THE MACMILLAN COMPANYNEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGODALLAS · SAN FRANCISCO

MACMILLAN & CO. , LIMITEDLONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTAMELBOURNE

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD. TORONTO

SOCIALISM

A SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION OFSOCIALIST PRINCIPLES

BY

JOHN SPARGO

AUTHOR OF "THE BITTER CRY OF THE CHILDREN, " "THECOMMON SENSE OF THE MILE QUESTION, " "CAPITALISTAND LABORER, " "THE SOCIALISTS, WHO THEY AREAND WHAT THEY STAND FOR, " "THE SPIRITUALSIGNIFICANCE OF MODERN SOCIALISM, "ETC. , ETC. 

_NEW AND REVISED EDITION_

New YorkTHE MACMILLAN COMPANY1913

_All rights reserved_

COPYRIGHT 1906, 1909, BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 

Set up and electrotyped. Published June, 1906. ReprintedNovember, 1906; December 1908. 

New and revised edition, February, 1909; January, 1910;May 1912; March, 1913. 

Norwood PressJ. S. Cushing Co. --Berwick & Smith Co. Norwood, Mass. , U. S. A. 

To

ROBERT HUNTER

WITH ADMIRATION AND AFFECTION

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

A new edition of this little volume having been rendered necessary, Ihave availed myself of the opportunity thus afforded me by thepublishers to revise it. Some slight revision was necessary to correctone or two errors which crept unavoidably into the earlier edition. Byan oversight, an important typographical blunder went uncorrected intothe former edition, making the date of the first use of the word"Socialism" 1835 instead of 1833. That error, I regret to say, has beensubsequently copied into many important publications. Even moreimportant were some errors in the biographical sketch of Marx, inChapter III. These were not due to any carelessness upon the part of thepresent writer, but were reproduced from standard works, upon whatseemed to be good authority--that of his youngest daughter and hisintimate friend, the late Wilhelm Liebknecht. It is now known withcertainty that the father of Karl Marx embraced Christianity of his ownfree choice, and not in obedience to an official edict. 

These and some other minor changes having to be made, I took the time torewrite large parts of the volume, making such substantial changes init as to constitute practically a new book. The chapter on Robert Owenhas been recast and greater emphasis placed upon his American career andits influence; in Chapter IV the sketch of the Materialistic Conceptionof History has been enlarged somewhat, special attention being given tothe bearing of the theory upon religion. All the rest of the book hasbeen changed, partly to meet the requirements of many students andothers who have written to me in reference to various points ofdifficulty, and partly also to state some of my own ideas moresuccessfully. I venture to hope that the brief chapter on "Means ofRealization, " which has been added to the book by way of postscript, will, in spite of its brevity, and the fact that it was not written forinclusion in this volume, prove helpful to some who read the book. 

The thanks of the writer are due to all those friends--Socialists andothers--whose kindly efforts made the earlier edition of the book asuccess. 

YONKERS, N. Y. , December, 1908. 

CONTENTS

 PAGEPREFACE vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Changed attitude of the public mind toward Socialism--Growth ofthe movement responsible for the change--Unanimity of friends andfoes concerning the future triumph of Socialism--Herbert Spencer'spessimistic belief--Study of Socialism a civic duty--Nobility ofthe word "Socialism"--Its first use--Confusion arising from itsindiscriminate use--"Socialism" and "Communism" in the _CommunistManifesto_--Unfair tactics of opponents--Engels on thesignificance of the word in 1847--Its present significance 1

CHAPTER II

ROBERT OWEN AND THE UTOPIAN SPIRIT

Utopian Socialism and Robert Owen--Estimates of Owen by Liebknechtand Engels--His early life--Becomes a manufacturer--The industrialrevolution in England--Introduction of machinery--"Luddite" riotsagainst machinery--Early riots against machinery--Marx'sviews--Owen as manufacturer--As social reformer--The New Lanarkexperiment--He becomes a Socialist--The New Harmonyexperiment--Abraham Lincoln and New Harmony--Failure of NewHarmony--Owen compared with Saint-Simon and Fourier--Emerson'stribute to Robert Owen a fair estimate of the Utopists 16

CHAPTER III

THE "COMMUNIST MANIFESTO" AND THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT

The _Communist Manifesto_ called the birth-cry of modernSocialism--Conditions in 1848 when it was issued--Communism of theworking class--Weitling and Cabet--Marx's parents becomeChristians--Marx and Engels--Religious spirit of Marx--Note uponthe confusion of Marx with Wilhelm Marr--The _Manifesto_ as thefirst declaration of a working-class movement--Literary merit ofthe _Manifesto_--Its fundamental proposition stated byEngels--Socialism becomes scientific--The authorship of the_Manifesto_--Engels' testimony 53

