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

At the last American Socialist Convention (1910) Mr. Simons's resolution
carefully avoided the "reformist" position of trying to prop up either
private property or small-scale production, by the statement that, while
"no Socialist Party proposes the immediate expropriation of the farm
owner who is cultivating his own farm," that, on the other hand, "it is
not for the Socialist Party to guarantee the private ownership of any
productive property." He remarked in the Convention that the most
prominent French Marxists, Guesde and Lafargue, had approved the action
of the recent French Socialist Congress, which had "guaranteed the
peasant ownership of his farm," but he would not accept this action as
good Socialism. Mr. Berger offered the same criticism of the French
Socialists, and added that the guarantee would not be worth anything in
any case, because our grandchildren would not be ruled by it.

However, there is a minority ready to compromise everything in this
question. Of all American States, Oklahoma has been the one where
Socialists have given the closest attention to agricultural
problems. The Socialists have obtained a considerable vote in every
county of this agricultural State, and with 20,000 to 25,000 votes
they include a considerable proportion of the electorate. It is
true that their platform, though presented at the last national
convention, has not been passed upon, and may later be disapproved
in several important clauses, but it is important as showing the
farthest point the American movement has gone in this direction.
Its most important points are:--

The retention and _constant enlargement of the public domain_.

By retaining school and other public lands.

By purchasing of arid and overflow lands and the State reclamation
of all such lands now held by the State or that may be acquired by
the State.

By the purchase of all lands sold for the non-payment of taxes.

Separation of the department of agriculture from the political
government.

Election of all members and officers of the Board of Agriculture by
the direct vote of the actual farmers.

Erection by the State of grain elevators and warehouses for the
storage of farm products; these elevators and warehouses to be
managed by the Board of Agriculture.

Organization by the Board of Agriculture of free agricultural
education and the establishment of model farms.

Encouragement by the Board of Agriculture of cooeperative societies
of farmers--

For the buying of seed and fertilizers.

_For the purchase and common use of implements and machinery._

For the preparing and sale of produce.

Organization by the State of loans on mortgages and warehouse
certificates, the interests charges to cover cost only.

State insurance against disease of animals, diseases of plants,
insect pests, hail, flood, storm, and fire.

Exemption from taxation and execution of dwellings, tools, farm
animals, implements, and improvements to the amount of one thousand
dollars.

_A graduated tax on the value of rented land and land held for
speculation._

Absentee landlords to assess their own lands, the State reserving
the right to purchase such lands at their assessed value plus 10
per cent.

Land now in the possession of the State or hereafter acquired
through purchase, reclamation, or tax sales to be rented to
_landless_ farmers under the supervision of the Board of
Agriculture at the prevailing rate of share rent or its equivalent.
The payment of such rent to cease as soon as the total amount of
rent paid is equal to the value of the land, and the tenant thereby
acquires for himself _and his children_ the right of occupancy. The
title to all such lands remaining with the commonwealth.[232]

I have italicized the most significant items. The preference given
to landless farmers in the last paragraph shows that the party in
Oklahoma does not propose to distribute its greatest favors to
those who are now in possession of even the smallest amount of
land. On the other hand, once the land is governmentally "owned"
and speculation and landlordism (or renting) are provided against,
the farmer passes "the right of occupancy" of this land on to his
children. European Socialist parties, with one exception, have not
gone so far as this, and it is doubtful if the American Party will
sustain such a long step towards permanent private property. It may
well be doubted whether the Socialist movement will favor giving to
children the identical privileges their parents had, simply because
they are the children of these parents, especially if these
privileges had been materially increased in value during the
parents' lifetime by community effort, _i.e._ if there has been
any large "unearned increment." Nor will they grant any additional
right after forty years of payments or any other term, but, on the
contrary, as the land rises, through the community's efforts they
would undoubtedly see to it that _rent was correspondingly
increased_. Socialists demand, not penalties against landlordism,
but the community appropriation of rent--whether it is in the hands
of the actual farmer or landlord. Why, moreover, seek to
discriminate against those who are in possession _now_, and then
favor those who will be in possession after the new dispensation,
by giving the latter an almost permanent title? May there not be as
many landless agricultural workers forty years hence as there are
now? Why should those who happen to be landless in one generation
instead of the next receive superior rights?

