Twentieth Century Socialism Part 5

What the Socialist party proposes to do is not to abolish property, but to abolish the capitalist system, as it expressly states; and it proposes to do this not only in the interest of the proletariat, but also in the interest of the capitalist himself, who, to quote the words of the platform, is "the slave of his wealth rather than its master." The extent to which this last is true will be discussed in a subsequent chapter and ought to const.i.tute an impressive argument for all--even millionaires--who have become the slaves of the very fortunes they have made. And the moral tendency to restore property to its original intention by abolis.h.i.+ng the capitalist system is expressly stated in the platform as not an attempt "to subst.i.tute working-cla.s.s rule for capitalist-cla.s.s rule, but to free all humanity from cla.s.s rule and to realize the international brotherhood of man."

If this be immoral, then a great many of us do not know what morality is.

Nor does it propose to vest in the state anything but what it is indispensable for a state to own in order to rescue the unwealthy majority from the exploitation of the wealthy few. Nothing is more false or libelous than the allegation that Socialism proposes to destroy property, or to deprive a man of the benefit of his talents, or of the enjoyment of the products of his work. It is the present industrial system that deprives the majority of the product of their work. Socialism aims at the opposite of these things. What Socialism does propose is to preserve wealth by eliminating waste and to ensure to all men the fullest benefit of their talents and the enjoyment of the whole product of their work. It does not propose to level down, as is so often claimed; the necessary effect of Socialism is to level up, if indeed it levels at all. The extent to which it may be wise to concentrate wealth in the state, or whether it is necessary to concentrate it in the state at all, is a question which must be postponed until we have a clear idea of what Socialism is.

Meanwhile I venture to suggest one view of Socialism which, although it does not attempt to define it, may help us as a first effort to get a correct apprehension of it.

Socialism is the concentration of just so much wealth in the community--please note that I do not say "state"--as may be necessary to secure the liberty and the happiness of every man, woman, and child consistent with the liberty and the happiness of every other man, woman, and child.

We are obviously here brought to the question of what is liberty, and to the discussion of another error regarding Socialism upon which the bourgeois is disposed to insist, viz.: Socialism will impair liberty.

-- 6. SOCIALISM WILL NOT IMPAIR LIBERTY

The same thing must be said of liberty as of property: both are such important subjects that they demand a chapter to themselves. But there are current errors about liberty which, when removed, will prepare the mind for the undoubted fact that Socialism, far from impairing liberty, will greatly enlarge it.

When negro slavery existed people thought that if slavery were only abolished, liberty would be secured. It was found, however, that when negro slavery was abolished there was still another liberty to be secured--political liberty.

Now that we have secured the const.i.tutional right and the const.i.tutional weapon by which political liberty ought to be attained, we discover that these rights and weapons are useless to us so long as the immense majority of us are still economic slaves.

Let us consider for a moment just what is meant by an economic slave.

An economic slave is a man who is dependent for his living on another man or cla.s.s of men and who, because all his waking hours and all his vitality must be devoted to making a living, has no leisure either to exercise his political rights or to enjoy himself.

It may seem exorbitant to say that the "immense majority" of us are economic slaves, yet a very little consideration will, I think, convince that we are.

Workingmen are dependent on their employers under conditions worse than negro slavery. For a slave owner had an interest in the life of his slave just as a farmer has an interest in the life of his stock.

He therefore fed his slaves and did not overwork them. Nor was a slave subject to losing his job. The factory owner, on the contrary, not being the owner of his factory hands, is free to dismiss them as soon as they are worn out, and it is to his interest, by speeding up his machinery, to get the most work out of his hands possible, regardless whether he is overworking them; for as soon as they show signs of overwork he has but to dismiss them and employ a younger generation.

Nor can it be said of workingmen that they have leisure for education, politics, or enjoyment. Now the last census shows that our industrial population numbers 21,000,000.

In the second place, the farmer works himself as hard--if not harder--than the factory owner works his factory hand. He is driven by the same necessity as the factory owner--the necessity of making money.[21] There are of course a few large farmers who own enough land to work it as the factory owner works his factory--by the use of machinery and men. But these are few, and it is the extraordinary economy that these men make in working their farms that obliges the small farmer to work night as well as day to make a bare living out of his land. Now by the last census the farming population in the United States numbers 30,000,000.

And what has been said of the workingman is true of the clerk and domestic; and what has been said of the small farmer is true of the small tradesman. Now clerks, domestics, and tradesmen number 30,000,000. Summing up we have:

Industrial population 21,000,000 Farmers 30,000,000 Clerks, domestics and tradesmen 30,000,000 ---------- 81,000,000

out of a total population of 90,000,000 are economic slaves.

And of the 9,000,000 that remain, how many are economically free?

These are in part teachers, physicians, and lawyers. I leave it to teachers to tell us how much time they can call their own. As to the rest, it is the dream of a young doctor to get a large practice; and when his dream is realized, how much leisure does he enjoy? He is at the mercy of his practice, not only weekdays, but Sundays--days and nights. He is the slave of his own practice. It is the dream of the young lawyer to get rich clients and handle big cases. When he gets them, he discovers that he must have an office that costs between $30,000 and $50,000 a year to take care of them, and that he must earn these large sums before there is a penny left for himself. So he too is the slave of his own office.

But further than this: Our great business men--amongst them the very greatest--I have seen with my own eyes slowly sink under the burden of the very inst.i.tutions their own genius had created. They too have become the slaves of their own creations.

