last United States Census report—and that ought to -be good enough authority for anybody—the total value of all the goods -manufactured in this country during the year 1909 was $20,672,052,000 -and the number of persons employed in making these goods was 7,405,513. -If we divide one by the other, we find an earning capacity of more -than $2,700 per man; but, unfortunately, that is not the way things -work out. There are certain expenses of manufacture that have to be -deducted from the “gross value” before we can even begin to calculate -the earning capacity of the worker. One little item we mustn’t forget -is called “Cost of Materials.” Another item is known as “Miscellaneous -Expenses.” After you have received your wages, you are perfectly -willing that your employer shall deduct these “expenses” before -figuring his own profits, are you not?</p> - -<p>In 1909, the “cost of materials” alone represented the tremendous -sum of $12,141,291,000 and the “cost of miscellaneous expenses” was -$1,945,676,000. When we subtract these two charges from the “gross<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</span> -value,” we have $6,585,085,000 left, and if we divide this sum by the -number of workers, we find that the average product of the worker was -but $889.23.</p> - -<p>What did the worker actually get? The “cost of labor and salaries,” -in 1909, was $4,365,613,000, and, if we divide this by the number of -workers, we learn that the average is $589.52.</p> - -<p>This is quite different from the story the Socialists tell us. Had -all the industries in America been owned and operated collectively, -in 1909, the worker, at the best, could have received but $299.71 -more than he did, for, as you must admit, such factors as “cost of -materials” and “miscellaneous expenses” must needs be considered, even -under the collective system of industry. Certainly, the worker in the -textile mills could not produce the cotton and wool and silk, and the -shoe-worker could not raise the animals and prepare the leather, even -were Socialism to bring about all the marvelous changes it has promised.</p> - -<p>Yet, this is precisely what the Socialists do when they commence to -quote “facts.” It is useless for them to deny the charge, for there is -no other method by which they can<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</span> figure an average earning capacity -of $2,500 for each worker. To do this it would be necessary for the -employer to get his cotton for nothing, his leather for nothing, and -everything he uses in making his product, for nothing. Moreover, it -presupposes that he can procure free fuel, free light, and, what is -still more improbable, that he has to pay nothing for new machinery -or for repairing the old. Do you think that the Socialist is showing -himself the “friend” of the worker when he fills his mind with such -“dope” as this?</p> - -<p>And, even, the figures we have worked out are not fair—to the -employer. He does not make a profit of more than $299 upon the labor -of each of his workers—not by any means! Out of the $299 must come -the cost of selling and transportation, bad debts, taxes, interest, -etc., so that, when we have deducted all these charges, we can scarcely -question Willey’s justification for the assertion (“Laborer and the -Capitalist,” p. 22) that capital actually receives no more than 6 -per cent net profits on its product. Moreover, as <i>The American -Federationist</i> points out (July, 1905), the census figures fall -short of giving us the actual cost of manufactures,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</span> as the original -“gross value” upon which our calculations are based is itself “arrived -at by a constant duplication of value, owing to the fact that the -finished products of one plant become the material of some other -factory, in which they are changed into some higher form and again -included in the value of products.”</p> - -<p>I will admit that it is practically impossible to compile statistics -that will take such facts as these into consideration, and the -Socialists do not act fairly when they lead us to assume that all these -conditions have been considered in their figures. How many times do you -suppose the value of the same piece of leather is computed from the -time it becomes a hide until it is turned out, a finished product, from -the shoe factory. Yet, as we have seen, every time the value of this -material is included in the value of products it gives the manufacturer -credit for a sum of money that never reached him.</p> - -<p>Let us suppose that we were running all our industries under just such -a collective form of government as the Socialists propose to establish, -and that, as a result, we were bound to see that every worker got the -$5,000 a year he has been promised. Do<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</span> you see what that would mean? -Figure it out for yourself—multiply the 7,405,513 workers in the -industrial plants by the $5,000 that each would have to be paid, and -then remember that the seven millions of workers represent only a small -proportion of the workers to whom this sum of money must be given by -the Co-operative Commonwealth. Even counting the seven millions alone, -we have a total of $37,027,505,000—almost twice as much as the “gross -value” of all manufactured products in this country to-day.</p> - -<p>It is true that we do not know just how many men, women and children -of working age there are who would have to be given a place in the -collective pay-roll. In view of the total population of the United -States, I do not think that any Socialist will accuse me of overstating -the case if I assert that there would be 30,000,000 people to be -provided for.</p> - -<p>What would this mean? Merely an annual pay-roll of -$150,000,000,000—that’s all.</p> - -<p>Easy, isn’t it! At present, we manufacture less than $21,000,000,000 -worth of goods—the consumable wealth produced in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</span> United States -is estimated by Socialists to be but $30,000,000,000 (<i>Appeal to -Reason</i>, October 5, 1912); yet they ask us to get busy and undertake -to meet a pay-roll that is at least fully five times greater than the -total product to-day. And, if you want to be as conservative as the -most conservative Socialist statistician who is dreaming these dreams, -and allow that labor under Socialism will be rewarded with a meagre -$2,000 a year, you will still have a pay-roll of $60,000,000,000 to -provide for, or twice as much as we make. How are you going to meet it? -As a practical man, John, I ask you: <i>How?</i> Certainly not from the -$21,000,000,000 produced each year in manufactures. If we add to this -the total wealth represented by the agricultural, mining and fishing -interests of this country, we shall still fall far short of the sum we -require. How is it to be done?</p> - -<p>Absurd as all these promises are, we have not yet reached the -limit—far from it! For example, we are told that in the Co-operative -Commonwealth we shall have to work only half as long as we do now. -In other words, the man who works eight hours a day now, will get -along swimmingly by<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</span> working four hours, and still receive the income -promised—from $2,000 to $5,000 a year—for his effort.</p> - -<p>Are we to understand from this that, though the worker, with the best -machinery and the most scientific management now possible, succeeds -only in turning out less than $900 worth of goods in a year, he will be -able, under collective management, to turn out from two and one-half to -five times as great a product, while working just half as many hours?</p> - -<p>You know that this couldn’t be done. You know that, if you worked -half as many hours as you do now, some other man would have to put -in the other half of the day or only about half the usual product -would be manufactured. If, therefore, we entirely disregard the fact -that Socialists are promising to pay the individual worker more money -every year than several workers are now able to produce, we are still -confronted by a problem that defies solution. A certain amount of work -must be done to keep the needs of Society supplied. To do this work, a -certain amount of effort must be exerted, and, to exert this effort, a -certain amount of time is necessary. Yet, the Socialists<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</span> want us to -assume that all of these appeals to common sense are absurd—that once -the making of goods for profit has ceased, there will be no difficulty -in meeting the industrial pay-roll, no matter how enormously its -proportions may have increased.</p> - -<p>And this leads up to still another very interesting phase of the -situation. We are told by the Socialists that the making of goods for -profit is to end, and that, in the Co-operative Commonwealth, such -problems as the high cost of living will trouble us no longer. Once let -the Socialists get control of our industries and we shall be compelled -to pay no more than a commodity is actually worth.</p> - -<p>Do you see into what a maze of absurdities the Socialists have led -you? They tell us that we are to get anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 a -year. An English Socialist promises the workers $10,000 a year, for -what does a few paltry thousands matter when a great army of voters -are to be fooled into casting their ballots for the Socialist ticket! -In addition, you are assured that your work-day is to be cut in half, -and you are further informed that, with the culmination of the profit -system, you will be able<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</span> to purchase everything you want at materially -lower prices than are charged for such commodities to-day.</p> - -<p>Will you tell me, John, where the Socialists are going to get the -money to meet this enormous pay-roll, if they stop making goods for -profit? Wages are to be increased out of all proportion to the present -schedule; hours of labor are to be reduced to a minimum, and yet, -despite all this, the prices of all commodities are to be cheapened, -too.</p> - -<p>You don’t see how they are going to do it? No more do I! Suppose you -ask that wise little man on the street-corner. Maybe he can tell you!</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI<br /><span class="small">YOU “WAGE SLAVES”!</span></h2> -</div> - - -<p class="p0"> -My dear Smith,<br /> -</p> - -<p>If you were to tell the soap-boxer that Socialism is an impracticable -scheme, and that it couldn’t “make good” whether we all wanted it or -not, he would become very indignant and would probably call you a -“blind fool,” if he did not shower upon you still more vituperative -epithets. If you ever find yourself in such a position, don’t let -the soap-boxer place you on the defensive. When you talk about the -impracticability of Socialism you put the Socialist just where he -doesn’t want to be, and, if you follow up your attack consistently -and strenuously, you will have him on the run before you know it. -Socialists like to theorize. They like to talk to people who don’t -ask for too many details, but they have little liking for the man who -demands definite plans and accurate specifications.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</span></p> - -<p>You have a little house in a new suburban section. It is a small house -and it has a mortgage on it, but you are paying for it gradually and -it won’t be many years before it will be all your own. Even now the -payments and all the charges together call for a smaller monthly -expenditure than would be required if you rented a home not nearly as -comfortable as this one.</p> - -<p>Now, John, suppose I were to come to you and tell you that if you -would let me tear down your house I would build you another somewhere -else. Wouldn’t you be likely to ask me where the new house was to be -located, and what guarantee I would give you that it would be a more -satisfactory place of abode than the one which you now occupy? No -matter how well you may know me—no matter how much confidence you -may have in me as an individual—unless you are a very careless or a -very stupid person, you will refuse to consent to any change in your -domestic arrangements until you are certain that the proposition will -be advantageous to you.</p> - -<p>Such caution is entirely reasonable; this is the attitude you should -take; yet Socialism asks you to disregard all such conditions.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</span> It -expects you to believe that, when everything that represents modern -civilization has been thrown into a vast melting-pot called “The -Revolution,” something will come out of it that will be very much to -your profit. They won’t tell you how this is to be brought about. They -themselves have a vague idea in regard to what kind of a society we are -to evolve into, and they try to describe it to you under the general -terms of the “Co-operative Commonwealth.” As a matter of fact, however, -it is almost impossible to find any two Socialists who will agree, even -as to the main points of their program, and some of the socialistic -leaders are honest enough to admit that there is a poor chance that -they would be able to carry out this program successfully, even if -given the best of opportunities. For example, Edward Bernstein, who is -a sufficiently good Socialist to be selected to represent his party in -the German Reichstag, admits that, “<i>Socialism could not keep its -promise if it were placed in power to-morrow.</i>”</p> - -<p>Remember this the next time the soap-box orator calls you a “wage -slave.” Ask for specifications. Insist upon his telling you if -Socialism would not introduce as hopeless a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</span> form of slavery as the -world has ever known, and—if not, why not?</p> - -<p>It is a catchy phrase, the term “wage slave.” It is a telling taunt -that does good service for Socialism wherever there are people simple -enough to be imposed upon. Yet if you, who are not a Socialist, -will study this question you can easily turn the tables upon the -limber-tongued agitator in a way to make him very unhappy.</p> - -<p>In the first place, the use of the term “wage slave” would naturally -lead us to suppose that, under Socialism, men will no longer work for a -wage; that they will become their own masters, employing themselves and -paying themselves the full product of their labor; in a word, that each -will be free with a freedom such as man has never before experienced.</p> - -<p>Knowing that this is the plan proposed by many prominent Socialist -thinkers, it is somewhat surprising to find publications purporting to -represent Socialism still promising the worker a “wage.” It is true -that they have greatly increased the amount of his remuneration until -they promise him anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000 a year, but<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</span> they -combine to talk about the “wages” he will get.</p> - -<p>What does this mean? Simply that under Socialism he will still be a -wage earner. He may receive labor checks instead of United States -currency—or something equivalent in value—but, if such a system -were to be carried out, he could have no more freedom than he enjoys -to-day and from every indication it is not impossible that he might -have considerably less. A man is no less a wage slave because he works -for 90,000,000 and himself, than he is when he is employed by a single -individual. This is a fact that Socialism overlooks.</p> - -<p>Under the present system a man is free to choose his own method of -livelihood. If he does not like one trade, he can learn another. If he -wants to get out of the industrial sphere altogether and enter upon a -professional career, there are methods of accomplishing this purpose -within his reach, if he is willing to work hard enough to attain that -end. It is true that there are certain restrictions under existing -labor conditions—the area of selection is not as wide as it might be, -yet there is a great deal more scope for the development of individual -preference to-day<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</span> than there could possibly be under Socialism.</p> - -<p>Let us see for ourselves.</p> - -<p>Socialism provides for the collective ownership of all means of -production, distribution and exchange. This means that the State—using -the term as “collective” State, of course—would organize all these -industries and would operate them upon a collective, which means a -democratic, basis. Under such conditions it is doubtless true that -every man would have an equal opportunity to earn a living, but it is -absurd for anybody to assert that this equality of opportunity would -also mean absolute freedom of choice.</p> - -<p>If you want evidence in support of this statement, you can get it—and -Socialist testimony at that.</p> - -<p>In 1906, the Fabian Society of London—an organization composed of -absolutely orthodox Socialists—issued a leaflet entitled, “Socialism -and Labor Policy.” Let us see what they have to say about the freedom -of choice we shall have under the collective régime.</p> - -<p>“Everybody should have a legal right to an opportunity of earning his -living in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</span> society in which he has been born,” we read, “but no one -should or could have the right to ask that he should be employed at the -particular job which suits his peculiar taste and temperament. Each of -us must be prepared to do the work which Society wants doing, or take -the consequences of refusal.”</p> - -<p>Again, Sydney Webb, in his “Basis and Policy of Socialism” (p. 71), -says:</p> - -<p>“Instead of converting every man into an independent producer, working -when he likes and where he likes, we aim at enrolling every able-bodied -person directly in the service of the community, for such duties and -under such kind of organization, local or national, as may be suitable -to his capacity and social function. In fact, so far are we from -seeking to abolish the wage system, so understood, that we wish to -bring under it all those who now escape from it—the employers, and -those who live on rent or interest—and so make it universal. If a man -wants freedom to work or not to work just as he likes, he had better -emigrate to Robinson Crusoe’s island, or else become a millionaire. -To suppose that the industrial affairs of a complicated industrial -State can be run without strict subordination and discipline, without<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</span> -obedience to orders, and without definite allowances for maintenance is -to dream not of Socialism, but of Anarchism.”</p> - -<p>And Sydney Webb is not alone in these conclusions. Ramsay MacDonald, -who is certainly one of the most conservative of Socialists, expresses -the same spirit when he tells us that “trade must be organized like a -fleet or education system” (“Socialism and Society,” p. 172); while -Suthers answers this particular “objection” by expressing the most -genuine contempt for those who would protest against the kind of -slavery that collectivism would introduce. He reminds us that the -people themselves would then be masters. Who would oppress the people? -The people themselves? Like so many other Socialists, he will not see -that slavery is slavery under whatever guise it may operate.</p> - -<p>The only attempts to escape this proposition have been most utopian -in character. Bebel, for example, asks us to believe that, in a -Socialist State, disagreeable work will be accomplished chiefly -by means of mechanical devices and that such undesirable tasks as -remained, and which could be performed only by personal action, would -be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</span> freely undertaken, as an effect of the unselfish spirit which will -prevail among the workers of the future. He even suggests that it -will be possible to inaugurate a kind of changing-off system so that -each member of society may in his turn submit to assignment to the -performance of the more disagreeable duties.</p> - -<p>While this suggestion may be equitable in theory, it is of no practical -value. Picture to yourself what kind of a community we should have -if each individual was compelled to submit himself by a changing-off -system to the most disagreeable avocations that you can imagine. Can -you say that “freedom” could exist under such a régime? Do you think -that such a system is possible outside of the penitentiary?</p> - -<p>Of still greater absurdity is Bebel’s promise (“Woman,” p. 271) that -the members of the social body shall become so perfectly developed -that, “without distinction of sex,” they “shall undertake all -functions” of society. As Cathrein says (p. 289), “this statement can -hardly be said to deserve a refutation.”</p> - -<p>“Let us only imagine what such industrial and technical ability -supposes,” he continues.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</span> “Every individual in his turn undertakes all -social functions. For instance, in a factory he is director, foreman, -fireman, bookkeeper, a simple laborer or hod-carrier; then he turns -to some other branch of industry or social calling—becomes editor, -compositor, telegrapher, painter, architect, actor, farmer, gardener, -astronomer, professor, chemist, druggist. With such a program is any -thorough knowledge of anything possible?”</p> - -<p>You know, John, that the efficient worker is the man who has mastered -a trade thoroughly, and you also know that the maintenance of his -efficiency depends upon his constant attention to the ever-changing -details of his particular trade. This means the application of a -lifetime, yet Socialists tell us that, merely by the adoption of the -collective system, all men will become so perfectly proficient in -everything that they will be fitted to undertake every kind of work.</p> - -<p>No, John, this is not a joke! I did not find it in <i>Puck</i> or -<i>Judge</i>. It is Bebel and other equally bright lights of the -Socialist philosophy, who are responsible for these assertions. Even -Marx himself endeavors to prove (“Capital,” p. 453) that the “separate -individual” will be replaced by the “totally-developed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</span> individual,” -and this development will confer upon the workman “absolute -availability” for everything. If this is not a flight of imagination -worthy of our old friend Baron Munchausen, what is it? Even Professor -Paulsen, who cannot be called an anti-Socialist, protests in his -“System of Ethics” (Vol. II, p. 437) against the equalizing tendencies -shown by those who are trying to picture the future Co-operative -Commonwealth.</p> - -<p>“In the society of the future,” he says, “the self-same individual -will be letter carrier to-day; to-morrow he must perform the -duties of a post-office clerk; on the third day he must act as -postmaster-general—but why use a title?—in short, he must undertake -all that business which at present the director of the national -post-office has in hand—he must prepare programs for international -post-office congresses, etc.; and on the fourth day he must again -return to the counter; on the fifth he condescends to be letter-carrier -once more but this time not in the metropolis, but in some -out-of-the-way place, for it is but meet that the sweets of city life -should fall to the lot of all in their turn. Thus it would be also with -the railroad department, in the mining and military department and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</span> -in every common factory. To-day the member of the socialistic State -descends into the bowels of the earth as a collier, or hammers at the -anvil, or punches tickets; to-morrow he wields the quill, balances -accounts, makes chemical experiments, drafts designs for machines -or issues general edicts on the quantity and quality of the social -productions.”</p> - -<p>So, you “wage slaves,” you have been told what is in store for you. -The utopian promises of some Socialist apologists are too ridiculous -to be credited by a sane individual. The only thing that remains is -the course which Sydney Webb and Ramsay MacDonald have outlined. The -worker will still work for a wage. The officials of the new State will -sanction the selection of his employment. He may take it or leave it, -live or starve to death, for there will be but one master to whom he -can turn for a job—the omnipotent State. It is the State that will -tell him what he is permitted to do, and he will have no right save -that of strict obedience.</p> - -<p>As the author of “The Case Against Socialism” says (pp. 290-1): “A man -might desire to be an electrical engineer. ‘No<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</span> vacancies,’ says the -State. ‘Ah, but I am sure that I can prove myself to be a much better -man than some whom you have chosen,’ replies the applicant. ‘No outside -competitions allowed,’ says the State. ‘We want masons, and a mason you -must be.’ ‘But have I no personal freedom?’ replies the man. The answer -is that he belongs to the State, and, if the official is in the mood to -graciously explain matters further, the man will probably be told that -it is difficult enough to organize labor at all, and that the attempt -would become impossible if anyone was so selfish as to consider such a -trivial matter as his own inclinations.”</p> - -<p>What chance could a worker have under such circumstances? If he was not -satisfied, he would simply have to pocket his dissatisfaction and make -the best of it. What do you think of a body of men who, while planning -this fate for the American worker, have the nerve to talk to him about -“wage slavery”! Could anything be worse than this slavery with the -State as a master?</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII<br /><span class="small">YOUR BOSS UNDER SOCIALISM</span></h2> -</div> - - -<p class="p0"> -My dear Smith,<br /> -</p> - -<p>Having seen what the condition of the “wage slave” will be under -Socialism, it is only fair that we should give a little attention -to that other class in the Co-operative Commonwealth, the “bossing -class.” The Socialist speaker on the street-corner assures us that, -when the Socialist ideal is realized, everything in society will be -democratically managed. It is in this way, they say, and in this way -alone, that true liberty can be realized. The fact that they do not -make clear is that, if you accept their definition, “liberty” means -liberty to do just as we are told and nothing more.</p> - -<p>And there will be no lack of people with power to tell you what to do.</p> - -<p>As Laurence Gronlund states in “The Co-operative Commonwealth” (p. -115), while the Commonwealth “guarantees suitable employment,” it -certainly cannot “guarantee a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</span> particular employment to everybody,” and -this, as your own good judgment must tell you, opens the way for the -creation of an army of state controllers in numbers hitherto undreamt -of.</p> - -<p>The theory that efficient work can be performed without direction is so -utopian that it has been discarded, even by the majority of Socialists. -The most that they are trying to do to-day is to develop a plan whereby -the actual worker and the army of bosses may exist without continuous -warfare.</p> - -<p>This brings us to the question: How are these bosses to be selected? -For of course, so many will want to be bosses that some definite mode -of selection must be resorted to.</p> - -<p>Some socialistic prognosticators assert that the candidates for the -directive positions will undergo a kind of civil service examination. -Other authorities state that they will be chosen by drawing lots; but, -as one writer has said, “in point of impracticability there is little -to choose between the two suggestions.”</p> - -<p>The favorite theory, however, is that the choice of bosses will be made -by popular election, and such a course would be eminently<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</span> socialistic -in that it cynically and entirely ignores the claims of individual -efficiency.</p> - -<p>We know how inadequate a system of election may be, especially when -popularity becomes the important factor in the choice of a candidate. -It is not easy to imagine the complications that will ensue when every -question of management of social affairs must be determined by the vote -of the people.