Not only Henry George, but Herbert Spencer and the present
governments of Great Britain (for all but agricultural land) and
Germany (in the case of cities), recognize that the element of land
values due to the community effort should go to the community. The
political principle that gives the community no permanent claim to
ground rent and is ready to give a "right of occupancy" for two _or
more_ lifetimes (for nothing is said in the Oklahoma program about
the land returning to the government) without any provisions for
increased rentals and with no rents at all after forty years, is
_reactionary_ as compared with recent land reform programs
elsewhere (as that of New Zealand).

Even Mr. Roosevelt's Commission on Country Life goes nearly as far
as the Oklahoma Socialists when it condemns speculation in farm
lands and tenancy; while Mr. Roosevelt himself has suggested as a
remedy in certain instances the leasing of parts of the national
domain. Indeed, the "progressive" capitalists everywhere favor
either small self-employing farmers or national ownership and
leases for long terms and in small allotments, and as "State
Socialism" advances it will unquestionably lean towards the latter
system. There is nothing Socialistic either in government
encouragement either of one-family farms or in a national leasing
system with long-term leases as long as the new revenue received
goes for the usual "State Socialistic" purposes.

The American Party, moreover, has failed so far to come out definitely
in favor of the capitalist-collectivist principle of the State
appropriation of ground rent, already indorsed by Marx in 1847 and again
in 1883 (see his letter about Henry George, Part I, Chapter VIII). In
preparing model constitutions for New Mexico and Arizona (August, 1910),
the National Executive Committee took up the question of taxation and
recommended graduated income and inheritance taxes, but nothing was said
about the State taking the future rise in rents. This is not a reaction
when compared to the present world status of non-Socialist land reform,
for the taxation of unearned increment has not yet been extended to
agricultural land in use, but it is decidedly a reaction when compared
with the Socialists' own position in the past.

In a semiagricultural country like the United States it is natural that
"State Socialism" should influence the Socialist Party in its treatment
of the land question more than in any other direction, and this
influence is, perhaps, the gravest danger that threatens the party at
the present writing.

By far the most important popular organ of Socialism in this
country is the _Appeal to Reason_ of Girard, Kansas, which now
circulates nearly half a million copies weekly--a large part of
which go into rural communities. The _Appeal_ endeavors, with some
success, to reflect the views of the average party member, without
supporting any faction. As Mr. Debs is one of its editors, it may
be understood that it stands fundamentally against the compromise
of any essential Socialist principle. And yet the exigencies of a
successful propaganda among small landowners or tenants who either
want to become landowners or to secure a lease that would amount to
almost the same thing, is such as to drive the _Appeal_ into a
position, not only as to the land question, but also to other
questions, that has in it many elements of "State Socialism."

A special propaganda edition (January 27, 1902) is typical. Along
with many revolutionary declarations, such as that Socialism aims
not only at the socialization of the means of production, but also
at the socialization of _power_, we find others that would be
accepted by any capitalist "State Socialist." Government activities
as to schools and roads are mentioned as examples of socialization,
while that part of the land still in the hands of our present
capitalist government is referred to as being socialized. The use
of vacant and unused lands (with "a fair return" for this use) by
city, township, and county officials in order to raise and sell
products and furnish employment, as was done by the late Mayor
Pingree in Detroit, and even the public ownership of freight and
passenger automobiles, are spoken of as "purely Socialist
propositions." And, finally, the laws of Oklahoma are said to
permit socialization without a national victory of the Socialists,
though they provide merely that a municipality may engage in any
legitimate business enterprise, and could easily be circumscribed
by state constitutional provisions or by federal courts if real
Socialists were about to gain control of municipalities and State
legislature. For such Socialists would not be satisfied merely to
demand the abolition of private landlordism and unemployment as the
_Appeal_ does in this instance, since both of these "institutions"
are already marked for destruction by "State capitalism," but would
plan public employment at wages so high as to make private
employment unprofitable and all but impossible, so high that the
self-employing farmer even would more and more frequently prefer to
quit his farm and go to work on a municipal, State, or county farm.

