"Referendum B put the question of holding a National Emergency Convention up to the membership. Referendum D asked the membership to decide whether the party should record itself as being opposed to entering any other international Socialist alignment than that of the Third National [International?] which held its first conference at Moscow early in March.

"Its adoption means that the Socialist party will not take part in any international conference from which the Bolsheviki of Russia and the Spartacans of Germany are excluded, or in which they refuse to participate."

Thus at the Emergency Convention of August-September, 1919, the Socialist Party of America was tied to the will of the Russian Bolshevists and the German Spartacides, who held the powers of approval and veto in deciding what internationals the members of the Socialist Party of America might associate with! A more anomalous product of the double-faced generalship of Berger and Hillquit it would be hard to imagine.

But this is not all. The Moscow Manifesto of March, 1919, was before the Emergency Convention. This Russian Communistic Manifesto is addressed "To the proletariat of all countries" (see Chapter IV) and reads: "We Communists, representatives of the revolutionary proletariat of the different countries of Europe, America and Asia, assembled in Soviet Moscow." Would the Socialist Party of America accept its inclusion among those in "America" thus designated, or refuse? The committee which considered the matter split, bringing in majority and minority reports. The majority report, favored by Berger, considered the Third International as not yet constituted, thus hanging the Socialist Party of America in the air, without fellowship with Moscow, Berne or any other thing—a trapeze performance truly Bergeresque. The minority report, voted for even by a third of the machine delegates in the Emergency Convention, favored affiliation with the associates of the Moscow Conference as constituting the Third International. It was decided to submit both reports to a referendum vote of the party, which should have been taken in January or February, 1920, if the requirements of the party Constitution were followed.

The concern of the Socialist Party managers to keep the facts from the general public, evidenced by their tactics in the case of the five suspended Socialist Assemblymen at Albany, might have led to another unconstitutional delay or manipulation of a referendum. But this was immaterial in determining the mind of the rank and file, as we have documentary evidence showing that the only opposition within the party to a clear-cut Bolshevik committal sprang out of fear either of legal prosecution or of the loss of votes through public condemnation. The following illuminating discussion is extracted from a letter of Alexander Trachtenberg, a conspicuous Socialist, as printed in the "Call" of November 26, 1919:

"The members of the Socialist Party now have before them two referenda—Referendum E, consisting of the various changes in the party Constitution which were decided upon at the Chicago Convention, and Referendum F, on international Socialist relations....

"The question of international affiliation is at this moment probably the most important before the Socialist Party. The two reports which emanated from the convention, known as the majority and minority reports, will no doubt receive very careful consideration by the members....

"A close examination of the two reports reveals that the condition laid down for the International, with which the Socialist party cares to affiliate itself, are the same. Both reports agree that:

"a. The Second International is dead.

"b. The Berne International Conference hopelessly failed in its indeavor to reconstitute the International.

"c. The New International must consist only of those parties:

"1. Which have remained true to the revolutionary International Socialist movement during the war.

"2. Which refused to co-operate with bourgeois parties and are opposed to all forms of coalition.

"In short, both reports agree that the Socialist Party will go only into such an International the component parties of which conduct their struggle on revolutionary class lines. The difference between the two reports is, that while the majority report leaves the matter of the reconstruction of the International hang in the air, the minority report has something tangible to offer. It also more specifically outlines the Socialist policy on the question of international affiliation, and gives several reasons for joining the Third (Moscow) International....

"The Socialist Party of America cannot afford to remain amorphous at the present stage of the building of the new International. It has refused to go with those elements who have either betrayed or were unwilling to remain true to their professions. It belongs among those parties which have remained true to International Socialism and who alone have the right to build the edifice of the new International.

"By voting for the minority report the Comrades will give expression to what they have professed and believed in during the past critical years in the life of the international Socialist movement."

A letter on the same subject, by Benjamin Glassberg, appears in the "Call" of December 4, 1919, from which we take extracts showing the Bergeresque argument of Hoan, Berger's mayor of Milwaukee:

"The most important question before the members of the Socialist Party just now is the referendum on the majority and minority reports on international relations. Comrade Trachtenberg has argued in the columns of 'The Call' in favor of the minority report, and Hoan of Milwaukee for the majority, and Comrade Warshow has argued against both.

"A careful examination of the position taken by both Hoan and Warshow fails to reveal why the minority report should be voted down. Comrade Hoan is naturally very much concerned at the possibility that 'in the coming political battles the capitalistic henchmen will flaunt in your face that the above is the program of the Socialist Party' (referring to the statement in the governing rules of the Communist International that the revolutionary era compels the proletariat to make use of mass action).

"The important thing, according to Hoan, is not whether the minority report is right or not, but rather what will the effect be at the next election. In this respect he is typical of the pure and simple political Socialist....

"In one breath Comrade Warshow calls for a new International to which shall be admitted all Socialist parties of the world who believe in the class struggle, and in the next he defends the Socialists supporting a coalition government. How can one subscribe to the doctrine of the class struggle and at the same time approve of Socialists joining in a coalition government, which of necessity will not be the agent of the workers but of the class with which the workers are at all times at war?....

"In all our official declarations, including the Chicago manifesto, we have voiced our support of the Bolsheviki. In our meetings and in our literature we have taken our stand solidly with our Russian Comrades, our friends, the Left Wingers to the contrary notwithstanding.

"Why, then, hesitate to affiliate with them?"

Thus, whether or not Berger's policy of dissimulation prevailed—and his wholesale slaughter of dues-payers with the ax of the Executive Committee had shown all who opposed him what they might expect—it remained true that identification with the Bolshevist principles and tactics of Lenine and Trotzky was what the present members of the Socialist Party in America "have professed and believed in during the past critical years" and was in accord with "all" their "official declarations," their "meetings" and their "literature."

The base ingratitude of Berger toward those who have followed and supported him; the gross, incredible savagery of his egotism in turning to rend those he had discipled into revolutionaries the moment their allegiance to the principles he taught them stood in the way of his cowardice and ambition; his butcher insensibilities in making his party's Constitution a "scrap of paper" and the party a shambles for the hewing down of two-thirds of his "Comrades;" his burlesque effrontery in posing in the convention as a law-and-order man, railing at his own victims as "anarchists"—these daubs of color paint the cubist portrait of Wisconsin's mock hero, one of the meanest caricatures of human life that ever swaggered on a political arena.

When the two Wings of the Convention raised the question, "Who called the cops?" Berger's pale and innocent figure rose with the trembling remark: "If they had not been here yesterday morning we would not be here now. The two-fisted Reed and the other two-fisted Left Wingers would be here." He took pains to have the delicate pathos of his martyrdom sketched into the Executive Committee report he signed, "Victor L. Berger, in addition to a sentence of 20 years, has four more indictments pending against him, besides being refused his seat in Congress. All the Socialist candidates for Congress in Wisconsin and the State Secretary also are under indictment. No mail whatever is permitted to be delivered to the 'Leader,' the party daily in Milwaukee," etc. On the other hand, against the terrible "anarchs" who had so outraged his own gentle spirit and sense of order, he even fulminated outside the Convention Hall, as in the interview which we take from the "Call" of September 4, 1919:

"Ever since the Socialist movement has existed there have been two very distinct tendencies apparent—the Social Democratic tendency and the Anarcho-Syndicalist tendency....