</p> - -<p>In “Two and Two Make Four” (p. 230), Bird S. Coler, a most practical -man of affairs, presents a sample of the questions upon which the -people might be called upon to vote, thus giving us an opportunity to -see how wisely we may be governed under Socialism:</p> - -<p>“Boris Humphiak says puddling is a hot, hard job, and he doesn’t see -why he should blister and sweat while Reginald Carnegie just sits in -a cool office talking to a stenographer. Comrade Carnegie explains to -Comrade Humphiak that the Carnegie labor is necessary, directive labor, -and can be performed in the office, while the Humphiak labor is manual -labor and must be performed in the puddling room. Comrade<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</span> Humphiak -cannot see it. He says each man ought to take his turn at puddling and -at superintending. Let us vote on it. There are a thousand puddlers, -one superintendent. The vote is a thousand to one for the Humphiak -proposition. Comrade Carnegie goes down to the puddling room, tries to -puddle, to the intense joy of the other puddlers who cease labor in -order to enjoy his weak and inefficient attempts to puddle; and, when -blinded and exhausted, he overturns a vat of molten metal, those who -survive are sorry and those who do not, among whom is Comrade Carnegie, -do not care any more. Meanwhile, Comrade Humphiak goes into the office, -lights a cigar and neglects to give some orders, as a result of which -forgetfulness on his part, the mill burns down.”</p> - -<p>There is nothing absurd in the picture which Mr. Coler has drawn. -Complications just as serious would arise were the questions of -direction left to a popular vote; yet, if such matters are not settled -by the ballot, how are they to be adjusted?</p> - -<p>“Some kind of organization labor must have,” says Herbert Spencer (“A -Plea for Liberty,” p. 10), “and if it is not that which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</span> arises by -agreement under free competition it must be that which is imposed by -authority.... Without alternative, the work must be done, and without -alternative the benefit whatever it may be must be accepted.”</p> - -<p>Socialists like to talk about abolishing class distinction. They know -that this is one of the most attractive proposals that they can dangle -before the envious and the ignorant. Yet what have we here but the -establishment of two distinct classes—the directing or “bossing” -class, and the obeying or working class? That Socialism would institute -changes, there can be no doubt, but it would be a change in bosses, -not a change in methods. As Professor Flint has said (“Socialism,” p. -373), “it would place the masses of mankind completely at the mercy of -a comparatively small and highly centralized body of organizers and -administrators entrusted with such power as no human hand can safely -and righteously wield.”</p> - -<p>Hobhouse in “Democracy and Reaction” (p. 228), clearly defines what -this must mean:</p> - -<p>“As the ‘expert’ comes to the front and ‘efficiency’ becomes the -watchword of administration, all that was human in Socialism<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</span> vanishes -out of it. Its tenderness for the losers in the race, its protests -against class tyranny, its revolt against commercial materialism,” -all the sources of the Socialist doctrines are gone like a dream, -and “instead we have the conception of society as a perfect piece of -machinery pulled by wires radiating from a single centre, and all men -and women are either ‘experts’ or puppets.”</p> - -<p>It is thus that humanity, liberty and justice must vanish under -Socialism, for the ultimate result, said Mr. Spencer (“A Plea for -Liberty,” p. 26), “must be a society like that of ancient Peru ... in -which the mass of the people, elaborately regimented in groups of 10, -50, 100, 500 and 1,000, ruled by officers of corresponding grades and -tied to their districts, were superintended in their private lives as -well as in their industries, and toiled hopelessly for the government -organization.”</p> - -<p>Not in practice alone, but in theory as well, the Socialist form of -government is nothing short of absolute despotism. The very fact -that the citizens of a nation—or of the world, should International -Socialism become possible—are divided into the two classes of -controllers and controlled necessarily<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</span> provides for inequality in -rank and an unequal enjoyment of the right of liberty. Socialists urge -that, because the controlling class will derive their rights from the -voluntary act of the controlled, such a condition of affairs will be -freely undertaken. This may be possible in the beginning. It is quite -probable that those destined to be controlled may, through their -whole-hearted belief in Socialism, co-operate in the establishment of -the new régime. But, later, it would begin to be a different story. -Once having experienced the privilege of directing, it is quite beyond -the bounds of reason to suppose that the director will consent freely -to take his place in the servient class. A member of the official -class, once that class has become firmly established, would strenuously -resist any act threatening his position, and it would be doing an -injustice to Socialists to assume that some of them have not seen -this necessary consequence of their system. What would happen were -such a move contemplated is frankly stated by Professor Karl Pearson. -“Socialists,” he says (“Ethics of Free-thought,” p. 324), “have to -inculcate that spirit which would give offenders against the State -short shrift and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</span> the nearest lamp-post.” As Professor Flint remarks, -such a sentiment “gives expression to the thought which animated the -first tyrant.”</p> - -<p>If you were to read the works of the prominent Socialist writers, John, -you would find that Professor Pearson does not stand alone in his -opinion. Robert Blatchford, in his popular presentation of Socialism -(“Merrie England,” p. 75), goes just as far in asserting that man has -no right to demand any other freedom than that which the majority may -be willing to permit him to have. “Just as no man can have a right to -the land, because no man makes the land, so no man has a right to his -self, because he did not make that self.”</p> - -<p>In spite of the crudeness and illogical character of this statement, -it expresses only too forcibly the claim for the deification of -the Socialist State at the cost of the complete suppression of the -individual.</p> - -<p>What does all this mean? In the last analysis it means that, if there -is to be a servient class and a bossing class, it really is immaterial -whether the worker belongs to the minority or to the majority. In -either case, if he is selected as one to be bossed,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</span> such will be -his fate, for the only people who will actually count at all are the -officials who have been chosen, by one means or another, to become the -bosses. What will make the conditions of the worker under Socialism -infinitely worse than it is to-day, is the absence of any means of -associated action for redress. Under no circumstances could such an -existence be tolerable save in an ideal State in which benevolence -reigns supreme—a State where envy, hatred, tyranny, ambition, -indolence, folly and vanity no longer exist; a State where there are -only wise and good men; and in such a State even law and direction -might logically become unnecessary.</p> - -<p>The human race, John, is not fitted for such a State. Untold centuries -will pass before this ideal millennium can even remotely be realized. -In the meantime we are trying to improve conditions with the material -which we have at hand. With such material, even were all the theories -of Marx to be put into operation, human nature must be considered as a -factor, and it takes no prophet to foresee what a hopeless muddle we -should make of things if we tried to run society upon the principles -which Socialism<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</span> proposes. Even John Spargo admits that “there is -no such thing as an ‘automatic democracy,’ and eternal vigilance -will be the price of liberty under Socialism, as it has ever been” -(“Socialism,” p. 217).</p> - -<p>Mr. Spargo is right as far as he goes, but he does not go far enough. -He does not tell us that under Socialism vigilance would no longer -be possible because it would not be tolerated; that with all trades -and industries in the hands of the government, with all men and -women dependent on the government for daily bread and compelled to -do the work assigned to them, the State will consist of two classes -only—state functionaries and ordinary people, controllers and -controlled, masters and slaves. In what manner could man protect -the rights of liberty under such a régime? What remedy could he -have against oppression when he would always be pitted against “the -State”—a State which would be placed in a position of being able to do -no wrong.</p> - -<p>“Wage slavery,” John? Isn’t this infinitely worse than any “wage -slavery” of which you have ever dreamt?</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII<br /><span class="small">SOME MORE “EQUALITY”</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="p0"> -My dear John,<br /> -</p> - -<p>If you want to see how mad a man can get and still live, ask the -soap-box orator if Socialism proposes to pay all kinds of workers the -same wage. Tell him that you have heard that, in the Co-operative -Commonwealth, there will be absolute equality of remuneration.</p> - -<p>If you put this question to the street-corner agitator, I’ll promise -that you will get all that you bargained for and more. But don’t -be frightened by his torrent of wrath and indignation. Quietly but -persistently press the question home. Have your quotations where -you can get at them easily, and be sure that they are strictly -“scientific”—that you have the right page of the book from which they -have been taken. If you will do this, and maintain your equanimity, you -can very soon take the wind out of the soap-boxer’s sails, because, -whatever<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</span> some Socialists say to the contrary, equality of remuneration -is the only possible outcome of the socialistic system, and there are -plenty of simon-pure Marxists who admit as much.</p> - -<p>In my last letter I told you what Socialism means by “equality of -opportunity,” and I proved the truth of my statements by citing -quotations the authenticity of which no Socialist can deny. Not one of -these quotations was “torn from its context,” or otherwise mutilated, -though there may be some Socialists who will tell you that this is what -has happened.</p> - -<p>Having seen that “equality of opportunity” means merely the opportunity -to do the things that meet the approval of the bosses, we will now -consider the question of equality of reward; and again we shall let the -Socialists themselves tell us what Socialism really means to do towards -“solving” the wage problem.</p> - -<p>In the first place, let us refer to Karl Marx, for his orthodoxy -is probably above suspicion. We find that the great master of the -socialistic philosophy is a little uncertain as to what may happen -during the transitional period between capitalism and the realization -of the Socialist ideal. At this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</span> stage, he says, there may be -inequalities in rights, including remuneration, but about the ultimate -effect of collectivism, he has no such doubt. “In a higher phase -of communist society,” he says, “after the slavish subordination -of the individual under divisions of labor and consequently the -opposition between mental and bodily work has disappeared ... after -the individual has become more perfect in every respect ... then only -... society may inscribe on its banner: ‘From each one according to -his abilities, to each one according to his needs.’” (“Zur Kritik des -sozialdemokratischen Parteiprogramms.”)</p> - -<p>It is difficult to construe this statement of Marx to mean anything -except that the end of Socialism is practically complete equality in -matters of reward. Certainly this is the idea which Mr. Spargo has -formed from his study of the Marxist philosophy, for he tells us very -definitely in his book, “Socialism” (p. 233), that “it may be freely -admitted that the ideal to be aimed at ultimately must be approximate -equality of income.”</p> - -<p>George Bernard Shaw, the eminent English Socialist, also admits that -equality is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</span> the ultimate aim of Marxism. In a paper read before the -Fabian Society, in 1910, and published in the <i>Fabian News</i> -(January, 1911), Mr. Shaw defines Socialism as “a state of society -in which the income of the country would be divided equally among -the inhabitants, without regard to character, industry or any other -consideration except that they were human beings.”</p> - -<p>And, that there might be no misunderstanding about his attitude toward -this question, Mr. Shaw, talking to an interviewer for <i>The Labor -Leader</i>, said (March 31, 1912): “Socialism is the system of society -where all the income of the country is to be divided up in exactly -equal portions; every one to have it, whether idle or industrious, -young or old, good or bad ...; anyone who does not believe that, is -not a Socialist.... Those are the conditions on which I say I am a -Socialist. Those are the conditions on which Society should stand. The -point is not whether they are reasonable conditions or not. They are -the only workable conditions.”</p> - -<p>Mr. Shaw seemed to think it necessary to disarm possible criticism -by admitting that the conditions he proposes might be called<span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</span> -“unreasonable.” His fears are groundless. We do not dub his proposition -“unreasonable”—indeed, it embodies the only reasonable conditions -under which Socialism could be operated. The only unreasonable thing -about it is that it absolutely defies any attempt to bring it into -harmony with that other working proposition of Marxism: that every -worker shall receive the full products of his labor. If all are to -get the same reward, whether idle or industrious, whether valuable or -valueless to the community, it necessarily follows that some portion of -the proceeds of the industrious workers’ labor must go to the worker -whose labor has been profitless.</p> - -<p>Discouraging as such a system of payment would be to industry and -initiative, it still is, as a matter of fact, the only system that -Socialism can adopt if it is to show any regard for the preservation of -the collective character of the State.</p> - -<p>If all workers are paid alike, it is possible that a certain degree of -equality may be maintained. If, as Blatchford says in “Merrie England” -(p. 103), “the only difference between a Prime Minister and a collier -would be the difference of rank and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</span> occupation,” the mere worker may -feel that he is living in a State in which class distinction has been -largely eliminated. If, on the other hand, workers are to be paid -according to the nature and value of their productions, how long do -you think it will be before a new set of class distinctions will be -created? How long will it be before the skilled workman who draws the -fattest pay envelope will become the aristocrat, or, at least, will -assume a class distinction mid-way between the bossing class and the -class of unskilled laborers?</p> - -<p>The Socialists themselves have recognized the danger that the problem -of remuneration presents, and have tried to anticipate some of its -difficulties by suggesting possible solutions. The sophists among them, -of course, have sought to evade the issue, thus leaving the inquirer -to imagine that this question, like all the other difficulties that -confront the Collectivist, will settle itself when the moment of -emergency arises. The more honest and consistent Socialists, however, -are quite frank in their admission that equality of reward is the -inevitable consequence of Collectivism. Even Spargo, in the quotation -already referred to, admits that class<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</span> formation must take place and -the old problems incidental to economic inequality reappear under -anything less than an “approximate equality of income.”</p> - -<p>Mrs. Annie Besant, who is a much-quoted Socialist, takes the same -stand. “Controversy,” she says (“Fabian Essays,” pp. 163-164), “will -probably arise as to the division: shall all shares be equal, or shall -the workers receive in proportion to the proposed dignity or indignity -of their work? Inequality would be odious.... The impossibility of -estimating the separate value of each man’s labor with any really valid -result, the friction which would arise, the jealousies which would be -provoked, the inevitable discontent, favoritism, and jobbery that would -prevail; all these things will drive the Communal Council into the -right path—equal remuneration of all workers.”</p> - -<p>And yet as early as 1830—years before Marx and Engels had begun to -prepare their “Communist Manifesto”—the French Communists addressed a -manifesto to the Chamber of Deputies in which it was stated that the -equal division of property would constitute “a greater violence, a more -revolting injustice, than the unequal division<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</span> which was originally -effected by force of arms, by conquest.”</p> - -<p>The Socialist of the present day may well learn wisdom from the logic -of his French predecessors. It is a self-evident fact that production -must be most disastrously effected by equality of distribution. Where -is the incentive to come from if the industrious or the highly skilled -man is to be mulcted of a share of his earnings that it may be used -to equalize things with the “work-shy,” who happens to be indisposed -to earn a living for himself? As one writer suggests, “it is to be no -longer a question of ‘Every man for himself, and the devil take the -hindmost,’ but we are to go to the opposite extreme and endeavor to -establish an equally false doctrine of ‘Every man for his neighbor, and -the devil take the foremost.’”</p> - -<p>Marx seemingly attempts to provide for this contingency by preaching -the doctrine embraced in the formula, “From each according to his -ability, to each according to his needs.” Apparently, he recognizes -that it will be impossible to evade the inequalities naturally existing -between different individuals, and he endeavors to neutralize these -natural advantages by supposing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</span> that each is to produce “according to -his ability.”</p> - -<p>But, my dear John, you mustn’t be deluded by the suggestion that there -is a difference in these propositions. In both cases, the neutralizing -profits are to be taken from the most efficient producers and given -to those who are less efficient. If this were done there would soon -be an end to the Socialist promise that every worker is to get the -full product of his labor. If this rule of remuneration were to become -operative, the surplus product needed to supply the bad or idle worker -with the means of securing a reward “according to his needs,” would be -stolen from the proceeds of the industry of the more capable “comrades.”</p> - -<p>Yet H. M. Hyndman, the prominent English Socialist, sees no objection -to this arrangement. In a letter contributed to the London <i>Daily -Telegraph</i> (October 14, 1907), Mr. Hyndman wrote:</p> - -<p>“Socialism will recognize no difference as to the share of the general -product between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ workman, but will give both -every opportunity to make themselves more valuable citizens and -comrades. Good and bad will alike be doing their social<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</span> best for the -community, and will be entitled to their full participation in the -enjoyment of the wealth created by the work of the whole body.”</p> - -<p>Mr. Hyndman seems to assume that, under such a system of production, -there would be enough to go round—enough to satisfy all the wants of -every member of the community. Do you think this possible?</p> - -<p>Suppose that Socialism were adopted to-morrow, and that you, knowing -that your livelihood was assured, were working side by side with a man -who was producing about half as much as you. Would the fact that his -sloth and incapacity did not count against him inspire you to do your -best work, especially when you realized that the surplus product of -your toil was fated to compensate him for his failure to “make good”?</p> - -<p>It makes little difference from what point of view Socialism attempts -to solve its problem of remunerating the worker. No matter which -course it pursues, it courts disaster. Whether it rewards all equally -or continues to recognize the existence of natural inequalities, it -remains a system under which freedom is impossible.</p> - -<p>Do you like the prospect, John?</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX<br /><span class="small">A FEW “MINOR” DETAILS</span></h2> -</div> - - - -<p class="p0"> -My dear John,<br /> -</p> - -<p>When the Socialists promise to see that you get the full product of -your labor, there are a few minor details which they overlook. Not the -least of these is the detail as to how they are going to do it.</p> - -<p>If you should ask your friend, the soap-box man, where he gets the -figures which he reels off so glibly when he is talking to you about -the way you are robbed, he may find it difficult to answer; but the -difficulty he encounters when confronted with such a question is -nothing in comparison to that which he will experience if you ask him -to inform you how the Socialist bosses are going to figure out your -labor value in a way to assure you against robbery. It is easy for him -to say that under Socialism you will get all you produce, but don’t let -him get away with the idea that he can make such statements without -being called upon to prove them.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</span></p> - -<p>It is a beautiful promise, this assurance of Socialism that every -worker in the Co-operative Commonwealth will get every penny that is -represented in his labor. It is a beautiful promise; but lots of people -have made beautiful promises and haven’t kept them. Can it be possible -that the bright little promiser who talks to you at the street corner -is one of the “four-flushers,” too?</p> - -<p>Ask him the next time he invites questions. Tell him that you are a -practical man, and that you want more definite details.</p> - -<p>Do you know what he will tell you? He will use a lot of words rounded -out into more or less eloquent periods, but, when you attempt to -analyze what he has said, you will find that all his wisdom could have -been expressed in a single sentence. In plain English, he tells you -that your request for details is nothing more or less than “a mark of -ignorance.” He wants you to believe that Socialism’s plan will be all -right for everybody, because, as the old negro said, “it jes’ works out -so.”</p> - -<p>Well, perhaps it will! Let us see.</p> - -<p>To test the truth of this theory, we must tackle one of the most -difficult problems that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</span> we shall be called upon to consider. But I -think, if we are patient, we shall be able to get to the bottom of -Marx’s complicated methods of reasoning, and so show that even the -promise to ascertain the full value of the worker’s labor—to say -nothing of the detail of giving it to him afterwards—is one of the -most glaring absurdities in the whole Socialist scheme.</p> - -<p>Marx tells us that value is determined by labor.</p> - -<p>What does he mean?</p> - -<p>He means that the value of a commodity is fixed by the labor that is -put into it. This is all right as far as this statement goes, but it -does not help us very much in determining the value of a particular -commodity. Before we can know what a commodity is worth, we must know -(according to Marx) what it cost to produce the mental and physical -energy that was used in making it. To do this, we must first know the -total cost of all the commodities which the worker consumed during the -period when he was performing this particular task.</p> - -<p>You know the old problem of the hen and the egg—which was first? The -Socialist’s labor-value puzzle is much more perplexing,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</span> because, in -addition to a lot of other things, you are called upon to find out -which was first, the worker or the commodity which he consumed—the -clothes he wore, the food he ate, the bed in which he slept while -acquiring the strength for the work that produced this commodity.</p> - -<p>If you were called upon to answer this question, to fix the value of -even a single article, you would find the task anything but an easy -one. Can you imagine what will happen when the government functionaries -sit down to figure out this problem for every kind of article that is -sold—anywhere in the world?</p> - -<p>But, don’t imagine that their task ends here. When they have once -succeeded in getting this puzzle solved, they will next be called upon -to find out how many persons have contributed their labor toward the -production of each and all of the commodities that have entered into -the transaction.</p> - -<p>Benedict Elder, in exposing this particular absurdity of Socialism in -<i>The Common Cause</i> (September, 1912), illustrated his argument by -showing the difficulties that the Socialist statisticians will face -when they are called upon to find the value of the labor<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</span> necessary in -producing an ordinary pin. As it is difficult to obtain a more striking -example, we may well follow Mr. Elder’s calculations.</p> - -<p>To find the value of the labor of making a pin, it is necessary to -begin by getting the exact time expended by every person who has -contributed a necessary part towards the production of the pin. -This includes the time of the man who sells the pin to you over -the counter—for, of course, there will have to be salesmen under -Socialism—the time spent by the miner who dug the metal from the earth -and by every other individual who has had anything to do in handling -it. Talk about tracing your ancestry back to the days of William the -Conqueror—that would be a “cinch” compared to this kind of mental -gymnastics!</p> - -<p>Yet our Socialist statisticians are not finished with their work, even -yet! Before they can tell the cashier how much to pay the worker so -as to give him the full value of his labor in producing the pin, they -must also determine how much labor-power each man spent in doing his -part of this work and how many commodities, and how much of each, the -man consumed to produce the labor-power<span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</span> necessary to complete the task -assigned to him.</p> - -<p>“Here,” says Mr. Elder, “we have indeed a monumental undertaking, -one that staggers the mind to contemplate, one that challenges a -combination of figures to express. Yet we are not fairly started at -our task.... We have taken but one commodity where the number of -commodities is practically infinite. We cannot follow the Socialists -many steps; their range becomes so vast, their intricacies so -bewildering, their complications so overwhelming, the throne of reason -would be threatened by the stupendous scale of thought demanded almost -at the outset. It is said that a German scientist once undertook to -figure out the number of possible moves on a chess-board. He reached -a point where the combination of figures required could no longer be -expressed in any known language, and then his mind unhinged. On the -chess-board there are just thirty-two pieces to be moved on sixty-four -spots.”