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

But while Mr. Berger and the present policies that are guiding American
"reformist" Socialists differ profoundly from those of the International
movement, and resemble in some ways the policies of the non-Socialist
reformers of Wisconsin and other States, in other respects there is a
difference. The labor policy of the collectivist reformers and of the
"reformist" Socialists might be expected to differ somewhat--not in what
is ordinarily called the labor legislation, _i.e._ factory reform,
workingmen's compensation, old age pensions, etc., but in their attitude
to labor organizations and the labor struggle: strikes, boycotts, and
injunctions.

Senator La Follette's followers are in the overwhelming majority
farmers; the Wisconsin "Social-Democrats," as they call themselves, have
secured little more than one per cent of the vote of the State outside
of Milwaukee and a few other towns, and even less in the country. On the
other hand, the majority of the workingmen of Milwaukee and several
other towns vote for the Socialists, while those who do not are usually
not followers of Senator La Follette, but Catholics and Democrats. The
Wisconsin "Insurgents" have as yet by no means taken the usual
capitalist position in the struggle between employers and labor unions,
but they have shown repeatedly that they are conscious that they
represent primarily the small property holders and the business
community generally, including the small shareholders of the "trusts."

_La Follette's Weekly_, in an important article defending direct
legislation and the recall, says that the reason "we, the people," do
not give enough attention to public measures is that "we are so busy
with our private affairs," and continues: "Indeed, our success in our
private enterprises, nay even equality of opportunity to engage in
private enterprises, is coming more and more to depend upon the measure
of protection which we may receive through our government from the
unjust encroachments of the power of centralized Big Business." These
"State Socialist" radicals represent primarily small business men and
independent farmers, who are often employers, and their friendship to
employees will necessarily have to be subordinated whenever the two
interests come into conflict.

Mr. Berger and the Wisconsin Social-Democrats on the other hand
represent primarily the workingmen of the cities, especially those who
are so fortunate as to be members of labor unions. The "Social
Democrats" appeal, however, for the votes of the farmers, of "the small
business man," and of "the large business men who are decent employers";
they announce that the rights of corporations will be protected under
their administrations, declare that they who "take the risks of
business" are entitled "to a fair return"; and have convinced many that
they are not for the present anti-capitalistic in their policy, though
they have not as yet succeeded in getting very much capitalistic
support.

For many years, indeed, the struggle between employers and unions has
been less acute in Milwaukee than in many other large cities, while
wages and conditions are on the whole no better. The Milwaukee
Socialists have repeatedly called the attention of employers to this
relative industrial peace and have attributed it to their influence,
much to the disgust of the more militant Socialists, who claim that
strikes are the only indication of a fighting spirit on the part of the
workers. Mr. Berger, for example, has explained "the rare occurrence of
strikes in Milwaukee" as being due largely to the Social-Democrats of
that city who, he says, "have opposed almost every strike that has been
declared here."[154]

Certainly the attitude of the Socialists towards the employers in one of
the largest industries, brewing, has on the whole been exceptionally
friendly, as evidenced among other things by the Socialists' appointment
of one of a leading brewery manager (who was not even a Socialist) as
debt commissioner of the city, and their active campaign for the brewing
interests, including a denunciation of county option, though this
measure has already been indorsed by both of the capitalistic parties
even in the liquor-producing State of Kentucky, as well as elsewhere,
and is favored by very many Socialists, not as a means of advancing
prohibition, but as the fairest present way of settling the controversy.

But even relative peace between capital and labor is not lasting in our
present society and it will scarcely last in Milwaukee. Already there
are signs of what is likely to happen, and the business-men admirers of
Milwaukee Socialism are beginning to drop away. A few more strikes, and
Berger and his associates may be forced to abandon completely their
claim that it is to the interest of employers, with some exceptions, to
elect Socialists to office.

