"'We are confronted with the necessity of determining how we shall treat this group of persons who are in the United States but not of it; who, while accepting the benefits of our laws and constitutions and the sacrifices of blood and treasure given to support them, refuse their support to them; who take all they can get but will not give a life or a dollar to preserve, defend and perpetuate the Government that is their sole and only guaranty of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness,' said Mr. Conboy.

"'It is the first time since the rebellion of 1861 that notice has been plainly and explicitly served upon the Government of the United States by a group of men residing within its borders that they will not support or defend it, but that they will by all means obstruct and resist its effort to maintain in time of stress its national honor and existence.

"'The Socialist Party of America is not a loyal organization disgraced occasionally by the traitorous act of a member, but a disloyal party composed of perpetual traitors.'"

Again, in a part of his address reported in the "New York Evening Sun" of March 4, 1920, Mr. Conboy mentioned the fact that "at the National Convention of the Socialist Party of America held in St. Louis," in April, 1917, "its members were directed to deny and repudiate allegiance to this Government," and added:

"The explanation of the anti-American attitude of the Socialist Party of America during the war lies in the anti-national and pro-international character of its programme. Its members are not occasional but perpetual traitors, in constant conflict not merely with the purposes of any temporary administration of the affairs of this Government, but with the very institutions and fundamental laws. They are citizens not of the United States, but subjects of the Internationale, whose pronouncements are to be given their moral support, a support which they not only withhold from but deny to the Government of the United States.

"The principal exponent of this party, who appears here in the dual capacity of witness in chief and counsel in chief, is the international secretary for America of the International Socialist Bureau."

To complete our information concerning the Moscow International, we add here some details concerning its Executive Committee, and the right of representation on it enjoyed by the affiliated "Parties" in other lands than Russia, including, no doubt, the Socialist Party of America. Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, in its article, "The Moscow International Communist Conference" (held at Moscow, March 2-6, 1919), says, page 312:

"The Conference ... perfected the organization of the new International and entrusted the direction of the work to an Executive Committee consisting of one representative from the Communist parties of the more important countries. The parties in Russia, Germany, German-Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, Sweden and the Balkan Federation, were directed to send members to the Executive Committee. Parties which have declared their adherence to the new International will be given seats in the Executive Committee, pending the arrival of delegates from other countries. The members of the Committee from the country in which the Executive Committee has its seat [Russia] were empowered to plan the work of the new organization. The Executive Committee was authorized to elect a bureau consisting of five members to do the actual work of the Committee."

Has the Socialist Party of America contributed its Executive Committeeman to this revolutionary machine? Even so, the orders, or "suggestions," evidently come from the Bolshevist Bureau of Five who "do the actual work of the Committee." Are these the Russian power that, according to correspondence found in a raid of the Lusk Committee, has already appointed Eugene V. Debs to reign over us "as 'Proletarian Dictator' of the United States" as soon as the plotted revolution is pulled off in this country? (See "The National Civic Federation Review" for July 30, 1919.) Are these the power, too, according to report, that induced the Italian Socialists and Syndicalists to postpone their proposed revolution to a more convenient season? And was this to give Soviet Russia a chance to put through a temporary peace or truce with Europe to stave off "economic catastrophe?" If so, the twitching revolutionaries in other lands must evidently train their toes to dance at Moscow's convenience.

Meanwhile, under the International, the diabolical work of getting the immoral elements ready for violence goes on in every land, including the United States.

Let Hillquit excuse, extenuate, deny and palaver as he may, it remains true that the Socialist Party of America teaches the same treasonable doctrines of violence and insurrection as the Russian Bolshevists, but in a more covert way. We have a sample in the pamphlet, "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat," put in evidence on January 27, 1920, in the inquiry of the Judiciary Committee at Albany. It is published by the Jewish Socialist Federation of America, New York City, a part of the Socialist Party of America. It says in part:

"Socialism does not believe in the State, wants to annihilate it entirely. It holds that the task of the State has always been to oppress the country in the interests of one class. So long as there are classes in society which seek supremacy, the mastery, there must be a State. But as soon as classes are eliminated the State will have no justification for existence, and it will disappear of itself.

"The Socialist movement rouses the workingmen to revolution. It preaches to them the class struggle, awakens within them class-consciousness, makes all necessary preparations for Socialistic order. When society is ready for the overturn, when the Socialistic organization feels that the moment has come, it will make the revolution.

"The dictatorship will be employed for the one thing, to eliminate capitalism by force, take away by force the capital from private owners and transfer it to the ownership of the community. The industries will be managed by the workingmen through their soviets.

"Let the true Socialists stand as sentinels; let them see that the Socialist programs strike with hot, revolutionary blood. The great task of the Socialist movement is to create an army in this country which should be ready to make the Socialist revolution when the suitable moment arrives. This army must know its aims and the method of attaining these aims, must be an intelligent army. Every soldier in it must himself know the way, the plans, the strategy."

In the "Outline of the Evidence Taken Before the Judiciary Committee to and Including February 5, 1920," issued by counsel for the State, they quote from the Yiddish book, cited above, referring to the printed "Testimony," pages 199, 204 and 207, in proof that the Jewish Socialist Federation, which published the book, is "part of the Socialist Party," and introducing their citations from the book with the very significant remark, "Published in Yiddish the principles of Socialism were not camouflaged as they frequently are in English." Bearing this in mind, let us note how this plain-spoken book, which we cite from the State counsel's "Outline," pages 31-34, gives the lie to Hillquit's camouflage about "revolution" being "evolution." The book says:

"History teaches us that through evolution, through natural developments alone, no ruling class in society has ever been deposed from its power.... Workingmen cannot depend on 'peaceful evolution'; they must prepare for a revolution, and class-dictatorship....

"To the Socialist at present, the meaning of class struggle, Internationale and Dictatorship of the Proletariat, must be clear. He must understand that Socialism is not a reform movement. He must know that Socialism is a Revolutionary world-perspective, and that the Socialist movement is a Revolutionary movement.... He must cease to be a moral preacher and become a fighter. He must know that the Socialist movement is a red movement, a movement with blood in the veins, which knows that nothing in life can be won without a struggle."

This is the real stuff, hid in a foreign tongue, with which Hillquit's gang poisons the East Side of New York City, while the gang's leaders lie to the American people.

Yet if the real plan is not to give us Socialism by "peaceful evolution" but to impose it on us by "a revolution, and class-dictatorship," what is the real object of the "political action" carried on meantime by these hypocrites? Again the Yiddish book gives us the real thing:

"So long as the State is ... a tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie in the fight against the proletariat, ... why do the Socialists seek to send their representatives there? Where do Socialists fit into the State? What can they do there?

"Socialists seek to enter into the government for two reasons, first, to be nearer to the doors of the chambers, where dictatorship sits, and second to hinder the dictatorial work in any way possible. The first reason is the most important. Sitting in Parliament or in Congress, being inside of the government ranks, affords Socialists an opportunity to find out the plans, the strategy of the State. And knowing this, they can carry out the propaganda the better."

If this is not treason—wickedness using "political party" methods both as a mask and a blackjack to destroy the State—what is it?

To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Ample proof has been given in this chapter to show that there is a nation-wide conspiracy to destroy our government and institutions and replace the Stars and Stripes by the red flag. I. W. W.'s, Communists, Communist Laborites, Socialists and Socialist Laborites have united under the leadership of the Bolshevist Government of Russia. Their agents are everywhere, everywhere hypocritically protesting that in our land freedom, of speech and freedom of assemblage are no longer tolerated. Unless our loyal citizens promptly rally to the defense of America, disorder, strife and rebellion will be seething everywhere, the foundations of the glorious nation that sprang from the blood of the brave soldiers of '76 will be completely undermined, our country will be afflicted with evils far more grave than those averted by the heroes who fought and died in 1812, and the land that we love will fall a prey to the terrible ravages of crime, lawlessness and anarchy.

We must save our country, and save it now. Now is the time to act—now, before it is too late; and we must act so effectively and so vigorously that the Socialists and all their allied, criminal, revolutionary crews will wish that they never had seen a red flag or left their homes abroad. They are conspiring enemies of our country. They are traitors to the flag under which Washington and his soldiers fought for the independence of America; traitors to the flag to whose defense the brave men of 1812 rallied; traitors to the flag for which a million soldiers suffered or died in our great Civil War. They are traitors to the flag that symbolizes the union of countless happy homes under a democratic government held in honor, respect and veneration. Traitors they are to the flag that stands for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and for the protection of individual as well as of family rights. They are traitors to the flag of a much slandered and calumniated government, which, though imperfect, like all things on this earth, extends its blessings to all, not even excepting ungrateful Socialists and other radicals.