CHAPTER IV

THE MATERIALISTIC CONCEPTION OF HISTORY

Socialism a theory of social evolution--Not economicfatalism--Leibnitz and the savage--Ideas and progress--Value ofthe materialistic conception of history--Foreshadowings of thetheory--What is meant by the term "materialisticconception"--Results of overemphasis: Engels'testimony--Application of the theory to religion--Influence ofsocial conditions upon religious forms--The doctrine of "freewill"--Darwin and Marx--Application of the theory, specific andgeneral--Columbus and the discovery of America--General view ofhistorical progress--Antiquity of communism--Coöperation andcompetition--Slavery--Serfdom--Class struggles--The rise ofcapitalism and the wage system 75

CHAPTER V

CAPITALISM AND THE LAW OF CONCENTRATION

A new form of class division arises in the first stage ofcapitalism--The second stage of capitalism begins with the greatmechanical inventions--The development of foreign and colonialtrade--Theoretic individualism and practical collectivism--The lawof capitalist concentration formulated by Marx--Competition, monopoly, socialization--Trustification, interindustrial andinternational--Criticisms of the Marxian theory--Engels on theattempts to make a "rigid orthodoxy" of the Marx theory--The smallproducers and traders--Concentration in production--Failure of thebonanza farms and persistence of the small farms--Other forms ofagricultural concentration--Farm ownership and farm mortgages--Thefactory and the farm--The concentration of wealth--European andAmerican statistics--Concentration of the control of wealthindependent of actual ownership--Growth of immensefortunes--General summary 113

CHAPTER VI

THE CLASS STRUGGLE THEORY

Opposition to the doctrine--Misrepresentations by the opponents ofSocialism--Socialists not the creators of the classstruggle--Antiquity of class struggles--The theory as stated inthe _Communist Manifesto_--Fundamental propositions in thestatement--Slavery the first system of class divisions--Classdivisions in feudalism--Rise of the capitalist class and itstriumph--Inherent antagonism of interests between employer andemployee--Commonality of general interests and antagonism ofspecial class interests--Adam Smith on classdivisions--Individuals _versus_ classes--Analysis of the classinterests of the population of the United States--Class interestsas they affect thoughts, opinions, and beliefs--Varying ethicalstandards of economic classes--Denial of class divisions inAmerica--Our "untitled nobility"--Class divisions real though notlegally established--They tend to become fixed andhereditary--Consciousness of class divisions new inAmerica--Transition from class to class becoming moredifficult--No hatred of individuals involved in thetheory--Socialism _versus_ Anarchism--The labor struggle in theUnited States--Not due to misunderstandings, but to antagonism ofinterests--The reason for trade unionism--Trade unionmethods--Dual exploitation of the workers--Government and theworkers--Capitalistic use of police and military--Judicialinjunctions--"Taff Vale" law--Political rising of theworkers--Triumph of the working class will liberate all mankindand end class rule 151

CHAPTER VII

KARL MARX AND THE ECONOMICS OF SOCIALISM

First comprehensive statement of the materialist conception ofhistory by Marx--_La Misère de la Philosophie_, a criticism ofProudhon--Marx's first essay in economic science--His frankrecognition of the Ricardians--Marx in England becomes familiarwith the work of the Ricardians from whom he is accused of"pillaging" his ideas--Criticisms of Menger and others--Marxexpelled from Germany and France--Removal to London--The strugglewith poverty--Domestic life--_Capital_ an English work in allessentials--The Ricardians and their precursors--Superior methodand insight of Marx--The sociological viewpoint in economics--Mr. W. H. Mallock's criticisms of Marx based upon misrepresentationand misstatement--Marx on the Gotha Programme of the German SocialDemocracy--Marx on the "ability of the directing few"--No ethicaldeductions in the Marxian theory--"Scientific Socialism, "criticisms of the term 201

CHAPTER VIII

OUTLINES OF SOCIALIST ECONOMIC THEORY

The sociological viewpoint pervades all Marx's work--Commoditiesdefined--Use-values and economic values--Exchange of commoditiesthrough the medium of money--The labor theory of value in itscrude form--Marx and Benjamin Franklin--Some notable statements bythe classic economists--Scientific development of the labor theoryof value by Marx--"Unique values"--Price and value--Money as aprice-expression and as a commodity--The theory of supply anddemand as determinants of value--The "Austrian" theory of finalutility as the determinant of value--The Marxian theory notnecessarily exclusive of the theory of final, or marginal, utility--Labor-power as a commodity--Wages, its price, determinedas the prices of all other commodities are--Wherein labor-powerdiffers from all other commodities--"Surplus Value": why Marx usedthe term--The theory stated--The division of surplus value--Nomoral judgment involved in the theory--Other theories of thesource of capitalist income--Wherein they fail to solve theproblem--Fundamental importance of the doctrine 235