"But the revolution in Russia and Hungary, which had been predicted by us, as well as in Germany, has had a peculiar psychological effect on many of the rank and file of the party, especially upon those who had come from Russia and Hungary. They really believe this revolt can be repeated today in America.

"The revolution in Russia and the psychological effect of it penetrated into the foreign federations affiliated with the Socialist party of America and gave the Anarcho-Syndicalists, who have joined us in great numbers in the last six months, a chance to split up the Socialist party of America into three groups.

"First, the old Socialist Party, which will remain longer to aid the old ideals of Social Democracy, even though there may be a change in tactics required by changed conditions.

"Then there are the Communist Socialists, led by John Reed and a few hysterical men and women, who try to bring about a Russian revolution or God knows what other things, they themselves don't know tomorrow morning.

"And, finally, there is the Communist Party, led by Louis Fraina, which consists mainly of Russians, Ukrainians[7], Slovenic races and other foreign federation members, who have been suspended for stuffing ballot boxes in the last referendum, and who also want revolution of some kind, the wherewith and howwith they haven't been able to explain so far."

Do we exaggerate the humbuggery of leadership uncloaked in this Emergency Convention of the Socialist Party of America? Let the reader judge from the supreme example of it, the motive of which we present in the words of the organ of one of the chief conspirators, Hillquit's "Call." The issue of August 31, 1919, declared: "The convention will adopt a stand, expressed in a manifesto that is expected to satisfy all those in the Left Wing who are contending for what they believe to be revolutionary principles." In the issue of September 3 we read:

"There will be a restatement of party principles which is expected to cut the ground from under the feet of the former members and organizations of the party who have read themselves out and will remain suspended in mid-air between the newly formed and still more newly revised Communist-Labor Party and the Communist Party."

In the "Call" of September 5, which published the manifesto, we also have this comment on it by James Oneal: "The American movement can congratulate itself on having produced such a splendid document. It will tend to rally members who have been uncertain of the outcome of the convention, and will eventually bring to us many who are sick of the hypocrisies, the shams and the illusions that have held them in chains for nearly three tragic years."

What hypocrisies, shams and illusions are referred to? Who were their authors? In another column of the same issue we are told: "With every delegate on his feet and cheering, the National Emergency Convention of the Socialist Party unanimously adopted its manifesto this afternoon. [September 4th.] It was the big moment of the convention. The document is regarded as the most revolutionary the party has ever drawn up, and one certain to bring back into the organization thousands of members temporarily outside of it, either because their local organizations were expelled or by reason of what Lenine has called 'the intoxication of the revolutionary phrase.'"

Thus this manifesto was adopted by the wreckers of the Socialist Party to hold the "revolutionary" rank and file still left them and to draw back the revolutionary seceders—minus their leaders, of course. Nevertheless the manifesto is truly revolutionary—"most revolutionary"—the revolutionary creed of a revolutionary organization. It is, of course, carefully worded, so as to deceive if possible that public whose intelligence the cynical Socialists despise at the same time that they appeal to it for votes, and this careful wording we can understand from a comment in the "Call" of September 5, 1919: "Before reading the manifesto, Block told the convention the manifesto was largely based upon one suggested by Morris Hillquit, now ill at Saranac Lake, N. Y."[J]

Seen through its mask of verbiage, however, the manifesto of the Emergency Convention of the Socialist Party of America joins with the famous Preamble of the I. W. W. and the manifestoes and programs of the Communist and Communist Labor Parties in advocating the plundering of mankind by proletarians, the elimination of the private ownership of natural wealth and the machinery of production, and the wresting of "the industries and the control of the government of the United States" out of their present ownership and control so as "to place industry and government in the control of the workers."

This revolutionary document incites "American labor" to "break away" from its present leadership, called "reactionary and futile," and "to join in the great emancipating movement of the more advanced revolutionary workers of the world"—the I. W. W.'s and Bolshevists. It is "the supreme task" of "the Socialist party of America," its "great task," to which its members "pledge all" their "energies and resources," to "win the American workers" from their "ineffective" leadership, "to educate them to an enlightened understanding of their own class interests, and to train and assist them to organize politically and industrially on class lines, in order to effect their emancipation," namely, "to wrest the industries and the control of the government of the United States from the capitalists and their retainers" and "place industry and government in the control of the workers."

Furthermore, "to insure the triumph of Socialism in the United States the bulk of American workers must be strongly organized politically as Socialists, in constant, clear-cut and aggressive opposition to all parties of the possessing class" and "must be strongly organized in the economic field on broad industrial lines, as one powerful and harmonious class organization, co-operating with the Socialist Party, and ready in cases of emergency to reinforce the political demands of the working class by industrial action." (See, a few pages further on, the manifesto itself, from which we have quoted in the three last paragraphs.)

Is this the thing which Berger and Hillquit have let loose—after blocking a much less compromising resolution of long-distance affiliation with Moscow? Does Berger think the people of Wisconsin such blockheads that they will shy at a word like Bolshevism, but are unable to understand the plain, bold English of a conspiracy to bring about industrial organization "to wrest the industries and the control of the government of the United States" out of the hands of the American people and into the hands of a special class? Indeed, if the "workers" take everything, what will become of the drones—the Socialist political hacks?

While we reserve the details for Chapter XVI, we add here in passing that on February 10, 1920, it was acknowledged in testimony at the trial of the five Assemblymen at Albany that affiliation with the Third (Moscow) International had been carried by referendum vote in the Socialist Party of America with a large majority.

Before giving the reader the text of that part of the Emergency Convention manifesto which we have been discussing we must call attention to another piece of evidence—Morris Hillquit's letter in his paper, the "New York Call," shortly after the Emergency Convention, in which he says:

"The split in the ranks of American Socialism raises the question: What shall be the attitude of the Socialist Party toward the newly formed Communist organization?" His letter answering this important question was read out of the "Call" into the record of the New York Assembly's inquiry into the qualifications of the five suspended Socialists to act as law-makers and will be found in the "New York Herald" of January 29, 1920, from which we take it:

"Any attempted solution of the problem must take into account the following fundamental facts:

"First—The division was not created arbitrarily and deliberately by the recent convention in Chicago. It had become an accomplished fact months ago, and the Chicago gatherings did nothing more than recognize the fact.

"Second—The division was not brought about by differences on vital questions of principles. It arose over disputes on methods and policy.

"Third—The separation of the Socialist Party into three organizations need not necessarily mean a weakening of the Socialists. They are wrong in their estimate of American conditions, their theoretical conclusions and practical methods, but they have not deserted to the enemy. The bulk of their following is still good Socialist material. When the hour of the real Socialist fight strikes in this country we may find them again in our ranks.

"Our quarrel is a family quarrel, and has no room in the columns of the capitalistic papers, where it can only give joy and comfort to the common enemy. The unpardonable offense of the Simons-Russell-Spargo crowd [which withdrew from the Socialist Party of America on account of its unpatriotic and un-American opposition to the people and Government of the United States at war, as expressed in the Socialist Party's St. Louis Convention utterances in April, 1917] was not so much their social-patriotic stand during the war as the fact that they rushed into the anti-Socialist press maliciously denouncing their former comrades as pro-German and deliberately added fuel to the sinister flame of mob violence and government persecution directed against the Socialist movement.

"We have had our split. It was unfortunate but unavoidable, and now we are through with it. Legitimate constructive work of the Socialist movement is before us. Let us give it all of our time, energies and resources. Let us center our whole fight upon capitalism, and let us hope our Communist brethren will go and do likewise."