Fellow citizens and fellow countrymen, rally to the defense of the flag that you love! Denounce, to the north, south, east and west, the evil teachings and deceptions of the Red conspirators; for there is nothing that will more quickly ruin the parties of Reds than to reveal to the world their professed and secret teachings.

"Immortal patriots, rise once more! Defend your rights, defend your shore! Let no rude foe with impious hand, Invade the shrine where sacred lies Of toil and blood the well earned prize. While off'ring peace, sincere and just, In heav'n we place a manly trust, That truth and justice shall prevail, And every scheme of bondage fail."



CHAPTER XVII

SOCIALISM A PERIL TO WORKINGMEN



In glowing colors the imaginations of Socialists have beautifully pictured their utopian state for the benefit of the credulous and oppressed. Unfortunately, however, for the followers of Karl Marx, a little reasoning and common sense show that their visionary state, instead of being a heavenly paradise, would in reality be a descent into chaos and anarchy. Domestic peace would be a blessing of the past. Discontent, wrangles, fights, riots, civil discord and sabotage would be the order of the day till irrepressible rebellion had sounded the death-knell of Socialism.

There is every indication that the Revolutionists would not destroy our present system of government without having recourse to arms. Besides the many convincing proofs given in the preceding chapter, we learn from "The Call," New York, January 28, 1912, that the celebrated Socialist novelist, Jack London, scouted the idea that the social revolution would be realized without force. Then, again, Victor Berger—who was Socialist Congressman from Wisconsin, and who, like Debs, was one of the "innocents" whom the "poor," "persecuted" Reds have been trying to save from a long imprisonment by a nationwide agitation for amnesty—writing in the "Social Democratic Herald" of Milwaukee, on August 14, 1909, said: "We should be grateful if the social revolution, if the freeing of 75,000,000 whites would not cost more blood than the freeing of 4,000,000 negroes in 1861."

Roland Sawyer, the Socialist candidate for governor of Massachusetts in 1912, writing in "The Call," New York, October 1, 1911, dares to confess that "the conceptions of modern Socialism are all found in a cruder form on the streets of Paris during the Revolution." Finally, as we have seen, Eugene V. Debs, who on four different occasions was the Socialist candidate for the presidency of the United States, in the "Appeal to Reason," Girard, Kansas, September 2, 1911, said: "Let us marshal our forces and develop our power for the revolt.... A few men may be needed who are not afraid to die. Be ye also ready.... Let us swear that we will fight to the last ditch, that we will strike blow for blow, that we will use every weapon at our command, that we will never surrender."

It is evident that if, after a bloody rebellion, the Socialists should overthrow the United States Government, the many millions of defeated patriotic Americans would continue to be the enemies of the new regime. But even if no rebellion took place, and the present system of government were overthrown merely by the ballot, the new state would begin life with millions of enemies, those, namely, who for one reason or another had been radically opposed to Socialism.

When the Marxians come into power, several large factions of them usually rebel against the government of the Socialists, as in Russia, Germany and Bavaria.

The Socialists, in most cases, gain control of a country after a foreign war, at a time when it is most difficult for even the wisest and most experienced statesmen to solve the serious problems of the hour. Great discontent should, therefore, be expected from the failure of inexperienced agitators after coming into power, because of their inability to solve an almost endless number of serious difficulties. Foremost among these would probably be food difficulties, which, as in Russia, Germany, and Hungary, have resulted in widespread opposition to the newly established regimes.

The Socialists have never yet made known to the people of America the detailed working plan of their proposed state. They have, of course, made lots of very general statements, which do not stand the test of accurate criticism, but they have utterly failed to offer solutions of the grave difficulties that they know would confront them. They prefer to let the future work out the solution, and, in the meantime, invite us to ruin our present form of government and industry, imagining that we Americans are a lot of ignorant children who will entrust our destinies to a pack of wild theorists with nothing but a vague hope of a propitious future.

Think of the discontent which would result if our people tore down the old structure, to find no structure whatever into which to move. They would be in the same predicament as the people of San Francisco in the days after the earthquake and fire, when they had to camp out in the open with an insufficient food supply, exposed to the inclemency of the weather. In fact, they would be far worse off. A big-hearted world rushed supplies to the San Franciscans and soon helped them to surmount their difficulties. But the new Socialist state would be attacked from within and without, by citizens hoping to destroy the hated form of government, and by foreign nations dreading the spread of anarchy, just as the United States, England and France blockaded Socialist Russia, causing untold trouble to the Bolshevist government.

In the midst of embarrassments like these the inexperienced Marxian agitators must attempt to solve ten thousand times ten thousand problems which require skill in the extreme and years of careful thought. Would not this result in widespread discontent? Or would the citizens of the United States, who just before the dawn of Socialism had been taught by Debs and his crew to find fault with everything under the sun, suddenly learn patience and remain as meek as lambs merely because the Socialists had raised the Red flag in place of the Star Spangled Banner?

No sooner would the all-perfect Socialists take control at Washington than the endeavors of the new state to settle the serious difficulties confronting it would occasion so much discontent and strife as seriously to threaten, if not actually bring to an end, the very existence of the new government. For, first of all, the people would have to determine whether the immense number of property owners, whose goods must be taken over by the state, should receive full payment, partial payment, or no payment at all.

The famous Belgian Socialist, Vandervelde, informs us that we may group into three categories the plans of socialization proposed by different schools, according to their aiming at the expropriation of the means of production without indemnity, with complete indemnity, or with limited indemnity. ["Collectivism and Industrial Evolution," by Vandervelde, page 152 of the 1904 translation into English.—Chas. H. Kerr and Company.]

If full compensation were granted, millions of Socialists would become exceedingly disgusted and discontented, for not only would the new state from the very beginning of its existence be burdened with a tremendous debt through having to borrow many billions of dollars, if such a thing were possible, in order to make the purchases, but—which would make matters much worse—many of the property owners, who even now are hated and detested by the Socialists, could, after receiving payment, either sit down for the rest of their lives and watch the Revolutionists labor and toil, or else, while doing some work themselves, could use their wealth in bribing the Socialist officials to bestow on them all kinds of privileges and favors.

If no compensation whatever were granted, then, in addition to the hatred and disgust for the new system, which would prevail among the millions who would be dispossessed of their property, after long years of work and careful saving in order to purchase it, there would also be boundless dissatisfaction on the part of persons who, still respecting God's Commandments and the sense of right in natural conscience, would want to see justice and honesty reign throughout America.

Finally, if partial payment were made, both those opposed to full compensation and those in favor of it would be displeased because of the reasons given, which would still influence them very decidedly. If the indemnity paid were very small, the former property owners and all honest citizens would be those especially offended. If the amount paid were large, dishonest Socialists would take offense. Therefore, no matter which plan of expropriation were adopted, the state would make a great number of new enemies.

Though we learn from page 186 of the "Proceedings of the 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party" that the delegates to the convention, after a factional dispute on party principles, declared by a vote of 102 to 33 for the collective ownership of all the land, and thus determined that the state should take over all the farms of the country, still it cannot be denied that a great number of Revolutionists have claimed, especially of late years, that the government should not dispossess the small farmers of their properties. On account of the rival theories of the two contending factions, the Socialist state might have to pass through a serious ordeal before either plan was adopted. Should the new government finally determine to take possession of such property, millions of farmers and their families would become exceedingly hostile to the government. Should the state allow former owners to cultivate the fields about their old homesteads, the discontent would be but partially lessened, for strict obedience to the commands of government bosses would replace the freedom of action once enjoyed by the farmer's family.

Pages 167 to 190 of the "Proceedings of the 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," and pages 220 to 235 of the "Proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," convinced us that very many of the Revolutionists who oppose government ownership of all land do so in order to gain votes. It seems highly probable, therefore, that if Socialism became the law of America many of the apparently moderate Revolutionists would throw off their masks and unhesitatingly declare for the most radical plan of government ownership.

Yet even if the contemplated state should permit the private ownership of small farms, their owners would be displeased because they would no longer be allowed to hire laborers for working the fields. Some conservative Socialists, indeed, profess willingness to tolerate the employment of one or two farm hands. But not alone do the 1908 National Platform and the amendment adopted by party referendum on September 7, 1909, oppose exploitation, or the employment of hired labor in the production of goods, but innumerable articles in Socialist papers, books and reviews denounce exploitation most emphatically. Hence, if the Socialist state allowed farmers in good standing with the government to own little farms, they could not hire labor to operate them. If the farmer should fall sick, his crops would go to ruin. Advantage could not be taken of some of the great inventions helpful to agriculture, nor scientific methods of work and management. The individual farmer, thus handicapped, might feed himself, his wife, his children, his horse, his cow, his pig, but very little more.