CHAPTER IX

OUTLINES OF THE SOCIALIST STATE

Detailed specifications impossible--Principles which mustcharacterize it--Man's egoism and sociability--Socialism andIndividualism not opposites--The idea of the Socialist state as ahuge bureaucracy--Mr. Anstey's picture and Herbert Spencer'sfear--Justification of this view in Socialist propagandaliterature--Means of production, individual and social--ProfessorGoldwin Smith's question--The Socialist ideal of individualliberty--Absolute personal liberty not possible--Spencer'sabandonment of _laissez faire_--Political organization ofSocialist régime must be democratic--Automatic democracyunattainable--The need of eternal vigilance--Delegatedauthority--The rights of the individual and of society brieflystated--Private property and industry not incompatible withSocialism--Public ownership not the end, but only a means to anend--Economic structure of the Socialist state--Efficiency thetest for private or public industry--The application of democraticprinciples to industry--The right to labor guaranteed by society, and the duty to labor enforced by society--Free choice oflabor--Mode of remuneration--Who will do the dirty work?--The"abolition of wages"--Approximate equality attainable by free playof economic law under Socialism--Hoarded wealth--Inheritance--Thesecurity of society against the improvidence of its members--Theadministration of justice--Education completely free--The questionof religious education--The state as protector of thechild--Strict neutrality upon religious matters--A maximum ofpersonal liberty with a minimum of restraint 277

CHAPTER X

THE MEANS OF REALIZATION

Impossible to tell definitely how the change will be broughtabout--Possible only to point out tendencies making for Socialism, and to show how the change _can_ be brought about--Marx's"catastrophe theory" a lapse into Utopian methods of thought--Hisdeeper thought--Testimony of Liebknecht--Socialism not to bereached through a _coup de force_--The political changes necessaryfor Socialism--Tendencies making for socialization ofindustry--Monopolies, coöperative societies, the vast extension ofcollectivism within the capitalist system--Confiscation orcompensation?--Change to Socialism to be legal and gradual--Engelsand Marx favored compensation--The widow's savings--Elimination ofunearned incomes--Violence not necessary 323

INDEX 339

SOCIALISM

A SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION OF

SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES

SOCIALISM

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

I

It is not a long time since the kindest estimate of Socialism by theaverage man was that expressed by Ebenezer Elliott, "the Corn-LawRhymer, " in the once familiar cynical doggerel:--

 "What is a Socialist? One who is willing To give up his penny and pocket your shilling. "

There was another view, brutally unjust and unkind, expressed inblood-curdling cartoons representing the Socialist as a bomb-throwingassassin. According to the one view, Socialists were all sordid, enviouscreatures, yearning for the

 "Equal division of unequal earnings, "

while the other view represented them as ready to enforce this selfishdemand by means of the cowardly weapons of the assassin. 

Both these views are now, happily, well-nigh extinct. There is still agreat deal of misconception of the meaning of Socialism; the ignoranceconcerning it which is manifested upon every hand is oftendisheartening, but neither of these puerile misrepresentations iscommonly encountered in serious discussion. It is true that the averagenewspaper editorial confounds Socialism with Anarchism, often enlistingthe prejudice which exists against the most violent forms of Anarchismin attacking Socialism, though the two systems of thought arefundamentally opposed to each other; it is likewise true that Socialistsare not infrequently asked to explain their supposed intention to have agreat general "dividing-up day" for the equal distribution of all thewealth of the nation. The Chancellor of a great American universityreturns from a sojourn in Norway, and naïvely hastens to inform theworld that he has "refuted" Socialism by asking the members of somepoor, struggling sect of Communists what would happen to their scheme ofequality if babies should be born after midnight of the day of the equaldivision of wealth!

Recognizing it to be the supreme issue of the age, the Republican Party, in its national platform, [1] defines Socialism as meaning equality ofownership as against equality of opportunity, notwithstanding the factthat every recognized exponent of Socialism would deny that Socialismmeans equality of ownership, or that it goes beyond equality ofopportunity; that the voluminous literature of Socialism teems withunequivocal and unmistakable disavowals of any desire for the periodicdivisions of property and wealth which alone could make equality ofownership possible for brief periods. 

