Part 21 (1/2)
”Let us suppose in this country,” writes Mr. Russell, ”a political party with a program that proposes a great and radical transformation of the existing system of society, and proposes it upon lofty grounds of the highest welfare of mankind. Let us suppose that it is based upon vital and enduring truth, and that the success of its ideals would mean the emanc.i.p.ation of the race.
”If such a party should go into the dirty game of practical politics, seeking success by compromise and bargain, striving to put men into office, dealing for place and recognition, concerned about the good opinion of its enemies, elated when men spoke well of it, depressed by evil report, tacking and s.h.i.+fting, taking advantage of a local issue here and of a temporary unrest there, intent upon the goal of this office or that, it would inevitably fall into the pit that has engulfed all other parties. Nothing on earth could save it.
”But suppose a party that kept forever in full sight the ultimate goal, and never once varied from it. Suppose that it strove to increase its vote for this object and for none other.... Suppose it regarded its vote as the index of its converts, and sought for such votes and for none others. Suppose the entire body was convinced of the party's full program, aims, and philosophy. Suppose that all other men knew that this growing party was thus convinced and thus determined, and that its growth menaced every day more and more the existing structure of society, menaced it with overthrow and a new structure. What then?
”Such a party would be the greatest political power that ever existed in this or any other country. It would drive the other parties before it like sand before a wind. They would be compelled to adopt one after another the expedients of reform to head off the increasing threat of this one party's progress towards the revolutionary ideal. But this one party would have no more need to waste its time upon palliative measures than it would have to soil itself with the dirt of practical politics and the bargain counter.
The other parties would do all that and do it well. The one party would be concerned with nothing but making converts to its philosophy and preparing for the revolution that its steadfast course would render inevitable. Such a party would represent the highest possible efficiency in politics, the greatest force in the State, and the ultimate triumph of its full philosophy would be beyond question.”
Thus we see that in America reformism is regarded as a dangerous innovation, and that, before it had finished its second prosperous year, it had been abjured by those who have the best claim to speak for the American Party. Nevertheless it still persists and, indeed, continues to develop rapidly--if less rapidly than the opposite, or revolutionary, policy--and deserves the most careful consideration.
While ”reformism” only became a practical issue in the American Party in _1910_, it had its beginnings much earlier. The Milwaukee Socialists had set on the ”reformist” course even before the formation of the present national party (in 1900). Even at this early time they had developed what the other Socialists had sought to avoid, a ”leader”--in the person of Mr. Victor Berger. At first editor of the local German Socialist organ, the _Vorwaerts_, then of the _Social-Democratic Herald_, acknowledged leader at the time of the munic.i.p.al victory in the spring of 1910, and now the American Party's first member of Congress, Mr. Berger has not merely been the Milwaukee organization's chief spokesman, organizer, and candidate throughout this period, but he has come to be the chief spokesman of the present reformist wing of the American Party. His editorials and speeches as Congressman, and the policies of the Milwaukee munic.i.p.al administration, now so much in the public eye, will afford a fairly correct idea of the main features both of the Socialism that has so far prevailed in Milwaukee, and of American ”reformism” in general.
”Socialism is an epoch of human history which will no doubt last many hundred years, possibly a thousand years,” wrote Mr. Berger, editorially, in 1910. ”Certainly a movement whose aims are spread out over a period like that need have no terrors for the most conservative,”
commented Senator La Follette, with perhaps justifiable humor.
If Socialism is to become positive, said Mr. Berger again, it must ”conduct the everyday fight for the practical revolution of every day.”
Like the word ”Socialism,” Mr. Berger retains the word ”revolution,” but practically it comes to mean much the same as its ant.i.thesis, everyday reform.
It has been Mr. Berger's declared purpose from the beginning to turn the Milwaukee Party aside from the tactics of the International movement to those of the ”revisionist” minority that has been so thoroughly crushed at the German and International Congresses. (See Chapter VII.) ”The tactics of the American Socialist Party,” he wrote editorially in 1901, ”if that party is to live and succeed--can only be the much abused and much misunderstood Bernstein doctrine.”
”In America for the first time in history,” he added, ”we find an oppressed cla.s.s with the same fundamental rights as the ruling cla.s.s--the right of universal suffrage....”[147]
It was the impression of many of the earlier German Socialists in this country that political democracy already existed in America and that it was only necessary to make use of it to establish a new social order.
The devices the framers of our Const.i.tution employed to prevent such an outcome, the widespread distribution of property, especially of farms, disfranchis.e.m.e.nt in the South and elsewhere, etc., were all considered as small matters compared to the difficulties Socialists faced in Germany and other countries. Many have come more recently to recognize, with Mr. Louis Boudin, that the movement ”will have to learn that in this country, as in Germany or other alien lands, the fight is on not only for the use of its power by the working cla.s.s, but for the possession of real political power by the ma.s.ses of the people.” Neither in this country nor in any other does the oppressed cla.s.s have ”the same fundamental rights as the ruling cla.s.s.” In America the working cla.s.s have not even an approximately equal right to the ballot, because of local property, literacy, residence, and other qualifications, as alluded to in an earlier chapter, and it is at least doubtful whether the workers are in a more favorable position here than elsewhere to gain final and effective control of the government without physical revolution (as Mr. Berger himself has admitted; see Chapter VI).
In explanation of what he meant by the Bernstein doctrine, Mr. Berger wrote in 1902: ”Others condemn every reform which is to precede the 'Great Revolution.' ... Nothing can be more absurd.... Progress is not attained by simply waiting for a majority of people, for the general reconstruction, for the promised hour of deliverance.... We wicked 'opportunists' want action.... We want to reconstruct society, and we must go to work without delay, and work ceaselessly for the cooperative Commonwealth, the ideal of the future. But we want to change conditions now. We stand for scientific Socialism.”[148]
It is quite true that there was a Socialist Party in this country before 1900, a large part of which ridiculed every reform that can come before the expected revolution, but these ”Impossibilists” are now a dwindling handful. Nearly every Socialist now advocates all progressive reforms, but different views obtain as to which of these reforms do, and which of them do not, properly come within the Socialists' sphere of action.