Thus all three organizations, Socialist Party of America, Communist Party of America and Communist Labor Party, have merely had "a family quarrel" and are still one kin, one blood, one "family," without "fundamental" "differences on vital questions of principles," so that the Socialist Partyites and their "Communist brethren" can go on doing "likewise" against our present Government and institutions until, "when the hour of the real Socialist fight"—the Great Rebellion—"strikes in this country" the members of the Socialist Party "may find" the members of the two Communist parties "again in" their "ranks." Thus by Hillquit, at least, all three parties can only "be construed" to be in one and the same "category."

We end this chapter by reproducing from the "New York Call" of September 5, 1919, a considerable part of the Socialist Party's Emergency Convention manifesto. This offspring of Hillquit's brain declares "solidarity with the revolutionary workers of Russia" and "radical" Spartacides of Germany and Communists of Austria and Hungary. Let the reader carefully weigh this document's meanings, comparing them with the call for and manifesto of the Moscow Conference, the definition of "industrial unionism" and "mass action" in the Left Wingers' writings, the Communist and Communist Labor manifestoes and programs, and the principles and tactics of I. W. W.'ism as set forth elsewhere in this volume, and then ask himself if the latest official utterance of the Socialist Party of America can in any way "be construed" as placing that party in any "category" which does not also contain the Communist organizations and the I. W. W. The salient parts of the manifesto follow:

"The capitalist class is now making its last stand in its history. It was intrusted with the government of the world. It is responsible for the prevailing chaos. The events of recent years have conclusively demonstrated that capitalism is bankrupt, and has become a dangerous impediment to progress and human welfare. The working class alone has the power to redeem and to save the world....

"It now becomes more than ever the immediate task of international Socialism to accelerate and organize the inevitable transfer of political and industrial power from the capitalist class to the workers. The workers must recognize the economic structure of human society by eliminating the institution of the private ownership of natural wealth and of the machinery of industry, the essence of the war-breeding system of international commercial rivalry. The workers of the world must recognize the economic structure of human society by making the natural wealth and the machinery of industry the collective property of all....

"The workers of Great Britain, France and Italy, the workers of the newly created nations, and the workers of the countries which remained neutral during the war, are all in a state of unprecedented unrest. In different ways and by different methods, either blindly impelled by the inexorable conditions which confront them, or clearly recognizing their revolutionary aims, they are abandoning their temporising programs of pre-war labor reform. They are determined to control the industries, which means control of the governments.

"In the United States capitalism has emerged from the war more reactionary and aggressive, more insolent and oppressive than it has ever been....

"But even in the United States the symptoms of a rebellious spirit in the ranks of the working masses are rapidly multiplying. Widespread and extensive strikes for better labor conditions, the demand of the 2,000,000 railway workers to control their industry, sporadic formation of labor parties, apparently, though not fundamentally, in opposition to the political parties of the possessing class, are promising indications of a definite tendency on the part of American labor to break away from its reactionary and futile leadership and to join in the great emancipating movement of the more advanced revolutionary workers of the world.

"Recognizing this crucial situation at home and abroad, the Socialist Party in the United States at its first national convention after the war, squarely takes its position with the uncompromising section of the international Socialist movement. We unreservedly reject the policy of those Socialists who supported their belligerent capitalist governments on the plea of 'national defense,' and who entered into demoralizing compacts for so-called civil peace with the exploiters of labor during the war and continued a political alliance with them after the war.

"We, the organized Socialists of America, declare our solidarity with the revolutionary workers of Russia in the support of the government of their Soviets, with the radical Socialists of Germany, Austria and Hungary in their efforts to establish working class rule in their countries, and with those Socialist organizations in England, France, Italy and other countries, who, during the war as after the war, have remained true to the principles of uncompromising international Socialism....

"The great purpose of the Socialist Party is to wrest the industries and the control of the government of the United States from the capitalists and their retainers. It is our purpose to place industry and government in the control of the workers with hand and brain, to be administered for the benefit of the whole community.

"To insure the triumph of Socialism in the United States the bulk of the American workers must be strongly organized politically as Socialists, in constant, clear-cut and aggressive opposition to all parties of the possessing class. They must be strongly organized in the economic field on broad industrial lines, as one powerful and harmonious class organization, cooperating with the Socialist Party, and ready in cases of emergency to reinforce the political demands of the working class by industrial action.

"To win the American workers from their ineffective and demoralizing leadership, to educate them to an enlightened understanding of their own class interests, and to train and assist them to organize politically and industrially on class lines, in order to effect their emancipation, that is the supreme task confronting the Socialist Party of America.

"To this great task, without deviation or compromise, we pledge all our energies and resources. For its accomplishment we call for the support and co-operation of the workers of America and of all other persons desirous of ending the insane rule of capitalism before it has had the opportunity to precipitate humanity into another cataclysm of blood and ruin.

"Long live the International Socialist Revolution, the only hope of the suffering world!"



CHAPTER VI

SOCIALISM IN THEORY



Morris Hillquit, a ring-leader among Socialists of the United States, writing in "Everybody's," October, 1913, page 487, informs us that the term Socialism is used indiscriminately to designate a certain philosophy, a scheme of social organization and an active political movement.

Socialism, used to designate a certain philosophy, may better be distinguished by being called Socialism in theory. Socialism as an applied scheme of social organization may be termed Socialism in practice, and means nothing other than a form of government according to the principles of Socialist philosophy. Socialism, as an active political movement, means the Socialist Party. Thus, when we say that Socialism won several times in Milwaukee, we do not mean that the system of Socialist philosophy was voted upon and accepted by the majority, for most of the voters knew practically nothing about the philosophy of Socialism; nor do we mean that the form of government in accordance with the principles of Socialist philosophy was adopted at the polls, for, as a matter of fact, we know that the government of Milwaukee has never been in accordance with the Marxian principles; but we mean this, and only this, that the active political movement of the Socialists, in other words, the Socialist Party, elected its candidates. No doubt the victorious candidates would have ruled Milwaukee according to the philosophy of Socialism, applying the Marxian principles to their government, if they could have done so, but the Constitution of the United States as well as that of the State of Wisconsin would have stood in the way, as will be seen when Socialism is explained more in detail.

The first form of Socialism to be explained in detail is Socialism in theory. There seem to be about 57 hundred times 57 hundred varieties of Socialists, owing to the conflicting views that members of the party hold on different subjects which they wish to include in Socialism, and also because of their different interpretations of the fundamental principle of Socialism. There is, however, one underlying principle that seems to be held quite generally by Marxians the world over. No matter what other radical measures individual Socialists may favor or wish to see included in the Socialist philosophy, and no matter how many different interpretations are given to the principle of Socialism, the basic principle that stands out above all others and is accepted generally by Socialists the world over may be said to be the demand for a government, democratic in form, under which all the citizens would collectively own and manage the principal means of production, transportation and communication.

The Industrial Workers of the World form one of the few classes of Socialists who object to the generally accepted fundamental principle just mentioned. "The One Big Union Monthly," March, 1919, prefers to drop the words "democratic form of government," because the I. W. W.'s are not sure that ownership by the people as a whole would succeed better under a democratic form of government than under a dictatorship of the proletariat.