In the Socialist state great discontent would arise from either the toleration or prohibition of small business enterprises. If permitted, without power to hire labor, they must compete with the government. If forbidden, large numbers of persons would be obliged to work for the government, after losing little stores or shops in which for years they had been interested.

In its issue of March 30, 1912, the "Appeal to Reason," then the leading Socialist weekly of the United States, declared that under Socialism John D. Rockefeller would be allowed to retain his money and decide what to do with it. Were this the case, and every person of wealth allowed to retain his money, it is difficult to see how Socialists who hate and detest the rich could endure such a condition, any more than they could tolerate the granting of full or partial indemnity to property owners. The attempt to leave the rich in possession of their wealth would probably incite Socialists to rise in arms against the state they had founded.

On the other hand, if wealth were confiscated, the wealthy and the honest poor alike would be discontented with a dishonest government. Moreover, where would the Socialists draw the line of lawful possession? At $1,000,000, $10,000, $1,000, or $100? Would the decision be reached peaceably? Would the use and possession of government bonds be allowed? As the desire to acquire is one of the strongest passions, bitter hatred would assail the Socialist state, which, Debs tells us, would prohibit business profits, rent and interest. ["Socialism and Unionism," by Eugene V. Debs.] How could insurance companies, in which the American people have invested so much, and which depend on interest, exist under Socialism? Socialism having ruined the insurance companies, would the millions of policyholders just sit down and have a good, hearty laugh over their losses?

The real crux of Socialism is the inability of the Marxians to determine upon a system of employment and a scale of wages or remuneration satisfactory both to the government and the working classes.

Remuneration must either be in the form of money, or of goods or labor certificates entitling the holder to receive goods from the government stores. As labor certificates would be like money, we shall class them as "money" when speaking of wages.

Different schemes of employment have been proposed by Socialists. One of the oldest allows each individual to select the occupation he desires, provided he can do the work. All citizens, under this system, receive equal pay or equal supplies for their services.

Such a system is absurd. The more repugnant occupations, no matter how important for the welfare of the nation, would be neglected. All would want easy, clean jobs. Bootblacks might prefer to become artistic decorators; street-cleaners would ask to be put in charge of big factories; night-workers would prefer day-work. The result would be endless discontent, jealousy and disorder. As everybody would receive equal recompense, the system would set a premium on sloth and inefficiency, and entail state bankruptcy. One of the most serious objections would be the discontent among skilled workingmen, who would want skill to be a determining factor in the wage scale. Yet should their system of equal remuneration not prevail, unskilled laborers, led by agitators to believe that equal wages would be paid to all, would become the sworn enemies of the government. A second system, favored by many Socialists would permit all citizens to choose their occupations and allow each individual to draw upon the national storehouses according to his needs. [Gotha Programme of the Socialists of Germany.]

This scheme, like the first, is absolutely absurd. It would permit all to demand more than they needed, would encourage sloth, would bankrupt the state, and would occasion discontent among skilled workingmen. Under this system, too, the entire population would neglect the more distasteful occupations, and ill-feeling and jealousy would arise in the hearts of those failing to obtain congenial positions.

As diligence should be a determining factor in the arrangement of the wage scale, in considering the remaining systems we shall assume that the wages are those for men whose diligence may be termed first class.

Many Socialists, foreseeing the evils of a mad rush to obtain the attractive positions, yet realizing how intolerable it would be for the state to drive its citizens into uncongenial occupations, have endeavored to find a way out. Several solutions have been proposed, among which is the one we shall call the third system.

In the third system, occupations may be chosen by those qualified to do the work. The recompense would be the same for all, but with the hours of toil lessened in proportion to the disagreeableness of the work. ["Looking Backward," by Bellamy, Chapter 7, Social Democratic Publishing Company of Milwaukee.] But such a system would give more reason than ever for jealousy and discontent on the part of skilled workingmen, who would be terribly incensed at seeing street cleaners and garbage collectors for example receive salaries equal to their own and at the same time enjoy shorter hours. This system would put a premium on such occupations as sewer-cleaning and dish-washing, and would discourage persons from pursuing occupations of the highest importance to the country.

Morris Hillquit, writing in "Everybody's," December, 1913, page 826, tells us that "the national government might well own and operate all means of interstate transportations and communication, such as railroad systems, telegraph and telephone lines; all sources of general and national wealth, such as mines, forests, oil-wells; and all monopolized or trustified industries already organized on a basis of national operation.

"Similarly the state government might assume the few industries confined within state limits; while the municipal government would logically undertake the management of the much wider range of peculiarly local business, such as street transportation and the supply of water, light, heat and power.

"Still other local industries, too insignificant or unorganized even for municipal operation, might be left to voluntary co-operative enterprises."

On page 829 of the same issue of "Everybody's," Hillquit adds that "under a system of Socialism each worker will be a partner in the industrial enterprise in which he will be employed, sharing in its prosperity and losses alike."

At first sight this fourth plan seems attractive, but upon examination we notice that nothing is said as to how the millions of persons to be employed by the national, state or municipal governments will be assigned to the different enterprises. Will the people be forced to labor at repugnant tasks? That will make endless turmoil and trouble in the Marxian state. But if all persons enjoy equal rights under the Socialist government there would be a grand rush for the most congenial occupations, and especially for the most lucrative. The result would be an immense amount of discontent and jealousy in those who failed to secure the positions they desired. True, these objections might not hold for well-to-do persons like Hillquit, founder of the "New York Call," for he and other Socialist politicians who have become wealthy by always remaining leaders of their dues-paying comrades might, perhaps, invest their money in co-operative enterprises. But such persons constitute only a small part of the population of the country.

The many objections brought against these four systems could not be obviated by the adoption of a fifth, in which all would be free to choose their occupations, and would for the same number of hours of work receive as recompense an amount determined by all the factors which should be taken into consideration, such as skill, the physical difficulty of the labor, danger, disagreeableness of the work and the increased value added to the raw material.

In trying to arrange the details of such a system, innumerable difficulties would arise. Unskilled laborers would want physical labor rather than skill or talent made the principal factor in determining the scale; for they would recall the promises of Socialist orators that in the new state all should enjoy equal rights, and they would consider it a grave injustice to work as hard or even harder than skilled laborers and yet receive lower wages through want of skill and talent due to no fault of theirs. Should the plea of these millions of unskilled laborers go unheeded, the new state could count them among its most bitter enemies.

On the other hand, skilled laborers would want skill and talent to be the main factors in determining wages, arguing that they had worked hard to become proficient and that their talent and skill made the work more valuable to the state. They would protest that they should not suffer simply because unskilled laborers lacked their skill and talent. Should the skilled workingmen not be heard, the new state would have another throng of enemies.

Compromises might be attempted by different adjustments of talent and skill to physical labor in determining the wage schedule; but in each case the new regime would only be at the beginning of troubles. What bitter disputes among the skilled workingmen in different trades! There would be conflicting views of every sort regarding the exact amount of skill and of physical labor required in the different trades, and regarding the difficulties, disagreeableness of work, dangers to health and life, and increased value added to the raw material in each line.

But what would happen even if the ship of state under the red flag and its mast could weather the wage-storm and come safely into port with some working system?

The people, we are told, would enjoy equal rights. The government could not refuse to grant work to any qualified person applying for it. Suppose the members of some trade, the carpenters, for example, displeased with the wages they were getting, should apply for other work and stick to it until the government was forced to grant their demands. Other craftsmen, seeing how easily the carpenters had won their strike, would imitate their example. Thus would occur derangements of the intricate wage scale—which had occupied the attention of the country for so long a time and been adopted only after the greatest difficulty—causing great discontent and jealousy, while the economic losses through successful strikes would raise the prices of commodities, bringing on a general fever of discontent.

A further source of trouble would be the problem of determining what wages should be paid to shirkers and those incapable of working with efficiency. Would wage courts decide the value of their services? If so, how many thousands of such courts would be required? If not, would state officials or politicians decide the cases? The wages of such persons, no matter how determined, would cause discontent.

It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine justly and accurately the wages of eminent specialists, physicians and persons whose important services the state could not afford to lose. If very high wages were awarded them, the poorer classes would take offence at the prospect of a rich class once more rising with power to suppress them, as many do at the present time. If low wages were paid to eminent specialists, they would neglect important pursuits and vocations to the detriment of the nation's welfare. Even if they received moderately high wages, other persons of the same profession would become offended at the government's refusal to grant them like salaries and would line up with the enemies of the Socialist state.

Even under the most favorable circumstances, the fifth wage-system would produce two classes, the comparatively rich, and the comparatively poor, a condition repugnant to Socialists.

The forcing of women to work, in accordance with Socialistic doctrines, would arouse opposition to the new government. The husbands, fathers and sons of the women would be displeased with the wretched way in which their homes would be kept and their meals prepared.