</p> - -<p>The Socialist program may seem very plausible and extremely attractive -when the Socialist propagandist is describing it in broad generalities -and you do not examine<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</span> its details too critically; but, when you -get down to cases, John, and begin to try to find out how all these -magnificent promises are to be kept, you will begin to feel that you -are in danger of joining the German scientist whose “mind unhinged.”</p> - -<p>Just for the sake of argument, let us admit that the Socialist -functionaries have finally succeeded in performing the apparently -impossible task of ascertaining exactly how much your labor-time has -been worth to the community. This fact equitably determined, the worker -would probably be given labor checks, for which he could secure other -things of equal value with his labor. For example, if it required -1,000,000 days’ labor to provide this year’s shoes for the community -and 2,000,000 pairs of shoes were made in that time, we can imagine -that a check for one day’s labor might exchange for two pairs of shoes.</p> - -<p>It is easy to see that it would require no small amount of book-keeping -to keep even this matter of detail adjusted fairly, especially when we -remember what intricate calculations are necessary to find out how many -persons contributed to the production of these shoes, and how the value -of the time<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</span> of each worker must be figured. But the same difficulty -would present itself with every kind of commodity in any way dependent -upon the labor-power of man.</p> - -<p>If the labor checks that each worker receives are to be of real value, -they must be exchangeable for articles which the worker himself needs -or thinks he needs. In other words, our Socialist officials are also -to be called upon to ascertain what the public may be expected to -demand. This does not mean merely the articles that are necessary to -life—food, clothing, fuel, etc.—but everything that must be placed -at the disposal of a man if he is to enjoy unrestricted freedom of -choice as to the character of the articles which he purchases. Even -the smallest thing must be considered—the boy’s jumping-Jack and the -button-boots for the doll baby; for it is not admitted that any wants -of man—however small or great—are to be prohibited by the government.</p> - -<p>The ordinary playthings of the child represent a demand upon raw -material, and each of these demands must be considered in calculating -the total production for which arrangements must be made in advance.</p> - -<p>To accomplish this result the statistical<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</span> expert will be compelled to -ascertain the actual needs of every family—indeed, of every individual -from one end of the country to the other, if not throughout the -entire world, since, of course, there would still be an interchange -of products between the various lands. A statistical estimate based -upon present conditions would be of little avail. To overcome the -difficulty, an accurate schedule of every article that will be needed -to meet the demands of the purchaser must be made.</p> - -<p>The taking of a census is a long and laborious task, and to its -completion years are devoted. Yet the census which the United States -government takes is mere child’s play compared with the schedules which -will have to be filled out, arranged and digested, if all the small -commodities which people want to buy, and which they buy to-day, are to -be ascertained and tabulated in preparation for production.</p> - -<p>As Cathrein points out (“Socialism,” p. 270), it will be necessary -to consider “the numerous articles of food which are required even -in the humblest family, the supplying of the kitchen with fuel and -cooking utensils, the fitting up of the drawing-room and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</span> bedrooms with -furniture and ornamentation, the lighting and heating, the stocking of -the pantry, etc., besides the necessary repairs. There must be included -the mending of clothes, furniture, etc.... The authorities will have to -supply needle and thread to replace the missing shirt-button. All these -items must be tabulated for the determination of the demand upon which -the great system of production is to be based. And all this would have -to be done not for one family alone, but for the millions of families -which constitute a modern State and for everyone of their members.... -Even a cursory glance at the immense department stores of our large -cities with their thousands of different articles, will convince anyone -of the great variety of modern requirements.</p> - -<p>“Moreover, the social demand is not at all constant; it varies -from month to month, from week to week, even from day to day. Many -requirements cannot be foreseen in the least; suddenly and unexpectedly -they make their presence felt. Weekly or even daily inquiries would -become necessary, or at least there would be needed numerous offices -where lists of requirements could be filed.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</span></p> - -<p>“However, it would not suffice to provide for single families. The -needs of society at large, all the public requirements, would also -have to be satisfied. In the first place would come the arrangements -for transportation: streets and roads, bridges, railways, canals, -vehicles of all kinds. The care of all this would be incumbent on the -paternal State. What an amount of daily exertion to supply a large city -with meat, milk, fruit, vegetables, etc. Private hotels would also be -abolished. It would become the functions of public officials to provide -shelter, food, and service for every comer, unless travelling is to be -forbidden in the Socialist commonwealth. Then, again, the whole of the -building business will be in the hands of the State. Public and private -edifices, dwellings, schools, hospitals, insane asylums, storehouses, -theatres, museums, public halls, post and telegraph offices, railroad -stations, would have to be erected and kept in repair, or enlarged -as necessity required. And these buildings could not be handed over -to contractors as is generally done nowadays; the State alone could -take care of drawing up the plans and specifications, of gathering -the necessary materials and workmen, of directing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</span> and supervising -the erection. If the State is supposed to do all this systematically, -without squandering an immense amount of labor and materials, the -extent and quality of the requirements in the entire commonwealth must -be ascertained long beforehand by some responsible authority.</p> - -<p>“What the different cities and town administrations are doing now, -and as a rule through private contractors, in the matter of streets, -public health, water supply, lighting, baths, etc., would fall to the -care of the State. Physicians, surgeons, druggists, nurses, midwives, -would have to be appointed, and it would be incumbent upon the State to -provide for the professional education of a sufficient number of people -for all these offices. The State would have to find ways and means -to take care of education, of the press, literature, arts, theatres, -museums, etc.... To this would have to be added the management of -the farms, vineyards, vegetable gardens, cattle and stock raising, -the forests and fisheries, mining, smelting, and other industrial -processes. In all these departments, the requirements would have to -be accurately ascertained before<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</span> there would be any question of a -systematic regulation of production.”</p> - -<p>There are several important items that have been omitted, but it -does not seem necessary to enumerate them. Enough has been shown -to demonstrate that, to perform all this work and to compile such -an overwhelming amount of statistical labor alone, a huge army of -public officials will be required, and they must be public officials -of such capability and integrity as not to be subject to the human -weaknesses that are responsible for so many of the blunders in work -of this kind—blunders that might prove fatal to the entire system of -production and even threaten the very existence of the nation.</p> - -<p>Do you think that human intelligence is equal to such a task? The -soap-box orator may call your attention to the fact that this work is -being done to-day. Yes, it is being done, but, as the Socialist so very -often asserts, many of our worst evils are due to the fact that the -work is being done so badly.</p> - -<p>The Socialist also assures us that he will remedy all these evils, -which means that Socialism will do the work much better than it is -being performed at the present time. Do<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</span> you think that this is -possible? Do you believe that so gigantic a system of State machinery -can be organized and made to operate without a hitch? Is it possible -that a system of collective government composed of human units, all -subject to human frailties, can perform what private enterprise, with -its vast resources and its boundless ambition, has never been able to -accomplish, especially when no hope of extra recompense stimulates -these human units in the performance of their appointed tasks?</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X<br /><span class="small">LABOR’S FULL PRODUCT</span></h2> -</div> - - - -<p class="p0"> -My dear Smith,<br /> -</p> - -<p>There is a good reason why the Socialists are unwilling to tell you -just what their State will be, or how it will work. <i>They themselves -do not know.</i></p> - -<p>You can divide the present-day Socialists into two classes. The best -of them are utopian dreamers—theorists who hope that things will work -out all right, and who are willing to take a chance. The worst of them -are mere office-seekers, eager for place or pelf, and willing to become -special pleaders for the oppressed in return for their votes.</p> - -<p>There was a time when the Socialists were actuated by a high and -unselfish ideal. It was a fallacious ideal, it is true. They were -fighting for principles that would have worked the ruin of the nations -had they been put into practice. But, as you know, a man can be both -sincere and wrong at the same time. The early Socialists were sincere,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</span> -even though they were wrong. But those Socialists of to-day who have -turned the philosophy of Socialism into a purely political movement, -and who do not ask you to believe as they do so long as you vote as -they want you to vote, have neither high ideals nor good principles. -They are just as bad political grafters as have ever been harbored by -any of the old political parties.</p> - -<p>If the Socialists do not know much about the practical operations of -their utopian commonwealth, however, we can work out the problem for -ourselves. All that it is necessary to do, John, is to collect the -different pieces of the Socialist program and fit them together, just -as you did the jig-saw puzzles with which you used to amuse yourself -when a boy.</p> - -<p>For example, let us take still another phase of the Socialist promise -to see that every man shall get the full product of his labor.</p> - -<p>The Socialists have been quick to realize that this fallacy is the best -vote-catching device that they have yet invented. “You make it all,” -they explain, “and it is all yours.”</p> - -<p>“Yes, it is all yours!” they declare, “but<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</span> do you get it? No, you do -not begin to get all of your earnings. If you are very lucky you may -get one-third of what you earn; if you are less lucky, you have to be -content with one-fifth. It is only under Socialism that you will get -<i>all</i> your earnings.”</p> - -<p>This is the promise that Blatchford makes in “Merrie England” (p. 189). -It is this that countless Socialist writers have promised. It is this -promise that is used as a text by practically every soap-box orator -in this country—or in any other, for that matter. “The right to the -entire product of labor and capital together!” That is the main tenet -of the gospel of Socialism.</p> - -<p>Now, John, I am willing to admit for the sake of argument that there is -considerable justice in the worker’s demand for a larger portion of the -output of his industry. Of course, we cannot admit that he is entitled -to the entire output of labor and capital combined; but this point -need not delay us long, since he never will get it. He can’t expect -to have the full product now, and he needn’t expect to have it, even -if Socialism triumphs and the modern system of private ownership is -buried six feet underground. Neither Socialism nor any other system of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</span> -production will ever be able to make this promise good.</p> - -<p>Do you see what this means? It simply shows that the Socialist is -trying to fool you with promises that can never be kept. He tells you -that he will give you the entire value of the product. He does not tell -you how he is going to find out how much it is, and he is also very -careful to conceal the fact that, even if he knew exactly how much the -value of your labor-time amounted to, he couldn’t give you the full -amount that you produce. He couldn’t do it to-day, nor a hundred years -from to-day, nor a million years from to-day, simply because it is a -proposition that is just as impossible as to make 2 plus 2 equal 5.</p> - -<p>While the great mass of Socialist writers and speakers are so -unscrupulous that they continue to agree to espouse a policy which -they know they can never fulfil, there are other Socialists who are -more honest and who frankly admit that this program is entirely -impracticable. The latter are not the Socialists whose writings are -exploited for the instruction of possible converts, however. When a -man has caught Socialism and caught it bad, it is safe for him to read -what<span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</span> they have written; but, for the beginner, it is best to feed him -on the pre-digested and carefully censored output of the propaganda -committees.</p> - -<p>The soap-box orator informs you that under Socialism all industry will -be owned collectively and will be conducted in the interests of the -workers exclusively. What does the worker imagine that this means? He -pictures himself as a part owner of the factory in which he works. He -sees himself dividing the profits of that manufacturing concern with -the 50 or 100 or 500 persons now constituting the working force of the -establishment. Believing that this is what Socialism promises to do for -him, he becomes interested immediately. Naturally the soap-box orator -doesn’t try to correct this impression.</p> - -<p>Sydney Webb, however, tells a different story. He knows that Socialism -does not intend to do anything of this kind. Turn to “Fabian Tract No. -51” (p. 16), and you will read the following:</p> - -<p>“The whole of our creed is that industry should be carried on, not for -the profit of those engaged in it, whether masters or men, but for -the benefit of the community. We<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</span> recognize no special right in the -miners as such to enjoy the mineral wealth on which they work. The -Leicester boot operatives can put in no special claim to the profits -of the Leicester boot factory, nor the shop-man in the co-operative -store for the surplus of its year’s trading. It is not for the miners, -bootmakers, or shop-assistants, as such, that we Socialists claim the -control and the profits of industry, but for the citizens.”</p> - -<p>This is quite a different proposition, isn’t it? Socialism doesn’t mean -that you are to be permitted to turn the factory in which you work into -a profit-producing concern for your own benefit. It does mean, however, -that the profit produced by all the concerns in the entire country -shall be lumped together, and, after all the losses and necessary -charges have been deducted, the sum left shall be divided among all the -people—a system under which you would receive one-fifty, one-seventy -or one-ninety millionth part, according to the population of the nation.</p> - -<p>This puts the matter in a less attractive light, but we have by no -means fully disclosed the iniquity of those who are trying to fool the -voters with false promises. Let<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</span> us now try to find out what charges -must be deducted from the total profits before this division can be -made.</p> - -<p>Not all businesses are to-day successful. Some of them fail because -the people do not buy the articles which it was expected they would -buy, and it is quite possible that such mistakes might be made under -Socialism. It is entirely probable that some kind of mistakes would -be made, and that there would be approximately as great a proportion -of losses with collective management as we now have under individual -management. These items would, of course, have to be deducted before -the division of profits could be effected.</p> - -<p>The Socialists claim that a large part of the profits of which the -worker is robbed, goes to meet the expenses of rent and interest, -two factors that would not have to be considered in the Co-operative -Commonwealth. They do not seem to take into account the fact that the -money applied to rent, interest and profit is not stored away, or -otherwise taken out of circulation, even to-day. The greater part of -this sum finds its way back to industry by providing for extensions in -business, renewals of machinery,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</span> enlargements of factories, and the -establishment of new industries.</p> - -<p>There are items of expense that we cannot dodge even under Socialism. -Factories and machinery do not last forever. New methods must -constantly be adopted. An ever-increasing popular demand necessitates -an extension of manufacturing facilities. Do the Socialists expect us -to believe that, on the establishment of the Co-operative Commonwealth, -everything will be income and there will be no outlay—all profit and -no expenses?</p> - -<p>Then we must provide for the payment of the huge army of Socialist -officials, for there will be practically no end to the number of -overseers, superintendents, clerks, bookkeepers, auditors, cashiers, -and statisticians—to say nothing of the host of minor officials—all -of whom will have to be paid at the same rate, to say the least, as the -laborers.</p> - -<p>In talking about this kind of workers to-day, the Socialist agitator -is very apt to dub them a “non-producing class.” If you will examine -Socialist statistics carefully, you will find that the statisticians -almost invariably omit to consider the amount paid<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</span> such workers as -an item of expense; that they are even likely to include the sum -represented by these salaries in the <i>profits</i> of the employing -class. Should the time ever come when the Socialists themselves are -called upon to provide the pay-roll for the nation, they will discover -that the directive and executive workers, and all the persons employed -to carry out their part of the program, will call for the expenditure -of a tremendous sum of money. Tremendous as this amount would be -to-day, however, the present outlay for this purpose would be but a -drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the system that Socialism -would have to establish.</p> - -<p>Let us see what the Socialists themselves—the more frank and honest -kind of Socialists—have to say about this matter.</p> - -<p>Deville in “Socialism, Internationalism and Revolution,” says: “After -deducting from the product a portion to take the place of taxes, -a portion to replace the labor consumed, one to extend the scale -of production, one to insure against disasters, as floods, winds, -lightning, etc., one to support the incapable, one for administration, -one for sanitation,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</span> one for education, etc., the producers of both -sexes will distribute the balance among themselves in proportion of the -quantity of ordinary labor respectively furnished.”</p> - -<p>Mrs. Besant, in “Fabian Essays” (p. 163), has very similar ideas upon -this point. She says:</p> - -<p>“Out of the value of the communal produce must come rent of land -payable to the local authorities, rent of plant needed for working of -industries, wages advanced and fixed in the usual way, taxes, reserve -fund, accumulation fund, and the other charges necessary for the -carrying on of the communal business. All these deducted, the remaining -value should be divided among the communal workers as a ‘bonus.’”</p> - -<p>A “bonus”? Yes, but would there be any bonus? These who are familiar -with the history of the labor movement in France will naturally recall -Louis Blanc’s unfortunate experiment with the National workshops.</p> - -<p>In 1848 the Provisional Government issued a proclamation engaging to -guarantee work to all citizens and promising to put an end to the -sufferings of workmen by decreeing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</span> the formation of a permanent -Commission for the workers.</p> - -<p>Louis Blanc, who was at the head of this movement to abolish all -profits of capital and to establish the perfect equality of all workers -“without considering skill or activity,” developed the National -Workshops scheme. At first the workmen threw themselves into the -project with great heartiness, even working overtime; but this was -merely a temporary condition. To aid the great tailoring workshop, the -government gave it an order to provide 25,000 uniforms for the National -Guard. The building in which the work was conducted was provided -absolutely free of cost and the government advanced all the capital -required in the experiment. The price agreed upon was to be eleven -francs per uniform. Each of the 1,500 workmen was given two francs a -day as “subsistence money,” and was promised his <i>pro rata</i> share -in the profits.</p> - -<p>But there were no profits. Instead, the uniforms actually cost, when -finished, sixteen francs apiece, and the government had to stand the -loss. You may read the whole story of the commercial disaster which the -attempt to introduce collective ownership<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</span> brought upon France. The -experiment ended in a panic such as the nation had never known, and the -revolt of the workmen which followed was suppressed by the troops only -after 10,000 persons had been killed or wounded.</p> - -<p>Don’t you think that I am right when I say that it will take something -more than the mere assertion of a Deville or an Annie Besant to -persuade a sane and sensible people that collective ownership is more -practical to-day than it was some sixty years ago?</p> - -<p>The admissions that these Socialists have made seem conclusively frank; -yet Richardson, in “Industrial Problems” (p. 179), gives us a concrete -example that may throw an additional sidelight upon the situation. He -says:</p> - -<p>“In a Socialist State, if a laborer in ten hours can produce five pairs -of shoes, he could not have as his reward for that labor five pairs -of shoes. For while he was making these shoes, educational work had -to be done, hospitals had to be operated, the mentally and physically -incapable had to be cared for—all socially necessary labor had to be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</span> -carried on; and the cost of the maintenance of these things is a part -of the cost of the social product.”</p> - -<p>Richardson goes on to calculate how much the shoemaker “might get” for -his product; but he entirely overlooks the very grave possibility that -after all the items which Mrs. Besant and he have enumerated, and all -of Deville’s “etcetera” have been deducted, the worker “might get” -nothing at all.</p> - -<p>In short, are we not justified in questioning the wisdom of this -scheme? Under the present system the wages of a worker represents a -first charge against the business, and profits, interests and rent can -be paid only out of what is left (if anything is left) after he has -secured his share.</p> - -<p>The adoption of the Socialist system would change all this. The worker -might get a beggarly “subsistence wage,” to keep him alive and able to -work, but nothing else would be paid to him until all the expenses of -the State, including the cost of its numberless agents and officials, -had been deducted. Justly does Schaffle say (“The Quintessence of -Socialism,” p. 122): “The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</span> leading promise of social democracy is -practically and theoretically untenable; it is a delusive bait for the -extreme individualistic fanatic craving for equality among the masses.”</p> - -<p>After seeing all this, John, do you think it possible that the -condition of the worker could be improved by the adoption of Socialist -methods? In view of the very dubious prospect of a possible “bonus,” -what do you think of a man who would go to the lengths that Spargo goes -in his attempt to befuddle the brain of those who are too ignorant, -or too careless, to investigate this question for themselves. Under -Socialism, Spargo says (“Socialism,” p. 236): “If Jones prefers -<i>objets d’art</i>, and Smith prefers fast horses or a steam yacht, -each will be free to follow his inclination so far as his resources -will permit.”</p> - -<p>Let us be thankful for this concession! We shall in this respect, at -least, be no worse off than we are to-day. At the present moment Jones -can buy his art objects, and Smith his fast horses or his steam yacht, -if the “resources” of Smith and Jones will permit. The question in -which we are interested, John, is not what you and Jones <i>will<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</span> be -permitted</i> to do, but what you <i>will be able</i> to do, and I -sadly fear that Spargo, who must know the logical effects of Socialism, -had a good laugh at your expense when he penned those words.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XI">CHAPTER XI<br /><span class="small">IS WRETCHEDNESS INCREASING?</span></h2> -</div> - - -<p class="p0"> -My dear John,<br /> -</p> - -<p>If you listen to a Socialist speaker, or pick up a Socialist -periodical, you are pretty certain to come face to face with the -assertion that “the poor are now growing poorer and the rich richer -every day.” If you ask for further particulars, you will soon discover -that the chief reason why Socialists believe that this is what is -happening is because Karl Marx predicted that it is what was going to -happen.</p> - -<p>The great founder of Socialism was very certain that the development of -capitalism would tend to produce constantly-increasing “wretchedness, -oppression, slavery, degeneracy, and exploitation” of the working -class (“Capital,” p. 790); and while a few writers, like Kirkup in -the “History of Socialism” (p. 386), admit that “Marx made a serious -mistake,” because “facts and reasonable expectations combine clearly to -indicate that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</span> the democracy ... is marked by a growing intellectual, -moral and political capacity, and by an <i>increasing freedom and -prosperity</i>,” the great mass of Socialists agree with Snowden’s -assertion (“The Socialist’s Budget,” p. 8) that “the few cannot be rich -without making the many poor.”</p> - -<p>This principle, formulated by Marx, is known as “the law of the -concentration of capital,” and, if we are to accept this formula, we -must be able to prove that capital is being concentrated “in the hands -of a smaller and smaller number of capitalists, that large fortunes are -created at the expense of smaller fortunes, and that great capitalists -are increased by the extinction of small ones” (Tcherkesoff, “Pages of -Socialist History,” p. 23).</p> - -<p>In a few words, Marx insisted that capitalism was dividing the world -into two classes—the owning class and the toiling class—and that -the third, or middle class, was rapidly being eliminated, some few -of its members being absorbed into the upper-class while the great -majority, becoming impoverished, were destined to sink to the lowest of -proletarian depths.