"The Labour Leader," the organ of the Socialist Independent Labor Party, Manchester, England, February 6, 1919, declares that Socialism is "the complete ownership and control of the means of life by the people, and the development of industry and the distribution of its fruits under a genuine and absolute democracy." In explaining Socialism, it says that "it means that the land shall become the property of the people, not of private individuals. It means that the great industries shall become the property of the people. It means that the railways and the canals shall become the property of the people. It means that the shipping shall become the property of the people. In short it means that everything essential to the life of all shall become the property of all, and shall be administered not for the profit of the few, but for the use of all. And it demands intelligent control of public affairs by the people, women as well as men."

Practically the same ideas are expressed in other words by Jaures in "Studies in Socialism," page 32 of 1906 edition, translated by Minturn. This great leader of the French Socialists, who was assassinated 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 class 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 class property."

In "The Revolutionary Age," Boston, January 11, 1919, page 4, we read:

"What is Socialism? It is the public ownership 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 ownership 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 ownership 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 ownership 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 class struggles and class 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 class far out-numbers the capitalist class. Here is the natural advantage of the working class. 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 class war with all its evils and to substitute 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 class.

"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 ownership 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 principal 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, arsenals, navy and public lands. Of course, collective ownership does not imply that, after the state should have taken over the things referred to, each citizen would be entitled 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 principal 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 illustrate 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 principal 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 ownership 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 ownership 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 ownership 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 steamship service would be among the principal means of transportation; while included in the list of principal means of communication there would be the public telephone and telegraph systems. Automobiles, horses and carriages, if used without the assistance of hired labor, would not be considered as being principal 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 principal 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 assigning 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 sex, becomes the organic law of socialized society." ["Woman Under Socialism," by Bebel, page 275 of the 1904 edition in English.] Frederick Engels, in his book, "Origin of the Family," teaches that the emancipation of women is primarily dependent on the reintroduction of the whole female sex into the public industries. ["Origin of the Family," by Engels, page 90 of Untermann's 1907 translation into English.] In "The Call," New York, February 27, 1910, it is stated that "the man who professes himself to be a Socialist, and then says that under Socialism men will provide for women, is wide of the mark."

Keeping clearly before their minds the fundamental principle of Socialism, the people of America must be careful to distinguish between Socialists ruling under our present form of government, and Socialists ruling in a Socialist state. Possible success in the first case would by no means indicate success in the latter. If our citizens are cautious in this respect, the enemies of our country will not dare to boast of the so-called success of Socialism in those places in which the members of their party, elected to public office, may have given a good administration under our constitutional system of government.

Though Socialism, in the strictest sense of the word, is concerned exclusively with economics, still this does not mean that those who profess it do not advocate, as part of their program, many pet projects not appertaining to economics. By a vast majority, the members of the Socialist Party either advocate atheism and opposition to religion, or at least do not oppose those Socialists who do. Most of them, too, in their cravings for what is base and low, are by no means adverse to seeing free-love reign supreme in their contemplated state. The word Socialism is, therefore, frequently used in a broader sense, and is made to include not only the common doctrine advocating the democratic form of government under which the citizens would collectively own and manage the principal means of production, transportation and communication, but also those other doctrines that are taught or silently approved by the majority. It is in this broader sense, then, that the opponents of the Marxians justly claim that Socialism is atheistic, anti-religious, and immoral.

We are told by Hillquit in "Everybody's," October, 1913, page 486, that "like all social theories and practical mass movements, Socialism produces certain divergent schools, bastard offshoots clustering around the main trunk of the tree, large in number and variety, but insignificant in size and strength. Thus we hear of State Socialism, Socialism of the Chair, Christian Socialism and even Catholic Socialism."

Persons who call themselves Socialists may be divided into two classes, in the first of which are those who are Socialists merely in name, for they go no further than to vote the party ticket. It is in the second class that we find the real Socialists, men who besides severing all connections with the other political organizations and voting regularly for the Socialist candidates, have taken out membership cards which entitle them to vote on party policies by the payment of several dollars a year into the treasury of the party. Many of the first class are, of course, not guilty of propagating atheism, free-love, and other radical doctrines. In fact, it often happens that they scarcely know that such things are taught by Socialists, for the deceitful Revolutionary orators and writers, having blinded them with vivid pictures of their misfortunes, lead them to believe that the movement is morally upright, and that the contemplated state of the future will bring them every blessing under Heaven.

But unless those who are Socialists merely in name sever their connection with the party of Karl Marx, it will not be long before many of them will lose all sense of honor, decency and morality. Indeed they often sink lower than the base character who composed the "poem" that takes up half a page of "The Call" of May 10, 1914. Though "The Call" seems to consider the "poem" an excellent specimen of literature, or else uses the large type that it does in order to attract the attention of its readers to the sublime virtues of the author, the quotation of but a small part of the production will suffice to bring out its real worth and at the same time show us the benign effects of Socialist teachings:

"You who are exalted by pictures but not by people: you who worship a book and a god rather than hearts and men and women: I'd rather have my world and its flesh and its devil than your heaven and its spirit and its god:.... And while I don't blame man for being base or praise man for being noble, I embrace man as my brother for being man: And there you have the whole story, my man intoxication: I am drunk with man: you see how it is: You can have your bibles: I don't need your christs: your creeds would be an insult to me: I have man: I am drunk with man: That's the secret of secrets: that's the confession of confessions: that's the inside of the inside of me: I don't expect you to take it in: drunk with man: no: that's too much like mockery to you: you shudder at it: To you man always comes last: man never comes first: gods, mountains, laws—they come first: man can take his chances: That's the rule of precedence as you have fixed it: that's the up and down and around of your cosmos: But I say no: I who am drunk with man can't give up my faith for your blasphemy: you who are sober with god."

The attention of the reader must now be drawn to something of vital importance. There is no doubt that "Knights of the Red Flag" have advocated many excellent social reforms, such as higher wages, shorter working hours and greater safety for laborers, legislation against trusts, and the prevention of child labor and political corruption. Great credit would they deserve if their real object were not to gain votes to secure the establishment of a Socialist form of government. It is probable that before long, voting with true social reformers, they will see the materialization of many of the immediate demands enumerated in their platform. But it is to be remembered that no matter how many beneficial reforms Socialists may help to procure under our present constitutional system, they thus in no way prove the superiority of a Socialistic government, democratic in form, in which the citizens would collectively own and manage the principal means of production, transportation, and communication. The reason is that our constitutional government would still be in vogue, and the contradictory fundamental principle of Socialism could not be applied by the ruling Marxians.

Persons who judge the Socialist movement solely by the immediate demands of its political platform, or by social reforms instituted after a political victory, understand very little either about Socialism or the methods and purposes of the Marxians. Yet this was the short-sighted manner in which the press persistently, and for a long time, viewed the tactics of Socialist politicians. Only a revolutionary movement far enough advanced to neglect gradual transformation by means of immediate demands would be able to sweep away by force, at a single stroke, all the old conditions of production, together with our present form of government, and the existing order of society.

The so-called "Immediate Demands" of the Socialists may be termed political campaign Socialism or vote-catching Socialism. They are the sugar coating of the poisonous pill of Socialism itself. Their object is to attract and interest the voter, and at the same time keep his mind off of the fallacies of Socialism proper. They keep him from asking too many unanswerable questions about the detailed method of organization under a Socialist form of government—for instance, how the millions upon millions of government employes would be assigned to positions that would suit them, and at the same time receive satisfactory remuneration for their labors.