A further source of tremendous discontent in the Socialist state would be the prevalence[14] of political corruption to a far greater extent than under the present system. For there would be a far greater throng of state employes than now, and there would be an immense number of people trying to get permissions, privileges and exemptions of every description. With human nature unchanged, but with the opportunities for deals and bribery greatly multiplied, political corruption would greatly increase.

Another important cause would be in operation. Socialism is spreading anti-religious and atheistic doctrines, loosing men and women from their moral restraints. With dishonesty thus increasing, acceptors of bribes would not only be more common in the Marxian state, but the average number of their offences would increase; for since opportunities of collecting large single sums would be rarer than at present, owing to abolition of the capitalist system and the small amount of wealth possessed by individuals, dishonest politicians would naturally endeavor to enrich themselves by granting corrupt favors to a larger number of people. The reader himself can picture the condition of affairs in the Socialist state when large numbers of its citizens were its declared enemies because of a vast and hopeless system of political corruption.

The Socialist state would contain many persons who by soapbox orators and revolutionary authors were led to believe that police, soldiers and courts would disappear. These persons would be greatly discontented when the Socialist government still hedged them in by retaining the old system for the preservation of law and order, or, as in Russia, greatly increased the restraint on their liberty by means of immense numbers of Red Guards, heavily armed and noted for cruelty. Or if these were taken away, the state would feel the enmity of all its better citizens who realized the need for guardians, police, soldiers and courts, to protect them from the crimes of the lawless.

Under the Socialist regime there would be atheists, fighting as in Russia, Mexico, France, Italy and Portugal for the propagation of their doctrines, while in opposition to them would be millions of believers, defending themselves from the attacks of the enemies of God. Any concession granted by the state to one of these parties would arouse the enmity of the other.

So, too, there would be a rapidly growing faction in favor of free-love, as well as one opposed to it, and as each party would be extremely powerful, and use every effort to defeat its opponents, there would be great strife and discontent.

The Socialists in power in Europe, whether "moderate" or extremely radical, have made millions of enemies by imprisonments, executions, suppression of free speech, the gagging of the press, the withholding food, etc. Would these things happen in our country if the Reds gained control?

There is every reason to believe that the Socialist Government would become exceedingly unpopular here as in Russia, owing to a great increase in crime; for to say nothing of the criminal offences occasioned by the prevalent discontent of the citizens, the atheistical and anti-religious doctrines of the Revolutionists, by continuing to undermine the faith of the people in the existence of God and by leading them to disbelieve in the rewards of heaven and the punishments of hell, would very seriously interfere with the beneficent effects of several of the most excellent preventives of crime.

With discontent, jealousy and crime reigning supreme in the state from its very birth, many who had hoped for the success of Socialism would become utterly disgusted with its absolute failure and would long for the re-establishment of the old order. As the leaders of the Marxian movement now make the most extravagant promises concerning perfections of their prospective state, their government, should it come, would suffer the hatred of all who discovered that they had been cruelly deceived.

We must remember, too, that the very persons who would discover that they had been deceived by their Socialist teachers would be the very same people who are now taught by the same teachers to find fault with everything under the sun. It would, therefore, be a terrible day for the new state when the embittered rank and file of the Revolutionary Party fully realized the total failure of Socialism. The Socialist state would then have millions of enemies, recruited from the Socialist Party itself, as well as from the ranks of those who had always opposed Socialism.

Not alone would these enemies be far more numerous than those who oppose our present form of government, but their wrath and anger, wrought to fever heat by the many causes we have enumerated, as well as by the mistakes of the Marxian rulers, would urge them to commit deeds of violence that have never yet been conceived even by the "bomb squad" of the revolutionary I. W. W. Rebellion against the new government would be the order of the day, and the Socialist state would not long endure. It would crumble to pieces, and the poor workingman, in the midst of anarchy and the total destruction of industry, would deeply regret having listened to the crazed imaginations of silver-tongued fanatics.

* * * * *

Lincoln Eyre's cables from Russia, received by the "New York World" when this book was in type, more than corroborate the picture drawn in this chapter of the "perils to workingmen" from any attempt to put the economic fallacies of Socialism into practice. In the first place, according to Eyre's cable of February 26, 1920, printed in the "World" of February 28, 1920, all the blood and violence inflicted on Russia have failed to establish real Communism there. Through courtesy of the "World" we give, in part, Eyre's statement as to this, from the cable just mentioned:

"In wartime France, England or Germany no man could obtain for love or money more than a specified maximum of food, fuel or the household requirements. In wartime revolutionary Russia, ruled by a communist dictatorship, any man with enough thousand ruble notes can buy all the food and warmth he desires. Throughout the war dwellers in London, Paris or Berlin affected by war conditions (and that meant practically everybody) were freed of paying rent by a moratorium. Residents of Moscow and Petrograd are still obliged to pay rent and at a higher figure than in pre-war days. These two incontrovertible facts are evidence that an all-powerful Bolshevik in the Communist Government has in two years installed a lesser measure of Communism in actual practice than existed in the belligerent European countries during the war years. To my mind this is one of the severest, albeit the most rarely mentioned, indictments of the Bolsheviks' vast communistic programme, since it reveals their impotency to attain their initial aim—the abolition of classes."

In the second place, not alone has there been failure to destroy capitalism and equalize possessions, but new class distinctions and "new aristocracies" have arisen. We quote Eyre on this point from the same issue of the "World," February 28, 1920:

"While capitalism in the larger sense of the term has been destroyed, together with private ownership on a large scale, capital continues to be accumulated and to make its influence felt. One man may still possess more than another in worldly goods and receive higher pay for his work. Equality of material possessions is as non-existent in the Russian social republic as it is in the American 'bourgeois' republic. Hence there are coming into existence new groupings of Russian population, new lines of economic demarcation, new forms of social standing and of wealth. The beginning of two new aristocracies are detectable. One is found in the governmental hierarchy, the other in the ever-increasing speculator class.... The Soviets ... cannot do without the speculators (which means all persons engaged in private trading)."

Thirdly, "Communist" Russia already has her "ruling class," as privileged and as distinctly marked off from the ordinary day-laborer as in any "bourgeois" republic. We quote Eyre as to this from the same article:

"Governmental aristocracy has its boots imbedded in the Kremlin, that ancient Moscow citadel.... In Soviet Russia today one speaks of the Kremlin as one spoke of Versailles in the magnificent days of Louis XIV.... Only the most eminent commissaries of the people and a few other Soviet stars of the first magnitude are domiciled there in the grandiose palaces that once housed the most famous figures of Muscovite history.

"Protected behind numerous barriers of bayonets and machine guns, the Bolshevik chieftains have made this barbarically gorgeous nesting place of Oriental autocracy the throbbing nerve centre of world revolution.... And from its frowning gates they sally forth in their high power limousines on affairs of state even as the Czars in their day went forth to superintend the administration of their colossal heritage.

"Bolshevism's upper ten are in the Kremlin. The lesser lights of the Bolshevik aristocracy must content themselves with quarters in the 'Soviet houses,' which were the city's leading hotels, and are now nationalized habitations reserved for prominent Soviet officials. These buildings, like the Kremlin, are better heated and generally cared for than most other domiciles and the food served in them is slightly more abundant. Sentries guard the doors to prevent unauthorized visitors from gaining admission....

"The fact that some individuals ride to the opera in limousines while the rest walk is necessarily productive of class division. Already there is a slang term for the former—the proletarian bourgeoisie, they are called."

The observant reader will also have gathered from the extract just given that, fourthly, the "ruling class" of Communist Russia is much more distrustful of the "common people" than any class in the United States, Great Britain or France would think of being. Thus the lords and lordlings of the "proletarian dictatorship" barricade themselves in "citadels," behind "barriers of bayonets and machine guns," while "sentries guard the doors" to keep out "visitors." What would we poor "bourgeois" Americans think if our wealthier inhabitants and public officials kept "common citizens" out of range by such a display of infantry and artillery?

Fifthly, despite all the gush about a "workingmen's" republic in Russia, that country is now absolutely helpless under the yoke of the most absolute autocracy the world has seen in a long while. As to this we quote Lincoln Eyre's cable, dated February 25, 1920, and published in the "New York World" of February 27, 1920. Eyre says:

"Lenine ... and Trotzky ... wield a more absolute power than any Czar.... They are the only really strong men detectable among the Bolsheviki or anywhere else in Russia. That their strength is greater than ever is demonstrated by the amazing program for the militarization of labor that they have just entered upon; a programme which when first proposed aroused the Communist Party's instant antagonism, but which in a few days the dictators easily persuaded their disciples to support."