Mr. Berger's opinion is that the Socialists should take the lead in practically all immediate reform activities, and belittles all other reformers. No sooner had Senator La Follette appeared on the political horizon in 1904 than Mr. Berger cla.s.sed him with Mr. Bryan, as ”visionary.”[149] And after Senator La Follette had become recognized as perhaps the most effective radical the country has produced, Mr. Berger still persisted in referring to him as ”personally honest, but politically dishonest,” and was quoted as saying, with particular reference to the Senator and his ideas of reform, and to the great satisfaction of the reactionary press: ”An insurgent is 60 per cent of old disgruntled politician, 30 per cent clear hypocrisy, 9 per cent nothing, and 1 per cent Socialism. Put in a bottle and shake well before using and you will have a so-called 'progressive.'”[150]
Let us see how the Socialist platform in Wisconsin differs from that of the insurgent Republicans and Democrats. It begins with the statement that the movement aims at ”better food, better houses, sufficient sleep, more leisure, more education, and more culture.” All progressive and honest reform movements stand for all these things and, as I have shown, promise gradually to get them. Under capitalism per capita wealth and income are increased rapidly and the capitalists can well afford to grant to the workers more and more of all the things mentioned, not out of fear of Socialism, but to provide in the future for that steady increase of industrial efficiency which is destined to be the greatest source of future profits.
The platform goes on to state that ”the final aim of the Social-Democratic Party is the emanc.i.p.ation of the producers and the abolition of the capitalist system” and describes the list of reforms it proposes as ”mere palliatives, capable of being carried out even under present conditions.” But it also suggests that these measures are in part, though not all, Socialistic, whereas a careful comparison with the Democratic and Republican platforms, especially the latter, shows that they are practically all adopted by the capitalist parties (not only in Wisconsin, but in States where the Socialists have no representation whatever). If the Social-Democrats of Wisconsin demand more government owners.h.i.+p and labor legislation, the Republicans are somewhat more insistent on certain extensions of political democracy--as in the demand for less partisan primaries.
The New York Socialist platform makes very similar demands to that of Wisconsin, but precedes them by the long explanation (see Chapter VI) of the Socialist view of the cla.s.s struggle, which the Wisconsin platform barely mentions, while containing declarations that might be interpreted as contradicting it. _The Wisconsin idea is that a Socialist minority in the nation has actual power to obtain reforms that will advance us towards Socialism and that would not otherwise be obtained. The New York idea is that a Socialist minority can have no other reforming power than any honest reform minority, unless Socialism has actually won or is about to win a majority._
The legislature of Wisconsin has doubtless gone somewhat faster than those of other ”progressive” States, on account of the presence of the ”Social-Democrats.” It has pa.s.sed the latters' resolutions, for example, calling for the government owners.h.i.+p of coal mines and of such railroad, telegraph, telephone, and express companies as pa.s.s into the hands of receivers, and also to apply incomes from natural resources to old-age pensions as well as other resolutions already mentioned. But an inspection of the resolutions of the legislatures of other States where there are no Socialist legislators and only a relatively small per cent of Socialists shows action almost if not quite as radical. This and the fact that a very radical tendency appeared in Wisconsin when Mr. La Follette was governor and before Socialism had any apparent power in that State, suggests that the influence of the latter has been entirely secondary.
The _Social-Democratic Herald_ complains significantly, at a later date, of ”the cowardly and hypocritical Socialistic platforms of the two older parties,” while Mr. Berger was lately predicting that Senator La Follette would be ”told to get out” of the Republican Party. The reformer who was so recently ”retrogressive” had now become a rival in reform. Mr. Berger, however, claims that he does not object when reformers ”steal the Socialist thunder.” If both are striving after the ”immediately attainable,” how indeed could there be any lasting conflict, or serious difference of opinion? Or if there is to be any difference at all between Socialists and ”Insurgents,” is it not clear that the Socialists must reject, absolutely, Berger's principles, and follow Bebel's advice (quoted below), _i.e. concentrate their attention exclusively on ”thunder” which the enemy will not and cannot steal_?
But perhaps an even more striking indication of the nature of Milwaukee Socialism is shown by the very general welcome it has received among capitalist organs of all parties, from the _Outlook, Collier's Weekly_, the _Sat.u.r.day Evening Post_, and the _American Magazine_, to the _New York Journal_, the _New York World_, the _Chicago Tribune_, the _Milwaukee Journal_, and other capitalist papers all over the country.
The _New York Journal_ stated editorially after the munic.i.p.al election of 1910, that won Milwaukee for the Socialists of the Berger School, that the men of Milwaukee who have acc.u.mulated millions show no signs of fear and that ”before the election many of the biggest Milwaukee business men (including at least two of the brewers) had expressed themselves privately in admiration of Mr. Berger and his character _and his purposes_.” (My italics.)[151]
_La Follette's Weekly_ on this occasion quoted from an editorial of Mr.
Berger in which he had written: ”We must show the people of Milwaukee that the philosophy of international Socialism can be applied and will be applied to the local situation, and that it can be applied with advantage to any American city of the present day.... It is our duty to give this city the best kind of an administration that _a modern city can get under the present system, and the present laws_.” (My italics.) La Follette's repeats the phrase in italics and adds that this policy contains ”nothing to arouse fear on the part of the business interests that is tangible enough to be felt or genuine enough to be contagious,”