</p> - -<p>But is this what has happened in the half<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</span> a century or so that has -passed since Marx formulated this “law of capitalistic development”? -If this “law” is ever to prove itself true, it is time, as Tcherkesoff -says, “that it should be exemplified by at least some few economic -phenomena”; yet during this period the number of small capitalists not -only has not diminished, but has actually increased, while the doctrine -of increasing misery, instead of being verified, is contradicted by -indisputable statistics which show, as Professor Hatton has asserted -(in his Cleveland, Ohio, debate), that “there is an increasing -betterment in the condition of the laboring classes.” Certainly none -but a most prejudiced Socialist will assert that there is any tangible -evidence to indicate that the people are dividing into two hostile -camps, especially in view of the fact—so easily demonstrated—that -fully 90 per cent. of the capitalists, big and little, have come -from the ranks of the workers, while the number of small investors -increases with such leaps and bounds as almost to defy the efforts of -the statistician to keep pace with them. It was these undeniable facts -that compelled Bernstein, though a Socialist, to take issue with Marx. -He saw that there<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</span> was no “increasing misery” of the masses, that the -wealth of the world was not being centralized in a few hands; but that, -instead, the number of the possessing classes grows absolutely and -relatively.</p> - -<p>In all my letters, John, I have tried to avoid such things as abstruse -theories and dry statistics, but we have at last reached a point -where statistics are necessary if we are to get a clear view of the -situation. Such statistics are necessary, not only because they show -the absurdity of Marx’s predictions, but also for the reason that -without this knowledge we should be unable to protect ourselves against -the false testimony that Socialists are so ready to introduce as -“facts.”</p> - -<p>For example, John Spargo (in “Socialism”) quotes Lucien Sanial as -authority for the statement that, in 1900, there were 250,251 persons -in the United States who possessed $67,000,000,000, “out of a total of -$95,000,000,000, given as the national wealth; that is to say, .9 of -one per cent of the total number in all occupations owned 70.5 per cent -of the total national wealth. The middle class, consisting of 8,429,845 -persons, being 29 per cent of the total number in all occupations, -owned $24,000,000,000,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</span> or 25.3 per cent of the total national wealth. -The lowest class, the proletariat, consisting of 20,393,137 persons, -being 70.1 per cent of the total number in all occupations, owned but -$4,000,000,000, or 4.2 per cent of the total wealth.” In brief: “Of the -29,073,233 persons ten years old and over engaged in occupations, .9 of -1 per cent own 70.5 per cent of total wealth.”</p> - -<p>Mr. Spargo asks us to accept these figures as true because Mr. Sanial, -“an expert statistician,” says that they are authentic. Don’t let him -fool you, John. Mr. Sanial simply “guesses” that his statistics are -reliable, and, as he is a “red card” Socialist, he must either tell us -just where he got his authority for these figures or be ruled out of -court as a prejudiced “guesser.”</p> - -<p>And he can’t do it. He can’t do it, simply because there are no census -records, or other official figures, upon which to base his statistics -on wealth distribution between the classes, no accurate information -upon this subject within the reach of any human being. Yet it is upon -such “evidence” that Socialists rely to prove that Marx was a true -prophet!</p> - -<p>But this is an old trick. As Stuart P.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</span> West says (<i>The Common -Cause</i>, June, 1912), “the Socialist of the agitator-demagogue type -has no fine sensibilities about making his statements square with -painstaking inquiries into the truth. He makes broad assertions, -backing them up with a few statistics which are partly guess-work, -partly half-truths, and relies upon the lack of information among his -audience to do the rest.”</p> - -<p>So much for the unreliable character of Socialist figures in general. -Now, let us get down to facts.</p> - -<p>The Erfurt platform (1891) repeated Marx’s assertion that among -the workers there is a “growing insecurity of existence, misery, -oppression, slavery, degradation and exploitation.” If you thought -that this might be true, John, what would you expect to find? That the -worker was being pressed closer to the wall, would you not? That wages -increased slowly, so slowly as scarcely to approximate the bare cost -of subsistence; that there was a more rapid extension of the hours of -labor, with pauperism a general rather than an exceptional condition. -Let us see.</p> - -<p>In the United States, wages have practically<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</span> doubled since 1860 and -the hours of labor have decreased from 15 to 30 per cent. In Norway, -Sweden, Germany, Japan, and several other countries, the increase in -wages since 1860 has also been fully (where not more than) 100 per -cent, while the hours of labor, especially since 1890, have shown a -tendency toward improvement consistent with such progress in the United -States (cf. <i>The Common Cause</i>, loc. cit.).</p> - -<p>The statistics on pauperism afford quite as telling an argument against -Marx’s prediction of the increasing misery. In the United States, in -1886, the ratio of paupers was 116.6 to each one hundred thousand -inhabitants. In 1903 the ratio had decreased to 101.4 per each one -hundred thousand inhabitants.</p> - -<p>In England the figures are even more impressive, for the ratio of -paupers fell from 62.7 per one thousand inhabitants in 1849 to 26.2 in -1905. As Mr. West says: “There were actually 200,000 fewer paupers in -1905 than in 1849, although the population of the country during these -fifty-six years almost doubled, and this in the face of the Marxian -predictions.”</p> - -<p>But if Marx missed fire in his prophesy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</span> regarding the general labor -situation, does not the “trustification of industry” show that he -was right in the prediction that the wealth of the world was to be -concentrated in the hands of the few? Not at all. The census figures of -manufactures in the United States—and these figures are representative -of world conditions in manufacturing—prove conclusively that the small -establishments are not being crushed out of existence. It is true -that there has been a steady concentration of industries through the -organization of the combinations known as “trusts,” and if it could -be shown that this concentration meant that the ownership of all the -industries was falling into the hands of a smaller number of persons, -there might be some ground for the Socialist contention that the few -are absorbing the wealth of the many.</p> - -<p>Ten years ago it looked as if this was what was happening, but, during -the past decade, the ownership of these corporations has changed -so completely that there can no longer be any doubt concerning the -outcome. Instead of being a device to promote the cause of Socialism -by concentrating the wealth of the nation in the hands of a few<span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</span> -interests, the modern “trust” has become in reality an agency for the -diffusion of wealth.</p> - -<p>Of course, as you know, John, a corporation—even a “trust”—is -owned by those who hold its stock. Every shareholder is a partner in -the concern; so, when we find that, instead of being owned by fewer -persons, the stock is distributed among increasing thousands of -persons, it is difficult to see where there is any evidence of marked -concentration of industrial wealth.</p> - -<p>If you take, for example, the great railway systems, you will find -that, whereas in 1901 nine of the leading roads were owned by -50,000 stockholders, in 1911 the stock in these companies was held -by 118,000 persons. In 1901 the stock in the fifteen industrial -corporations—popularly termed “trusts”—was held by 82,000 persons; in -1911 more than 247,000 individuals owned the stock in these companies.</p> - -<p>Think for a moment what these figures mean. “Twenty years ago,” -said Mr. West (<i>The Common Cause</i>, August, 1912), “before the -movement of combinations had begun, the steel properties of this -country were owned by not more than 5,000 persons.” (That might well -be called “concentration<span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</span> of industrial wealth,” John!) “Now the -Steel Corporation, which at the highest estimate does not represent -more than 60 per cent of the steel production of the United States, -is owned by 150,000 persons.” As another writer recently said: “If -the attorney-general should succeed in destroying the value of the -Steel Corporation’s securities, he would not only deprive thousands -of the provision they have made against old age, but stop the -wholesome movement that is making for the <i>popular ownership of -the big corporations and thus for the checking of dangerous wealth -concentration</i>.”</p> - -<p>You see how little evidence there is in support of the Socialist “law” -of concentration.</p> - -<p>Another contention of Marx and his followers is that concentration will -also show itself in the principal industry of humanity—agriculture. -Do the facts support this prediction? Certainly, not in England, or in -any other country in Europe. But how about the farmers of the United -States? Are they being absorbed and enslaved by a few capitalists?</p> - -<p>Once upon a time there was reason to fear that agriculture was to be -concentrated in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</span> the “bonanza” farms, but the years have gone and the -danger is past, “bonanza” farming having proved a failure. Instead, we -now have “intensive” farming—a method of raising crops that calls for -smaller, rather than larger, farms.</p> - -<p>To get a clear view of the agricultural situation in this country, we -shall not go back in the records to the date of Marx’s prediction. Such -figures would “show him up” in so ridiculous a light that I haven’t the -heart to subject his prophesy to this test. Instead, we will simply -retrace our steps to 1900, when we find that there were 5,737,372 farms -in the United States, the average size being 146.2 acres. In 1910—just -ten years later—the number of farms had increased to 6,340,357, and -the average holdings had decreased to 138 acres.</p> - -<p>If you desire to examine more detailed statistics, turn to <i>The -Common Cause</i>, (July, 1912), and read the evidence that Mr. West has -accumulated. “While the so-called law of concentration fails absolutely -to work out under these acreage statistics,” he says, “its failure -is still more complete when we compare the movement of acreage with -the movement of farm values. The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</span> average number of acres in the farm -came down from 146 in 1900 to 138 in 1910; but farm land (exclusive -of buildings), which was valued at $13,100,000,000 in 1900, rose to -$28,400,000,000 in 1910, an increase of 117.4 per cent. In other words, -the farm wealth of the country more than doubled during the ten-year -period while the average size of farm holdings considerably decreased. -The conclusion from these figures is, of course, inevitable: not only -has there been no concentration of wealth in land but, on the contrary, -there has been an astonishingly great and rapid diffusion of wealth.”</p> - -<p>Even Spargo, who is admittedly a well-informed Socialist, recognizes -the weakness of the Marxian theory when applied to agriculture, for -he says (“Socialism,” p. 134): “One thing seems certain, namely that -farm ownership is not on the decline. It is not being supplanted by -tenantry: the small farms are not being absorbed by larger ones.”</p> - -<p>This is in direct contradiction to the assertions of the majority of -Socialist agitators. With voice and pen they are still predicting the -downfall of the farmer, and this in spite of the frank admissions of -the more<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</span> fair-minded and informed Socialists that the conditions they -describe do not exist.</p> - -<p>Quite as contrary to the facts are the Socialist assertions that the -slight increase in the proportion of mortgaged farms is proof of the -absorption of American farms by the “interests.” In asking us to -believe that this is what is happening, Socialists assume that we are -so ignorant as to real conditions that we can credit the theory that -a mortgage is an inevitable shortcut to bankruptcy, when, as a matter -of fact, it is more often the means by which the farmer rises from -the ranks of tenantry to the property-owning class. Indeed, Spargo -himself admits that this is so. In “Socialism” (p. 134), he says: “Now -while a mortgage is certainly not suggestive of independence, it may -be either a sign of decreasing or increasing independence. It may be -a step toward the ultimate loss of one’s farm or a step toward the -ultimate ownership of one. Much that has been written by Populist and -Socialist pamphleteers and editors upon this subject has been based -upon the entirely erroneous assumption that a mortgaged farm meant loss -of economic independence, whereas it often happens that it is a step -towards it.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</span></p> - -<p>Having seen how all the predictions of Marx break down when put to the -test of practical experience, we shall now consider one more fatal -mistake made by this great prophet of “scientific” Socialism. This is -what we may term the “verge of starvation” theory.</p> - -<p>According to this doctrine of the Socialists, the accumulation of -misery is keeping pace so literally with the accumulation of wealth -that the great mass of the workers are constantly sinking deeper and -deeper below the conditions of existence of their own class (see -“Communist Manifesto”). As a result, it is asserted, there are to-day -but comparatively few workers who are more than a week or two removed -from destitution, whereas, as Skelton shows (“Socialism: A Critical -Analysis,” p. 147), “no social fact is better established than that -the forty years which have passed since Marx penned this dismal -forecast have brought the working classes in every civilized country -not increasing degradation, misery, and enslavement, but increasing -material welfare, freedom and opportunity of development.”</p> - -<p>How is it in your case, John? Are you living on the verge of -starvation? If you<span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</span> were to be taken ill, or were to lose your job, -would your family be on the town within a week or two? I thought not, -and what is true in your case, is just as true in the majority of cases.</p> - -<p>There are statistics, too—and plenty of them—to prove that the -Socialists have an entirely erroneous impression of the financial -condition of the “masses.” First, let us take the savings bank -deposits; for, as you know, it is in this kind of a bank that the -worker usually puts his savings for safe keeping. The very rich do not -bother with a string of little accounts, and, accordingly, savings -bank deposits have always been accepted as a measure of the wealth -of the people of small or moderate means. Admitting this, what do we -find? That, in 1911, more than one in every ten persons in the United -States—counting all men, women and children—possessed a bank account, -the total amount of these accounts being no less than $4,212,584,000.</p> - -<p>The building and loan associations afford another means of deposit for -the savings of the worker, and, in 1911, the number of persons who held -shares in and paid dues to such associations was nearly 2,200,000, the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</span> -total assets of the societies being but a trifle less than one billion -dollars.</p> - -<p>If these facts are not sufficient, study the workers themselves; see -how they live and how they spend their money, and then ask yourself -if the Socialist is telling the truth when he says that this class of -citizens do not share in the increasing prosperity of the nation.</p> - -<p>The workers live far better to-day than the so-called middle class was -able to live half a century ago. As Willey states (“Laborer and the -Capitalist,” p. 190), there are servant girls at the present time who -own jewelry that costs more money than our grandmothers could afford to -spend for a wedding dress (quoted by Kress, “Questions of Socialists,” -p. 22).</p> - -<p>In addition to living under so much better conditions that most of the -workers now enjoy luxuries that the so-called well-to-do could ill have -afforded half a century ago, this class of citizens still manages to -find money for several other things. For example, the immigrant workers -succeed in saving enough out of their wages to send the vast sum of -$300,000,000 to foreign countries every year, while the enormous sums<span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</span> -spent by the workers each year in picture shows, candy and for drink in -the saloons would be sufficient to start every homeless man in America -upon the high road to the ownership of a home.</p> - -<p>Talk about locks and bolts against the masses, John—bars to prevent -them from enjoying the good things of life! Why, there would be none of -these good things of life—no enjoyment, no freedom of any kind—under -a system that placed a premium on laziness and saved its highest -rewards for the bosses—and that is what Socialism would do!</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XII">CHAPTER XII<br /><span class="small">THE CLASS STRUGGLE</span></h2> -</div> - - - -<p class="p0"> -My dear John,<br /> -</p> - -<p>It is almost impossible to find a Socialist agitator who does not -lay great stress upon the “class struggle.” I cannot remember having -listened to a single one of these gentry who has not asserted that -his “clear view of the economic situation” dates from the hour when -he first became “class-conscious”; and I do not think that many -Socialists will deny the statement that fully four-fifths of the -militant propaganda is an attempt to arouse the workers to this sense -of “class-consciousness.”</p> - -<p>Of course, the Socialists want you to believe that the revolution they -are preaching is really an evolutionary process by means of the ballot. -But, as you must have noticed, John, their promise of peaceful methods -is not borne out by the gospel of class-hatred which they preach under -the name of “the class struggle.” It is “class war” that they<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</span> are -trying to incite; and in this, as one writer has said, “evolutionary -Socialists closely rival, even if they do not always equal, the members -of the revolutionary organizations.... <i>No graver mistake, therefore, -could be made in diagnosing Socialism than to regard evolutionary -Socialists</i> (so-called) <i>as opposed to revolutionary methods</i>. -The whole gospel of the ‘class war’ as commonly preached by Socialists -... is a direct and malicious incitement to the ignorant to adopt -revolutionary methods” (“A Case Against Socialism,” p. 101).</p> - -<p>There are lots of things in Socialism that a man doesn’t have to -believe in order to be a Socialist, but class-consciousness is not one -of them. Before he can sign up, before he can get his red card, he must -affix his signature to a document in which he admits that he recognizes -the existence of a class struggle.</p> - -<p>Marx and Engels formulated this doctrine and preached it in their -“Communist Manifesto,” where they said:</p> - -<p>“The history of all past society is the history of class antagonism, -which took different forms in different epochs. But whatever form they -may have taken, the exploitation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</span> of one section of society by another -is a fact common to all previous centuries.... The first step in the -working-class revolution is the raising of the proletariat [workers] -to the position of the ruling class.... The proletariat will use its -political power to wrest by degrees all capital from the bourgeoisie -[employers] to centralize all instruments of production in the hands -of the State, <i>i. e.</i> of the proletariat organized as the ruling -class.... If the proletariat, forced by its struggle against the -bourgeoisie to organize as a class, makes itself by a revolution the -ruling class, and, as the ruling class, destroys by force the old -conditions of production, it destroys along with these conditions of -production the conditions of existence of class antagonism, class in -general, and therewith its own domination as a class” (pp. 20, 21).</p> - -<p>Here we have the doctrine of class-war in a nutshell. Believing -that the wealth of the world in every kind was destined to become -concentrated in the hands of the few, and that all the people -would of necessity be divided into two distinct classes, with -absolutely antagonistic interests, Marx assumed that a class-war must -result—the proletariat,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</span> or wage-earning class, waging war with the -property-owning class to compel the latter to give back the property it -had stolen and restore liberty to the “enslaved worker.”</p> - -<p>As you can see, John, the doctrine of the class-war is necessarily one -of the foundation stones of the Socialist gospel. Ferri recognized its -importance as you may ascertain if you will turn to page 145 of his -“Socialism and Positive Science,” where he says:</p> - -<p>“The other sociological theory by which Karl Marx has really dissipated -the clouds which obscured till now the heaven of Socialist aspirations, -and which has furnished to scientific Socialism the political compass -for steering itself with complete assurance in the contentions of the -life of every day, is the great historic law of the class struggle.”</p> - -<p>The <i>Manifesto</i> of the Socialist Party of Great Britain takes the -same stand when it says that “the Socialists say that the present form -of property-holding divides society into two great classes”; while the -Social Democratic party of England repeats Marx’s assertion that “the -history of human society is a history of class struggles arising from<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</span> -the antagonism of class interests,” and appeals to the workers to make -themselves “masters of their own country and of all the resources, -political and material” (Quelch, “The Social Democratic Party”).</p> - -<p>“There are in reality but two classes,” says the <i>Socialist -Standard</i> (December, 1907), “those who live by labor and those who -live upon those who labor—the two classes of exploiter and exploited.”</p> - -<p>Here, then, is the crux of the whole question. The workers are told -that they are being robbed and exploited by the capitalists, and that -there can be nothing in common between the two classes. “The task -before us is not to appeal to the capitalist class to do something, -but to organize the workers for the overthrow of that class, so they -(the workers) may do something for themselves. The battle cry of the -workers’ party is not ‘the right to work,’ but ‘the right to the -product of our labor,’ and the right waits only upon their might” -(<i>Socialist Standard</i>, November 1, 1908).</p> - -<p>“The Capitalist class, in its mad race for profits,” says the American -Socialist party platform (1908), “is bound to exploit the workers to -the very limit of their endurance,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</span> and to sacrifice their physical, -moral and mental welfare to its own insatiable greed.”</p> - -<p>If we turn to France, we find Jaurès (“Studies in Socialism”) preaching -the same doctrine. “Society,” he says, “is to-day divided into classes -with opposing interests, one class owning the means of life and the -other nothing but their power to work. Never in the history of Society -was the working class so free from all traces of property as to-day.”</p> - -<p>I might go on indefinitely citing the words of prominent Socialists who -have preached Marx’s doctrine of class hatred; but, as the whole story -is summed up by our own “Rev.” George D. Herron, I shall (as a final -example) permit him to tell us what the class-struggle means to the -Socialists. He says:</p> - -<p>“There are no words that can make this fact hideous and ghastly enough, -or vivid and revolutionary enough—the fact that society and its -institutions are organized for the purpose of enabling some people to -live off of other people, the few to live off the many. There is no -language realistic enough, or possessed of sufficient integrity, to lay -bare the chasm between the class that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</span> works and the class that reaps -the fruit of that work; between the class that is grist for the great -world-mill of economic might and the class that harvests that grist. -And until the working class becomes conscious of itself as the only -class that has a right to be, until the worker understands that he is -exploited and bound by the power which his own unpaid labor places in -the hands that exploit and bind him ... our dreams and schemes of a -common good or better society are but philistine utopias, our social -and industrial reforms but self-deceit, and our weapons but the shadows -of stupidity and hypocrisy” (“From Revolution to Revolution,” p. 3).</p> - -<p>Now, John, as a matter of fact, have you in your experience as a -working man ever run across the class struggle as Socialists define it?</p> - -<p>I have put this question to scores of workers and the answer has always -been the same. Not one of them, unless he happened to be a red-card -Socialist who took the “class struggle” on faith, has ever found the -class-consciousness out of which the revolution is to generate.</p> - -<p>I do not deny that there is such a factor<span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</span> as class-interest in the -industrial world. We see this interest exhibited in the industrial -struggles that are almost daily taking place. The labor organizations -are evidence of the existence of a class interest, but, beyond this, -there is no class consciousness other than that which is incited by the -Socialist agitators in the hope that they may tempt the worker to deeds -of violence.</p> - -<p>Think of it, John! The Socialist agitator must know, if he has even -ordinary common sense, that the worker is not entitled to the whole -product of labor—that it is not labor that finally fixes the value of -a commodity. Yet, basing his arguments upon this self-evident fallacy, -he calls upon the workers to unite and overthrow the present industrial -system that they may take back from their employers the capital “of -which they have been robbed.”</p> - -<p>Nor will any real Socialist deny that this is the purpose of their -propaganda. Even Hyndman, who is anything but a rank revolutionist, -said in his celebrated debate, “Will Socialism Benefit the English -People?”: “We are accused of preaching discontent and stirring up -actual conflict. <i>We do<span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</span> preach discontent, and we mean, if we can, -to stir up actual conflict.</i>”</p> - -<p>After this frank admission you will probably not be surprised to read -Jack London’s declaration of war:</p> - -<p>“We intend nothing less than to destroy existing society and to take -the whole world. If the law of the land permits, we fight for this end -peaceably, at the ballot box. If the law of the land does not permit -the peaceful destruction of society, and if we have force meted out to -us, we resort to force ourselves. In Russia the Revolutionists kill the -officers of the Government. I am a Revolutionist.”</p> - -<p>And Harry Quelch, in <i>Justice</i> (October 21, 1893), voiced just as -crude an expression of the Marxian “gospel of hate”:</p> - -<p>“We are prepared to use any means, any weapon—from the ballot-box to -the bomb; from organized voting to organized revolt; from parliamentary -contests to political assassination—which opportunity offers and which -will help in the end we have in view. Let this be understood, we have -absolutely no scruples as to the means to be employed.”