So we are all slaves, the greatest and the least of us, with exceptions so few that they are hardly worth mentioning. And how do these exceptions use their leisure? It were better not too closely to inquire. Too much leisure is as detrimental to happiness and progress as too much work. The enormous increase of lunacy in late years is a straw that shows how the stream runs. Because of too much work or too much leisure the race is marching with fatal speed toward general prostration of nerve, of body, and of mind.

Whether then we look at this question from the point of view of human progress or of human happiness, it seems indispensable that the whole machinery of production be speeded down a little instead of continuously up. Now this is what Socialism proposes to do: It proposes by the subst.i.tution of cooperation for compet.i.tion to make the same economy for all humanity as trust promoters have made for themselves. And the economy will be an economy of time. We shall work as hard while we are working, but we shall work four hours instead of eight and twelve. And the rest of the time we shall have to ourselves; we shall be economically free.

Yet if the reader has in his mind any such idea of Socialism as Mr.

Roosevelt's "state free lunch counter," resulting in an "iron despotism over all workers compared to which any slave system of the past would seem beneficent because less utterly hopeless"--he will be disposed to condemn in advance any economic freedom purchased at such a price. I beg the reader, therefore, to try to rid his mind of the prejudice created by such views as Mr. Roosevelt's until he has read the chapters on the Economy of Socialism and How Socialism May Come.

If in these chapters the errors of Mr. Roosevelt's notions are not dissipated, then this book will have been written in vain.

One thing more, however, must be said on this subject. Inexcusable though Mr. Roosevelt may be in most of his attacks on Socialism, it must be admitted that the "iron despotism" to which he thinks Socialism will lead is justified by many Socialist authors, and it is only very lately that a way has been found for introducing cooperation without compulsion. Again, Mr. Roosevelt is in good company in making this charge. It is the great _cheval de bataille_ of every anti-Socialist.

In "A Plea for Liberty," edited by Herbert Spencer, the idea of concentrating wealth in the community is denounced as a "conception of life or conduct" which would compel men "to rise at morn to the sound of a state gong, breakfast off state viands, labor by time according to a state clock, dine at a state table supplied at the state's expense, and to be regulated as to rest and recreation."

In fact, Socialism proposes none of these things. But if it did, a factory hand might very well ask whether such a conception of life or conduct would be worse than to rise at morn by the sound of a factory bell, labor by time according to a factory clock, neither breakfast nor dine at a factory table supplied at the factory's expense, but be regulated as to rest and recreation by factory rules. When we come to discuss liberty, we shall be in a position to compare the liberty enjoyed under Socialism with the liberty enjoyed to-day.

In the chapter on Property and Liberty, the subject of liberty is carefully a.n.a.lyzed; no more, therefore, need be said on this subject except in conclusion to insist that it is the compet.i.tive system of to-day that makes slaves of practically all of us, and that it is the cooperative system alone that will secure for us the last and greatest of all the liberties--economic liberty--because it is economic liberty alone that will enable us to enjoy the other two.

-- 7. CONCLUSION

Having now chipped off some but not all of the errors that prevail, regarding Socialism, let us sum up what Socialism is not; it will help us to a study of what Socialism is.

Socialism is not Anarchism. It is the contradictory opposite of Anarchism. It believes in regulation, but demands that the regulation be wise and just.

Socialism is not Communism. On the contrary it demands that workingmen be a.s.sured as nearly as possible the product of their labor.

Socialism does not propose to eliminate compet.i.tion, but only to abolish excessive compet.i.tion that gives rise to pauperism, prost.i.tution and crime.

Socialism is not hostile to the home. On the contrary, it seeks to remove the evils that make the homes of our millions insupportable.

Socialism is not immoral. On the contrary, it seeks to make the Golden Rule practical.

Socialism does not propose to abolish property or distribute wealth. It proposes, on the contrary, to consecrate property and concentrate wealth so that all shall enjoy according to their deserts the benefits of both.

Socialism will not impair liberty. On the contrary, it will for the first time give to humanity economic liberty without which so-called individual and political liberty are fruitless. It proposes to regulate production, consecrate property, and concentrate wealth only to the extent necessary to a.s.sure to every man the maximum of security and the maximum of leisure; thereby putting an end to pauperism, prost.i.tution, and in great part, to crime, and furnis.h.i.+ng to man environment most conducive to his advancement and happiness.

Whether it will accomplish these things can only be determined by approaching it from the positive side. We shall proceed next then to answer the question what Capitalism is.

FOOTNOTES:

[12] The princ.i.p.al evil attending such laws is that they give rise to graft. In other words, our political machine actually favors such laws, because they put a club in the hands of the machine through which it can not only levy political contributions, but coerce their victims into support of the machine.

[13] The death rate in 1900 among occupied males in the professions was 15.3 per 1000; in clerical and official cla.s.ses 13.5; mercantile, 12.1; laboring and servant cla.s.ses 20.2 per 1000 (12th Census U.S.) Dr. Emmett Holt, writing in the _Journal of the American Medical a.s.sociation_, points out the marked contrast between the death rate of the children of the poor and the children of the rich. See Appendix, p. 421.

[14] _Outlook_, March 20, 1909.

[15] Book III, Chapter V.

[16] U.S. Census Bulletin 96, p. 7, 12.

[17] "Poverty," by Robert Hunter. (Macmillan.)

[18] "Socialism and Social Reform," by R.T. Ely, p. 43. (Crowell.)

[19] Ibid.

[20] "Government or Human Evolution," Vol. II, p. 88 _et seq._, by the author.