We shall return to this astounding conscription of labor a little further on. It is referred to here merely to show who actually does the "ruling" in the widely advertised "labor" government of Russia. Eyre continues:

"There is iron law and order all over Russia, neither anarchy nor chaos being visible.... With the recent abolition of the death penalty the Red terror, long since bleached to pale pink, came to a definite end. Such is the omnipotence of the Soviets that it is no longer necessary for them to terrorize their opponents into obedience."

Thus horrible butcheries are no longer necessary because no one longer dares to resist. All liberty, all self-government, all self-initiative have been crushed in the iron vise of dictated policy. This is the case, as Eyre says, "twenty-seven months after the social revolution gripped the nation in a clutch of steel that never has been relaxed since." Is not such mental, moral and spiritual death a greater calamity than physical death?

Sixthly, the common people, crushed under this experimental Socialist Juggernaut, are starving to death. In the article last cited, in the "World" of February 27, 1920, Eyre says:

"The food problem is hideously acute, yet not quite so critical as at the outset of the winter. In Moscow, Petrograd and other industrial centres some 8,000,000 human beings, of whom only a tiny fraction are Bolsheviki, are slowly but surely starving to death. There are abundant food stocks in the south and east, but they cannot be carried in sufficient quantity over the semi-paralyzed railroads....

"Trotzky himself defined the industrial situation as a race between economic reconstruction and reversion to savagery."

Seventhly, craving for food is one of the things which make it impossible to shut out the food speculator, whose extortion at least helps to prolong life. As Eyre says:

"City and country food speculation, which the dictatorship thus far confesses its inability to suppress or even control, is fast developing a new capitalist class right under the Communists' noses. One of the most painful sights in Russia is some pale, thin, tottering old woman paying out more than she earns in a week for a few lumps of sugar bought from a well-fed trader from the country in the Sukfarevka, Moscow's open air market place."

Eighthly, the common people are nearly as cold as they are hungry. In the cable printed in the "World" of February 27, 1920, Eyre says:

"Fuel is slightly less scarce than it was two months ago. The lack of heat, however, is helping the food shortage to increase the mortality rate, which is likely to attain 30 per cent in Moscow before spring."

In the ninth place, disease stalks through the land, hand in hand with cold and famine. The article just cited contains the following by Eyre:

"Disease is rampant, and the typhus epidemic in Siberia, where Kolchak left many tens of thousands of victims behind him in his retreat, is spreading swiftly westward. Owing to the absence of medical supplies, the epidemic can be combated only by quarantine."

In the tenth place, "labor" in Russia, the real "working class," is conscripted, enslaved under military discipline, and "exploited" under an incredible system of military court martial—a degradation of workingmen by the Socialist tyrants of Russia which no form of modern "capitalism" has dreamed of since human slavery was abolished. On this subject Eyre says, in the "World" of February 27, 1920:

"Four of Trotzky's sixteen armies have been turned into 'labor armies,' which means that soldiers fresh from victories on military fronts are being obliged to work, still under military command and discipline, on the 'economic front.' They are used chiefly for building up the transport system and assuring shipment of food and fuel from the country to the city....

"Labor generally is being militarized to an amazing extent. Discipline is being imposed upon factory workers by the establishment of special tribunals with powers of courts martial. Communist commissaries, no longer required at the front, are being detached from their regiments and sent to stimulate production endeavor in industries and railroads."

Is this the kind of thing which Hillquit's Socialist gang of would-be labor "exploiters" would lure America's liberty-loving workingmen into by calling them "slaves" in their present dignified situation as self-governed and self-reliant freemen? On December 13, 1919, the presidents and secretaries of the 113 national and international unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor met at Washington, D. C., with the heads of the four railway brotherhoods and several farmers' organizations, and are to be congratulated for having passed the following resolution, which the late information from Russia overwhelmingly vindicates:

"Whereas, the American Federation of Labor is an American institution, believing in American principles and ideas, and

"Whereas, an attempt is being made to inject the spirit of Bolshevism and I. W. W.'ism into the affairs of the American Federation of Labor, and

"Whereas, the American Federation of Labor is opposed to Bolshevism, I. W. W.'ism and the irresponsible leadership which encouraged such a policy, therefore be it

"Resolved, that the conference of representatives of trades unions affiliated with the A. F. of L., and other organizations associated in this conference, repudiate and condemn the policy of Bolshevism and I. W. W.'ism as being destructive of American ideals and impracticable in application; be it further

"Resolved, that this conference reiterate the action of the conventions of the American Federation of Labor, and the advocacy of the principles of conciliation and voluntary arbitration and collective bargaining."

We cite this here to put the freedom of self-determination, practiced by the great progressive body of American labor, in vivid contrast with the abject slavery which the Socialists of Russia are now imposing upon the labor of that country. Lincoln Eyre's statement of the labor situation in Russia is confirmed by Trotzky himself, as we learn from the "New York World" of February 28, 1920, as follows:

"London, February 27.—Leon Trotzky, Minister of War of Soviet Russia, addressing the third Russian Congress, held in Moscow January 25 last, outlined the Bolshevist plan for converting the Red Army into an army of labor. According to reports of his speech reaching here he said:

"'There is still one way open to the reorganization of national economy—the way of uniting the army and labor and changing the military detachments of the army into detachments of a labor army.

"'Many in the army have already accomplished their military task but they cannot be demobilized as yet. Now that they have been released from their military duties, they must fight against economic ruin and against hunger; they must work to obtain fuel, peat and other heat-producing products; they must take part in building, in clearing the lines of snow, in repairing roads, building sheds, grinding flour, etc.

"'We have already organized several of these armies and they have been allotted their tasks. One army must obtain foodstuffs for the workmen of the districts in which it was formerly stationed and it also will cut wood, cart it to the railways and repair engines. Another army will help in the laying down of railway lines for the transport of crude oil. A third labor army will be used in repairing agricultural implements and machines, and, in the spring, will take part in the working of the land....

"'Trade unions must register qualified workmen in the villages. Only in those localities where trade union methods are inadequate other methods must be introduced, in particular that of compulsion, because labor conscription gives the state the right to tell the qualified workmen who is employed on some unimportant work in his village, "You are obliged to leave your present employment and go to Sormovo or Kolomna, because there your work is required."

"'Labor conscription means that the qualified workmen who leave the army must proceed to places where they are required, where their presence is necessary to the economic system of the country. We must feed these workmen and guarantee them the minimum food ration.'"

No doubt these "qualified workmen" are what we call "skilled workmen." Here we have, in its naked reality, the "deliverance" from "wage-slavery" which the crazy Socialists of all schools have so long been preaching to the laboring freemen of America. How would the millions of labor's noblemen in the American Federation of Labor like to see Debs, Hillquit and Victor L. Berger cracking the whip over them after the fashion of Lenine, Trotzky and Zinovieff in Russia?

Notice the "capitalistic" language of Trotzky: "We"—the tyrannical, exploiting drones in the Kremlin—"must feed these workmen and guarantee them the minimum food ration." Do not the "workmen" produce the food? Then why do they not take it and cut the throats of these drones? Is not this the Socialist doctrine we are taught by our American theorists, who froth at the mouth over the alleged "wage-slavery" of American workmen who rear intelligent families in comfortable homes and maintain the independence and self-initiative of American freemen?

In the eleventh place, we notice that the workmen of Russia, as a reward for complete slavery under military conscription and courts martial tribunals, are guaranteed nothing but this "minimum food ration" and a possibility of being able to buy enough additional food out of their wages to postpone starvation. The last-mentioned possibility is described for us by Lincoln Eyre in his cable in the "New York World" of February 27, 1920, where, it must be remembered, he is speaking of the most-favored workmen, in the big cities. He says:

"Nobody in Russia relying wholly upon 'Sovietsky' food—food handed out through official agencies—gets enough to eat except soldiers, a small percentage of heavy workers and high Soviet officials. Ordinary factory workers seldom receive as much as 60 per cent of their alimentary requirements through the Government. The remainder they must buy at fantastically high prices from speculators. And though they themselves, in collaboration with central dictatorship, fix their own wages, they never earn enough to cover the swift-climbing cost of living. If this is the plight of the workers, that is, of the ruling class, the ghastliness of the situation confronting the less favored elements of the population may well be imagined."

Is it in irony that Eyre speaks of these "workers" as "the ruling class"? What are the real workmen in Russia but victims of this cruel experiment of tyrannizing Socialist "intellectuals"?

We remark next, in the twelfth place, that the Soviet system of food distribution, wholly unequal and thus anti-communistic, has resulted in dividing the Russians into eight classes, each category having a special card defining its special ration. The account of this is given by Lincoln Eyre in a cable dated March 9, 1920, and published in the "New York World" of March 10, 1920, from which we take two sentences:

"The commissariat of food control has gradually built up no less than eight distinct classes.... Special cards also are provided for children from one, two to five and from five to sixteen. It will be seen that this totals eight distinct varieties of card."