The probable future course of the Party, however, is foreshadowed by the
suggestions made by Mr. Simons in the report referred to, which, though
not yet voted upon, seemed to meet general approval:--

"With the writers of the Communist Manifesto we agree in the principle
of the 'application of all rents of land to public purposes.' To this
end we advocate the taxing of all lands to their full rental value, the
income therefrom to be applied to the establishment of industrial plants
for the preparing of agricultural products for final consumption, such
as packing houses, canneries, cotton gins, grain elevators, storage and
market facilities."[233]

There is no doubt that Mr. Simons here indorses the most promising line
of agrarian reform under capitalism. But there is no reason why
capitalist collectivism may not take up this policy when it reaches a
somewhat more advanced stage. The tremendous benefits the cities will
secure by the gradual appropriation of the unearned increment will
almost inevitably suggest it to the country also. This will immensely
hasten the development of agriculture and the numerical increase of an
agricultural working class. What is even more important is that it will
teach the agricultural laborers that far more is to be gained by the
political overthrow of the small capitalist employing farmers and by
claiming a larger share of the benefit of these public funds than by
attempting the more and more difficult task of saving up the sum needed
for acquiring a small farm or leasing one for a long term from the
government.

The governmental appropriation of agricultural rent and its productive
expenditure on agriculture will in all probability be carried out, even
if not prematurely promised at the present time, by collectivist
capitalism. Moreover, while this great reform will strengthen Socialism
as indicated, it will strengthen capitalism still more, especially in
the earlier stages of the change. Socialists recognize, with Henry
George, that ground rent may be nationalized and "tyranny and spoliation
be continued." For if the present capitalistic state gradually became
the general landlord, either through the extension of the national
domain or through land taxation, greater resources would be put into the
hands of existing class governments than by any other means. If, for
example, the Socialists opposed the government bank in Germany they
might dread even more the _present_ government becoming the universal
landlord, though it would be useless to try to prevent it.

It is clear that such a reform is no more a step in Socialism or in the
direction of Socialism than the rest of the capitalist collectivist
program. But it is a step in the development of capitalism and will
ultimately bring society to a point where the Socialists, if they have
in the meanwhile prepared themselves, may be able to gain the supreme
power over government and industry.

Socialists do not feel that the agricultural problem will be solved at
all for a large part of the agriculturists (the laborers) nor in the
most satisfactory manner for the majority (self-employing farmers) until
the whole problem of capitalism is solved. The agricultural laborers
they claim as their own to-day; the conditions I have reviewed lead them
to hope also for a slow but steady progress among the smaller farmers.

FOOTNOTES:

[223] Karl Kautsky, "Parlamentarismus und Demokratie," edition of 1911,
p. 127.

[224] Karl Kautsky, "Parlamentarismus und Demokratie," edition of 1911,
pp. 126-128.

[225] Quotations from Kautsky following in this chapter are taken
chiefly from his "Agrarfrage."

[226] Emile Vandervelde, "Le Socialisme Agraire."

[227] _Die Neue Zeit_, June 16, 1911.

[228] Proceedings of 1910 Convention of the Socialist Party of the
United States.

[229] _Die Neue Zeit_, June 16 and 30, 1911.

[230] A. M. Simons, "The American Farmer," pp. 160-162.

[231] The 1908 Convention of the Socialist Party of the United States.

[232] Reprinted at frequent intervals by the _Industrial Democrat,_
Oklahoma City.