Still, when all this has been said, it must be added that thesecriticisms do not represent the attitude of the mass of people towardthe Socialist movement to the same extent as they once did. In seriousdiscussions of the subject among thinking people it is becoming quiterare to encounter either of the two criticisms named. Most of those whoseriously and honestly discuss the subject know that modern Socialismcomprehends neither assassination nor the equal division of wealth. Theenormous interest manifested in Socialism during recent years and thesteady growth of the Socialist vote throughout the world bear witness tothe fact that the views expressed in the satirical distich of the poet'sfancy and the blood-curdling cartoon of the artist's invention are nolonger the potent appeals to prejudice they once were. 

The reason for the changed attitude of the public toward the Socialistmovement and the Socialist ideal lies in the growth of the movementitself. There are many who would change the order of this propositionand say that the growth of the Socialist movement is a result of thechanged attitude of the public mind toward it. In a sense, both viewsare right. Obviously, if the public mind had not revised its judgmentssomewhat, we should not have attained our present strength anddevelopment; but it is equally obvious that if we had not grown, if wehad remained the small and feeble band we once were, the public mindwould not have revised its judgments much, if at all. It is easy toenlist prejudice against a small body of men and women when they have nopowerful influence, and to misrepresent and vilify them. 

But it is otherwise when that small body has grown into a great bodywith far-reaching influence and power. So long as the Socialist movementin America consisted of a few poor workingmen in two or three of thelargest cities, most of them foreigners, it was very easy for theaverage man to accept as true the wildest charges brought against them. But when the movement grew and developed a powerful organization, withbranches in almost every city, and a well-conducted press of its own, itbecame a very different matter. The sixteen years from 1888 to 1904 sawthe Socialist vote in the United States grow steadily from 2068 in theformer year to 442, 402 in the latter. Europe and America together had in1870 only about 30, 000 votes, but by 1906 the number had risen toconsiderably over 7, 000, 000. These figures constitute a vital challengeto the thoughtful and earnest men and women of the world. 

It is manifestly impossible for a great world-wide movement, numberingits adherent by millions, and having for its advocates many of theforemost thinkers, artists, and poets of the world, to be based uponeither sordid selfishness or murderous hate and envy. If that were true, if it were possible for such a thing to be true, the most gloomyforebodings of the pessimist would fall far short of the real measure ofHumanity's impending doom. It is estimated that no less than thirtymillion adults are at present enrolled in the ranks of the Socialiststhroughout the world, and the number is constantly increasing. This vastarmy, drawn from every part of the civilized world, comprising men andwomen of all races and creeds, is not motivated by hate or envy, but bya consciousness that in their hands and the hands of their fellows reststhe power to win greater happiness for themselves. Incidentally, theirunity for this purpose is perhaps the greatest force in the world to-daymaking for international peace. 

Still, notwithstanding the millions enlisted under the banner ofSocialism, the word is spoken by many with the pallid lips of fear, thescowl of hate, or the amused shrug of contempt; while in the same land, people of the same race, facing the same problems and perils, speak itwith glad voices and hopelit eyes. Many a mother crooning over her babeprays that it may be saved from the Socialism to which another, withequal mother love, looks as her child's heritage and hope. And withscholars and statesmen it is much the same. With wonderful unanimityagreeing that, in the words of Herbert Spencer, "Socialism will comeinevitably, in spite of all opposition, " they yet differ in theirestimates of its character and probable effects upon the race quite asmuch as the unlearned. One welcomes and another fears; one envies theunborn generations, another pities. To one the coming of Socialism meansthe coming of Human Brotherhood, the long, long quest of Humanity'schoicest spirits; to another it means the enslavement of the worldthrough fear. 

Many years ago Herbert Spencer wrote an article on "The Coming Slavery, "which conveyed the impression that the great thinker saw what he thoughtto be signs of the inevitable triumph of Socialism. All over the worldSocialists were cheered by this admission from their implacable enemy. In this connection it is worthy of note that Spencer continued tobelieve in the inevitability of Socialism. In October, 1905, awell-known Frenchman, M. G. Davenay, visited Mr. Spencer and had a longconversation with him on several subjects, Socialism among them. Soonafter his return, he received a letter on the subject from Mr. Spencer, written in French, which was published in the Paris _Figaro_ a few daysafter Mr. Spencer's death in December, 1905, two months or thereaboutsfrom the time of the interview which called it forth. [2] After somebrief reference to his health, Mr. Spencer wrote: "The opinions I havedelivered here before you, and which you have the liberty to publish, are briefly these: (1) Socialism will triumph inevitably, in spite ofall opposition; (2) its establishment will be the greatest disasterwhich the world has ever known; (3) sooner or later, it will be broughtto an end by a military despotism. "