The affect of these distinctions may be gathered from the following instance given in the article just cited:

"In the month of November there was distributed by the Petrograd Soviet altogether 13,631,480 pounds of bread.... Had all the bread been divided evenly among the whole population, each person would have had about one-half a pound a a day, whereas, in fact, one category got much less than that amount daily and the third category none at all."

In the thirteenth place, we note that the Russian Socialist tyrants give the workmen, in exchange for their labor, pieces of paper run off from printing presses which seem almost to have solved the problem of perpetual motion. The workmen are wise if they spend this fiat money daily for whatever it will bring in food, for its value will collapse utterly when the dictatorship bursts, leaving the country financially prostrate, without credit or means of exchange. This is one of the greatest bunco games ever practiced upon workingmen. Eyre describes it in a cable dated March 3, 1920, and published in the "New York World" of March 4, 1920, from which we quote:

"In 'the Socialist Federative Republic of Soviets of Russia,' to give the Bolshevik land its official title, no mention has been made of finance. The reason for this is simple. There is no finance, in the European or American sense of the word, in present Russia. The Soviet Government pays its own people what it has to pay in paper money, of which it prints unlimited quantities. Being determined eventually to abolish money altogether in favor of Communistic exchange of products, it is not worried about depreciation in the value of its currency. It possesses about 1,000,000,000 rubles—the exact amount is kept very secret—in gold, with which it intends to pay for goods purchased abroad until it can establish a system of barter with foreign commercial interests. From the capitalistic viewpoint its budgetary expenditures are chaotic, but in Communistic eyes they are both sane and logical."

Only to minds financially insane or criminally degenerate could such a system seem "sane and logical." Their carefully kept store of gold shows that the Bolshevist dictators are not insane but criminal. They understand their game, which is that of bunco-steering to "exploit" labor on the largest scale the world has ever seen. Honest paper money is a promise to pay, for value received, in gold, silver or good merchandise. If this form is used by these frauds, it is with the deliberate intention of repudiation, the possibility of payment being also destroyed by the floods of the stuff turned out. If the paper given is not a promise to pay, it is circulated simply through the tyranny of men who by threat of punishment or starvation force workingmen to exchange a day's labor for a bit of food and a piece of paper. In either case the labor exploiters in the Kremlin exact from Russia's workingmen, in exchange for a little food and a wad of paper, a genuine value, the product of hard labor, which these get-rich-quick Wallingfords can turn into gold, or exchange with the world for anything they want. All that Russian workingmen get is semi-starvation and the temporary delusion, conveyed to them in fine speeches, that they are "in the game," whereas they are only its dupes.

The worthless character of the paper money, which the workmen nevertheless have to take and spend to keep soul and body together, is shown by the fact that the peasants refuse it. In his cable printed in the "New York World" of February 27, 1920, Eyre says that "the peasant twenty miles outside of Moscow ... has more food than he can eat, more clothes than he can wear," yet "refuses to sell his products for money except that proportion of them that he is compelled to turn over to the Soviets at a fixed price. In private trading," Eyre continues, "he will take in exchange for his foodstuffs only manufactured articles, clothing and other things he needs." Thus the peasant is fortunate in that he lives on land where he can at least raise enough to eat; whereas the "proletarian," in whose behalf the Socialists pretend to have made the Russian revolution, is most of all victimized by it.

The reason why the Bolshevist dictators are now conscripting Russian labor seems evident. These pick-pockets have finished exploiting the Russian aristocracy and "bourgeoisie," squeezed them dry, and squandered what they stole. The only game left to them now is to exploit labor to the limit and appropriate the profits.

Two other features of this thimble-rigging arrangement complete the exposure of the most inhuman scheme to exploit labor which the world has seen for centuries. One of these shows us, in the fourteenth place, that the rascals Lenine and Trotzky, are actually inviting "foreign capital" to form a partnership with them in their exploitation of Russian labor, under promise to turn over to this outside "capital" a good share of the "profits" to be wrung by labor conscription out of the sweat of Russia's brow.

The invitation to "foreign capital" to join hands with the Bolshevist dictatorship, under promise of good profits and guarantees of security was made by both Lenine and Trotzky through interviews granted to Lincoln Eyre. Through courtesy of the "New York World" we have quoted the propositions of these "friends" of Russian labor near the close of Chapter XV of this book, as the reader doubtless remembers, and we merely recall the facts here to put them in line with the other features of Bolshevist labor oppression which we have just been considering. Who could have imagined that within a little more than two years after beginning their barbarous Socialist experiment with Russian industries the brazen dictatorship would be urging "foreign capital" to join in a scheme to squeeze both a domestic and a foreign profit out of the toil of Russian workingmen conscripted by Socialist task-masters and held in wage-slavery under fear of death by court martial?

In the fifteenth place, we have the dreadful fact that Russian labor is enslaved by a Socialist autocracy not for the sake of promoting peace but for the sake of promoting war. In our last chapter we quoted the statements of Zinovieff to Lincoln Eyre that the Third Internationale would never give up its purpose to make the whole world Bolshevist. Eyre also found the belief general in Russia that so long as the Socialists retain power, any peace made by them with the outside world will only be a short truce in which to prepare for another war. He says, in his cable printed in the "New York World" of February 27, 1920:

"All, Bolsheviki included, feel that as long as the Soviets remain in power in Russia and Bolshevism does not spread to other lands, peace cannot be more than a truce in the international class warfare."

Again, in his cable printed in the "New York World" of March 4, 1920, Lincoln Eyre says:

"The Red Army's victories against Kolchak, Yudenitch and Denikine are in themselves paradoxical, in that they serve to increase the Russian need for peace.... Every advance recorded in Siberia or the Crimea brings the front line further from the base and complicates the task of supplying munitions, food and equipment. Thus it becomes increasingly evident to all Russians, whatever their political leanings may be, that Russia must have peace in order to survive economically. And yet—another paradox—all feel that any peace established now between Soviet authority and Governments of the bourgeois and democratics cannot be more than a brief truce because Socialism and capitalism cannot abide side by side, and because neither can be suppressed without warfare. The Bolshevik faith in the ultimate appearance of a world revolution has not waned, but their hope of its speedy coming has lessened considerably."

Who but the long-suffering Russians would endure the hopeless fate imposed by Socialism on Russian labor? The workingmen were conscripted by Trotzky's armies. They won victories, but these have not freed them. Returning from the front they are conscripted for labor armies, to work as they fought, under military discipline, subject to court martial and death if they rebel. Yet this military toil will not free them. They slave under the pistols of the commissaries only to get themselves economically equipped for a new war against their "capitalistic" neighbors, and in this war the workingman, if he can still walk, will be conscripted to go to the front again. Should he survive this, must he begin the same round over again?

But why not strike against this slavery? Russian labor does not dare to strike. Tender-hearted Socialism has made the labor strike a crime in Russia. Says Lincoln Eyre, in a cable dated March 11, 1920, and printed in the "New York World" of March 13, 1920:

"The unions, of course, lost their former principal weapon—the strike. Today any body of workers that would venture out on strike would be considered, to quote President Melnitchansky of the Moscow unions, as traitors to their Socialist fatherland and as such would doubtless be shot."

With this utter collapse of Socialist theories and professions in Bolshevikiland, we need not wonder that, according to a cable in the "New York Times" of March 2, 1920, the French National Socialist Congress adjourned at Strasbourg, March 1, 1920, "after voting down by more than 2 to 1 a motion to ally the Socialists of France with Lenine and Trotzky." According to the same cable, "The pleaders for the Third Internationale, formed at Moscow, were answered by the reply that the beautiful doctrines enunciated there had been thrown aside by Lenine and Trotzky and that any one who believed in real Socialism would be a fool to get behind the leaders of Soviet Russia."

Is it now in order for our American Bolshevists, Gene Debs, Morris Hillquit (alias Hilkovitz) and Vic Berger, solemnly to inform us that Russian Bolshevism never was Socialism, nor anything like it, but only a base counterfeit? And will they also inform us that Lenine and Trotzky are unprincipled adventurers and cold-blooded blackguards who have hidden behind the mask of Socialism to blackjack a great people and filch a wealth they never did a day's work to accumulate?

When our American wavers of the Red Flag try to hide their shipwrecked theories behind a repudiation of Bolshevikiland, we shall have to remind them of their many, many utterances jubilantly assuring us that "Bolshevism is Socialism in practice." A specimen will do, taken from one of the books published by the Jewish Socialist Federation of America, a "part of the Socialist Party" of the United States piloted by Debs, Hilkovitz and Berger, which we quote as cited on page 34 of the "Outline of the Evidence Taken Before the Judiciary Committee" of the New York Assembly:

"Bolshevism is not a new Socialist theory, but the practical carrying out in life of the old Socialist theory.