[233] Mr. Simons's resolution also contains another proposition,
seemingly at variance with this, which would postpone Socialist action
indefinitely:--

"In the field of industry what the Socialist movement demands is the
social ownership and control of the socially operated means of
production, not of all means of production. Only to a very small extent
is it [the land] likely to be, for many years to come, a socially
operated means of production."

On the contrary, it would seem that "State Socialism," the basis on
which Socialists must build, to say nothing of Socialism, will bring
about a large measure of government ownership of land in the interest of
the farmer of the individually operated farm. Socialism, it is true,
requires besides government ownership, governmental operation, and
recognizes that this is practicable only as fast as agriculture becomes
organized like other industries. In the meanwhile it recognizes either
in gradual government ownership or in the taxation of the unearned
increment, the most progressive steps that can be undertaken by a
capitalist government and supports them _even where there is no
large-scale production or social operation_. For "wherever individual
ownership is an agency of exploitation," to quote Mr. Simons's own
resolution, "then such ownership is opposed by Socialism," _i.e.
wherever labor is employed_.

The Socialist solution, it is true, can only come with "social
operation," but that does not mean that Socialism has nothing to say
to-day. It still favors the reforms of collectivist capitalism. Where
extended national ownership of the land is impracticable there remains
the taxation of the future unearned increment. To drop this "demand"
also is to subordinate Socialism completely to small-scale capitalism.

CHAPTER III

SOCIALISM AND THE "WORKING CLASS"

If the majority of Socialists are liberal in their conception of what
constitutes the "working class," they are equally broad in their view as
to what classes must be reckoned among its opponents. They are aware
that on the other side in this struggle will be found all those classes
that are willing to serve capitalism or hope to rise into its ranks.

In its narrow sense the term "capitalist class" may be restricted to
mean mere idlers and parasites, but this is not the sense in which
Socialists usually employ it. Mere idlers play an infinitely less
important part in the capitalist world than active exploiters. It is
even probable that in the course of a strenuous struggle the capitalists
themselves may gradually tax wholly idle classes out of existence and so
actually strengthen the more active capitalists by ridding them of this
burden. Active exploiters may pass some of their time in idleness and
frivolous consumption, without actual degeneration, without becoming
mere parasites. All exploitation is parasitism, but it does not follow
that every exploiter is nothing more than a parasite. He may work
feverishly at the game of exploitation and, as is very common with
capitalists, may be devoted to it for its own sake and for the power it
brings rather than for the opportunity to consume in luxury or idleness.
If pure parasitism were the object of attack, as certain Socialists
suppose it to be, all but an infinitesimal minority of mankind would
already be Socialists.

Nor do Socialists imagine that the capitalist ranks will ever be
restricted to the actual capitalists, those whose income is derived
chiefly from their possessions. Take, for example, the class of the
least skilled and poorest-paid laborers such as the so-called "casual
laborers," the "submerged tenth"--those who, though for the most part
not paupers, are in extreme poverty and probably are unable to maintain
themselves in a state of industrial efficiency even for that low-paid
and unskilled labor to which they are accustomed. Mr. H. G. Wells and
other observers feel that this class is likely to put even more
obstacles in the path of Socialism than the rich: "Much more likely to
obstruct the way to Socialism," says Mr. Wells, "is the ignorance, the
want of courage, the stupid want of imagination in the very poor, too
shy and timid and clumsy to face any change they can evade! But even
with them popular education is doing its work; and I do not fear but
that in the next generation we will find Socialists even in the
slums."[234]

"Misery and poverty are so absolutely degrading, and exercise such a
paralyzing effect over the nature of men, that no class is ever really
conscious of its own suffering," says Oscar Wilde. "They have to be told
of it by other people, and they often entirely disbelieve them. What is
said by great employers of labor against agitators is unquestionably
true. Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down
to some perfectly contented class of the community and sow the seeds of
discontent amongst them."[235] It is the "very poor" who disbelieve the
agitators. They must be embraced in every plan of social reconstruction,
but they cannot be of much aid. The _least_ skilled must rather be
helped and those who can and do help them best are not any of their
"superiors," but their blood brothers and sisters of the economic class
just above them--the great mass of the unskilled workers.