The situation after a recent strike in Milwaukee is thus summed up by
the _New York Volkszeitung_, a great admirer, on the whole, of the
Milwaukee movement:--

"The new measures which are taken for the betterment of the city
transportation system, for the preparation of better residence
conditions and parks for the poorer classes of the people," says
the _Volkszeitung_, "did not much disturb Milwaukee's 'Best
Society.' Rather the opposite. For all these things did not at the
bottom harm their interests, but were, on the contrary, quite to
their taste, in so far as they rather increased than injured the
pleasure of their own lives.

"But at last what had to happen, did happen. The moment a great
conflict between capital and labor broke out in the great community
of Milwaukee, the caliber of the city administration was bound to
show itself....

"The prohibition which Mayor Seidel issued to the police, not to
interfere for either side, his grounds and those of the city
council's presiding officer, Comrade Melms, their instructions to
the striking 'garment workers' how they should conduct the strike
in order to win a victory, the admonition that they might safely
call a scab a scab without official interference--all this is of
decisive importance, not only for its momentary effect on the
Milwaukee strike, but especially for the Socialist propaganda, for
the demonstration of the tremendous advantage the working people
can get even at the present moment by the election of Socialist
candidates....

"And now it is all over with the half well-disposed attitude that
had been assumed towards our comrades in the city administration.
With burning words the capitalistic and commercial authorities
protest against these official expressions, as being likely to
disturb 'law and order' and as having the object of stirring up the
class struggle and of undermining respect for the law.

"That came about which must come about, if our Milwaukee comrades
did their duty. And they have done it, at the right moment, and
without hesitation. And this must never be forgotten. But the real
battle between them and their capitalist opponent _begins now for
the first time_."

Here is the keynote of the situation. Only as more and more serious
strikes occur will the Milwaukee movement be forced to emphasize its
labor unionism rather than its reforms. It will then, in all
probability, be forced to take up an aggressive labor-union attitude
like that of the non-Socialist Labor Party in San Francisco. One action
at least of Mayor McCarthy in the latter city was decidedly more
threatening to the local employing interests than any taken in
Milwaukee, which after all had met the approval of one of the
capitalistic papers (_i.e._ the _Free Press_). The Bulletin of the
United Garment Workers, though grateful for the attitude of the mayor in
their Milwaukee strike, uses language just as laudatory concerning this
action of the anti-Socialist Labor mayor of San Francisco.[155]

The "reformist" Socialists lay much stress upon their loyalty to
existing labor unions. Some even favor the creation of a non-Socialist
Labor Party, more or less like those of San Francisco or Australia or
Great Britain. Indeed, the reformists have often acknowledged their
close kinship with the semi-Socialist wing of the British Labour Party,
and this relationship is recognized by the latter. All Socialists will
agree that even the reformists, as a rule, represent the interests of
the labor-union movement better than other parties; but the Socialist
Party is vastly more than a mere reformist trade-union party, and most
Socialists feel that to reduce it to this role would be to deprive it of
the larger part of its power even to help the unions.

In the statement of Mr. Debs already quoted in part in this chapter, he
also expresses the opposition of the Socialist majority to converting
the organization into a mere trade-union Party:--

"There is a disposition on the part of some to join hands with
reactionary trade unionists in local emergencies and in certain
temporary situations to effect some specific purpose, which may or
may not be in harmony with our revolutionary program. No possible
good can come of any kind of a political alliance, expressed or
implied, with trade unions or the leaders of trade unions who are
opposed to Socialism and only turn to it for use in some extremity,
the fruit of their own reactionary policy.

"Of course we want the support of trade unionists, but only of
those who believe in Socialism and are ready to vote and work with
us for the overthrow of capitalism."

It would seem from the expressions of Milwaukee Socialists that they, in
direct opposition to the policy of Mr. Debs, are working by opportunist
methods towards a trade union party, and that form of collectivism
advocated by the Labor Parties of Great Britain and Australia. But they
have been in power now in Milwaukee for nearly two years and have had a
strong contingent in the Wisconsin legislature, while their
representative in Congress has had time to define his attitude in a
series of bills and resolutions. We are in a position, then, to judge
their policy not by their words alone, but also by their acts.