"Bolshevism especially is not a theory. Bolshevism is a method of how to establish Socialism in life.

"Bolshevism is practical Socialism, the Socialism of today, and not of the remote future day."



CHAPTER XVIII

THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST RELIGION ABROAD



It is but proper to begin this chapter by conceding that there are many church-going members among those who vote the Marxian ticket—not as an indorsement of the teachings of international Socialism, but merely as a protest against political corruption and the abuses of capitalism. Justice, moreover, demands that we acknowledge the existence of a small minority of dues-paying members of the Socialist Party who neither attack religion nor tacitly approve of the atheistic propaganda carried on in the official Marxian press, as well as in the books, pamphlets and magazines on sale not only in the leading Socialist book-stores of America, but even at the National Office of the party in Chicago.

In most countries of Europe, where the war against religion is much more open and widespread than in America, the Socialists are frank in confessing that their movement is atheistic and anti-religious.

In our own country some of the more violent Socialistic enemies of the church admit both in their speeches and in their writings that they would be extremely happy to see the very idea of God become a matter of ancient history. Christian Socialists of the old Carr faction, who constitute a minority of far less than one per cent of the Socialist Party of the United States, have not only conceded the existence of an atheistic propaganda within the ranks, but have attacked it and utterly failed to suppress it.

Apart from these two classes of American Socialists, who admit the existence of a campaign in favor of atheism, most Socialists in our country, because they fear that votes will be lost if our people are convinced of the anti-religious character of the party, steadfastly deny that they are conspiring against religion. Indeed they are quite cunning and crafty in their effort to beguile the unwary. If the person hesitates joining the party, owing to his conviction that nearly all the Socialist leaders have been the enemies of religion, he is informed that it would be just as foolish for him not to be a Revolutionist for this reason, as it would be for one not to become a Republican because Robert Ingersoll did not believe in God and even propagated atheism.

As the conspirators against religion have, by this plausible argument, involving the name of Ingersoll, removed the prejudices that many persons formerly had against Socialism on account of the atheistic teachings of its leaders, it seems but fitting to give a short refutation of the deceptive argument and to point out the absurdity of the comparison just mentioned.

In the first place, although Robert Ingersoll was an atheist, he never stated that Republicanism was anti-religious. On the other hand, very many of the highest authorities in the Marxian Party, whose extensive knowledge of Socialism justifies our belief that they know but too well the policy of the revolutionary movement, admit that Socialism postulates atheism and war against religious beliefs. Ingersoll, moreover, never attacked religion nor taught atheism with a view to furthering the cause of Republicanism. But a very large number of the Socialists, whether Europeans or Americans, in their endeavor to promote what they consider to be the best interests of their party, have in their books, magazines, pamphlets and papers been waging a relentless war against religion. The atheistical works of Robert Ingersoll were not purchased by the rank and file of the Republican Party for purposes of party propaganda, but the rank and file of the Revolutionary Party spend large sums of money on publications in which their avowed leaders teach atheism as part of the Socialist program. Not content even with this, the members do their utmost to increase the circulation of anti-religious Socialist books, magazines, pamphlets and papers.

Before producing the evidence that will convict the Socialist leaders and the rank and file of the party of openly advocating atheism and hostility to religion, or at least of tacitly approving of such a propaganda, a few words must be said relative to the materialistic conception of history, or of economic determinism, as it is often called. According to this doctrine, which is one of the fundamental teachings of the Socialists, the whole history of mankind, including its political, intellectual and religious development, is nothing more than a process of evolution, the guiding principle of which is the prevailing economic conditions and their resultant class struggles. Consequently, the Socialists who believe this doctrine deny the intervention of God in the development and spread of the Christian religion; for economic determinism teaches that the development of the church is not the work of Divine Providence, but of the economic conditions and class struggles of society.

W. D. P. Bliss, the Socialist editor of the "New Encyclopedia of Social Reform," in an article on page 1135 of his work, admits that it is perfectly true that the large majority of avowed Socialists are divorced from recognized religion and the church, and that this leads many of them to extreme radicalism on all questions of ethics, money and the family.

Frederick Engels, one of the renowned founders of modern Socialism, taught that "nowadays in our evolutionary conception of the universe, there is absolutely no room for either a Creator or a ruler." ("Socialism, Utopian and Scientific," by Frederick Engels, page 17 of the Introduction to the 1901 edition in English—New York Labor News Co.)

Wilhelm Liebknecht, who until shortly before his death in 1900 was one of the foremost leaders of the Socialist Party in Germany, addressing the Halle Convention, said: "As regards my own self, I had done with religion at an early age.... I am an atheist, I do not believe in God.... We may peacefully take our stand upon the ground of Socialism, and thus conquer the stupidity of the masses in so far as stupidity reveals itself in religious forms and dogmas." The same German Socialist and atheist taught in his book, "Materialist Basis of History":

"It is our duty as Socialists to root out the faith in God with all our zeal, nor is anyone worthy the name, who does not consecrate himself to the spread of atheism."

August Bebel, who before his death in August, 1913, was the leader of the Socialists of Germany, gave many proofs of the intimate relation existing between Socialism and atheism. On September 16, 1878, he declared in the Reichstag:

"Gentlemen, you attack our views on religion because they are atheistic and materialistic. I acknowledge the correctness of the impeachment. I am firmly convinced that Socialism finally leads to atheism."

In the Reichstag, on December 31, 1881, he made the following profession of faith:

"In politics we profess Republicanism, in economics Socialism, in religion atheism."

According to the 1903 platform of the German Socialists, adopted at Dresden, "No religious instructions of any kind shall be given to children under the age of sixteen; after that they can select their own religious tenets and teachings, as they please. Superstitious religious notions that are current among the less educated classes are to be eradicated through proper instructions."

"The Comrade," September, 1904, confesses that the satirical weekly "L'Asino," published by the Socialists of Italy, and known throughout the world for its attacks on religion, carries on a bitter fight against the Catholic Church. In the early part of 1913, "L'Asino," speaking of the coming Italian election, boasted that the Socialists would proclaim their anti-clericalism and atheism in the public meetings.

The Austrian Socialists in convention at Linz, May 30, 1898, passed a resolution proposed by Pernerstorfer to the effect that "Socialism is directly contradictory to Roman clericalism, which is enslaved to unyielding authority, immutable dogmas, and absolute intellectual thralldom. We doubt all authority, we know of no immutable dogma, we are the champions of right, liberty and conscience." [Reported in "Vorwaerts," 1898, no. 126, suppl.]

The bitter persecution that has for years been waged against the church in France is too well known to require much comment. The representatives of the French Socialist Party at Tours in March, 1903, voted upon a program from which several clauses will be cited:

"The Socialist Party needs to organize a new world, free minds emancipated from superstition and prejudices. It asks for and guarantees every human being, every individual, absolute freedom of thinking, and writing and affirming their beliefs. Over against all religious dogmas and churches as well as over against the class conceptions of the bourgeoisie, it sets the unlimited right of free thought, the scientific conception of the universe, and a system of public education based exclusively on science and reason. Thus accustomed to free thought and reflection, citizens will be protected against the sophistries of the capitalistic and clerical reaction." The program also declares for the "abolition of the congregations, nationalization of property in mortmain of every kind belonging to them, and appropriation of it for works of social insurance and solidarity."

In the Tours program, therefore, we have the open confession of the Socialist Party of France that it is anti-religious and that it favors the disgraceful robbery of the church that has for many years been going on in that country.

The Belgian Socialists are quite as violent as the French in their hatred of the church, for in addition to the large number of vile anti-religious pamphlets distributed during the campaign that preceded the elections of 1912, we have the testimony of no less an authority than the Socialist leader, Emile Vandervelde, in the "Social Democrat," England, January, 1903:

"In the end the question to be solved is: what is the essential aim of Socialism? There is not a Socialist who would hesitate to say that it is the emancipation of the workers, the freedom of the proletariat—and by this freedom we mean its complete freedom, the abolition of all slavery in the spiritual sphere as well as in the material sphere.... Can a sincere believer follow the church's teachings and yet be a Socialist? We are bound to admit that both in philosophy and in politics there must be war between Socialism and the Church."

In England, too, the Socialists are the avowed enemies of religion. Blatchford, who is well known to his comrades for his extreme work in propagating Socialism by the pen, wrote in the "Clarion," October 4, 1907:

"Believing that the Christian religion was untrue, and believing that all supernatural religions were inimical to human progress, and foreseeing that a conflict between Socialism and religion was inevitable, I attacked the Christian religion. I am working for Socialism when I attack religion which is hindering it."

