Part 3 (1/2)

CHAPTER II

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

BOURGEOIS, REVOLUTIONIST, AND EVOLUTIONIST

Every man who is earning a living is profoundly affected by all that affects his living. If Socialism seems to threaten this living, he instinctively and often unconsciously repudiates it. From one point of view, Socialism presents a more formidable aspect than from another.

It takes a very skilled climber to scale Mont Blanc from the Italian side, whereas from the Swiss side it is simply a matter of endurance.

The same thing is true of Socialism.

Now there are three distinct and opposing points of view: The bourgeois point of view, the revolutionist point of view, and the evolutionist point of view.

(_a_) _The Bourgeois Point of View_

The bourgeois point of view is that which students of political science have been in the habit of describing as individualism. But there are objections to this use of the word individualism, as will appear later on.

The bourgeois view is that the production and distribution of the things we need can best be conducted by allowing every man to choose and do his own work under the stimulus of need when poor and of acquisitiveness when rich. This system is well described in the maxim: ”Every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost.” The first part of this maxim has in it considerable merit, for it encourages the self-reliance that has made the prosperity of America.

But the latter part merely expresses a pious wish that is seldom gratified. The devil does not take the hindmost. The devil leaves them here to stalk through our highways and streets, a permanent army of about 500,000 tramps, swelled at all times by thousands and in such times as these by millions of unemployed.[9]

The bourgeois view is that of the man who owns or expects to own property; the bourgeois cla.s.s represents a small proportion of the whole population, and is sometimes described as the propertied cla.s.s.

But as the propertied cla.s.s is in control of our schools, colleges and press, it has. .h.i.therto made the opinions of the vast majority. Thus the bourgeois view is not only that of the propertied cla.s.s, but also that of most of those who have no property. It is the view of the man in the street.

Lately, however, Socialism has been making inroads into the opinions of both cla.s.ses, and this has divided Socialists into two groups which, though generally found fighting under the same banner, nevertheless take different views of the subject, which tends to confuse the uninitiated. These two views are conveniently described as revolutionist and evolutionist. Let us study the revolutionist point of view first:

(_b_) _The Revolutionist Point of View_

Marx rendered a great service by pointing out the extent to which the non-propertied cla.s.s is exploited by the propertied cla.s.s--the proletariat by the bourgeois--the factory hand by the factory owner.

Marx, however, did not himself confine Socialism to the struggle between the factory hand and the factory owner. But there has arisen out of the Marxian philosophy a school which has emphasized the observation of Marx that the factory hands increased in number while the factory owners decreased in number, and that this tends to produce a conflict between the two--a revolution from which the factory hand must emerge released from the incubus of the factory owner. Two ideas dominate this school: the cla.s.s struggle--a struggle practically confined to the factory worker on the one hand and the factory owner on the other; and the revolution--the eventual clash between the two.

The triumph of the factory hand is, according to this school, to result in the complete overturn of the whole social, industrial and economic fabric of society, the community[10] succeeding to the individual in the owners.h.i.+p of all land and all sources of production--all profit now appropriated by the factory owner accruing to the community and inuring to all the citizens of the state.

This revolutionist school regards Socialism from the point of view of a cla.s.s that has no property--the proletariat--just as the bourgeois looks at Socialism from the point of view of those who have property.

Both points of view tend to be partial; the bourgeois tends to see only what is good for himself in existing conditions and all that is bad for him in Socialism; the revolutionist tends to see all that is bad for him in existing conditions and only what is good for him in the proposed new Socialism. This fact tends to make revolutionists dominate the Socialist party (which is mainly recruited from the proletariat) and is, therefore, ent.i.tled to the most serious consideration. Private interest is the dominating motive of political action to-day. It is the avowed motive of the bourgeois. He has, therefore, no excuse for denouncing this same motive in the proletariat, all the less as the bourgeois has to admit that his industrial system produces pauperism, prost.i.tution, and crime; whereas the proletariat points out that Socialism will put an end to pauperism and prost.i.tution and in great part also to crime.

Because revolutionists believe that this change cannot be effected without a revolution--without a transfer of political power from the bourgeois to the proletariat--they speak of their movement as revolutionary, and often say that Socialism must come by revolution and not by reform.

But these words must not be allowed to mislead. Although the Socialist platform says that ”adequate relief” cannot be expected from ”any reform of the present order,” it nevertheless embraces a series of reforms ent.i.tled ”Immediate Demands.” This is proof positive that the Socialist party is not opposed to legislative measures that in the bourgeois vocabulary are known as reforms, since it advocates them.

Socialists make a distinction between legislation that tends to transfer political power from the exploiters to the exploited and those that do not; the former are termed revolutionary and the latter are termed mere reforms. The former are what they stand for. But they do not for that reason remain indifferent to legislation that improves human conditions. On the contrary, the immediate demands of the Socialist platform include:

The scientific reforestation of timber lands and the reclamation of swamp lands; the land so reclaimed to be permanently retained as a part of the public domain:

The enactment of further measures for general education and for the conservation of health. The Bureau of Education to be made a department. The creation of a department of public health. The free administration of justice.