Part 10 (1/2)
This great leader of the French Socialists, who was a.s.sa.s.sinated at the beginning of the World War, and in whose honor there was a tremendous demonstration in Paris on April 6, 1919, prophesied that ”the time is not far off when no one will be able to speak to the public about the preservation of private property without covering himself with ridicule and putting himself voluntarily into an inferior rank. That which reigns to-day under the name of private property is really cla.s.s property, and those who wish for the establishment of democracy in the economic as well as the political world should give their best effort to the abolition and not to the maintenance of this cla.s.s property.”
In ”The Revolutionary Age,” Boston, January 11, 1919, page 4, we read:
”What is Socialism? It is the public owners.h.i.+p of all the wealth, the mills, the mines, the factories, the railroads and land. Things that are used in common, must be owned in common, by the people and for the people under democratic management by the people, instead of the present system of private owners.h.i.+p for profits.”
According to Morris Hillquit in ”Everybody's,” October, 1913, page 487:
”The Socialist program advocates a reorganization of the existing industrial system on the basis of collective or national owners.h.i.+p of the social tools. It demands that the control of the machinery of wealth creation be taken from the individual capitalists and placed in the hands of the nation, to be organized and operated for the benefit of the whole people.”
Hillquit, in his various articles, has, of course, like many other Socialists, given his explanation of the detailed method of organization and operation of industries under a Socialist form of government. It reads very nicely and appears attractive, as his statements do till truth's searchlight falls on them, but it does not seem worth while to present his views, for very many of the leading Socialists of the world not only differ with each other as regards the method of organization and operation that they advocate for the Marxian state, but they are also very much at variance with the plan of organization and operation that Hillquit describes.
Eugene V. Debs, in his ”Daily Message from Moundsville Prison,”
published in ”The Call,” New York, April 21, 1919, tells us what Socialism is:
”The earth for all the people! That is the demand.
”The machinery of production and distribution for all the people!
That is the demand.
”The collective owners.h.i.+p and control of industry and its democratic management in the interest of all the people! That is the demand.
”The elimination of rent, interest and profit and the production of wealth to satisfy the wants of all the people! That is the demand.
”Co-operative industry in which we all shall work together in harmony as the basis of a new social order, a higher civilization, a real republic! That is the demand.
”The end of cla.s.s struggles and cla.s.s rule, of master and slave, of ignorance and vice, of poverty and shame, of cruelty and crime--the birth of freedom, the dawn of brotherhood, the beginning of MAN!
That is the demand.
”This is Socialism!”
In the Preamble to the American Socialist Party Platform, adopted by national referendum, July 24, 1917, we are told:
”The theory of a democratic government is the greatest good to the greatest number. The working cla.s.s far out-numbers the capitalist cla.s.s. Here is the natural advantage of the working cla.s.s. By uniting solidly in a political party of its own, it can capture the government and all its powers and use them in its own interests.
”The Socialist Party aims to abolish this cla.s.s war with all its evils and to subst.i.tute for capitalism a new order of co-operation, wherein the workers shall own and control all the economic factors of life. It calls upon all workers to unite, to strike as they vote and to vote as they strike, all against the master cla.s.s.
”Only through this combination of our powers can we establish the co-operative commonwealth, wherein the workers shall own their jobs and receive the full social value of their product. The necessities of life will then be produced, not for the profits of the few, but for the comfort and happiness of all who labor. Instead of privately owned industries with masters and slaves, there will be the common owners.h.i.+p of the means of life, and all the opportunities and resources of the world will be equal and free to all.”
The fundamental principle of Socialism, namely, a government, democratic in form, in which all the citizens would collectively own and manage the princ.i.p.al means of production, transportation and communication, will be more clearly understood if the several component parts of the basic principle are explained.
A government, _democratic in form_, would, of course, require the overthrow of all limited monarchies as well as the annihilation of those that are despotic. Even a republican form of government, like that of the United States, is very far from being satisfactory to the Revolutionists, for they demand that the citizens have as direct a voice as possible, first in the election of all public officers, secondly in the framing of the laws, and thirdly in the management of the many industrial departments of the proposed government.
By the citizens' _collective owning_ of the different things enumerated is meant that they would own them just as the citizens of the United States, as a body, to-day own the post-offices, a.r.s.enals, navy and public lands. Of course, collective owners.h.i.+p does not imply that, after the state should have taken over the things referred to, each citizen would be ent.i.tled to an equal share of them as his own private property, to be used by him according to his desires.
_The management of the property_ of the Socialist state and the remuneration[8] for labor would not be in the hands of private individuals acting independently, but would be subject to the will of the majority of the citizens.
By the _princ.i.p.al_ means of production, transportation and communication is meant any instrument of production, transportation or communication that would be used for purposes of exploitation, in other words, for making profit through the employment of hired labor. To ill.u.s.trate this, several examples will be given. Mines, factories and mills of all kinds, large business houses and stores, together with those farms whose owners would employ hired labor for the production of goods to be sold at profit, would all be looked upon as being among the _princ.i.p.al means of production_. On the other hand, a sewing-machine used for family needs would not be included in the list.
There are many Socialists who have held that their intended state would allow the private owners.h.i.+p of very small farms, provided that the products were raised without the employment of farm hands. But it seems likely that such a plan of private owners.h.i.+p would not be tolerated under a Socialist government, for, first of all, a very large number of Socialists are opposed to such a plan, and, secondly, the political actionists who have favored it either have sacrificed thereby the principles of their party, or else by advocating the private owners.h.i.+p of small farms, have done so with the intention of deceiving farmers and small land owners in order to win their votes. More will be said about this further on.
Railroads, street car lines, express and steams.h.i.+p service would be among the _princ.i.p.al means of transportation_; while included in the list of _princ.i.p.al means of communication_ there would be the public telephone and telegraph systems. Automobiles, horses and carriages, if used without the a.s.sistance of hired labor, would not be considered as being princ.i.p.al means of transportation. So, too, under similar conditions, a private telephone or telegraph line running to the house of a friend would be excluded from the princ.i.p.al means of communication.
The state would, of course, own all the goods produced in its mines, factories, shops, etc., until they were purchased with money or labor certificates. The people would then retain these goods as their own private property, and would not, according to the leading American Socialists, be compelled to divide them up with their fellow countrymen.
The Socialist plan looks very nice on paper, allures many impoverished workingmen of the present day, appeals strongly to the uneducated, and offers great inducements to the ”downs and outs” of society. It is, however, a deadly poison, and this will be proven conclusively in the chapter on ”Socialism a Peril to Workingmen.” There it will be shown not only that a Socialist state cannot possibly be a success, but that it would be a source of continued civil strife and discord, thoroughly unsatisfactory to workingmen, whom it would overwhelm with all the evils attendant on crime, strife, rebellion and chaos. In the Marxian state the industrial establishments, land, and business enterprises would be confiscated; neither interest, rent nor profit would be tolerated; the wage system would be abolished; no satisfactory plan could be devised for a.s.signing so many millions of workingmen to the different positions, while at the same time satisfying them with remuneration for their daily toil; religions of all kinds would be the object of persecution; free-love would be legalized; and political corruption would be much more widespread than today. These are but several of the factors that would make a successful Socialist state an impossibility.
It may interest the reader to know that Socialists of the highest authority inform us that in the new state women would be called upon to work. The late August Bebel, one of the foremost of German Socialists, says that as soon as society is in possession of all the means of production, ”the duty to work, on the part of all able to work, without distinction of s.e.x, becomes the organic law of socialized society.”