Socialism As It Is

W >> William English Walling >> Socialism As It Is

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45

"Have the reforms secured blurred the main issue, have we lost
sight of the goal? The objective of the New Zealand Labour Party
to-day is the 'securing to all of the full value of their labour
power by the gradual public ownership of all the means of
production, distribution, and exchange.' Contrary to your critic's
opinion, what has already been done has but whetted the appetite
for more, and to-day New Zealand labour is marshaling its forces
for further assaults on the fortress of the privileged.

"_Every reform we have secured has been a step toward the goal_;
every step taken means one step less to take. The progressive
legislation has not sidetracked the movement--it has cleared the
road for further advancement.

"In New Zealand the enumerated reforms are law--_made law in
defiance of the wealth-owning class_. At the moment labour does
not possess the power to administer the laws, but far from that
being an argument to abandon the law, it has convinced New Zealand
labor that the administrative control must be got possession of,
and through the ballot box New Zealand labour will march to get
that control. _Given control of the national and local government,
the food supplies can be nationalized and more competitive
State-owned industries established. And by labour administration of
the arbitration court the prices and wages can be so adjusted that
the worker can buy out of the market all that his labor put into
it._

"To the brothers in America I say, Go on. Don't waste time arguing
about economic dogma. Get a unified labor movement and _throw the
whole industrial force into the political arena_. Anything less
than the whole force means delay. The whole force means victory. We
have progressed. We have experimented. We have proved. Yours it is
but to imitate--and improve."

I have put in italics the most important of Mr. Walsh's conclusions that
are contradicted by the evidence I have given in this chapter and
elsewhere in the present volume. The Socialist view of the last two
statements may be best shown by a quotation from Mr. Charles Edward
Russell, who is the critic referred to by Mr. Walsh, and has undertaken
with great success to uproot among the Socialists of this country the
fanciful pictures and fallacies concerning Australasia that date in this
country from the time of the radical and fearless but uncritical and
optimistic books of Henry D. Lloyd ("A Country Without Strikes," etc.).
Mr. Russell shows that a Labor Party as in Australia may gain control of
the forms of government, without actually gaining the sovereignty over
society or industry. (See the _International Socialist Review_,
September, 1911.) In an article that has made a greater sensation in the
American movement than any that has yet appeared (with the exception of
Debs's "Danger Ahead," quoted in the next chapter), Mr. Russell
writes:--

"A proletarian movement can have no part, however slight, in the
game of politics. The moment it takes a seat at that grimy board is
the moment it dies within. After that, it may for a time maintain a
semblance of life and motion, but in truth it is only a corpse.

"This has been proved many times. It is being proved to-day in
Great Britain. It has been proved recently and most convincingly in
the experience of Australia and New Zealand.

"In Australia the proletarian movement that began eighteen years
ago has achieved an absolute triumph--in politics. Under the name
of the Labor Party it has won all that any political combination
can possibly win anywhere. It has played the political game to the
limit and taken all the stakes in sight. The whole national
government is in its hands. It has attained in fullest measure to
the political success at which it aimed. It not merely influences
the government; it is the government.

"To make the situation clear by an American analogy, let us suppose
the Socialists of America to join hands with the progressive
element in the labor unions and with the different groups of
advanced radicals. Let us suppose a coalition party to be formed
called the Labor Party. Let us suppose this to have entered the
State and national campaigns, winning at each successive election
more seats in Congress, and finally, after sixteen years of
conflict, electing its candidate for President and a clear majority
of the Senate and the House of Representatives. This would be
admitted to be the summit of such a party's aims and to mean great
and notable success; and it would closely parallel the situation in
Australia.

"Exactly such a Labor Party has administered the affairs of
Australia since April, 1910. Its triumph was the political success
of a proletarian movement that was steered into the political game.
What has resulted?