</p> - -<p>Frankly: Do you hate your employer? Would you harm a hair of his head -even if<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</span> you had the chance? Do you curse him whenever you think of -him, crying with Archibald Crawford: “<i>Damn the Boss! Damn the Boss’s -son! Damn his family carriage! And damn his family, too!</i>”? Do you -think that Herron knows what he is talking about when he says that “our -whole system of life and labor, with all that we call civilization is -based on nothing else than war ... a war so terrible, so full of death, -that its blood is upon every human hand, upon every loaf of bread, and -upon every human institution”? Do you agree with the conclusion that -it is “only folly, or worse, falsehood, that prates of peace in such a -society”? (Quoted by <i>The Revolt</i>, April 25, 1912.)</p> - -<p>Yet this is but a sample of the “truth” as it is taught from the -soap-box. Wherever there is a militant propagandist, you will hear this -kind of an appeal. “In fact, the repetition of the bitter denunciation -of society is so constant,” says Peter W. Collins (<i>The Common -Cause</i>, January, 1912), “that on the mind of him who becomes an -attendant at the soap-box, this doctrine of class-hatred, of enmity -among men, gradually sinks into the mind and heart and the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</span> poison does -its work, as the dripping of water wears away a stone.”</p> - -<p>This is what the Socialist wants. His prime object is to create a -force among the toilers that may be welded into a great revolutionary -movement. In this appeal slumber the darkest and the most cruel -instincts of man’s nature.</p> - -<p>There is no room in this country for class-hatred. It does not exist -outside of the ranks of the Socialists. There is, in fact, more -class-hatred shown by the rival factions in the Socialist movement in -their squabbles with one another, than there is between employer and -employe. Yet, by means of cunning misrepresentation and perversion of -facts, all who come under the influence of Socialism—even the children -in the Socialist Sunday schools—are made to take this wrong outlook -upon life; their mental balance is upset; they are incited to develop -a feeling of bitter hatred against those from whom they have suffered -no harm. In this way, by sowing the poisonous seed of prejudice and -class-hatred, it is hoped later on to reap the harvest of <span class="smcap">The -Revolution</span>.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XIII">CHAPTER XIII<br /><span class="small">SHALL WE TAKE IT OR PAY FOR IT?</span></h2> -</div> - - - -<p class="p0"> -My dear John,<br /> -</p> - -<p>While some of the more mild-mannered advocates of Socialism will try to -make you believe that the change from private ownership to collective -ownership will be accomplished without confiscating anybody’s property, -there are few among the authoritative Marxists who consider such a -course, even as a remote possibility. Marx didn’t think that it could -be done, as you will see if you will turn to Engels’ “Preface” to the -English translation of “Capital” (p. xiv), and in this theory he is -supported by almost every Socialist apologist of note. Once in a while -we encounter a socialistic writer who proposes to compensate owners if -they will permit themselves to be expropriated “with a good grace,” a -theory which assumes that, if the owners of property are not entirely -willing that their possessions shall be taken away from them, they will -be punished by being<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</span> forcibly deprived of their goods, whether they -like it or not.</p> - -<p>And, if you want still more corroborative testimony, turn to “The -Ethics of Socialism,” by Belfort Bax, and on pages 127 and 128 you will -read: “The Socialist has a distinct aim in view. If he can carry the -initial stages towards his realization by means of the count-of-heads -majority, by all means let him do so. If, on the other hand, he sees -the possibility of carrying a salient portion of his program by -trampling on that majority, by all means let him do this also.”</p> - -<p>Not long ago I discussed this question with one of the conservative -Socialists who believe that those who own property will be very glad to -help on the new régime by relinquishing their possessions.</p> - -<p>“You are mistaken,” he said. “We do not intend to confiscate. We shall -pay for everything we take. The worst we shall do is to compel the -capitalists to give us their property at the price which the commission -of awards sets as a fair return.”</p> - -<p>“But will not that defeat your whole scheme?” I asked. “If you give the -owners of productive capital a fair monetary return for their property, -would you not automatically<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</span> create a set of class distinctions that -would be quite as pronounced as those which exist to-day?”</p> - -<p>“Oh,” he said, “we do not propose to give them for their property money -that they could invest; we shall give them bonds.”</p> - -<p>“How does that make any difference?” I persisted. “Interest-bearing -bonds would have a more definite effect than actual money. By giving -such bonds you would establish a perpetually-idle class, and so defeat -the aims of your movement.”</p> - -<p>“But the bonds will not bear interest,” he replied. “Interest is -usury—a crime which will not be permitted in the Socialist State. -As Leatham says (“The Class War,” p. 11): ‘Everyone who lends his -neighbor £5 and exacts £5 5s. in return is a criminal.’ Holders of -bonds may dispose of them, if they can find anybody who is foolish -enough to want to hoard money, but—once the value of the bonds has -been spent—that will end the matter, and we shall have eliminated the -property-possessing parasites without violence or ‘confiscation.’”</p> - -<p>Is it possible to conceive of a more one-sided arrangement? Valuable -property is to be taken from its owners and in return<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</span> they are to be -given bonds which may or may not possess real value. In case nobody can -be found to purchase them, the possessors will have to be content with -the satisfaction of framing the certificates as evidence that they were -once members of an “exploiting class.”</p> - -<p>In this, however, the Socialists are really most logical. To take -wealth from a citizen in one kind would be the height of folly, if -the same wealth were promptly returned to him in another kind. Such a -transfer of productive property would mean nothing to the community. -The only way in which the Socialist scheme can be carried out is to -eliminate entirely all private rights in property used for purposes -of production, distribution and exchange. If we admit the Socialist -contention that labor is entitled to all value produced, no matter how -it is produced, and that the worker is now the victim of spoliation, -the only logical attitude is a defence of confiscation.</p> - -<p>Most Socialists assume this position and excuse it on the ground that -such an act on the part of the Co-operative State would be eminently -just.</p> - -<p>Rev. Charles H. Vail, in “Modern Socialism”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</span> (p. 152), upholds this -method of reasoning. “As to the confiscation of property,” he says, -“the misconception here relates to the justice of confiscation, and is -due to a failure to comprehend the nature of capitalist accumulations. -The Socialist contends that all such is the result of spoliation -and exploitation. The capitalist is able to appropriate the product -of labor by reason of his ownership of certain means of production. -Private property, then, in the instruments of production is unjust. -The confiscation of private property is therefore just. If capital -represents the fleecings of labor, no one can contend that its holders -have claim to compensation on the ground of equity. The only grounds -upon which compensation can be argued is that of mercy or expediency.”</p> - -<p>Even the Socialist will admit that under existing laws confiscation -would be illegal. So long as they live under the present system they -may be willing to abide by these laws—at least to the extent of not -openly violating them and so subjecting themselves to the danger of -incarceration in capitalist prisons. They insist, however, that as -these laws were made for the protection of property-holders,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</span> there is -no reason why they should not change them and so make the ownership of -property just as great a crime as the theft of property is to-day. All -they wait for is the power to accomplish this purpose.</p> - -<p>In other words, they stand for the principle that might makes right, -and as you know, John, might doesn’t do anything of the kind. In taking -this position, Socialism proposes to violate natural right. A majority -might do this; a majority might compel a minority to relinquish the -rights that are inherent in natural law; but Socialism has no more -right to do this thing than it has to re-establish slavery. Natural -right does not depend upon a vote of a majority, but is grounded on -primary law, and is eternal, no matter what majorities may say to the -contrary.</p> - -<p>That the contrary is the position of Socialists upon this question is -fully attested by that eminent apostle of Socialism, Eugene V. Debs. In -<i>The International Socialist Review</i> (February, 1912), Debs says:</p> - -<p>“As a revolutionist, I can have no respect for capitalist property -laws, nor the least scruple about violating them. I hold all<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</span> such laws -to have been enacted by chicanery, fraud and corruption, with the sole -end in view of dispossessing, robbing and enslaving the working class. -But this does not imply that I propose making an individual law-breaker -of myself and butting my head against the stone wall of existing -property laws. That might be called force, but it would not be that. It -would be mere weakness and folly. If I had the force to overthrow these -despotic laws, I would use it without an instant’s hesitation or delay, -but I haven’t got it, and so I am law-abiding under protest—not from -scruple—and bide my time.”</p> - -<p>That the great majority of Socialists take the same position upon the -question of confiscation will scarcely be denied by those who are -at all familiar with the Socialist trend of thought. That they are -serious in their effort to incite disrespect for all property laws -is shown by the efforts that are made to teach the children in their -Sunday schools that all rent, profit and interest are no more than so -many forms of robbery. “The Red Catechism,” used in Socialist schools, -holds up to execration all those who are supposed to stand in the way -of the revolution. They<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</span> are referred to as the “landlord class” and -the “capitalist class,” and in these categories everybody is included -who owns anything, however little, or who employs another person for a -wage, even though it be but the bellows-boy or a humble dressmaker’s -assistant. Thus, “The Red Catechism” asks:</p> - -<p>“When would Socialists allow anyone to have a machine?”</p> - -<p>“When a person can use a machine for her own use. For instance, -Socialists would let a dressmaker have a machine for her own work, but -not for the purpose of employing others to exploit and rob them,” is -the answer.</p> - -<p>How craftily the Socialist school-teachers impart their philosophy -of destruction to the boys and girls who are so unfortunate as to -come within their sphere of influence is told by a story, the truth -of which is vouched for by the special commissioners of the London -<i>Standard</i>—a paper which recently conducted a painstaking -investigation of the menacing character of Socialism.</p> - -<p>A well-known Socialist speaker and writer was addressing a meeting in -Islington, attended chiefly by children. A portion of his address ran -somewhat as follows:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</span></p> - -<p>“The most interesting event of the week has been the train murder, -of which most of you have no doubt heard. Two men were seated in a -railway carriage. The one was rich; he had a diamond pin in his tie, -a thick gold chain across his waistcoat, money jingled in his pockets -when he moved. The other was poor, miserably poor; he wanted money -for everything—food, clothes, lodging. He asked the rich man to give -him of his superfluity; the rich man refused and so the poor man took -by force what he could not get by entreaty, and in the use of that -force—the only effective argument which the poor possess—the rich man -was killed. The shedding of blood is always to be deplored, but there -are times when it is warranted. Violence is a legitimate weapon for the -righting of social wrongs.”</p> - -<p>The address over, the lecturer went about among the children -questioning them with the object of finding out whether they had -grasped the meaning of his address. To a bright intelligent girl of -twelve, he said:</p> - -<p>“You heard what I said about the two men in the train?”</p> - -<p>“Yes,” was the reply.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</span></p> - -<p>“Did you understand what I meant by my story?”</p> - -<p>“Oh, yes,” answered the girl. “You meant that if we hadn’t got -something that we wanted, and somebody else has got it, we could go and -take it from them.” And the lecturer, smiling his approval, passed on.</p> - -<p>There are Socialists who will indignantly repudiate all such ideas; -yet we have but to turn to some of the most respectable authorities on -Socialism to find ample evidence that the gentleman who lectured before -the children of Islington was scarcely more radical than many of the -more eminent advocates of Marxism. Bax, for example, in his “Ethics -of Socialism,” admits that “for him [the Socialist] it is indifferent -whether social and political ends are realized by lawful or lawless -means.”</p> - -<p>If it be said that this is a principle which was applied by Bax to -conditions in general, and had nothing to do with the conduct of -individuals, what is to be said of the advice which he gives (“Outlooks -from the New Standpoint”) to those who are searching for the “new” -standard of personal integrity. “The cheapest way of obtaining goods is -not to pay for them,” said Bax, “and if a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</span> buyer can avoid paying for -the goods he obtains, he has quite as much right to do so as the seller -has to receive double or treble their cost price and call it profit.”</p> - -<p>Karl Kautsky, who is regarded by many as the official interpreter of -Socialism, has also laid down laws for the guidance of Socialists in -ethical matters. He advances the theory that the moral law prevails -only when we have intercourse with members of our own class, or social -organization. “One of the most important duties is that of truthfulness -to comrades,” he says (<i>Neue Zeit</i>, October 3, 1903). “Towards -enemies this duty was never considered binding.” As the Socialist, even -from his Sunday school days is taught to regard every employer as his -enemy, the natural effect of such a principle, if put into operation in -every day affairs, is obvious.</p> - -<p>At the time this statement was made by Kautsky, some resentment was -expressed towards him because, as he himself relates (“Ethics and -the Materialistic Conception of History,” p. 157), his “statement -was interpreted as if he had attempted to establish a special social -democratic principle in opposition to the principle of the eternal -moral<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</span> law which commands unconditional truthfulness to all men.” -“Whether this interpretation was right or wrong,” says Ming (“The -Morality of Modern Socialism,” p. 136), “we may judge from the -well-attested fact that in a Socialist meeting in Hamburg a motion made -to disavow Kautsky’s proposition was lost.”</p> - -<p>In view of all these facts, it is difficult to see what ground -Socialists can have for denying that they expect to put the process -of confiscation into effect. Of course, not all Socialists are -so radical as Bax, who takes occasion repeatedly to declare his -advocacy of this doctrine. “Now, justice being henceforth identified -with confiscation and injustice with the rights of property, there -remains only the question of ‘ways and means.’... The moral effect of -sudden expropriation would be much greater than that of any gradual -process.” To him there can be no middle-ground between “possession and -confiscation.” Unless a man accepts the doctrine that private ownership -is unjust and confiscation just, he cannot be a true Socialist (op. -cit., pp. 75-76).</p> - -<p>As we have seen, John, the principle of confiscation, once we have -accepted the proposition<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</span> that private property is theft, is perfectly -logical and even the methods of compensation proposed by Socialists are -nothing more or less than confiscation in disguise. Cecil Chesterton -states this fact very clearly in <i>The Church Socialist Quarterly</i> -(January, 1911), where he says:</p> - -<p>“Socialism means confiscation. Let no Socialist deceive himself about -that. However ‘evolutionary’ (whatever that may mean) the process may -be, whatever solatium to the present property-owners humanity and -a sense of justice may dictate, Socialism means confiscation. The -issue may be stated very concisely. However gradual the process of -transferring wealth from the rich class to the community, will the rich -at the end of that process be as wealthy as before, or won’t they? If -they will, then the end of Socialism has not been achieved. If they -won’t, then, under whatever form, their property has been confiscated.”</p> - -<p>Quite in keeping with this presentation of the case is the resolution -passed by the Socialist Federation of Australasia, held in Melbourne, -in June, 1912. It read:</p> - -<p>“The Federation vehemently protests<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</span> against the working class being -misled by the Labor or other parties into the belief that it is -possible to socialize the instruments of production by a gigantic -scheme of ‘buying out,’ or compensation to the possessing class, -and warns the workers against endorsing such a Utopian, immoral and -impracticable scheme.” This, says The Socialist (March, 1911), the -organ of <i>the Socialist</i> Labor party of England, “is a condensed -statement of the position laid down in our manifesto of 1908.”</p> - -<p>Even Morris Hillquit, a conservative American Socialist, is compelled -to admit that confiscation is likely to become the order of the day -once Socialists are in power. “It is not unlikely that in countries in -which the social transformation will be accomplished peacefully, the -State will compensate the expropriated proprietors, while every violent -revolution will be followed by confiscation. The Socialists have not -much concern about this issue” (“Socialism in Theory and Practice,” p. -140).</p> - -<p>It may be true, as Hillquit says, that Socialists “are not much -concerned” with the charge that they are planning to set up a State -in which the Divine law, “Thou shalt<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</span> not steal,” is to be set at -naught—a State that will take from the successful and the thrifty -the possessions they have accumulated—a State against the actions of -which there can be no redress. But what have you to say as a decent -law-abiding citizen, John? What?</p> - -<p>Before leaving this subject, John, there is still another difficulty -to be considered: if the Socialist State proposes to pay for the -property it seizes, where is the money to come from for even an -inadequate scheme of compensation? Do you think that the new State -would be content to assume the additional burden imposed by such a -debt as would be represented by all these obligations? No matter how -extortionate the new methods of taxation might be, if they stop short -of relative confiscation, it would take many decades to extinguish this -liability. Is it not more likely that history would repeat itself, and -that the story of the French Revolution would be repeated in the new -Co-operative Commonwealth? In France, in the days of the Revolution, -there was compensation for the expropriated in the beginning, but -this speedily resolved itself into expropriation without indemnity. -Nor must<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</span> it be forgotten that, whatever provisions might be made, -the State would be bound by its principles to prevent those whom -it compensated from investing their funds, or engaging in business -competition; transferring their money or bonds, or bequeathing their -possessions to others; for, if this were not done, compensation -would prove to be the means of re-establishing the very system which -Socialism seeks to destroy.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XIV">CHAPTER XIV<br /><span class="small">THE REVOLUTION</span></h2> -</div> - - - -<p class="p0"> -My dear John,<br /> -</p> - -<p>You will meet many Socialists who will tell you that the Marxist creed -anticipates that no force will be required in bringing about the change -from capitalism to collectivism—no violence, no bloodshed. If anybody -attempts to make you believe that the Socialist purpose is a peaceful -one, refer him to “The Communist Manifesto,” which was drafted by Marx -and Engels, and terminates with these words:</p> - -<p>“The Communists do not seek to conceal their views and aims. They -declare openly that their purpose can be obtained only by violent -overthrow of all existing arrangements of society. Let the ruling -classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have -nothing to lose in it but their chains; they have a world to win.”</p> - -<p>If you are still told, as I have been, that such language was used by -the founders of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</span> Socialism, not because they meant to incite violence, -but simply to arouse the interests of the worker in their propaganda, -call your Socialist’s attention to the transactions of The Hague -Congress in 1872, when Marx declared:</p> - -<p>“In most countries of Europe violence must be the lever of our -social reform. We must finally have recourse to violence, in order -to establish the rule of labor.... The revolution must be universal, -and we find a conspicuous example in the Commune of Paris, which has -failed because in other capitals—Berlin and Madrid—a simultaneous -revolutionary movement did not break out in connection with this mighty -upheaval of the proletariat of Paris.”</p> - -<p>Indeed, John, so revolutionary a program can never be brought about -by anything less than the most violent of revolutions. It is true -that there are Socialists who profess to believe that this end can -be achieved by legal and political means; yet they themselves admit -that this rule will hold good only in times and in countries where -the purposes of the revolution can be accomplished by such peaceful -methods. Where political means are wanting, or the Socialist<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</span> majority -is insufficient to overawe completely all opposition, recourse to -violence must be had.</p> - -<p>We must not forget that, as Professor Woolsey says (“Communism and -Socialism,” p. 228), “there never was a revolution since history -told the story of the world so complete as this” (namely, that which -Socialism proposes to effect); and, as he later remarks (p. 280), -nothing short of the persuasion of violent revolution “can lead holders -of property ... to acquiesce in so complete an overthrow of society and -downfall of themselves, as modern Socialism contemplates.”</p> - -<p>Personally, with your knowledge of human nature, can you conceive of -any other method by which Socialism can accomplish its aims? Do you -deem it possible that such world-wide dispossession can come without a -struggle on the part of those who are to be excluded from the enjoyment -of what they have been brought up to believe they rightfully possess? -Is it reasonable to expect that all holders of productive property, -both large and small, will placidly surrender at the request of the -Socialist demagogues? You don’t believe this could happen?<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</span> Neither do -the Socialists. In his “History of Socialism” (p. 10), Kirkup, who is -anything but an extreme radical, admits that “the prevailing Socialism -of the day is in large part based on the frankest and most outspoken -revolutionary materialism”; while Hyndman, who is conspicuously the -advocate of political action, writes in “Social Democracy” (p. 22): “We -are not so foolish as to say we will not use force if it would bring -us to a better period more rapidly. We do not say we are such men of -peace.”</p> - -<p>Our own Charles H. Kerr, the head of the great American Socialist -publishing house, takes a similar stand. In discussing the means by -which American Socialists plan to overthrow capitalism, he says (“What -to Read on Socialism,” p. 10):</p> - -<p>“As to the means by which the capitalist class is to be overthrown, -the real question worth considering is what means will prove most -effective. If it could best be done by working for ‘one thing at a -time’ and bidding for the votes of the people who have no idea what the -class-struggle means, we should no doubt favor that method. But history -has made it very clear that such a method is a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</span> dead failure.... If, -on the other hand, the working class could best gain power by taking -up arms, just as the capitalist class did when it dislodged the -land-holding nobility from power, why not?”</p> - -<p>These advocates of a violent revolution are mild-spoken, indeed, as -compared to many of the better-known apologists of Socialism. Bebel, -for example, in “Unsere Ziele” (p. 44), speaks more emphatically.</p> - -<p>“We must not shudder at the thought of the possible employment of -violence; we must not raise an alarm cry at the suppression of -‘existing rights’, at violent expropriation, etc. History teaches us -that at all times new ideas were realized, as a rule, by a violent -conflict with the defenders of the past, and that the combatants for -new ideas struck blows as deadly as possible at the defenders of -antiquity. Not without reason does Karl Marx in his work on ‘Capital’ -exclaim:</p> - -<p>“‘Violence is the midwife that waits on every ancient society that is -to give birth to a new one; violence is itself a social factor.’”</p> - -<p>Dietzgen, too, advocates nothing short of revolution, and sees no -reason why violence should be condemned under such conditions.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</span></p> - -<p>“Oh, ye short-sighted and narrow-minded who cannot give up the fad -of the moderate organic progress!” he says. “Don’t you perceive that -all our great liberal passions sink to the level of mere trifling, -because the great question of social salvation is in the order of the -day? Don’t you perceive that struggle and destruction must precede -peace and construction, and that chaotic accumulation of material is -the necessary condition of systematic organization, just as the calm -precedes the tempest and the latter the general purification of the -air?... History stands still because she gathers force for a great -catastrophe.”</p> - -<p>Both the “Red Catechism” and Joynés’ “Socialist Catechism” teach the -same doctrine. In the “Red Catechism,” one looks in vain for any hint -of contemplated compensation or peaceful methods of expropriation.</p> - -<p>“How are the forms of government changed?” is asked.</p> - -<p>“By means of revolution,” is the answer.</p> - -<p>And in the “Socialist Catechism,” we find these words:</p> - -<p>“Q. What is the revolution for which the Socialists strive? A. A -revolution<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</span> which will render impossible the individual appropriation -of the products of associated labor and consequent exploitation and -enslavement of the laborers.... Q. <i>How are forms of government -changed, so as to readjust them to the economical changes in the -forms of production which have been silently evolving in the body of -society?