These same immediate demands also give the voter a chance to find fault with our present system of government and to criticise it, thereby rendering it less able to withstand successive Socialist assaults. The immediate demands are, of course, meant for the present day and even if they should materialize, under our present system, they could not be continued in a Socialist state, that would be necessarily weak, poverty-stricken, strife-ridden, politically corrupt and chaotic. It is one thing to make demands, quite another thing to be able to grant them. A highway robber can demand a million dollars from the person whom he attacks, but that doesn't make the one assaulted able to surrender the sum; nor would it prove that the robber himself could afford to pay a like amount if he should afterwards be held up for a million.

The immediate demands of the 1918 Congressional Platform of the Socialist Party are entirely too many conveniently to enumerate. They are classed under

A—International Reconstruction. Peace Aims. Federation of Peoples. B—Internal Reconstruction. Industrial Control. Railroads and Express Service. Steamships and Steamship Lines. Telegraph and Telephone. Large Power Scale Industry. Democratic Management. Demobilization. The Structure of Government (i.e., of the present system of government). Civil Liberties. Taxation. Credit. Agriculture. Conservation of Natural Resources. Labor Legislation. Prisons. The Negro.

The immediate demands are so numerous as to require a booklet of 24 pages, published by the National Office, Socialist Party, Chicago, Ill. It is very hard to find a single reference to Socialism itself in the entire 24 pages of the Congressional Platform.

In a letter of Moses Oppenheimer, published in "The Call," New York, April 14, 1919, we are told that under the opportunist leadership of men like Hillquit, Berger, Ghent, and Robert Hunter the struggle for reforms has gradually overshadowed and supplanted the demand for the abolition of wage slavery. The writer continues:

"More and more it has resulted in petty tactics for vote catching. Berger's Old Age Pension bill was a glaring exhibit of opportunist incapacity.

"Immediate demands are a tactical problem! Comrade Lee knows that the tactics change with changed conditions. There was a time when the opportunists expected to win the votes of the bulk of A. F. of L. workers. Hence the sugar coating of the Socialist pill and three years of Chester M. Wright in control of 'The Call.'

"That is now ancient history. Lee could not repeat that chapter if he would. Nay, I believe he wouldn't if he could.

"The powerful impulse from the movement in Europe makes itself felt over here. There is great need for reforming our front, for recasting our tactics. The old roar of opportunism led us nowhere, except to barren failure. If nothing else the experience with our Ten in Albany and our Seven in the City Hall should open our eyes. The time for picayune politics is irrevocably gone."

In an article published in "The Proletarian," Detroit, April, 1919, page 4, Oakley Johnson thus criticises the Socialist policy of reformism as manifested in the immediate demands of the party platform:

"Socialists have been dazed time and again by the glitter of reformism. In every country the question has been an ever-present one, and, as a result, the rainbows of reform have found many chasers in the ranks of the workers. The matter seemed, up to near the end of the war, to involve more an academic dispute on tactics than a principle of vital importance. There seemed too many good reasons why immediate demands for slight concessions should not be worked for, as a step in the direction of proletarian emancipation.

"When, however, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia showed the stand taken by the reformist groups—a stand in defense of capitalism when capitalism was about to fall—the uncompromisingly revolutionary attitude of Marxian Socialists toward reform in the past was amply justified. And when, in the course of a few months, the reformistic Majority Socialists of Germany took exactly the same stand as the Kerensky crowd had taken, there could no longer be any doubt that the purpose of reform parties in capitalistic society is to function as the last obstacle to the victory of the proletariat....

"The fact is, there is a threefold objection to reformism as a working-class policy. In the first place it is a waste of effort, for the same zeal displayed by short-sighted reform-Socialists would, if applied in the propagation of straight Socialism, treble the strength of the movement in a few months' time. In the second place reformism obscures the real end in view, develops confusionists rather than revolutionists, gives capitalist political parties a chance to steal a few 'Socialist' planks and thus bid for the Socialist vote, and, worst of all, paves the way to such tragedies as are now occurring in Germany, where Liebknecht and Luxemberg have been murdered by their 'reform' comrades(?). And finally, in the third place, even if reform be the sole object in view, reformism is the poorest policy to follow to get it. A proletariat organized for revolutionary ends has no difficulty in securing reforms; it does not need to ask for them, for an awakened and apprehensive bourgeoisie will shower reforms upon them like the proverbial manna. If, indeed, workers want only reforms, why take the longest way around?"

"The New Age," Buffalo, April 10, 1919, page 4, rejoices that the reformists of the Socialist Party, whose policy it is to pay more attention to the immediate demands than to the principles of Socialism, have now a serious rival in the New Labor Party:

"Now that the New Labor Party is established (and in Chicago recently they polled more votes than the Socialists), we wonder what the old machine will do to combat this new octopus that threatens the big vote that used to belong to 'US.' Answer: Teach the working class real Socialism, the Socialism of Marx and Engels."

The millionaire Socialist, William Bross Lloyd, of Chicago, has a very interesting article on "Socialist Platforms" in "The Communist," Chicago, April 1, 1919:

"Confession is good for the soul. Let the Socialist Party of the World now stand up and confess that it bears a close resemblance to other political parties in that, like the others, its platforms are mostly bunk.

"The difference between its platforms and others is that the others mean nothing while its platforms mean anything. The difference between Socialists and other politicians is that the Socialists mean what they think their platforms mean while the others mean only to get office.

"This follows from the state of affairs we have had in the world since 1914, when Socialists became so diverse in words and deeds. Most of those on both sides are honest. The trouble is the vagueness of the words of the Socialist propaganda.

"Socialist thought should be so clearly stated in its platforms that no one can doubt its meaning. This will eliminate from the party the reformers and compromisers who are such a source of weakness to the movement. It will also make clear to the workers that the movement really means something.

"Take, for instance, the case of the party's attitude toward war. Socialists are said to be opposed to all wars—then come the exceptions: wars of 'defense,' 'invasion,' 'emancipation,' 'liberation,' and all the meaningless tribe. Confusion results. We have the German Majority Socialists, i.e., so-called Socialists, supporting their government in a war of 'defense' against 'invasion' and of the maintenance of their 'liberties'—God save the mark—against Russian autocracy....

"Without knowing the precise intention of those who drafted the St. Louis platform, I infer that it was partly written in the hope—if not belief—that the American workers would rise against their oppressors and the situation to which they have been subjected. It was a ringing declaration—a 'mass movement' of the delegates to the convention, later endorsed by the party membership. And as these delegates separated hot-foot for home, they got cold feet as they dispersed into the cold-footed isolation of the individual Socialist scattered here and there throughout this land. The platform contained no statement of individual duty, no individual program of action Each Socialist began to ask as his feet got colder and colder: 'Where are these "mass movements;" what are the others going to do?' The situation was made worse by the action of the National Executive Committee which told every Socialist to read the St. Louis platform and then act as his conscience dictated. Fine business for a revolutionary mass movement seeking to establish the co-operative commonwealth. No anarchist could be more individualistic.

"The party's attitude toward war should be cleared up. It should definitely provide for mass action, and bind the individuals of the party as units of the party mass. This war platform should be followed by a Workers' Mobilization plan carefully worked out in detail and laying down action in response to each step taken in approach to war. For instance, on the introduction of the War Declaration in Congress, a one-day general strike just to show the rulers what was in store. On passage of the War Declaration a general strike, refusal to serve in the military forces, and such other measures as may be effective."