Again in his book, "God and My Neighbor," Blatchford utters the following blasphemies:

"I am an easiful old pagan, and I am not angry with you at all—you funny little champion of the Most High....

"This is the God of Heaven? This is the Father of Christ? This is the Creator of the Milky Way? No! He will not do. He is not big enough. He is not good enough. He is not clean enough. He is a spiritual nightmare, a bad dream born in the savage minds of terror and ignorance and a tigerish lust for blood....

"Is this unspeakable monster the Father of Christ? Is he the God who inspireth Buddha and Shakespeare and Beethoven and Darwin and Plato? No, not he. But in warfare and massacre, in rapine and rape, in black revenge and in deadly malice, in slavery and polygamy, and the debasement of women, and in the pomps, vanities and greeds of royalty, of clericalism, and of usury and barter—we may easily discern the influence of his ferocious and abominable personality."

This book, which teaches atheism from cover to cover, could be bought for a dollar a copy in 1912 at the National Office of the Socialist Party in Chicago, Ill. In the May, 1917, issue of the "International Socialist Review," "God and My Neighbor," by Blatchford, is thus advertised:

"Is the Bible true? This is the chief subject of debate today between Christians and Scientists the world over. Robert Blatchford says: 'Is the Bible a holy and inspired book and the Word of God to man, or is it an incongruous and contradictory collection of tribal tradition and ancient fables, written by men of genius and imaginations? Mr. Blatchford believes religions are not revealed, they are evolved.

"'We cannot accept as the God of Creation,' he writes, 'this savage idol, Jehovah, of an obscure tribe, and we have renounced him and are ashamed of him, not because of any later divine revelation, but because mankind have become too enlightened to tolerate Jehovah.'"

Ernest Bax, an Englishman, one of the greatest authorities in the world on Socialism, an author who, even in America, has been styled "the most accomplished writer on behalf of Socialism in this and perhaps in any country," in his book, "Religion of Socialism," thus testifies to the relation existing between Socialism and religion:

"In what sense Socialism is not religious will now be clear. It utterly despises the other world with all its stage properties—that is, the present objects of religion." ["Religion of Socialism," by Ernest Belfort Bax, page 52 of 1891 edition.]

Who could imagine any more convincing testimony of the atheistic and anti-religious nature of the Socialist movement than the following words of the English Socialist, James Leathan, in "Socialism and Character":

"At the present moment I cannot remember a single instance of a person who is at one and the same time a really earnest and intelligent Socialist and an orthodox Christian. Those who do not openly attack the church and the fabric of Christianity, show but scant respect to either the one or the other in private.... And while all of us are thus indifferent to the church, many of us are frankly hostile to her. Marx, Lassalle and Engels among earlier Socialists; Morris, Bax, Hyndman, Guesde and Bebel among present-day Socialists—are all more or less avowed atheists; and what is true of the more notable men of the party is almost equally true of the rank and file the world over."

In 1910 a pamphlet entitled "Socialism and Religion" was issued by the Revolutionists of Great Britain. One quotation from it will amply suffice to show the utter contempt of the English[15] Socialist for religion:

"If a man supports the church, or in any respect allows religious ideas to stand in the way of principles of Socialism, or activity of the party, he proves thereby that he does not accept Socialism as fundamentally true and of the first importance, and his place is outside. No man can be consistently both a Socialist and a Christian. It must either be the Socialist or the religious principle that is supreme, for the attempt to couple them equally together betrays charlatanism or lack of thought. There is, therefore, no need for a specifically anti-religious test. So surely does the acceptance of Socialism lead to the exclusion of the supernatural, that the Socialist has little need for such terms as atheist, freethinker or even materialist, for the word Socialist, rightly understood, implies one who (on all such questions) takes his stand on positive science, explaining all things by purely natural causation—Socialism being not merely a politico-economic creed, but an integral part of a consistent world philosophy."

"The Western Clarion," a publication of the Canadian Socialists, declared in its issue of May 23, 1914, that the Socialist Party of Canada would have "no compromise with advocates of Christianity."

Alvarado, the governor of Yucatan, and his criminal sustainers several years ago drove the clergy from the country, turned the churches into I. W. W. meeting houses, and turned some, as in the case of the Cathedral of Merida, even into warehouses. Religion was outlawed and an atheist tyranny established. Alvarado is an ardent I. W. W. Socialist of the most violent sort. His advent into Yucatan from the lawless northern part of Mexico was marked by wholesale confiscation of property, by robbery and outrage. His vile subordinates, of like origin with himself, committed loathsome crimes, unspeakable and without number, and no opportunity was overlooked to persecute the unhappy people whose accumulations by thrift and industry and whose steadfast adherence to their religion marked them as certain victims of robbery, murder and outrage.

"The Call," New York, April 9, 1919, informs us that the workers in Yucatan have elected a succession of Socialist governors, and in its issue of April 14, 1919, under the caption, "Up to the Minute Official Socialist News," we read the following:

"Felipe Carrillo, president of the Socialist Party of Yucatan, Mexico, spoke on conditions in Yucatan. Among other things he said: 'The Socialist Party of America should do everything possible against intervention in Mexico.... All the public officials, from the highest to the lowest, are members of the Socialist party.... There is no middle class in Yucatan.... The Socialist Party of Yucatan has been in power three years.'

"A rising vote was taken, expressing our fraternal greetings to Felipe Carrillo and the Comrades of Yucatan."

The April 9, 1919, issue of "The Call" informs us that Alvardo in 1915 organized the Socialist Party of Yucatan, 62,700 members of which belong to the League of Resistance, an organization which, we are told, is purely economic in its activities.

What a strange name for an economic league, especially in Mexico, where economics have for some years been taught by the torch, bomb, dagger!

The March, 1919, edition of "The Eye Opener," the official organ of the Socialist Party of the United States, throws a little light on this economic league of "the knights of the red flag." On page 4 of that issue we are told that among the principles of the League of Resistance are the following:

"The Land is Mother, and Labor is the Father of Humanity. Attack no one without motive, but never present the other cheek to any who has struck one. Fly from the religions, principally the Catholic religion, as from the plagues."

The article on the economic League of Resistance ends with the call of Yucatan to the rest of the continent: "Workers of the world, unite." Carillo is then quoted as saying:

"Never will labor conquer until it understands solidarity. Political action, economic action, perhaps military action—todos metodos necesitamos. En todas las epocas del mundo, rifley dynamita sean necesarios; pero siempre y sobre todo, solidaridad." The words, "rifley dynamita" mean nothing and are evidently a misprint for "rifle y dynamita." There was good reason for letting the words remain in the Spanish in the official organ of the Socialist Party of the United States, for if "rifle y dynamita" were the Spanish words meant, their translation would be:

"We need all means. In all periods of the world's history, the rifle and dynamite may be necessary, but always and above all solidarity."

So much for the economic League of Resistance of the Socialists of Yucatan, which has been destroying both religion and civilization alike! Carrillo, its president, has been greeted throughout our country by the Socialists, who have been extending their fraternal greetings also to the rest of their "Comrades in Yucatan."



CHAPTER XIX

THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST RELIGION IN AMERICA



Much more testimony than has already been given could easily be furnished for proving that the Socialist movement in foreign lands is atheistic and anti-religious, but as sufficient has been given, let us dwell more on the anti-religious activities of the Revolutionists in our own country.

In answer to a possible objection, namely, that the American Socialists should in no way be held responsible for the anti-religious and atheistic teachings of their comrades abroad, the attention of the reader is called to the fact that the Socialist movement is an international one, and that nearly all the Marxian leaders in Europe are considered by the American Socialists as first class authorities on Socialism. Moreover the books and writings of these foreign protagonists form a very considerable part of the Socialistic literature of the United States and are considered as standard works on the subject.

But in addition to the fact that the American Socialists thus share the responsibility of their European comrades, the Revolutionists of our own country will now come forward with more than enough testimony to prove that they are just as guilty as their foreign comrades of propagating atheistic and anti-religious doctrines.

Rev. William T. Brown, formerly the pastor of Plymouth Church, Rochester, New York, after becoming a Socialist, wrote the following in the May, 1902, number of "Wilshire's Magazine":

"For myself, I do not recognize any existing church or state as complete in itself or founded by God. There is absolutely nothing in church or state that cannot be traced to a perfectly natural origin.... Instead of the religious idea that God breathed into clay the breath of life, and so man came into existence in the image of God, we know beyond question that man's ancestors were animals, and he is the image of his animal parentage.... Singing hymns, saying prayers, learning catechism, attending the services of a place miscalled a sanctuary will do nothing whatever to effect the ends for which men are striving.... The church will attract its own, and the Socialist cause will draw those who belong to it. People who are interested in fossils and relics and curios will find a congenial place in the church as will also the ignorant and deluded masses."