"This has resulted, that the Labor Party of Australia is now
exactly like any other political party and means no more to the
working class except its name. Constituted as the political party
of that class, it has been swept into power by working-class votes,
and after almost a year and a half of control of national affairs,
it can show nothing more accomplished for working-class interests
than any other party has accomplished. The working class under the
Labor Party is in essentially the same condition that it has been
in under all the other administrations, nor is there the slightest
prospect that its condition will be changed.

"In other words, the whole machine runs on exactly as before, the
vast elaborated machine by which toilers are exploited and
parasites are fed. Once in power, the Labor Party proceeded to do
such things as other parties had done for the purpose of keeping in
power, and it is these things that maintain the machine.

"On the night of the election, when the returns began to indicate
the result, the gentleman that is now Attorney-General of the
Commonwealth was in the Labor Party headquarters, jumping up and
down with uncontrollable glee.

"'We're in!' he shouted. 'We're in! We're in!'

"That was an excellent phrase and neatly expressed the whole
situation. The Labor Party was in; it had won the offices and the
places of power and honor; it had defeated the opponents that had
often defeated it. It was 'in.' The next thing was to keep in, and
this is the object that it has assiduously pursued ever since. 'We
are in; now let us stay in. We have the offices; let us keep the
offices.'

"The first thing it does is to increase its strength with the
bourgeoisie and the great middle class always allied with its
enemies. To its opponents in the campaigns the handiest weapon and
most effective was always the charge that the Labor Party was not
patriotic, that it did not love the dear old flag of Great Britain
with the proper degree of fervor and ecstasy; that it was wobbly on
the subject of war and held strange, erratic notions in favor of
universal peace instead of yelling day and night for British
supremacy whether right or wrong--which is well known to be the
duty of the true and pure patriot. This argument was continually
used and had great effect.

"Naturally, as the Labor Party was now in and determined to stay
in, the wise play indicated in the game upon which it had embarked,
was to disprove all these damaging allegations and to show that the
Labor Party was just as patriotic as any other party could possibly
be. So its first move was to adopt a system of universal military
service, and the next to undertake vast schemes of national
defense. The attention and admiration of the country were directed
to the fact that the Labor administration was the first to build
small arms factories, to revise the military establishment so as to
secure the greatest efficiency and to prepare the nation for deeds
of valor on the battlefield.

"At the time this was done there was a crying need for new labor
legislation; the system or lack of system of arbitrating labor
disputes was badly in need of repairs; workingmen were being
imprisoned in some of the States for the crime of striking; the
power of government was often used to oppress and overawe strikers,
even when they had been perfectly orderly and their cause was
absolutely just. These with many other evils of the workingman's
condition were pushed aside in order to perfect the defense system
and get the small arms factories in good working order, for such
were the plain indications of the game that the Labor Party had
started out to play. 'We're in; let us stay in.'

"Meantime there remains this awkward fact about the condition of
the working class. It is no less exploited than before. It is as
far, apparently, from the day of justice under the rule of the
Labor Party as it was under the rule of the Liberal Party. What are
you going to do about that? Why, there is nothing to be done about
that as yet. The country, you see, is not ready for any radical
measures on that subject. If we undertook to make any great changes
in fundamental conditions, we should be defeated at the next
election and then we should not be in, but should be out. True, the
cost of living is steadily increasing, and that means that the
state of the working class is inevitably declining. True, under the
present system, power is steadily accumulating in the hands of the
exploiters, so that if we are afraid to offend them now, we shall
be still more afraid to offend them next year and the next. But the
main thing is to keep in. We're in; let us stay in.