"The Appeal to Reason" some years ago was the leading Socialist paper of the United States. In 1917 it came out in favor of war with the Central Powers. Either because of this, or because it violently assailed Bolshevism for a long while, it is now outlawed by the greater part of the Socialist Party.

On the editorial page of "The Call," New York, April 24, 1919, we read:

"Instead of the 'Appeal to Reason' asking for a pardon for Debs, it should ask a pardon from Debs."

In "The Bulletin," Chicago, March 24, 1919, there appears on page 12 a bitter attack on "The Appeal" by no less a personage than Adolph Germer, National Secretary of the Socialist Party. In this official paper, issued by the National Office, Socialist Party, we read:

"An Open Letter to 'The Appeal.'

"March 19, 1919.

"Editor Appeal to Reason,

"Girard, Kans.:

"Sir.—In the issue of the 'Appeal to Reason,' March 15, 1919, you publish an appeal for $30,000 CASH, for an alleged 'Amnesty and Construction Fight.'

"You give yourself credit for having 'won' the first skirmish in the amnesty fight and on the basis of this unfounded claim, you justify your appeal for $30,000 CASH. To make your appeal seem legitimate, you use such names as Eugene V. Debs, Kate Richards O'Hare, Rose Pastor Stokes and refer to 'many of our comrades.' I happen to be one of those who is facing a prison sentence and if you have included me in 'many of the comrades,' I want you to strike my name from your list. I loathe to be a 'comrade' of yours. You and your paper helped to create a hatred against the Socialist Party and you wilfully and maliciously lied about the National Executive Committee when it refused to follow a course that would put more of our members in prison. In other words, you and your paper must bear a part of the responsibility for the prosecution and persecution of the Socialists and it is rank hypocrisy for you to prate about your fight for amnesty.

"Others may speak for themselves, but I scorn any effort that you make in my behalf. A thousand times would I rather spend the rest of my life behind prison bars than to have one word from you whom I hold responsible for the persecutions of which my colleagues and I are victims.

"I look upon your appeal for $30,000 CASH, in the name of 'Amnesty,' as a sinister method of filling your own coffers.

"You have lied to us and about us and betrayed us in the past and I resent your hypocritical prattle about amnesty.

"Yours without respect,

"Adolph Germer,

"National Secretary, Socialist Party."

Judging from the bitter attacks that Socialists are making upon each other, it would seem that there might be a little harmony in the party if their platforms were limited to the principles of Socialism and were not concerned with "immediate demands" to the almost total exclusion of Socialism itself.



CHAPTER VII

SOCIALISM IN PRACTICE



Now that considerable has been said about Socialism in theory, we shall make the transition to Socialism in practice by quoting what may be called George Herron's dream of Socialist perfection. On page 28 of his booklet, "From Revolution to Revolution," we are told: "Perhaps we shall learn in time, before accentuated capitalism has intensified the universal misery of labor. Socialism is already on its way to the conquest of Europe. And it may be that we shall yet behold that glorious uprising of the universal peoples which is to begin man's real history, and the world's real creation—that united affirmation of the world's workers which Socialism foretells, knowing boundaries neither of nations nor sects nor factions, speaking one voice and working together as one man for one purpose, filling and cleansing the world with one glad revolutionary cry. When the peoples thus come, divine and omnipotent through co-operation, the raw materials of the world-life in their creative hands, no longer begging favors or reforms, no longer awed by the slave moralities or the slave religions that teach submission to their masters, but risen and regnant in the consciousness of their common inheritance and right in the earth and its fullness, of which they are the makers and preservers, then will the antagonisms and devastations of classes vanish forever, and the peace of good will become the universal fact."

"Glorious," indeed, have been the uprisings of the Bolsheviki of Russia, the Communists of Hungary and Bavaria, and the Spartacans of Germany, all of whom are Socialists of the most pronounced type. These uprisings, instead of being the "beginnings of the world's real creation," are rather the beginnings of its destruction and ruination. The world's workers have been "wonderfully united" in Russia, Hungary, Bavaria and Germany since Socialism came into power—and no better proof need be given than the way in which they have been shooting each other down and trying to oust each other from office. Though the Socialists were not supposed to know "the boundaries of nations, sects or factions," but were to "speak one voice and work together as one man for one purpose," the Spartacans, it seems, would be better off if they had not only an imaginary boundary to separate barbarians of their type from the rest of civilization, but a barrier of mountains with heights towering in the clouds to divide Germany into two parts, in one of which the Spartacans could rest in peace, safe from the attacks of their beloved brethren of the Ebert-Scheidemann group.

If the Communists of Bavaria had only built half a dozen Chinese walls around Munich, they might still be holding out against the Socialist army that besieged them and overcame them. Lenine's Government caused such rivers of blood to flow in Russia that it could well dispense with imaginary boundary lines to separate "Bolsheviki Land" from the domains of Socialist Siberia. "One glad revolutionary cry" was to go up from Socialists all over the world, but the cry is: "Workers in anti-Socialist countries, save us from our false, hypocritical, reactionary, murderous Marxian brethren!" Have the Socialist peoples the world over become truly "divine" by their attacks on God and all religions? Have they become "omnipotent" wherever they are in power—so omnipotent that law, order and decency are no longer needed? The "raw materials of the world were in their creative hands," and yet the Russian people were starving by the millions, and the longer the period since the world war, the worse things became in those vast domains once so famous for their natural resources, wheat, cattle, wool, minerals, oil and wood.

The Socialist dream was one of "no submission to masters;" but, strange to say, the dictator, Lenine, rules "Bolsheviki-Land" just as he pleases; Bela Kun so ruled Hungary; while the supposedly democratic Soviets just issued decrees of murder or plunder, and no national representative body of all the Russians or of all the Hungarians ever seemed to meet. The Socialists of Russia, Hungary and Bavaria were indeed "regnant in the consciousness of their common inheritance," provided, of course, that by inheritance, confiscated property is meant. Yet although "antagonism and devastations of classes" were destined to "vanish forever, and the peace of good will become the universal fact," somehow or other certain "scientific reformers" forgot that there were such things as fools' paradises and overlooked the old saying that "all that glitters is not gold."

In Chapters X and XI much more will be said about the Lenine-Trotzky dictatorship of Socialist Russia, the Bela Kun administration of Hungary, the criminal Socialist crew of Bavaria, and, of course, the fiery Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg group that at times in certain localities replaced the Ebert-Scheidemann government of Germany.

In "The Call," New York, April 28, 1919, under the caption, "Socialist Government of Yucatan Grapples With the Binder Trust," we read:

"We get vastly less news nowadays from our next-door neighbor, Mexico, than from Europe and Asia, therefore a 'Call' reporter, meeting a Comrade who has recently returned from the tropic peninsula, fell upon him and demanded news of the Socialist, labor and co-operative movements there.

"'We are facing a very much tangled-up situation down there,' answered the man from Yucatan. He is W. Elkin Birch, a well-known American Socialist and business man, who has lived in Mexico several years. He came up to 'the States' on a business trip, and is returning to Yucatan, where he is prominent in the Socialist and co-operative movements.

"'The forces of capitalism in Mexico are so strong, and the commercial system is so vicious,' he began, 'that I am not very optimistic about the future of Socialism in Yucatan.'

"'But we thought that Alvarado had established almost a paradise down there,' cried the reporter. 'A year ago we learned that you had elected a complete Socialist administration in Yucatan; then, a few months since, we heard that it had not put any part of the Socialist program into effect. We wondered what was the reason, but hardly any news comes through now.'