Let us first examine their municipal policy. This assumes special
importance since the installation of Socialist officials in Berkeley
(California), Butte (Montana), Flint (Michigan), several smaller towns
in Kansas, Illinois, and other States, as a result of the elections of
April, 1911. To these victories have recently been added others (in
November, 1911) in Schenectady (New York), Lima and Lorain (Ohio),
Newcastle (Pennsylvania), besides very large votes or the election of
minor officials in many places in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Kansas, Illinois,
Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Utah, California,
and other States.

While the officials elected received in nearly every case only a
plurality (this is true also of most of those elected in Milwaukee), and
local or temporary issues existed in many instances, which caused the
Socialist Party to be used largely for purposes of protest, a part of
the vote was undoubtedly cast for a type of municipal reform somewhat
more radical than other parties have, as a rule, been ready to offer in
this country; up to the present time, at least, a considerable part of
the vote is undoubtedly to be accredited to convinced Socialists.

Milwaukee being as yet the only important example of an important
American municipality that has rested in Socialist hands for any
considerable period, I shall confine myself largely to the discussion of
the movement in that city. Some of those already in office in other
places have, moreover, taken the Milwaukee policy as their model and
announced their intention to follow it. Mayor Seidel's statement after a
year in office, and the explanations of the Rev. Carl Thompson (the city
clerk) made about the same time, cover the essential points for the
present discussion.

Both the statement of the mayor and that of the city clerk are concerned
with matters that interest primarily the business man and taxpayer. Mr.
Thompson disclaims that there is anything essentially new even in the
Socialists' plans, to say nothing of their performances. He says of the
most discussed municipal projects under consideration by the Socialist
administration that all were advocated either by former administrations,
by one or both of the older parties or by some of their leading members.
He mentions the proposed river park, railway terminal station, and
electric lighting plans, as well as home rule for Milwaukee, as being
all strictly conservative projects (as they are). Other plans mentioned
by Mayor Seidel--harbor improvements, playgrounds, a sterilization
plant, and isolation hospital--are approved, if not by the conservatives
of Milwaukee, at least by those of many other cities. Some minor and
less expensive proposals, a child welfare commission, a board of
recreation, and municipal dances are somewhat more novel. These are all
the social reforms mentioned by the mayor, as planned or accomplished,
with the exception of those that have to do primarily with efficiency or
economy in municipal administration, such as improvement in street
cleaning, sanitary inspection and inspection of weights and measures,
which all conservative reform administration seek to bring about; many
cities, especially abroad, having been eminently successful in this
direction.

To secure the political support of taxpayers and business men, further
evidence was required to show that the administration is neither doing
nor likely to do anything unprecedented. They want a safe and sane
business policy, and assurances that new sources of income will, if
possible, be secured and applied to the reduction of taxation; or that,
in case taxes are raised, municipal reforms will so improve business and
rental values, as to bring into their pockets more than the increased
taxation has cost them.

Mayor Seidel and City Clerk Thompson presented entirely satisfactory
evidences on all these points. Business methods have been introduced, a
"complete inventory" of the property of the city is being made, "blanket
appropriations" are done away with, "a new system of voucher bills has
been installed," all the departments are being brought on "a uniform
accounting basis." Finally, taxable property is being listed that was
formerly overlooked, and the city is more careful in settling financial
claims against it. Mayor Seidel and City Clerk Thompson both promise
that taxes will not be increased; the former points to the new resources
from property that had escaped taxation and to the future rise in value
of land the city intends to purchase, the latter refers to
"revenue-producing enterprises which will relieve the burden of taxation
rather than increase it." Neither goes so far as to suggest any plan,
like the present law of Great Britain, introduced by a capitalist
government, according to which not only are the taxes of the wealthy
raised, but one fifth of the future increase of value of city lands, as
being due to the community, accrues to the public treasury. It is true
that such measures would have to be approved by the State of Wisconsin,
but this would not prevent them being made the one prominent issue in
the city campaign, and insistently demanded until they are obtained. The
mayor's attitude on this tax question, which underlies all others, far
from being Socialistic, is not even radical.