</i> A. <i>By means of revolution.</i> Q. <i>Give an instance -of this?</i> A. <i>The French Revolution of 1789.</i>”</p> - -<p>And even the Socialist hymn-books, the books from which the children in -the Socialist schools sing, are filled with such sentiments as:</p> - -<p class="poetry"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“They’ll know full soon, the kind of vermin,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Our bullets hit in that last fight.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>Or, as another Socialist song has it:</p> - -<p class="poetry"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“Rise in your might, brothers, bear it no longer,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Assemble in masses throughout the whole land;</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Teach the vile blood-suckers who are the stronger</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">When workers and robbers confronted shall stand.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</span></p> - -<p>Certainly, Kirkup is not far from the true Socialist ideal when he -asserts (“History of Socialism,” p. 160), that “a great revolutionary -catastrophe is to close the capitalistic era”; even though he adds, -“this must be regarded as a very bad preparation for the time of social -peace which is forthwith to follow.”</p> - -<p>It is not easy for Socialists to evade this issue, especially in -view of the fact that the instructions they have received from their -leaders so invariably tend to incite violence. “If the people have not -a scrapnel to shoot, they have broken bottles to throw,” said Victor -Grayson at Huddersfield, on August 12, 1907. “Chemistry,” says Hyndman -(“Historical Basis of Socialism,” p. 443), “has placed at the disposal -of the desperate and the needy cheap and powerful explosives, the full -effects of which are as yet unknown. Every day adds new discoveries -in this field; the dynamite of ideas is accompanied in the background -by the dynamite of material force. These modern explosives may easily -prove to capitalism what gunpowder was to feudalism.”</p> - -<p>If there remained any doubt as to the precise purposes of Socialism, -the attitude<span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</span> which its press and its speakers assume toward the -use of violence during the French Revolution and the Paris Commune -would afford evidence in plenty. Marx lauded the uprising of 1871 and -praised its bloodthirsty crimes as the work of heroes. “Workingmen’s -Paris, with its Commune, will be forever celebrated as the glorious -harbinger of a new society,” he said, in “The Civil War in France” (p. -78); and there is practically no end to the quotations that might be -presented from the writings of Socialists who support Marx’s position. -Herron refers to the Commune as “a sort of glad and beatific moment, -a momentary and prophetic spring-time in the long procession of the -changing forms of parasitism and hypocrisy and brute force which we -know as law and government” (<i>Boston Address</i>, 1903).</p> - -<p>Quelch, too, in <i>Justice</i> (London, March 18, 1911), signalizes -the Paris Commune as “a glorious event, which should ever be borne in -mind and celebrated by the proletariat of all civilized countries,” -while the <i>Appeal to Reason</i>, when asked why American Socialists -celebrated the anniversary of the Commune, replied (August 29, 1893):</p> - -<p>“Because it represented a rise of the working<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</span> class and served as a -splendid example of what working men can accomplish.”</p> - -<p>And this glorious event, this “glad and beatific moment,” is thus -described by Mazzini, the Italian patriot:</p> - -<p>“A people was wallowing about as if drunk, raging against itself and -lacerating its limbs with its teeth, while howling triumphant cries, -dancing an infernal dance before the grave which it had dug with its -own hand, killing, torturing, burning and committing crimes without -sense, shame or hope. It put one in mind of the most horrid visions of -Dante’s Hell.”</p> - -<p>The Socialist historian, Benham, describes the events of the Commune -in his “Proletarian Revolt,” and the following summary of this -description, with the pages for reference, appears in “Questions of -Socialists and Their Answers” (p. 108), by Rev. William Stephens Kress:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>Forty thousand Parisians were killed in battle (p. 211); public -buildings and priceless works of art were burned or destroyed; -Napoleon’s column was torn down; the movable property of people -who had fled the city was confiscated (p. 101); churches<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</span> were -pillaged (p. 57); Jesuits were robbed of 400,000 francs (p. 43); -12 unfriendly journals were suppressed (p. 75); 300 of the clergy -were imprisoned (p. 59); 200 priests were held as hostages (p. 118); -priests were murdered (pp. 169, 171, 172, 181) ... Deguery, the Curé -of the Madeline, when catechised by Rigault, judge of the Council of -Discipline, said: “We teach the religion of our Lord Jesus Christ.” To -which Rigault replied: “There are no Lords. We do not know any Lords.” -When Archbishop Darboy was questioned, he answered: “I am a servant -of God.” Rigault asked: “Where does he live?” To which the Archbishop -replied: “Everywhere.” Rigault then gave command: “Send this man to -the Conciergerie, and issue a warrant for the arrest of his Master, -one called God, who has no permanent residence, and is consequently, -contrary to law, living in a perpetual state of vagabondage” (p. -57). Archbishop Darboy was ordered shot. When the order was given to -fire he blessed the soldiers. “That’s your benediction, is it? Now -take mine,” said Lolive, one of the soldiers, as he fired a pistol -bullet into the Archbishop’s body (p. 158). Mr. Washburne,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</span> American -Minister to France, said of Darboy: “He was one of the most charming -and agreeable of men and was beloved alike by rich and poor. He had -spent his whole life in acts of charity and benevolence” (p. 158). -Speaking of the deadly hatred on the part of the Communards of all -things religious, Benham remarks: “The actions of the Commune were -proofs positive that they subscribed to the skeptical tenets which -hold priests to be the advocates of human ignorance and a bar to the -progress of the race” (p. 59).</p> -</div> - -<p>It is such scenes of bloodshed and injustice—just this kind of triumph -of might over right—that Socialists would have repeated. They cannot -deny this, John, because this program, horrible as it may seem to us, -is perfectly logical from the Socialist point of view. “According to -Socialist ethics,” says Ming (“The Morality of Modern Socialism,” -p. 344), “all means are morally good which lead to the victory of -the proletariat. Why, then, should violence not be justified if it -brings success? The working class is the only class that has the right -and power to be; it is society, the nation,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</span> the true public, while -capitalism is but a cancer of the social organism. Why should it not -employ violence when deemed an effective means for emancipation, -conquest of power and introduction of collectivism?”</p> - -<p>No, John, it is not when Socialists advocate violence that they are -illogical; it is when they deny that they advocate and plan to resort -to violence in accomplishing their purposes that they show a lack of -logic.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XV">CHAPTER XV<br /><span class="small">WHAT WE ARE PROMISED</span></h2> -</div> - - - -<p class="p0"> -My dear John,<br /> -</p> - -<p>We have already seen how impossible many of the basic theories of -Socialism are; but, heretofore, we have been dealing with definite -proposals, and not with the general application of the Socialist ideas. -To return to the simile of the jig-saw puzzle, John, we may say that we -now have all the pieces properly cut out before us. What we have to do -is to fit them together and see what kind of a picture they give us.</p> - -<p>Of course, we shall not be able to do this without some protests from -Socialists. They do not like us to test their theories by constructing -an imaginary Commonwealth, even though we use no other material than -the facts which they themselves have given us—the admitted principles -of international Socialism—in its construction. Indeed, Socialists -insist that it is a mark of imbecility<span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</span> for anyone to ask for such a -picture to say nothing of complaining because it is not available. -“Only the ignorant would ask for a cut-and-dried plan of a state -that can exist only in its completeness in the distant future,” says -Suthers, in his popular propaganda booklet, “Common Objections to -Socialism Answered.” “Why is it impossible to produce a cut-and-dried -plan? Simply because comprehensive prophesy of the future is beyond -human power.... Is there a man alive to-day who can forecast the -details of all the events that will register themselves in his single -consciousness to-morrow?... It were a silly waste of time for any -Socialist to spend his life in drawing up cut-and-dried plans of a -distant future.... They (the critics) say that one says one thing and -one another. God of brains, what else do they expect?”</p> - -<p>“For all his heat,” says Kelleher (“Common Ownership,” p. 105), “Mr. -Suthers is far from answering a very serious objection, or rather, -consciously or unconsciously, from dealing with the real point of the -objection at all. It is not the mere details of the socialistic state -that the critics of Socialism are demanding to have explained, but its<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</span> -essential constitution. It is no reply to say that we do not require or -expect to know the details about the future under the existing system. -We do not, but we know the conditions in which these details will work -themselves out, and rightly or wrongly we accept them, because, with -all their faults, we are convinced that they are the best that are -available for us.”</p> - -<p>Moreover, not all the Socialists have been as loath to forecast the -details of the proposed Co-operative Commonwealth as Mr. Suthers. H. -G. Wells has given us a rather elaborate series of prognostications in -his “New Worlds for Old,” and the following—Mrs. Besant’s picture of -the future which Socialism proposes—is said by Bliss to be “one of the -best short ideals of Socialism yet written.” In quoting this “prophecy” -I have found it necessary to abridge it slightly, but you will find all -the details that have been omitted in Mrs. Besant’s contribution to the -“Fabian Essays.”</p> - -<p>“The unemployed have been transformed into communal workers—in -the country on great farms, improvements of the bonanza farms in -America—in the towns in various trades. Public stores for agricultural -and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</span> industrial products are open in all convenient places, and filled -with the goods thus communally produced. The great industries, worked -as Trusts, are controlled by the state instead of by capitalist -rings.... After a while the private producers will disappear, not -because there will be any law against individualistic production, -but because it will not pay. The best form of management during -the transition period, and possibly for a long time to come, will -be through the Communal Councils which will appoint committees to -superintend the various branches of industry. These committees will -engage the necessary manager and foreman for each shop, factory, etc., -and will hold power of dismissal as of appointment.... This (making -the worker accommodate himself to the demand for labor), however, -hardly solves the general question as to the apportioning of laborers -to the various forms of labor. But a solution has been found by the -ingenious author of ‘Looking Backward.’ Leaving young men and women -free to choose their employments, he would equalize the rates of -volunteering by equalizing the attractions of the trades.... But there -are unpleasant and indispensable forms of labor<span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</span> which, one would -imagine, can attract none—mining, sewer-cleaning, etc. These might be -rendered attractive by making the hours of labor in them much shorter -than the normal working day of pleasanter occupations.... Further, much -of the most disagreeable and laborious work might be done by machinery, -as it would be now if it were not cheaper to exploit a helot class.... -In truth, the extension of machinery is very likely to solve many of -the problems connected with differential advantages in employment; and -it seems certain that in the very near future the skilled worker will -not be the man who is able to perform a particular set of operations, -but the man who has been trained in the use of machinery.... Out of -the value of the communal produce ... all charges and expenses are -deducted, and the remaining value should be divided among the communal -workers as a ‘bonus.’ It would be obviously inconvenient, if not -impossible, for the district authority to sub-divide this value and -allot so much to each of its separate undertakings—so much left-over -from gas works for the men employed there, so much from the tramways -for the men<span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</span> employed on them, and so on. It would be far simpler and -easier for the municipal employes to be regarded as a single body, in -the service of a single employer, the local authority; and that the -surplus from the whole businesses carried on by the Communal Council -should be divided without distinction among the whole of the communal -employes.”</p> - -<p>Taking Mrs. Besant as a guide and calling upon other Socialist -authorities for further directions, let us see if we can put our -jig-saw puzzle together and thus ascertain what kind of a place the -Co-operative Commonwealth is likely to be.</p> - -<p>In the first place, John, it is scarcely probable that any Socialist -will deny that all means of production, distribution and exchange -will be in the hands of the collective state. This means that all -the manufacturing will be done by the communal authorities acting -for the people; that all the methods of disposing of these products, -through shops or otherwise, will be under the same direction, and -that all means of transportation—railways, steamships, etc.—will, -like the Post Office to-day, be in the hands of the people or their -representatives.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</span> So far, in all probability, we shall meet with no -denial from the Socialists.</p> - -<p>In the matter of land, however, our Socialist authorities are not so -thoroughly in agreement. For example, when they are talking with the -farmer, or other small land owner, who does not wish to have his real -estate expropriated, some Socialists are quite willing to admit that -their program makes no provision for the confiscation of farm lands. -As you have seen, however, the Socialists are quite ready to hide any -feature in their scheme that seems likely to arouse opposition in -the minds of the small property holders. Yet, land being invariably -included in “means of production” by all authoritative Socialists, it -is not easy to see how any real Socialist can promise to exclude farm -lands from the general plan of confiscation. It is far easier to assume -that the <i>Appeal to Reason</i> and the Socialist propagandists who -write propaganda matter to induce the farmer to vote the Socialist -ticket are not telling him the truth about this phase of the question.</p> - -<p>Then, too, when we remember the Socialist proposition that all labor in -the Co-operative Commonwealth shall be performed collectively<span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</span> and not -under the direction of an employer, it is pretty difficult to imagine -how a farmer will be able to operate a farm when he is prevented from -employing others to help him. Certainly, Mrs. Besant’s suggestion is -the more logical one—farm lands must be expropriated and the industry -of agriculture pursued on great farms, operating on the bonanza farm -basis which has already proved such a gigantic failure in this country.</p> - -<p>With all means of production, distribution and exchange in the hands of -the Commonwealth, there would naturally be but one source of employment -for labor—The Commonwealth. If you wanted a job, John, you would have -to go to the employment bureau of the Commonwealth and present your -application, upon which you would be assigned to such a position as -might chance to be open at the time your application was received. You -are a machinist, but it might chance that machinists are not much in -demand on the day you apply for the job. Accordingly, you would be sent -to paint houses, or to build streets; anything that happened to be open -would be assigned to you and you would have to take it or starve<span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</span> to -death, because the Commonwealth, as we have seen in a previous letter, -could not be expected to find for every applicant the particular kind -of work that he preferred to perform.</p> - -<p>Under our present system, inadequate as it is in some respects, a man -can select the work that he prefers, and there is no limit to the -heights that he can ascend, provided he shows an ability to occupy a -higher position in the industrial world. To-day merit counts; to-day -knowledge and initiative, as well as industry, mean something. But, -under the system that Socialism proposes, it would be the favor of the -bosses or, at least, the votes of one’s associates that could alone -secure promotion.</p> - -<p>Election of bosses by popular vote may sound all right in theory, -but I seriously fear that the scheme would not operate successfully -if applied practically. Popularity would be a poor substitute for -proficiency, especially in view of the fact that it would probably be -the easiest boss and not the most exacting boss, who would secure the -votes of the most people. Try to picture what would happen under these -conditions, and you will have taken the first step toward a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</span> clear -understanding of industrial conditions under Socialism.</p> - -<p>But, let us suppose, for argument’s sake, that you have secured -employment at a trade that is fairly satisfactory to you and that -the more important industrial problems have been reasonably well -adjusted. At the end of the work-week you receive the labor check -which represents the “full value” of the products which have been -produced. We have already seen how difficult the Socialists will find -it to determine the full value of the work of each operative and -to measure it for exchange, so there is no need to emphasize this -question further. We will suppose that the apparently insurmountable -difficulties have been satisfactorily overcome, and that you are well -pleased with the share you receive in your labor check.</p> - -<p>Now, what are you going to do with it?</p> - -<p>We are told that the laborer will be permitted to purchase whatever he -pleases—as much or as little as he has a mind to buy. Of course he -can buy only from the State because everything—all the stores, shops, -factories, farms, etc.—will be owned and operated by the government. -“Our cities cannot give us to-day two things so simple<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</span> as pure water -and clean streets,” remarks Father Kress. “By what magic will they be -made capable of doing the thousands of things implied in production and -distribution?”</p> - -<p>Imagine yourself, your pay check in your hand, going in to the gigantic -government warehouse, or as Mrs. Besant prefers to call them, “public -stores for agricultural and industrial products.” The fact that you are -to be permitted to buy anything you like, or can, with the amount in -hand, presupposes that everything you desire will be kept in stock. But -what if you do not find it? The clerk could not promise to get it for -you, because it is not impossible that the committee on manufactures -may have decided that you ought not to have it. Caviare and Limburger -cheese are two commodities that are extremely pleasing to some people’s -palate, while there are other people who could not be induced to eat -them for pay. Suppose the committee on manufactures was composed -chiefly of persons who saw no excuse for the existence of caviare or -Limburger cheese. Is it likely that they would take the trouble to see -that the supply of these commodities did not run short,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</span> especially -when, in a Commonwealth where there was no competition, there is no -need to make any special effort to please purchasers?</p> - -<p>Freedom to purchase is impossible unless every possible want is -provided for. Perhaps this condition would exist in the Co-operative -Commonwealth. Perhaps it wouldn’t!</p> - -<p>Let us take another example, John.</p> - -<p>Suppose you wanted to build a house. At present you can do this in -accordance with any plans that please you. You don’t have to ask -anybody’s advice if you don’t want to. But would things be like this -under Socialism? You might want to build a bookcase in the centre of -the room instead of around the walls. You might have very good reasons -for wishing to do this. But do you think it would be a simple matter to -convince the committee on carpentering that your plan should be carried -out, if they happened to disapprove of your ideas? Under our present -system you can get almost any kind of work done if you are willing -and able to pay for it. All you have to do is to find the laborer and -employ him. Under Socialism, it wouldn’t be a single laborer that -would have to be seen, but a committee whose<span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</span> consent would have to be -obtained before any laborer could undertake your work.</p> - -<p>The Socialists tell us that Socialism will inspire inventors, writers -and other mental workers to a degree never before dreamt of.</p> - -<p>Is this possible?</p> - -<p>An invention to-day stands a fair chance of being put on the market -so long as it has the slightest evidence of practicability; somebody -can usually be found to furnish the money for the experiments needed -to perfect the scheme of the inventor. But how would it be in a -Commonwealth where the practicability of an invention and its value -as a social factor would have to be determined by a special committee -before it could be produced and its merits tested by actual experience? -We know how much money has been spent in the experimental work of many -inventors. We know, too, that, in the majority of cases, inventions -have been perfected in the face of widespread scepticism. Few people -believed that the telephone would ever be made of practical value. Even -when the telephone had succeeded and become an absolute necessity, the -great mass of the people laughed at the idea of wireless telegraphy. Do -you think that a committee<span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</span> on inventions would have passed favorably -upon such ideas, and would have authorized the necessary appropriations -for perfecting them in the face of such strong popular opposition?</p> - -<p>Socialists also tell us that freedom is the choicest jewel in our -possession; that freedom of press, speech and assemblage are rights -which are inherent in human nature and which must be defended, with our -lives if need be. But what do we find under Socialism? Could there be -any freedom of press when the Socialist State owned every press, when -the Socialist State employed every printer, when the Socialist State -controlled every sheet of white paper?</p> - -<p>Before a printed word could be given to the world, it would have -to pass the censorship of the special bureau entrusted with these -responsibilities. Such a committee would have to determine whether an -author’s work was worth printing or not; and suppose, by any chance, -an author or an editor desired to give expression to opinions that -did not harmonize perfectly with those of the ruling majority, do you -suppose that the State-owned presses would be permitted to run in the -publication of such theories?</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</span></p> - -<p>There is one thing, John, that you can depend upon; and that is that -the Socialist scheme makes absolutely no provision for freedom. The -Socialists talk as if we were “wage slaves,” but no conditions existing -to-day—not excepting the worst—represent such galling servitude -as would exist under the despotic bureaucracy that Socialism would -develop. It is true that you might be guaranteed against unemployment -so long as you were willing to take the kind of work provided for -you. It is true that you might exchange your labor checks for the -commodities that other workers had produced—so long as you desired -to purchase the kind of things that the officials of the Commonwealth -wanted you to buy. It is true that you might be permitted to write and -speak and teach, so long as you desired to promulgate ideas approved by -the majority. Once you begin to think along the lines advocated by the -minority, what do you think would happen to you? If a full stomach were -all that man required for his happiness, the Co-operative Commonwealth -might seem to offer an enviable state of existence. It is because -Socialists believe that a full stomach is the highest aim of man,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</span> -that they fail to recognize the inadequate character of their proposed -Commonwealth.</p> - -<p>It is an elaborate program that Socialism has planned—a program -that provides for free services on every hand, free amusements, free -excursions, free transportation, free professional services, etc. -Education, of course, will be free, not only the tuition and the books -but the clothes the children wear and the victuals they eat. “Will -the State be able to carry out this program?” asked Godkin in <i>The -Forum</i> (June, 1894). “It cannot give more than it gets; will we be -rich enough to pay the extravagant bills of Socialism?” It is assumed -by Socialists that the wealth of the State will be unlimited, but on -what foundations is this assumption based?</p> - -<p>I have called your attention to merely a few of the problems that -suggest themselves when we attempt to consider what kind of an -existence Socialism has planned for us. There are hundreds of other -examples that will occur to you if you stop to think the matter over -seriously. If this is the kind of life you want to live—the kind of -freedom you think you would enjoy—you are welcome to it.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XVI">CHAPTER XVI<br /><span class="small">WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE WORLD?</span></h2> -</div> - - - -<p class="p0"> -My dear John,<br /> -</p> - -<p>While I think I have shown you that Socialism is not what it pretends -to be—a certain remedy for all the social evils of our day—and that -it is utterly impossible for Socialism to keep its promises by making -this world over into a veritable kingdom of God on earth, we must not -make the mistake of dismissing all the contentions of the Socialists as -so many exhibitions of mental aberration. There is madness in some of -their doctrines—it is a crazy kind of a future that they have planned -for us; but behind all their absurdities there is a well-justified -protest against a series of social and industrial abuses from which the -great body of humanity is suffering, as from so many hideous sores.</p> - -<p>Mind you, John, I do not say that Socialists never exaggerate existing -conditions. We have already seen how prone<span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</span> they are to try to make us -put the most gloomy construction on the social outlook, and how ready -they are to twist statistics into all kinds of strange contortions to -make them fit their theories, in an endeavor to prove that the evils -which exist are ever so much more glaring than they really are.