"'Alvarado did work a wonderful transformation, and much of the good he did remains. It is true, we have an administration of Socialists, but we find that that is a very different thing from a Socialist administration. Yucatan is still in the grip of the commercial interests, and the game is blocked at every move. As fast as the radicals devise some means of stopping the robbery of the people by special privilege, the privileged interests find a way of circumventing the radicals by apparently yielding, but really maintaining their domination.

"'Alvarado took over the Reguladora, through which the henequem, Yucatan's principal product, is sold for export; he took over the railroads, and the line of steamships running to the States....

"'The government still controls the Reguladora, but, as I said, it is in a deadlock with the powers who control its market. We still have government-owned railroads in Yucatan, but government ownership merely takes the public utility out of the hands of private capital and places it under the control of a political organization. And private capital already has secured control of that political organization, and graft and robbery are running riot. Government ownership of railroads has increased the cost of operation 100 per cent. The payrolls are packed with friends of officials and friends of friends. If a man can control a few votes, they reason, why shouldn't he have a job? What's the railroad for, if not to provide jobs? The folks down there are very much like people in other countries, you see.'....

"'But why doesn't the Socialist administration take control of industry and commerce, and put the interests out of power?' demanded the reporter, determined to uphold the faith in the face of disappointing facts.

"'Well, of course, that sounds easy; but Socialists are just people, after all, and when a Socialist gets into office he finds it quite as hard as ordinary folks to resist the subtle influences that surround officials. A man can't be sure that he is a real Socialist until he is put to the test of being a part of the government. The commercial interests offer him opportunities to make money; they give him and his family social advantages. He begins to see that capitalism has its good points, after all.' Mr. Birch smiled half-satirically, half-tolerantly. 'Some members of the Assembly have made fortunes during their year of office. One member, who handles concessions, illegal and otherwise, has cleared over a million pesos."

The February, 1918, issue of the "International Socialist Review," Chicago, was suppressed by the authorities of the United States government, and, as a consequence, it is probable that not very many copies are in circulation. The author of "The Red Conspiracy," however, has in his possession a copy of this edition, in which there is a very interesting article, beginning on page 414, entitled, "Your Dream Come True."

"A Land of practical Socialism in active operation.

"Nearly 4,000,000 people without one cent of money in circulation; and where no man owns a foot of land or the tools of production—trades unionism, industrialism, single tax and socialism all rolled into one.

"Ninety thousand square miles without a policeman; where gold rings are placed in the public markets in large baskets, to be had for the asking.

"A work day of two hours for the strong; of play for the young, middle-aged and old. A land where there is plenty of candy for the kiddies, playgrounds for all; and from which the spectre of want has departed.

"Land of peon-slaves awakened from centuries of capitalist misrule to the glories of co-operation, without master or landlord.

"This is no dream, but an actualized verity right here in America—in southern Mexico. Shades of Thomas Moore, Edward Bellamy and William Morris arise and rejoice, for your wildest visions have become facts.

"Across the miles I stretch my hand in fellowship with Mexico's great democrat—Zapata. Don't forget that name. The capitalist press has not told much about him—for obvious reasons. He is putting into practice the basic principles of co-operation. The golden rule is being translated into action.

"General Zapata now absolutely controls 90,000 square miles, comprising parts of Morelo, Jalisco, Chapas, Quintana Roo and Tabasco. This land is well under cultivation. The population (on a rough estimate, without the advantages of a scientific census) is from three to four millions. The inhabitants are nearly all peons, who for centuries had existed in a degrading state of slavery. More than ninety-five per cent. can neither read nor write.

"Zapata's control began in 1910, but only in the three years past has the co-operative system been placed on its present basis. The greatest development has been made during the past two years.

"Methods of propaganda have been simple and effective. Direct action is the keynote. The people awoke to a knowledge of their slavery and the realization of their heritage—and took what belonged to them. The only message sent to the people was somewhat similar to the I. W. W. preamble, but much shorter than that classic document.

"Having aroused the slaves to realize their status by saying in substance: the rich unjustly possess the land; we want all that is ours and are not willing that any man should possess that which is not his—Zapata would lead his army into some rich valley and simply dispossess the wealthy 'owners.' Then the peons on the land would be given the use of the land. Not one man in the ninety thousand square miles holds a title to one foot of land. After getting the new territory, the land was cultivated and the district organized.

"When strong enough the army—the propaganda branch of the revolution—held another convention in some other fertile valley and benevolently assimilated some other opulent set of slave-driving usurpers of the land....

"Every citizen of each community is given a little brass citizenship tag. It is necessary to show this only in strange towns. It is his passport for whatever he needs for food, clothing and shelter. Each person goes into the stores and gets what he needs for the simple asking.

"We have heard endless discussions as to the nature of the future medium of exchange. Many volumes have been written on the subject. Zapata isn't worrying over these problems. He is leaving them where they belong—to the philosophers. There isn't any medium of exchange in Zapata's land. Why should there be on a free earth? If a man wanted ten pairs of sandals or shoes he could have them, but why would he want them? He can always go—in Zapata's country—to any store and get a pair when he needs one. So with all other provisions. In practice, in the few years the plan has been in operation, the peons have not abused the privilege. They are producers, and realize it. Why rob themselves? There is not one idea of profit in all that 90,000 square miles, and human nature is just as it was when Adam delved and Eve spun.

"Travelers are not being admitted freely just now, in these unsettled times, because of the lying reports carried away by spying emissaries of capitalism. But when one is given permission to visit the country, his route is marked out and listed on the passport given him. He pays the government and then is provided freely on all the travels over the designated route.

"No women or children are to be found in any line of manual labor in mill, field or factory.

"The young and middle aged men alone work. They work from one and one-half to three hours a day. Some will work more steadily for a week and then go away to some town for two or three weeks to enjoy their country. For the first time in history the workers have a country that is really theirs. Workers? Yes, for all are workers. There are no landlords or 'bosses' and overseers to prod them into exhausting toil. And these people are simple enough to believe that man should enjoy life—that all people should find pleasure in living.

"Of course there are foremen and superintendents in the administration of industry. But they receive no wages, just what they need to live on, and every man, woman and child gets that. The men will work two hours and then go out to play hand-ball and other games in the plaza or courts.

"When the fields need attention, men go from ranch to ranch wherever help is needed. In like manner all industry is carried on.

"One example will show something of how matters are managed. One big sugar refinery formerly employed 2,500 men, working them fourteen hours a day. Employees now work two hours a day. The refinery still is in operation fourteen hours daily. There are seven shifts of workers. All told, there are 25,000 employees of that refinery. All are happy and have all of the food, clothing and shelter the land affords. The children have big sticks of candy as large as they can carry—and there is no talk of conservation of supplies anywhere.

"Access to the land and co-operation did it. There isn't any regular freight and passenger service. The trains operate as required. Production for profit has ceased on 90,000 square miles of this planet and the mills and mines are run to manufacture products for use only. When goods are needed anywhere, the trains haul them. Occasionally a few hundred men, women and children will be taken into the mountains by the trainload for a few days' outing. It is all a part of living—no fares to pay....

"The churches are being used as schools, for lecture centers, as play houses and for similar useful purposes. There is no liquor sold. This is not the result of any decree or election. The people had so little desire for booze that they quit its manufacture....