The tendency seems to have been widespread in the municipal
campaigns undertaken by the Socialists in the fall of 1911, to
abandon even radical, though capitalistic, municipal reformers'
policy of raising new taxes to pay for reforms that bring modest
benefits to the workers, but chiefly raise realty values and
promote the interests of "business," and to substitute for this the
conservative policy of reducing taxes. Thus the _Bridgeport
Socialist_ advised the voters:--

"Municipal ownership means cheaper water, cheaper light, cheaper
gas, cheaper electricity, and a steady revenue into the city
treasury _which would reduce taxes_." (Italics mine.)[156]

One might infer that the masses of Bridgeport were already
sufficiently supplied with schools, parks, and all the free
services a municipality can give.

Of course it is true that a considerable part of the wage earners
in our small cities own their own homes (subject often to heavy
mortgages) and, _other things remaining as they are_, would like to
have taxes reduced. But two facts are indisputable: the average
taxes paid by the wage earners are insignificant compared with
those of the wealthier classes, and the wage earner gets, at first
at least, an equal share in the benefits of most municipal
expenditures. The Socialists know that most of the economic
benefits are later absorbed by increasing rents; and that
capitalist judges and State governments will see to it that only
such expenditures are allowed as have this result, or such as have
the effect, through improving efficiency, of increasing profits
faster than wages. Socialists recognize, however, that at least
municipal collectivism is in the line of capitalist progress, with
some incidental benefits to labor, while the policy of decreasing
taxes on the unearned increment of land is nothing less than
reaction.

The only popular ground on which such a policy could be defended is
the fallacy that landlords transmit to tenants the fluctuations in
taxes, in the form of increased or diminished rents. Even if this
were true, the tenants would be as likely as not to profit by
enlarged municipal expenditures (_i.e._ in spite of paying for a
_minor_ part of their cost). But in the large cities, as a matter
of fact, 90 per cent of the wage earners, who are tenants, and not
home owners, do not feel these fluctuations at all. Increased land
taxes do not as a rule cause an increase in average rents.
Increased land taxes force unimproved land upon the market, and
compel its improvement, to escape loss in holding it unimproved and
idle. The resulting increased competition for tenants operates on
the average to _reduce_ rents, not to increase them. The taxes are
paid at the cost of _reduced profits_ for the landlord--until
population begins to increase more rapidly than taxes. The
capitalist leaders perceive the truth as regards this plainly
enough. Thus, in their anxiety to get both landlord and capitalist
support in the last municipal campaign in New York City, various
allied real estate interests claimed credit for their work in
keeping taxes down. Commenting upon the subject, the _New York
Times_ said: "Rents do not rise with taxes. If they did, the owner
would merely need to pass the taxes along to the renter and be rid
of the subject."[157] The next day Mayor Gaynor in a letter to the
_Times_ quoted a message he had sent to the city council in the
previous year in which he had said: "Every landlord knows that he
cannot add the taxes to rents. If he could, he would not care how
high taxes grew. He would simply throw them on his tenants."

It is difficult, therefore, to see why the tenants of New York City
or Bridgeport should favor lower taxes, so long as they and their
children are in need of further public advantages that increased
taxes would enable the municipalities to supply. To favor reduced
taxes, while private ownership of land prevails, is not Socialism,
or even progressive capitalism. It is, as I have said, _reaction_.