"Hence, also, the Labor administration has been very careful not
to offend the great money interests and powerful corporations that
are growing up in the country. These influences are too powerful in
elections. Nothing has been done that could in the least disturb
the currents of sacred business. It was recognized as not good
politics to antagonize business interests. Let the administration
keep along with the solid business interests of the country,
reassuring them for the sake of the general prosperity and helping
them to go on in the same, safe, sane, and conservative way as
before. It was essential that business men should feel that
business was just as secure under the Labor administration as under
any other. Nothing that can in the least upset business, you know.
True, this sacred business consists of schemes to exploit and rob
the working class, and true, the longer it is allowed to go upon
its way the more powerful it becomes and the greater are its
exploitations and profits. But if we do anything that upsets
business or tends to disturb business confidence, that will be bad
for us at the next election. Very likely we shall not be able to
keep in. We are in now; let us stay in, and have the offices and
the power.

"Therefore, it is with the greatest pride that the Labor people
point out that under the Labor administration the volume of
business has not decreased, but increased; the operations of the
banks have shown no falling off; they are still engaged as
profitably as of yore in skinning the public; the clearings are in
an eminently satisfactory condition; profits have suffered no
decline; all is well in our marts of trade. The old machine goes on
so well you would never know there had been any change in the
administration. Business men have confidence in our Party. They
know that we will do the right thing by them, and when in the next
campaign the wicked orators of the opposition arise and say that
the Labor Party is a party of disturbers and revolutionists, we can
point to these facts and overwhelm them. And that will be a good
thing, because otherwise we might not be able to keep in. We're in;
let us stay in.

"If the capitalists had designed the very best way in which to
perpetuate their power, they could not have hit upon anything
better for themselves than this. It keeps the working class
occupied, it diverts their minds from the real questions that
pertain to their condition; it appeals to their sporting instincts;
we want to win, we want to cheer our own victory, we want to stay
in; this is the way to these results. And meantime the capitalists
rake off the profits and are happy. We are infinitely better off in
the United States. The Labor Party of Australia has killed the pure
proletarian movement there. At least we have the beginnings of one
here. If there had been no Labor Party, there would now be in
Australia a promising working-class movement headed towards
industrial emancipation. Having a Labor Party, there is no such
movement in sight....

"You say: Surely it was something gained in New Zealand to secure
limited hours of employment, to have sanitary factories, clean
luncheon rooms, old-age pensions, workingmen's compensation. Surely
all these things represented progress and an advance toward the
true ideal.

"Yes. But every one of these things has been magnified, distorted
and exaggerated for the purpose and with the result of keeping the
workingman quiet about more vital things. How say you to that?
Every pretended release from his chains has been in fact a new form
of tether on his limbs. What about that? I should think meanly of
myself if I did not rejoice every time a workingman's hours are
reduced or the place wherein he is condemned to toil is made more
nearly tolerable. But what shall we conclude when these things are
deliberately employed to distract his thoughts from fundamental
conditions and when all this state of stagnation is wrought by the
alluring game of politics?

"I cannot help thinking that all this has or ought to have a lesson
for the Socialist movement in America. If it be desired to kill
that movement, the most effective way would be to get it entangled
in some form of practical politics. Then the real and true aim of
the movement can at once be lost sight of and this party can go the
way of every other proletarian party down to the pit. I should not
think that was a very good way to go.

"When we come to reason of it calmly, what can be gained by
electing any human being to any office beneath the skies? To get in
and keep in does not seem any sort of an object to any one that
will contemplate the possibilities of the Cooeperative Commonwealth.
How shall it profit the working class to have Mr. Smith made
sheriff or Mr. Jones become the coroner? Something else surely is
the goal of this magnificent inspiration. In England the radicals
have all gone mad on the subject of a successful parliamentary
party, the winning of the government, the filling of offices, and
the like. I am told that the leaders of the coalition movement have
already picked out their prime minister against the day when they
shall carry the country and be in. In the meantime they, too, must
play this game carefully, being constantly on their guard against
doing anything that would alarm or antagonize the bourgeoisie and
sacred businesses and telling the workers to wait until we get in.
I do not see that all this relieves the situation in Whitechapel or
that any fewer men and women live in misery because we have a
prospect of getting in.