"It is not to be inferred that Zapata has solved all of the problems of society. Everything can't be done at once, even by the magic wand of his propaganda. Still, his achievements make the genii of Alladin's lamp look pretty small and cheap. In three years every worker has been united into one industrial union; all titles to land and ownership of the tools of production swept away; labor's hours shortened to the minimum; the entire population fed, clothed and sheltered—all through cooperation on a free earth."

This is the kind of "stuff" that is served up to the "learned," "scientific Socialists," who place so much confidence in the leaders who are supposed to be honest and worthy of leading them into the Marxian Paradise. This is the way they spoke of "Socialism" in Mexico some years ago, and today they are speaking of it in Russia in much the same way.

Act the Second

Scene—A large photo of Zapata—4 by 6 inches, in "The Call," the Socialist paper of New York City, April 24, 1919.

Under the photo there is the following inscription:

"General Emiliano Zapata, Mexico's apostle of terrorism, and recently officially reported to have been killed by Carranza's troops, was a former plantation stirrup-boy, who, at the zenith of his rebel power, gained temporary control of Mexico City. Twice since 1910, when he began his revolt in Morelos, he and his Indian followers took brief possession of the capital. For nine years he ravaged southern Mexico, co-operating for a time in 1914 with Villa. He was the most implacable enemy of peaceful reconstruction through several regimes. Poor, uneducated, primitive but magnetic, Zapata was the leader of Mexico's half-savage Indians, in whose power he planned to place control of the country. Toward the last he was little more than a hunted renegade, and is reported to have been killed by strategy of troops operating under General Pablo Gonzales in Morelos."

The wood-cut of Zapata appears in connection with an article by Jack Neville, part of which is hereby quoted:

"Cuautla, Mexico, April 23.—The death of Emiliano Zapata removes Mexico's most ruthless destructionist and implacable enemy of peaceful regeneration.

"Now, on the wreckage of his empire, where the rebel chief laughed at civilization and played his huge joke on 100,000 confiding workers, General Pablo Gonzalez is placing firm underpinning for freedom and progress.

"Here in the world's richest garden spot, where exploited humanity has been kept poorest, and where Zapata 'gave' his half-savage followers the land only to commandeer all crops—here the peon is for the first time in centuries enjoying the fruits of his toil and supporting instead of hating government."

The next day, April 25th, 1919. "The Call" published another article of Neville's under the title, "Mexican Peons Rejoice in First Taste of Freedom." Only a small part of the article will be quoted:

"I stepped into a pulque-reeking cantina. A group of former Zapatistas invited me to join them—to have a glass. It was the open sesame. They chattered like children. Presented me with cornhusk cigarettes; told me tales of Zapata; his perfidy, his ruthlessness.

"'Not more than 800 rebels were yet in arms when Zapata was killed,' they said. These, they explained, had ousted Zapata from leadership because he had refused to divide the loot with them. They told me of Zapata's former army of 30,000, blood-letting surianos and ayetes (unarmed men carrying ropes) who formed the rear guard to carry away the loot....

"Alongside the old church, where the patriot Morelos had more than a century ago made a successful stand against the Spaniards, a train was disgorging families returning to their homes, now that Zapata was gone.

"A little man stepped out—the bishop of Cuernavaca, coming back to his diocese under the conciliatory program of Don Pablo after eight years' exile.

"I rode into the country with Colonel Sanchez Neira and talked with the workmen in the field. They crowded round to pose for pictures.

"They laughed and sang while they worked.

"We rode to the headquarters of one of the 2,000,000 acre haciendas. The gigantic sugar mill, formerly worth more than $1,000,000, was a shell filled with debris. We rode to another mill. The same! Thirty-seven of them. All ruined, wrecked wantonly under Zapata's rule.

"In the village of Youtopec I drank lemonade with Gen. Pilar Sanchez, while Zapata's captured band serenaded us. We rode down the Inter-Oceanic railway and viewed the right of way, strewn with wrecked rolling stock. We saw utterly demolished villages, the work of Zapata and communism.

"I saw a bridge where train after train was dynamited, where Zapatistas had ruthlessly executed more than three thousand peaceful men, women and children passengers."

From these articles published in "The Call," the great Socialist paper of New York City, it seems that the poverty-stricken, perpetually begging staff of Hillquit's paper does not relish the Chicago brand of Socialism described so beautifully in the "International Socialist Review." The more "talented" and "progressive" "evolutionists" near the shore of Lake Michigan have many a year's hard work to perform before they can sufficiently develop the brains of their backward chums and brethren on the lower east side of New York City. It takes editors like Kerr, Haywood, the Marcys and all the Bohns on the staff of the "Review" to reveal the true glories of Socialism.

As recently as February, 1920, it could safely be said that the principles of Socialism had never been put into full operation in any country. The nearest approach to a truly Socialist state is Bolshevist Russia, that strife-ridden land of crime and bloodshed. The penalty paid for the foolish attempt has already been a dreadful one. How much greater it will be, as time goes on, nobody knows. The Socialists of America have hailed Russian Bolshevism as true Socialism; but, no doubt, as the evil consequences of Lenine's Red rule become more widely known and more universally feared, or if, even on the low ground of materialistic economics, the attempt fails, the slippery Marxians will try to prove that Bolshevism was not Socialism after all, since the Russian government was a dictatorship, with the principles of Socialism never fully applied.

We should add that even if the Russian dictatorship succeeds in realizing the mere economic success which seems to be the height of its ambition, this will not prove to be an argument in favor of Socialism, but a terrible indictment of it. For the road the dictatorship is now taking, which indeed offers it the only possible hope of even a passable economic success, is the barren, heartless, unspiritual, materialistic tyranny of machine-like "industrialism" which the I. W. W. represents. In the two chapters immediately following, VIII and IX, the reader will learn something of the loss of all moral standards and the cruel, lawless violence to which the atheistic, anarchistic materialism of I. W. W.'ism leads; and will also find that Bolshevism is already committed to this system as the only economic solution of its bloody experiment.

Is it worth while? In Chapters X and XI the reader will face some of the appalling details of the blood, violence and despair which have been tyrannically imposed upon Russia's groaning millions for the sake of an experiment which leads to nothing but the pagan barbarism of I. W. W.'ism. Is it worth while? Even if at last they are able to produce and distribute enough to clothe and feed themselves, can human beings be happy in such a state? Is this the dream of the dreamer come true?

Again, the hope of a bare economic solution of the question of bread and butter is possible in Russia only through such an absolute and tyrannous dictatorship as has been established, under which the reluctant and disorganized proletariat can be forced back to work, whether they wish or no, at the point of the bayonets of the Red Guard. Would the American working-man think this worth while in America?

It has been said that the Lenine desperadoes are determined to win an economic success even at the cost of forcing Russian labor to toil under literal military conscription. If they do this, they may succeed—economically merely. But does American labor think such an experiment here would be worth what it costs?

Furthermore, in the Russian land of Socialistic experiment the people, left to themselves by the other nations, cannot find peace among themselves. Why should there be peace as long as any manhood is left in Russia to lift up its hand out of its despair against its Bolshevist oppressors? Is civil war worth while—for such a barren result?

Finally, if the proletarian tyrants wear all Russia down until a spirit of resistance is left in no breast, still will there be no peace; for, as will be found quoted elsewhere in this book, Lenine declares that Socialism cannot endure in a world half Socialistic and half Capitalistic, so that his wretched Russian slaves seem likely to be dragged into a war against the rest of the world to help out the crazy experiment of domination by the proletariat. Is it worth while?