The _New York Volkszeitung_ expresses in a few words the correct
Socialist attitude on municipal expenditures. After showing the need of
more money for schools, hygienic measures, etc., it concludes:--

"These increased expenditures of municipalities are thus absolutely
necessary if a Socialist city government is to fulfill its tasks.
Since the municipal expenditures must be raised through taxation,
it is evident that a good Socialist city government must raise the
taxes if it is up to the level of its duties. Provided that--as
just remarked--the raising of the taxes is so managed that the
possessing classes are hit by it and not the poor and the
workingmen.

"Most of the Socialist municipal administrations have been
shattered hitherto by the tax question; that has been especially
evident in France, where the Socialists lost the towns captured by
them because their administration appeared to be more costly than
those of their capitalist predecessors. That has happened
especially wherever the small capitalist element played a role in
the Socialist movement.

"We shall undoubtedly have this experience in America, also, if we
do not make it clear to the masses of workingmen that good city
government for them means a more expensive city government, and
that they are interested in this increase of the cost of the city
administration."[158]

If the Socialists promise much and perform comparatively little, they
have as a valid reason the fact that the city does not have the
authority. But opponents can also say, as does the Milwaukee _Journal_,
that "the administration would not dare to carry out its promises to
engage in municipal Socialism if it had the authority." For while
municipal "Socialism" or public ownership is perfectly good capitalism,
it is not always good politics in a community where the small taxpayers
dominate.

While the plans for municipal wood and coal yards and plumbing shops
were doubtless abandoned in Milwaukee by reason of legal limitations,
and not merely to please the small traders, as some have contended, no
Socialist reason can be given for the practical abandonment years ago of
the proposed plan for municipal ownership of street railways. If the
charter prohibited such an important measure as this, all efforts should
have been concentrated on changing the charter. Socialists do not
usually allow their world-wide policy, or even their present demands to
be shaped by a city charter.

If Mr. Berger had announced earlier and more clearly, and if he had
repeated with sufficient frequency, his recent declaration that
_Milwaukee is administered by Socialists but does not have a Socialist
administration_, he would have avoided a world of misunderstanding. In
fact, if he had enunciated this principle with sufficient emphasis
before the municipal election of 1910, it is highly probable that the
Socialists would not yet have won the city, and would never have felt
obligated to claim, as they often do now, that Socialists, who must
direct part of their energies towards future results, are more efficient
as practical reformers than non-Socialists, who are ready to sacrifice
every ultimate principle, if they have any, for immediate achievements.

The whole question between reformists and revolutionaries refers not so
much to the policy of Socialists in control of municipalities, which is
often beyond criticism, as to the value of municipal activity generally
for Socialist purposes. None deny that it has value, but reformists and
revolutionaries ascribe to it different roles.

There are two reasons why Socialism _cannot_ yet be applied on a
municipal scale--one economic and one political. I do not refer here, of
course, to municipal ownership, often called "municipal Socialism," a
typical manifestation of "State Socialism," but to a policy that
attempts to make use of the municipality against the capitalist class.

Such a policy is economically impossible to-day because it would
gradually drive capital to other cities and so indirectly injure the
whole population including the non-capitalists. Indeed, Mayor Seidel
especially denies that he will allow any "hardship on capital," and City
Clerk Thompson gives nearly a newspaper column of statistics to show
that "the business of Milwaukee has continued to expand" since the
Socialists came into power, remarking that "there have been no serious
strikes or labor troubles in Milwaukee for years"--surely a condition
which employers will appreciate. Nothing could prove more finally than
such statements, how municipal governments at present feel bound to
serve the business interests.

The political limitations of the situation are similar. Prof. Anton
Menger says of Socialism as applied to municipalities, that "it is
necessarily deferred to the time when the Socialist party will be strong
enough to take into its hands the political power in the whole state or
the larger part of it." It is obviously impossible to force the hands of
an intelligent ruling majority merely by capturing one branch or one
local division of the government. As such branches are captured they
will be prevented from doing anything of importance, or forced to act
only within the limits fixed by the ruling class.