"Furthermore, to speak quite frankly, I do not see where there is a
particle of inspiration for Americans in any of these
English-speaking countries. So far as I can make out the whole of
mankind that dwells under the British flag is more or less mad
about political success, Parliament and getting in. They say in New
Zealand that the government can make a conservative of any radical,
if he threatens to become dangerous, by giving him some tin-horn
honor or a place in the upper chamber. In England we have seen too
often that the same kind of influences can silence a radical by
inviting him to the king's garden party or allowing him to shake
hands with a lord. I do not believe we have anything to learn from
these countries except what to avoid."

FOOTNOTES:

[108] Quoted by John Graham Brooks, in article above cited.

[109] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Society," p. 60.

[110] Philip Snowden, "A Socialist Budget."

[111] Speech in Carnegie Hall, New York, Jan. 13, 1909.

[112] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Society," p. 36.

[113] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Government," Vol. I, p. 1.

[114] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Society," p. 114.

[115] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Society," p. 116.

[116] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Government," Vol. II, p. 130.

[117] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Government," Vol. I, p. 91.

[118] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Government," Vol. II, p. 4.

[119] Report on Fabian Policy, p. 13.

[120] The _Socialist Review_, January, 1909, p. 888.

[121] John A. Hobson, "The Crisis of Liberalism," p. 46.

[122] John A. Hobson, "The Crisis of Liberalism," p. 6.

[123] J. R. MacDonald, "Socialism and Society," p. 133.

[124] Editorial in the _Socialist Review_ (London), May, 1910.

[125] "Socialism and Government," Vol. II, p. 12.

[126] Andrew Carnegie, "Problems of To-day," pp. 123 ff.

[127] The _New Age_, Nov. 4, 1909.

[128] "Fabian Essays," p. 180.

[129] "Fabian Essays," p. 187.

[130] "Fabian Essays," p. 184.

[131] "Fabianism and the Empire," p. 5.

[132] H. G. Wells, "New Worlds for Old," pp. 268-275.

[133] H. G. Wells, "New Worlds for Old," pp. 268-275.

[134] John A. Hobson, "The Crisis of Liberalism," pp. 116, 132.

[135] H. G. Wells, "First and Last Things," p. 242.

[136] The _New Age_ (London), June 23, 1910.

[137] The _New Age_, June 2, 1910.

[138] The _New Age_, Dec. 23, 1909.

[139] The _New Age_, Jan. 4, 1908.

[140] The _New Age_, June 23, 1910.

[141] The _New York Call_, Oct. 22 and 29, 1911.

[142] The _New Age_, March 26, 1910.

[143] The _New York Call_, Oct. 22, 1911.

CHAPTER IV

"REFORMISM" IN THE UNITED STATES

Because of our greater European immigration and more advanced economic
development, the Socialist movement in this country, as has been
remarked by many of those who have studied it, is more closely
affiliated with that of the continent of Europe than with that of Great
Britain.

The American public has been grievously misinformed as to the
development of revolutionary Socialism in this country. A typical
example is the widely noticed article by Prof. Robert F. Hoxie,
entitled, "The Rising Tide of Socialism."

After analyzing the Socialist vote into several contradictory elements,
Professor Hoxie concludes:--

"There seems to be a definite law of the development of Socialism
which applies both to the individual and to the group. The law is
this: The creedalism and immoderateness of Socialism, other things
being equal, vary inversely with its age and responsibility. The
average Socialist recruit begins as a theoretical impossibilist and
develops gradually into a constructive opportunist. Add a taste of
real responsibility and he is hard to distinguish from a liberal
reformer."[144]

On the contrary, the "theoretical impossibilists," however obstructive,
have never been more than a handful, and the revolutionists, in spite of
the very considerable and steady influx of reformers into the movement,
have increased still more rapidly. That is, revolutionary Socialism is
growing in this country--as elsewhere--and a very large and increasing
number of the Socialists are become more and more revolutionary. From
the beginning the American movement has been radical and the
"reformists" have been heavily outvoted in every Congress of the present
Party--in 1901, 1904, 1908, and 1910, while the most prominent
revolutionist, Eugene V. Debs, has been its nominee for President at
each Presidential election, since its foundation (1900, 1904, and
1908).[145]