</p> - -<p>But the evils exist. The worker does not get an adequate share of the -wealth which he contributes to produce. The problem of unemployment -cries for solution from one end of the world to the other. In every -State and country the evils of child labor demand a remedy. Everywhere -numbers of men and women work under conditions that are a disgrace -to our boasted civilization, and in all parts of the land workers -are compelled to live in an environment and under circumstances that -absolutely preclude the attainment of the ideals toward which humanity -is supposed to be tending.</p> - -<p>In a word, we cannot deny that something is radically wrong with -the world. So far we may go hand in hand with the Socialist. To the -extent that he demands reform measures which shall give to the worker -greater opportunities for development and happiness, we must heartily -concur. But is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</span> the Socialist right when he asserts that these wrongs -are the inevitable result of the system which he calls “capitalism”? -Is it impossible, as he insists, that these wrongs may be righted -except by the overthrow of our present system and the substitution of -collective ownership of all means of production for our privately-owned -competitive method of managing things?</p> - -<p>When the Socialist tells us that Individualism is responsible for -all these evils, he is right. When he tells us that these evils are -inherent in the system which permits individual ownership of productive -properties, he is wrong. It is not the competitive system that is -responsible for all our social and industrial abuses. These unjust -features of modern life are the direct result of the vicious practices -which selfish and cruel individuals have adopted in their relations to -their fellow-men, but which do not necessarily have any place in the -system itself.</p> - -<p>If you were to study the development of political economy, you would -discover that the marked degradation of the workers, as well as much -of the callousness of the prosperous to the sufferings of the poor are -the direct result of the economic ideas promulgated<span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</span> by the Liberal -philosophers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. “Liberty, -fraternity and equality,” are terms to conjure with; but, once we apply -these principles to the practical affairs of life, we have started -society upon a downward course which can be checked only by a complete -reversal of such ideas.</p> - -<p>The French Deists sought to remove all trammels from man that he might -follow nature without restraint. They, and the economists who followed -them—Adam Smith, Ricardo, Bentham, Mill, and others—saw no room for -morality, religion, or even ethics, in political economy. The natural -effect of such principles was to foster the selfish impulses of man -rather than enforce conformity to the standards of conduct which are -embodied in the eternal laws of justice. These principles taught men -that the matter of prime importance was self-interest; they encouraged -cruelty and greed; they opened the way for the practice of unregulated -competition and stultified the Christian ideals of self-renunciation -and human brotherhood.</p> - -<p>A political economy without ethics, without a rule of right except as -set down in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</span> man-made law, can have none of the elements of justice -save, possibly, through sheer accident. Legal morality and the morality -for which Christianity has always stood are as opposed as the two -poles in many particulars. Where the principles of true morality -are recognized, there is no inherent antagonism between capital and -labor. They have interests that are mutual, and there is no excuse for -turning the industrial world into a battleground upon which strength -and cunning usurp the place of love and justice. The moment that the -higher ideals of life are subordinated to the passion of greed, the -degradation of the weaker and less cunning becomes inevitable.</p> - -<p>History shows us that this is precisely what has happened. Instead of -becoming a means to progress, the competitive system, through lack of -control, has resulted in a form of unlicensed competition which, as J. -J. Welsh asserts (“Socialism, Individualism and Catholicism,” p. 19), -may be “rightly described as commercial cannibalism.... It delivers -up weak, unorganized labor into the hands of organized and omnipotent -capital.... Without regard for the skill of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</span> the worker, the value of -his labor, or the requirements of a decent human life, the competitive -principle justifies the capitalist in paying the workman the least, -which, in the circumstances, he can compel him to accept. The employer -shelters himself under the law of supply and demand, as though that -were the supreme regulator of the remuneration and conditions of labor. -There is no savor of morality in such a principle. It gives an unfair -advantage to the few rich, who control the instruments of production, -over the defenceless masses, and it makes a question of strict -justice—the remuneration and the actual subsistence of the toiler and -his family—depend upon a trial of strength between two contending -parties.”</p> - -<p>There is no right-minded man who is not ready to join the Socialists in -their condemnation of the effects of the operations of this principle -of unrestrained competition. Were we compelled to believe that there -was no way by which this system could be changed, but that the human -sorrow and merciless injustice resulting from the exploitation of -the weak by the strong must continue unchecked until our system of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</span> -production and distribution has been completely overthrown, there -are comparatively few of us who would not go still further and urge -the adoption of the collective methods of industry. It is because we -believe that it is our unregulated competition, and not the principle -of individual ownership itself, which is destructive of right and -justice, that we do not and cannot join hands with the Socialists. As -we shall see, it is possible to bring about a correction of the abuses -from which countless thousands have suffered and are still suffering. -As we shall see, there are instruments within our reach with which we -may check the unbounded lust of greed which has made this generous -earth a vale of woe and mourning for the poor.</p> - -<p>While we do not agree with socialistic principles, therefore, we -recognize the justice embodied in the Socialist protest; and, much as -we deplore the spirit which has exaggerated our evils with a view to -inciting class hatred and a revolution that can result only in violence -and bloodshed, we should be blind if we did not appreciate the fact -that it is this protesting sentiment that has been to a marked degree -responsible for the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</span> moral awakening that will eventually set things -right.</p> - -<p>For example, there can be no doubt that there is justification for -the Socialist declaration regarding the unequal distribution of -wealth. The facts in the case are too notorious to permit of denial, -when multitudes are suffering all the woes of destitution, when many -are starving for lack of life’s bare necessities, and while the few -are able to waste in extravagance the means which would relieve -the sufferings of countless thousands if properly applied. “The -pestilential principle that each man has the right to dispose of his -wealth without regard to the common good is the cause of the widespread -mischief,” says Welsh.</p> - -<p>This unjust principle is also responsible for the inadequate rate of -wage and the horrible conditions which exist so generally among the -miserable multitude. There are those who may deny that such conditions -prevail; but our own eyes and ears, to say nothing of the great mass of -statistical information which is within our reach, prove conclusively -that there are untold thousands of children who<span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</span> are born into the -world without a chance of life or happiness; that vast multitudes -of young women, unable to sustain life in the unequal struggle for -existence, are driven to the streets for the sustenance which they -find it impossible to earn by honest toil; that men and women, who are -entitled in strict justice to a wage that will support them and those -dependent on them, are deprived of all their natural rights through no -fault of their own. For them there is no such thing as decent food, -clothing and shelter possible, to say nothing of the hope of ever being -able to meet the higher but no less natural requirements of life.</p> - -<p>Christianity has always held that it is the duty of each and all to -preserve life decently and that anything that tends to make this -impossible is a crime. “This idea of class duties and class comforts -is either explicitly or implicitly referred to as the final test in -every question of distribution or exchange,” says Ashley, who quoted -Langenstein in evidence of the fact that these principles of industrial -justice were recognized prior to the fourteenth century. “Everyone,” -says the latter, “can determine for himself the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</span> just price of the -wares he has to sell by simply reckoning what he needs in order to -support himself in his rank of life”; and those who have read the -writings of the Church Fathers do not need to be told that Christianity -has ever maintained the necessity of recognizing the right of the -worker to a living wage. These traditional teachings are embodied -in the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, who repudiates the principle -that competition alone determines the morality of the so-called free -contract.</p> - -<p>“There is a dictate of nature more imperious and more ancient than -any bargain between man and man, that the remuneration must be enough -to support the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comforts,” says -the Pope. “If, through necessity or fear of a worse evil, the workman -accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will give -him no better, he is the victim of force and injustice.”</p> - -<p>The Socialists claim that the Marxian gospel affords the only possible -relief for the victims of this force and injustice. As I have already -asserted, if this were true, a great many more of us would be -Marxists.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</span> As it is, however, there is a remedy which we may adopt with -safety, and with every assurance that it may be applied successfully if -we but get together and work together in the right way.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XVII">CHAPTER XVII<br /><span class="small">THE REMEDY</span></h2> -</div> - - -<p class="p0"> -My dear John,<br /> -</p> - -<p>As we have seen, it is not necessary that we should study life through -the smoked glasses of Socialism to realize that all is not well with -the world. Indeed, we have no need to look further than our own -everyday experiences to witness misery that is heart-rending, to see -evils that imperatively demand relief. That such conditions exist, -nobody can deny; and the Socialists have made good use of this fact -in shaping their appeal for “universal justice.” Certainly, it is an -argument that cannot fail to touch the human heart that is at all moved -to sympathy.</p> - -<p>If such evil conditions exist, it is our duty to remedy them, and with -as little delay as possible. Sympathy is not enough. We must act and -act at once—but how? It is a question that we who are not Socialists -are frequently asked. “If the Socialists are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</span> wrong,” our friends -inquire, “what have you to offer as a substitute?”</p> - -<p>One of the greatest weaknesses in the Socialist position is due to the -fact that it persists in looking at life from the wrong perspective. -Instead of finding the right point of view, it examines life’s canvas -from so close a range that it loses all sense of proportion. Assuming -this attitude toward current events, the abuses apparent are magnified -to such a degree as to make it appear that Marx was correct in -asserting that the capitalist system is rotten to the core, and that -the only hope for relief lies in collective ownership.</p> - -<p>Are the Socialist contentions true? Is everything in this country -tending towards hopeless bankruptcy?</p> - -<p>Fortunately there are facts in plenty which answer these questions. -There never was a period in the world’s history in which greater -progress was made toward modifying—if not actually eliminating—the -burdens that have caused so much misery to the poor. You must remember, -John, that the evils against which Socialists inveigh so bitterly are -not new evils. They had their origin generations ago; they have been<span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</span> -promoted by the sophistical theories of Economic Liberalism; and, if -they now seem more indefensible than they did to our grandfathers and -great-grandfathers, it is because our intenser conceptions of the -ideals of human brotherhood compel us to view life with closer scrutiny.</p> - -<p>In truth, while the indictment of Socialism is warranted in one sense -of the word, it is by no means entirely justified. If we were doing -nothing to improve conditions for the workers and for the relief of the -poor, the outlook would be a hopeless one; but, when we realize that, -while Socialism itself is doing practically nothing but denouncing -and slandering society (where it does not actually oppose our reform -measures), we are working steadily toward the solution of our social -problems, we can see good reason to believe that our civilization is -far from being the failure it has been pictured.</p> - -<p>No better evidence of the extent of the world’s material progress can -be found than in labor’s advancement during the past century. To-day, -there is still much to be done before we can attain the ideal embodied -in the expression, “a fair day’s pay”; yet it is interesting to note -that we should have to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</span> go back no further than the first quarter of -the eighteenth century to find an Act of the Court of Massachusetts -under which employers could adopt a maximum wage schedule. In a word, -this law prevented an employer from giving more than the specified -sum per day; yet no effort was made to prevent him from paying the -lowest wages for which a laborer could be induced to work. Between -this condition and the minimum wage agitation with which we are now -familiar, there is a contrast that speaks eloquently in evidence of our -social progress.</p> - -<p>In England, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the situation -of labor was worse than it has ever been in this country. Forbidden by -law to establish any safeguard in the form of organization for his own -protection, the employe was absolutely at the mercy of his employer. -The result was a condition of affairs that was barbaric. If the -employer paid the rate of wage agreed in money, or even in “truck,” he -was under no further legal responsibility; and, as the introduction of -improved machinery in many trades was beginning to make it possible for -women and children to perform the duties which hitherto had fallen only -upon men, an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</span> employer was able to make the worker accept terms that -made proper sustenance impossible.</p> - -<p>At the dawn of the nineteenth century, this was the condition of -things: the laborer was (1) prohibited from forming protective -combinations or unions; (2) compelled to work sixteen hours out of each -twenty-four; (3) forced to accept as recompense wages which were wholly -inadequate to provide the most vital necessities of life; and, as -though these conditions were not sufficiently oppressive, (4) employers -were permitted to make payment at long intervals, or in “truck,” <i>and -could charge interest at the rate of 260 per cent per annum on all cash -advances made to the needy worker</i>. Apparently, this was the time -when Marx ought to have appeared with his doctrine of wage slavery and -his incitement to class hatred. But, when we compare these conditions -with those which exist to-day, we can readily see that, while things -are still far from being “ideal,” the worker assuredly is not sinking -steadily into deeper depths of degradation.</p> - -<p>Even in this country the conditions of the laborer were far from -enviable a century<span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</span> ago. As McMaster tells us in his “History of the -People of the United States”:</p> - -<p>“His house was meaner, his food coarser, his clothing was of commoner -stuff, his wages lower, and his hours of daily labor far longer than -those of the men who in our time perform like service. Down to the -opening of the nineteenth century, a farm hand was paid $3 a month. A -strong boy could be had for $1 a month. Women who went out to service -received $10 a year; type-setters were given $1 per day. The hours -of work were from sunrise to sunset, and, as the sun rose later and -set earlier in the Winter than in the Summer, <i>wages in December -were one-third less than in July</i>. On such pittances it was only -by the strictest economy that a mechanic could keep his children from -starvation and himself from jail,” for these were the days when a man -could be arrested upon the complaint of a creditor and, being lodged -in jail, could be kept there until the indebtedness was paid—a system -which actually permitted life imprisonment for debt.</p> - -<p>If I were to tell you of the indescribably vile conditions under -which the workers of those days toiled and lived, you would find<span class="pagenum" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</span> it -difficult to believe that human beings could bear such burdens and -survive. If you are interested in investigating this subject, there -are books in the libraries that will tell you the story in all its -damning details. And this is the perspective from which you should -view life. It is, to say the least, “unscientific” to exaggerate the -weak spots in present-day civilization to such an extent as to convey -the impression that the evils criticized are the worst that have ever -been known, when a few hours’ study of history would be sufficient to -disclose the fact that circumstances are now infinitely less oppressive -than they have been in the past. At the same time the knowledge that -things are incalculably better than they were even half a century ago, -and that they are steadily improving, must not blind us to the fact -that there is still much to be done—more perhaps than has yet been -accomplished—and that it is our duty as good citizens to do our part -in remedying all our social defects.</p> - -<p>But what are we to do?</p> - -<p>Let history answer.</p> - -<p>Do you imagine that it was the individual capitalist—the “heartless -and greedy sweater”—who was responsible for all the improvements<span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</span> -that have occurred in our industrial conditions? No, it was the worker -himself who secured all these reforms. The worker, chiefly through his -own effort, has brought about the reformation that we witness to-day, -and it is the worker who must carry on the campaign until all the -abuses of which we complain have been eliminated.</p> - -<p>It is from the pages of history that we learn the story of the past; it -is to the pages of history that we must turn for advice as to what we -must do in the future. Let us see what history tells us.</p> - -<p>In the first place we learn that, despite all the legal prohibitions -then existing, the workers organized new associations. In the beginning -these organizations were merely “friendly societies,” ostensibly formed -to provide aid for the men in time of sickness or other misfortune; but -behind this purpose was the inception of the peaceful revolution that -was to rescue labor from the mire of degradation into which it had been -so pitilessly thrust.</p> - -<p>Here then we have our first lesson: <i>the duty of the worker to -organize</i>. As Portenar says in his “Problems of Organized Labor” -(p. 4), “the trade union came into<span class="pagenum" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</span> being because it was needed; -because the helpless individual found in concerted action with other -individuals his best, if not his only, means of resistance to the -arbitrary exercise of power, to injustice, to cruelty. It was a hard -fight. Wealth, and the merciless power of wealth; the state law, -forbidding workmen to co-operate for the purpose of increasing wages -and fixing maxima, with its interpreters zealous for its rigorous -enforcement; legislative bodies deaf to the cries of those who were -denied the privilege of a voice in the selection of their members; and -the broken-spirited timidity of those in whose behalf the union was -created; these were the forces to be contended with and overcome.”</p> - -<p>But the trade union was born, and the trade union has won many a -victory. But for this weapon of defense—and sometimes of offense—the -condition of the worker would not have been what it is to-day. Through -its efforts legislation has been secured. Through its efforts public -opinion has been shaped, and it is to its efforts that we must look -primarily for future betterment of labor’s condition.</p> - -<p>The first step, therefore, is one of organization; and, this step once -taken, our<span class="pagenum" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</span> subsequent progress follows logically. As the strength of -the organized workers increases, more demands can be made, and with a -much better prospect that they will be recognized. Legislatures, like -parliaments, are no longer deaf and blind to the requirements of the -workers. We have seen the circumstances under which the laborer existed -in the past. We know from personal experience the hardships suffered by -those who live under the lessened burden of to-day.</p> - -<p>“Looking broadly to labor legislation as it has occurred in this -country,” said Carroll D. Wright, “it may be well to sum up its general -features. Such legislation has fixed the hours of labor for women -and certain minors in manufacturing establishments; it has adjusted -the contracts of labor; it has protected employes by insisting that -all dangerous machinery shall be guarded ... it has created boards -of factory inspectors whose powers and duties have added much to the -health and safety of the operatives; it has in many instances provided -for weekly payments ... it has regulated the employment of prisoners; -protected the employment of children; ... provided for the ventilation -of factories and workshops;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</span> established industrial schools; ... -modified the common-law rules relative to the liability of employers -for injuries of their employes; fixed the compensation of railroad -corporations for negligently causing the death of employes, and has -provided for their protection against accident and death.”</p> - -<p>In spite of all that has been accomplished, however, we must increase -enormously our efforts along these lines, and so open up new avenues of -progress. The question of the hours of labor requires adjustment; child -labor, sweating, the home industries, the standardization of wages on -a “living” basis, are but a few of the problems which must be settled; -and the only way to settle them is by means of legislation.</p> - -<p>We must not forget, however, that laws are of little use unless they -are enforced. We already have laws on our statute books which would -quickly put an end to some of our abuses were they to be applied -adequately. This teaches us that, unless legislation is supported by -public opinion, it will be practically useless. Until public sentiment -forbids, laws are evaded; and a statute that is a “dead letter” is a -pretty sterile “reform measure.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</span></p> - -<p>It is here that we find the next duty of the worker. Personally, and -through his organization, he must carry out a campaign of education -that will help to develop a more alert social conscience—that will -arouse all good citizens to the justice of his demands, and so -frustrate the efforts of the rascals who, greed-inspired, exist chiefly -to set the moral laws at naught.</p> - -<p>To-day, this program can be carried out more easily than ever before in -human history. The social conscience is already awakening and in his -efforts to win more support for his righteous cause, the worker will -derive aid from the churches as well as from the many organizations -that have come into existence during the past decade solely to cast -their influence in behalf of social-welfare movements. The social -question to-day includes the industrial question. Moreover, it is -more than an economic and political question. It has its moral and -religious phases and so appeals directly to all public-spirited men and -women. By organization, legislation and education, a still wider and -ever-widening interest can be excited, until one by one the merciless -evils—now<span class="pagenum" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</span> the source of so much woe—have been eliminated.</p> - -<p>The objection may be raised that the program outlined is anything but -a simple one. I will admit that this is so; but I can assure you, -John, that the difficulties presented by the remedial measures I have -suggested are really not as great as those which we should experience -were we to attempt to carry out the plan which the Socialists have -arranged for us. The program I have outlined represents a sane solution -of our industrial problems; and the better acquainted with Socialism -you become the more firmly you will be convinced that the so-called -“palliatives” afford the only safe remedy for existing evils. There -can be no short-cut to the end we seek. Many forces operate to produce -present conditions and they must be considered and co-ordinated. It -is because the Socialists have failed to recognize this fact and make -provision for it that they have lost their way and wandered into such a -tangle of absurdities.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="INDEX">INDEX</h2> -</div> - - -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Agriculture, Concentration in, <a href="#Page_125">125</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">American Federation of Labor, <a href="#Page_10">10</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst"><i>American Federationist</i>, value of goods manufactured in U. S., <a href="#Page_47">47</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst"><i>Appeal to Reason</i>, estimates consumable wealth in U. S., <a href="#Page_50">50</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">lauds Paris Commune, <a href="#Page_168">168</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Ashley, W. J., on principles of industrial justice, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Bax, Belfort, on aims of Socialism, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">end of Socialism justifies every means, <a href="#Page_153">153</a> sq., <a href="#Page_155">155</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Bebel, August, proposes “changing-off” system, <a href="#Page_61">61</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">defends violence, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Benham, Charles, describes Paris Commune, <a href="#Page_169">169</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Bentham, Jeremy, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Berger, Victor, advocates violence, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Bernstein, Ed., declares Socialism could not keep its promise, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">takes issue with Marx, <a href="#Page_118">118</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Besant, Mrs. Annie, equal remuneration of all workers, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">the worker’s share of the products, <a href="#Page_110">110</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">forecast of the future Socialist state, <a href="#Page_175">175</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Blatchford, Robert, individuals have no inherent right to freedom, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">equality of payment under Socialism, <a href="#Page_81">81</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Blanc, Louis, National Workshops scheme, <a href="#Page_110">110</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Bohn, Frank, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Bonanza Farms, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Bosses, Selection of, under Socialism, <a href="#Page_68">68</a> sqq.; <a href="#Page_181">181</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Building and Loan Deposits, <a href="#Page_130">130</a> sq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Capital, <a href="#Page_39">39</a> sq.