The class of casual workers and the able-bodied but chronically
under-employed play a very serious role in Socialist politics. It is the
class from which, as Socialists point out, professional soldiers,
professional strike breakers, and, to some extent, the police are drawn.
Among German Socialists it is called the "lumpen proletariat," and both
for the present and future is looked at with the greatest anxiety. It is
not thought possible that any considerable portion of it will be brought
into the Socialist camp in the near future, though some progress has
been made, as with every other element of the working class. It is
acknowledged that it tends to become more numerous, constantly recruited
as it is from the increasing class of servants and other dependents of
the rich and well-to-do.

But Socialists understand that the mercenary hirelings drawn from this
class, and directly employed to keep them "in order," are less dangerous
than the capitalists' camp followers. Bernard Shaw calls this second
army of dependents "the parasitic proletariat." But he explains that he
means not that they do not _earn_ their living, but that their labor is
unproductive. They are parasitic only in the sense that their work is
done either for parasites or for the parasitical consumption of active
capitalists. Nor is there any sharp line between proletarian and middle
class in this element, since parts of both classes are equally conscious
of their dependence. Shaw makes these points clear. His only error is to
suppose that Socialists and believers in the class war theory, have
failed to recognize them.

"Thus we find," says Shaw, "that what the idle man of property does
is to plunge into mortal sin against society. He not only withdraws
himself from the productive forces of the nation and quarters
himself on them as a parasite: he withdraws also a body of
propertyless men and places them in the same position except that
they have to earn this anti social privilege by ministering to his
wants and whims. He thus creates and corrupts a class of
workers--many of them very highly trained and skilled, and
correspondingly paid--whose subsistence is bound up with his
income. They are parasites on a parasite; and they defend the
institution of private property with a ferocity which startles
their principal, who is often in a speculative way quite
revolutionary in his views. They knock the class war theory into a
cocked hat [I shall show below that class war Socialists, on the
contrary, have always recognized, the existence of these facts,
"whilst the present system lasts."--W. E. W.] by forming a powerful
conservative proletariat whose one economic interest is that the
rich should have as much money as possible; and it is they who
encourage and often compel the property owners to defend themselves
against an onward march of Socialism. Thus we have the phenomenon
that seems at first sight so amazing in London: namely, that in the
constituencies where the shopkeepers pay the most monstrous rents,
and the extravagance and insolence of the idle rich are in fullest
view, no Socialist--nay, no Progressive--has a chance of being
elected to the municipality or to Parliament. The reason is that
these shopkeepers live by fleecing the rich as the rich live by
fleecing the poor. The millionaire who has preyed upon Bury and
Bottle until no workman there has more than his week's sustenance
in hand, and many of them have not even that, is himself preyed
upon in Bond Street, Pall Mall, and Longacre.

"But the parasites, the West End tradesman, the West End
professional man, the schoolmaster, the Ritz hotel keeper, the
horse dealer and trainer, the impresario and his guinea stalls, and
the ordinary theatrical manager with his half-guinea ones, the
huntsman, the jockey, the gamekeeper, the gardener, the coachman,
the huge mass of minor shopkeepers and employees who depend on
these or who, as their children, have been brought up with a
little crust of conservative prejudices which they call their
politics and morals and religion: all these give to Parliamentary
and social conservatism its real fighting force; and the more
'class conscious' we make them, the more they will understand that
their incomes, _whilst the present system lasts_, are bound up with
those of the proprietors whom Socialism would expropriate. And as
many of them are better fed, better mannered, better educated, more
confident and successful than the productive proletariat, the class
war is not going to be a walkover for the Socialists."[236]