Aside from a brief experience with the so-called municipal Socialism in
Massachusetts in 1900 and 1902, the national movement gave little
attention to the effort to secure the actual enactment of immediate
reforms until the success of the Milwaukee Socialists (in 1910) in
capturing the city government and electing one of its two Congressmen.
There had always been a program of reforms indorsed by the Socialists.
But this program had been misnamed "Immediate Demands," as the Party had
concentrated its attention _almost exclusively_ on its one great demand,
the overthrow of capitalist government.

In the fall elections of 1910 it was observed for the first time that
certain Socialist candidates in various parts of the country ran far
ahead of the rest of the Socialist ticket, and that some of those
elected to legislatures and local offices owed their election to this
fact. This appeared to indicate that these candidates had bid for and
obtained a large share of the non-Socialist vote. A cry of alarm was
thereupon raised by many American Socialists. The statement issued by
Mr. Eugene V. Debs on this occasion, entitled "Danger Ahead," was
undoubtedly representative of the views of the majority. As Mr. Debs has
been, on three occasions, the unanimous choice of the Socialist Party of
the United States as its candidate for the Presidency, he remains
unquestionably the most influential member of the Party. I, therefore,
quote his statement at length, as the most competent estimate obtainable
of the present situation as regards reformism in the American Socialist
movement:--

"The danger I see ahead," wrote Mr. Debs, "is that the Socialist
Party at this stage, and under existing conditions, is apt to
attract elements which it cannot assimilate, and that it may be
either weighted down, or torn asunder with internal strife, or that
it may become permeated and corrupted with the spirit of bourgeois
reform to an extent that will practically destroy its virility and
efficiency as a revolutionary organization.

"To my mind the working-class character and the revolutionary
integrity of the Socialist Party are of the first importance. _All
the votes of the people would do us no good if our party ceased to
be a revolutionary party or became only incidentally so, while
yielding_ more and more to the pressure to modify the principles
and program of the Party for the sake of swelling the vote and
hastening the day of its expected triumph.... The truth is that we
have not a few members who regard vote getting as of supreme
importance, no matter by what method the votes may be secured, and
this leads them to hold out inducements and make representations
which are not at all compatible with the stern and uncompromising
principles of a revolutionary party. They seek to make the
Socialist propaganda so attractive--eliminating whatever may give
offense to bourgeois sensibilities--that it serves as a bait for
votes rather than as a means of education, and _votes thus secured
do not properly belong to us and do injustice to our Party as well
as those who cast them_.... The election of legislative and
administrative officers, here and there where the Party is still in
a crude state and the members economically unprepared and
politically unfit to assume the responsibilities thrust upon them
as the result of popular discontent, will inevitably bring trouble
and set the Party back, instead of advancing it, and while this is
to be expected and is to an extent unavoidable, we should court no
more of that kind of experience than is necessary to avoid a
repetition of it. The Socialist Party has already achieved some
victories of this kind which proved to be defeats, crushing and
humiliating, and from which the party has not even now, after many
years, entirely recovered [referring, doubtless, to Haverhill and
Brockton.--W. E. W.].

"Voting for Socialism is not Socialism any more than a menu is a
meal....

"The votes will come rapidly enough from now on without seeking
them, and we should make it clear that the Socialist Party wants
the votes only of those who want Socialism, and that, above all, as
a revolutionary party of the working class, it discountenances vote
seeking for the sake of votes and holds in contempt office seeking
for the sake of office. These belong entirely to capitalist parties
with their bosses and their boodle and have no place in a party
whose shibboleth is emancipation."[146] (My italics.)