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</span></li> - -<li class="ifrst">“Capital,” see <a href="#marx">Marx, Karl</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">“Capitalism,” see <a href="#indiv">Individualism</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Capitalistic Development, Law of, <a href="#Page_117">117</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">“Case Against Socialism,” choice of occupation under Socialism, <a href="#Page_65">65</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Cathrein-Gettelmann, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">on “changing-off” system, <a href="#Page_62">62</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">impracticableness of Socialism, <a href="#Page_95">95</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Census, U. S. Industrial, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Changing-off System, <a href="#Page_62">62</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Chesterton, Cecil, Socialism is confiscation, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Chiozza-Money, on “robbery of worker,” <a href="#Page_20">20</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Christianity and Labor, <a href="#Page_197">197</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst" id="consc">Class Consciousness, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Class Distinctions, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Classes in U. S., <a href="#Page_119">119</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Class Hatred, see <a href="#consc">Class Consciousness</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Coler, Bird S., on “changing-off” system, <a href="#Page_69">69</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Collective Ownership, <a href="#Page_59">59</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Collins, Peter W., Socialist method of sowing class hatred, <a href="#Page_142">142</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst"><i>Common Cause, The</i>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">Socialist statistics, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">increase of wages in recent times, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">wider distribution of wealth today, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Commune, see <a href="#paris">Paris Commune</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">“Communist Manifesto,” <a href="#Page_83">83</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">misery keeps pace with wealth, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">class antagonism, <a href="#Page_134">134</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">advocates violent overthrow of existing society, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Communists, French, attack equal division of property, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Compensation, see <a href="#confi">Confiscation</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Competitive System, <a href="#Page_193">193</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Concentration of Capital, <a href="#Page_117">117</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst" id="confi">Confiscation, <a href="#Page_144">144</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Co-operative Commonwealth, definition, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">estimated pay roll, <a href="#Page_49">49</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">length of working day in, <a href="#Page_50">50</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">choice of occupation in, <a href="#Page_67">67</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">feasibility of, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">forecast of, <a href="#Page_175">175</a> sqq.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</span></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Cost of Labor, <a href="#Page_46">46</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Cost of Materials, <a href="#Page_45">45</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Consumable Wealth of U. S., <a href="#Page_49">49</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Crawford, Archibald, advocates class hatred, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst"><i>Daily Telegraph</i> (London), <a href="#Page_85">85</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Debs, Eugene V., <a href="#Page_11">11</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">no respect for property laws, <a href="#Page_149">149</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">De Tunzelmann, G. W., attacks “robbery” theory, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Deville, division of produce under Socialism, <a href="#Page_109">109</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Dietzgen, Joseph, advocates violence, <a href="#Page_164">164</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Division of Profits, <a href="#Page_77">77</a> sqq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Earnings of Workers, see <a href="#wages">Wages</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Economic Liberalism, <a href="#Page_191">191</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Elder, Benedict, difficulty of calculating value of labor, <a href="#Page_92">92</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Engels, Friedrich, preaches class antagonism, <a href="#Page_134">134</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Employment under Socialism, <a href="#Page_180">180</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst" id="equal">Equality of Opportunity, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Equality of Remuneration, <a href="#Page_77">77</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst" id="erfurt">Erfurt Platform, exploitation of poor by rich, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Ethics of Socialism, <a href="#Page_149">149</a> sq., <a href="#Page_153">153</a> sq., <a href="#Page_157">157</a> sq., <a href="#Page_171">171</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Exchange Value, <a href="#Page_23">23</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Expropriation, see <a href="#confi">Confiscation</a>.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Fabian Essays, equal remuneration of workers, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">individual has no rights, <a href="#Page_105">105</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">division of profits, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Fabian Society, on freedom in choice of occupation, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Farms in U. S., <a href="#Page_125">125</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Ferri, Enrico, advocates class antagonism, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Five thousand dollars a year, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Flint, Robert, Socialism a despotism under bosses, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Four-hour day, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst" id="choice">Freedom of choice of occupation, <a href="#Page_59">59</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Freedom of Press and Speech, <a href="#Page_186">186</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Freedom to purchase, <a href="#Page_182">182</a> sqq.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</span></li> - -<li class="ifrst">French Revolution, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Godkin, E. L., Socialism and state solvency, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Grayson, Victor, on “robbery” of worker, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">defends violence, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Gronlund, Lawrence, no choice of occupation under Socialism, <a href="#Page_67">67</a> sq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Hague Congress (Socialist) of 1872, violence to be lever of social reform, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Hatton, condition of laboring classes improves, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Haywood, Wm. D., <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Hazell, on “robbery” of workers, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Herron, George D., working class alone entitled to existence, <a href="#Page_138">138</a> sq., <a href="#Page_141">141</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">lauds Paris Commune, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Hillquit, Morris, thinks confiscation probable, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Hobhouse, L. T., society divided into “experts” and puppets under Socialism, <a href="#Page_71">71</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Hours of Labor, <a href="#Page_43">43</a> sq., <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Hyndman, H. M., maintains all investments are successful, <a href="#Page_38">38</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">wealth divided equally among good and bad workmen, <a href="#Page_85">85</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">advocates class conflict, <a href="#Page_140">140</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">ready to use violence, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">even dynamite, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">“Immediate Demands,” <a href="#Page_13">13</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Imprisonment for Debt, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">“Increasing Misery,” <a href="#Page_122">122</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst" id="indiv">Individualism, <a href="#Page_191">191</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Industrial Unionism, <a href="#Page_11">11</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Industries, Ownership of, <a href="#Page_123">123</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Intensive Farming, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Interest a Crime, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst"><i>International Socialist Review</i>, no respect for present laws, <a href="#Page_149">149</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Inventions, effect of Socialism on, <a href="#Page_185">185</a> sq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Jaurès, on class antagonism, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</span></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Joynes, advocates violence, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst"><i>Justice</i> (London), all weapons legitimate, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">lauds Paris Commune, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Kautsky, Karl, moral law binding only between members of the same class, <a href="#Page_154">154</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Kelleher, Rev. J., on constitution of Socialist state, <a href="#Page_174">174</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Kerr, Chas. H., all weapons defensible to overthrow existing society, <a href="#Page_163">163</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Kirkup, Thomas, attacks Marx’s law of the concentration of capital, <a href="#Page_116">116</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">Socialism is revolutionary materialism, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">revolution to end present era, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Kress, Rev. W. S., present distribution of wealth compared with past conditions, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">description of Paris Commune, <a href="#Page_169">169</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">the satisfaction of public wants under Socialism, <a href="#Page_182">182</a> sq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Labor Certificates, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Labor Conditions in early <a href="#Page_19">19</a>th Century, <a href="#Page_204">204</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Labor, Full Product of, under Socialism, <a href="#Page_87">87</a> sqq., <a href="#Page_102">102</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">“Labor is Source of All Value,” <a href="#Page_21">21</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Labor Time, <a href="#Page_26">26</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Labor Value, <a href="#Page_88">88</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Langenstein, principles of industrial justice, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Laws, Disrespect for, among Socialists, <a href="#Page_149">149</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Leatham, interest is criminal, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Legislation, Labor, in U. S., <a href="#Page_209">209</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Leo XIII, Pope, on morality of free contract, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Liberty under Socialism, see <a href="#choice">Freedom of Choice</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Liebknecht, Wilhelm, on aims of Socialism, <a href="#Page_14">14</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">London, Jack, proclaims class war, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">MacDonald, Ramsay, on worker’s freedom under Socialism, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">selection of workers, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Mallock, W. H., <a href="#Page_38">38</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Manufactures in U. S., <a href="#Page_45">45</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst" id="marx">Marx, Karl, on real aim of Socialism, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</span></li> -<li class="isuba">on value, <a href="#Page_21">21</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">on skilled labor, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">on “robbery” of worker, <a href="#Page_32">32</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">supports “changing-off” system, <a href="#Page_63">63</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">equality of remuneration, <a href="#Page_78">78</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">law of concentration of capital, <a href="#Page_116">116</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">advocates class antagonism, <a href="#Page_134">134</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">defends violence, <a href="#Page_160">160</a> sq., <a href="#Page_164">164</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">lauds Paris Commune, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Massachusetts, Act of Court of, fixing maximum wage, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Maximum Wage, early in 19th Century, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Mazzini, Giuseppe, describes Paris Commune, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">McMaster, J. B., Labor Conditions in U. S., in early 19th century, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Mill, J. S., <a href="#Page_192">192</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Ming, Rev. John J., S. J., Socialists hold moral principles bind only members of same class, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">ethics of Socialism, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Minimum Wage, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Miscellaneous Expenses of Manufacture, <a href="#Page_45">45</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Mortgaged Farms, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Municipal Ownership, <a href="#Page_13">13</a> sq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">National Workshops experiment, <a href="#Page_40">40</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Natural Rights, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Necessary Labor, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst"><i>Neue Zeit</i>, moral law binds only members of same class, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Opportunity Under Socialism, see <a href="#equal">Equality of Opportunity</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Organization of Labor, <a href="#Page_203">203</a> sq., <a href="#Page_207">207</a> sqq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst" id="paris">Paris Commune, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Paulsen, Friedrich, ridicules “changing-off” system, <a href="#Page_64">64</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Pauperism, decrease in recent times, <a href="#Page_122">122</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Pearson, Karl, no mercy under Socialism for offenders against the State, <a href="#Page_73">73</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Peru, Ancient, Society in, illustrates working of Socialist state, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Portenar, A. J., on development of trade unions, <a href="#Page_207">207</a> sq.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</span></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Product of Manufactures in U. S., <a href="#Page_45">45</a> sq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Quelch, means to be used in class war, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">lauds Paris Commune, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Railways, Ownership of, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">“Red Catechism,” ownership of machines under Socialism, <a href="#Page_150">150</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">advocates revolution, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Remuneration, <a href="#Page_77">77</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst"><i>Revolt, The</i>, advocates class war, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Revolution, The, definition, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a> sqq.; <a href="#Page_165">165</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Ricardo, David, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Richardson, N. A., workers’ share of products under Socialism, <a href="#Page_112">112</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">“Robbery” of Worker, <a href="#Page_20">20</a> sqq., <a href="#Page_34">34</a> sqq., <a href="#Page_42">42</a> sq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Sanial, Lucien, distribution of wealth in U. S. in 1900, <a href="#Page_119">119</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Savings of Workers, in U. S. Savings Banks, <a href="#Page_130">130</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">in building societies, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Schäffle, Albert, condemns Socialist promises, <a href="#Page_113">113</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Shaw, George Bernard, equality of income primary tenet of Socialism, <a href="#Page_79">79</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Simple Labor, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Six-Hour Day, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Skelton, Oscar D., <a href="#Page_23">23</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">Marx’s forecast of increasing misery of poor discredited, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Skilled Labor, Payment of, under Socialism, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Smith, Adam, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Snowden, riches of the few means the poverty of the many, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Social Conscience, <a href="#Page_211">211</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst"><i>Socialist, The</i>, advocates confiscation, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">“Socialist Catechism,” revolution necessary to end exploitation of workers, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Socialist Federation of Australasia, advocates confiscation, <a href="#Page_156">156</a> sq.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</span></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Socialist Hymn Book, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Socialist Platform, in Germany, see <a href="#erfurt">Erfurt Platform</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">in U. S., <a href="#Page_134">134</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">in Great Britain, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Socialist Schools, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a> sqq., <a href="#Page_166">166</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst"><i>Socialist Standard, The</i>, workers to organize for overthrow of Capitalists, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Spargo, John, constant danger to liberty under Socialism, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">equality of income aim of Socialism, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">freedom to indulge tastes under Socialism, <a href="#Page_114">114</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">admits weakness of Marxian theory as applied to agriculture, <a href="#Page_127">127</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Spencer, Herbert, only two methods of organizing labor, <a href="#Page_70">70</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">liberty and justice must die under Socialism, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst"><i>Standard, The</i> (London), investigates menacing character of Socialism, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Steel Corporation, U. S., Ownership of, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Surplus Value, Theory of, <a href="#Page_32">32</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Suthers, on “robbery” of workers, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">remuneration under Socialism, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">no details concerning future Co-operative Commonwealth, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Tcherkesoff, Concentration of Capital, <a href="#Page_117">117</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Ten Thousand Dollars a Year, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Three-hour Day, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Trade Unions, <a href="#Page_207">207</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Trusts, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Twenty-five hundred dollars a year, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Two thousand dollars a year, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Unemployment, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Unskilled Labor, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Use Value, <a href="#Page_23">23</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Utility, <a href="#Page_24">24</a> sqq.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</span></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Utility, Loss of, <a href="#Page_27">27</a> sq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Vail, Rev. Charles H., defends confiscation of property, <a href="#Page_147">147</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Value of Farms in U. S., <a href="#Page_127">127</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Value of Goods Manufactured in U. S., <a href="#Page_45">45</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Value, Theory of, <a href="#Page_23">23</a> sqq., <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Verge of Starvation, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Violence as a political weapon, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a> sqq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst" id="wages">Wages, Socialist prophecies, <a href="#Page_42">42</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">average in U. S. in 1909, <a href="#Page_46">46</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">under Socialism, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a> sq., <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">increase in recent times, <a href="#Page_121">121</a> sq., <a href="#Page_202">202</a> sqq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Wealth, Distribution of, in U. S., in 1900, <a href="#Page_119">119</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Wealth Production, U. S., <a href="#Page_49">49</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Webb, Sydney, on freedom of worker under Socialism, <a href="#Page_60">60</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">selection of workers, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">industry is for benefit of community, not for profit of masters or workingmen, <a href="#Page_105">105</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Welsh, Rev. J. J., unbridled competition is commercial cannibalism, <a href="#Page_193">193</a> sq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">man may not dispose wealth regardless of common good, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Wells, H. G., on true aims of Socialism, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">forecast of Socialist state, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">West, Stuart P., on Socialist assertions and statistics, <a href="#Page_120">120</a> sqq.;</li> -<li class="isuba">wider distribution of wealth today, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a> sq.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Woman, to undertake same tasks as man under Socialism, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Willey, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>;</li> -<li class="isuba">present distribution of wealth compared with past conditions, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Woolsey, Rev. J. D., foretells violent opposition to Socialist plans, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Wright, Carroll D., labor legislation in U. S., <a href="#Page_209">209</a> sq.</li> -</ul> - - -<hr class="x-ebookmaker-drop chap" /> -<div class="chapter transnote"> -<h2>Transcriber’s Notes</h2> - -<p><a href="#Page_72">Page 72</a>: “absolute depotism” changed to “absolute despotism”</p> - -<p><a href="#Page_130">Page 130</a>: “associations affords” changed to “associations afford”</p> - -<p><a href="#Page_133">Page 133</a>: “he first become” changed to “he first became”</p> - -<p><a href="#Page_170">Page 170</a>: “which Rignault” changed to “which Rigault”</p> - -<p><a href="#Page_185">Page 185</a>: “slighest evidence” changed to “slightest evidence”</p> -</div> -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK YOUR PAY ENVELOPE ***</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> -</html> diff --git a/old/68755-h/images/001.jpg b/old/68755-h/images/001.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index bc3b55a..0000000 --- a/old/68755-h/images/001.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68755-h/images/002.jpg b/old/68755-h/images/002.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 2c60620..0000000 --- a/old/68755-h/images/002.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/68755-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/68755-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index a0ef3a9..0000000 --- a/old/68755-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null |