Anything more terrible than this black pessimism which clouded thelatter part of the life of the great thinker, it would be difficult toimagine. After living his long life of splendid service to the cause ofintellectual progress, and studying as few men have ever done thehistory of the race, he went down to his grave fully believing that theworld was doomed to inevitable disaster. How different from theconfidence of the poet, [3] foretelling:--

 "A wonderful day a-coming when all shall be better than well. "

The last words of the great French Utopist, Saint-Simon, were, "Thefuture is ours!" And thousands of times his words have been echoed bythose who, believing equally with Herbert Spencer that Socialism mustcome, have seen in the prospect only the fulfillment of the age-longdream of Human Brotherhood. Men as profound as Spencer, and as sincere, rejoice at the very thing which blanched his cheeks and filled his heartwith fear. 

There is, then, a widespread conviction that Socialism will come and, incoming, vitally affect for good or ill every life. Millions of earnestmen and women have enlisted themselves beneath its banner in variouslands, and their number is steadily growing. In this country, as inEurope, the spread of Socialism is one of the most evident facts of theage, and its study is therefore most important. What does it mean, andwhat does it promise or threaten, are questions which civic dutyprompts. The day is not far distant when ignorance of Socialism will beregarded as a disgrace, and neglect of it a civic wrong. No man canfaithfully discharge the responsibilities of his citizenship until he isable to give an answer to these questions, to meet intelligently thechallenge of Socialism to the age. 

II

The word "Socialism" is admittedly one of the noblest and most inspiringwords ever born of human speech. Whatever may be thought of theprinciples for which it is the accepted name, or of the politicalparties which contend for those principles, no one can dispute thebeauty and moral grandeur of the word itself. I refer not merely, ofcourse, to its etymology, but rather to its spiritual import. Derivedfrom the Latin word, _socius_, meaning a comrade, it is, like the word"mother, " for instance, one of those great universal speech symbolswhich find their way into every language. 

Signifying as it does faith in the comradeship of man as the basis ofsocial existence, prefiguring a social state in which there shall be nostrife of man against man, or nation against nation, it is a verbalexpression of a great ideal, man's loftiest aspirations crystallizedinto a single word. The old Hebrew prophet's dream of aworld-righteousness that shall give peace, when nations "shall beattheir swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, "[4]and the Angel-song of Peace and Goodwill in the legend of the Nativity, mean no more than the word "Socialism" in its best usage means. Plato, spiritual son of the Socrates who for truth's sake drained the hemlockcup to its dregs, dreamed of such social peace and unity, and the lineof those who have seen the same vision of a love-welded world has neverbeen broken: More and Campanella, Saint-Simon and Owen, Marx and Engels, Morris and Bellamy--and the end of the prophetic line is not yet. 

But if the dream, the hope itself, is old, the word is comparativelynew. It is hard to realize that the word which means so much tocountless millions of human beings, and which plays such a part in thevital discussions of the world, in every civilized country, is no olderthan many of those whose lips speak it with reverence and hope. Yet suchis the fact. Because it will help us to a clearer understanding ofmodern Socialism, and because, too, it is little known, notwithstandingits intensely interesting character, let us linger awhile over that pageof history which records the origin of this noble word. 

Some years ago, anxious to settle, if possible, the vexed question ofthe origin and first use of the word "Socialism, " the present writerdevoted a good deal of time to an investigation of the subject, spendingmuch of it in a careful survey of all the early nineteenth-centuryradical literature. It soon appeared that the generally accepted accountof its introduction, by the French writer, L. Reybaud, in 1840, waswrong. Indeed, when once fairly started on the investigation, it seemedrather surprising that the account should have been accepted, practically without challenge, for so long. Finally the conclusion wasreached that an anonymous writer in an English paper was the first touse the word in print, the date being August 24, 1833. [5] Since thattime an investigation of a commendably thorough nature has been made bythree students of the University of Wisconsin, [6] with the result thatthey have been unable to find any earlier use of the word. It issomewhat disappointing that after thus tracing the word back to what maywell be its first appearance in print, it should be impossible toidentify its creator. 

The letter in which the term is first used is signed "A Socialist, " andit is quite evident that the writer uses it as a synonym for thecommonly used term "Owenite, " by which the disciples of Robert Owen wereknown. It is most probable that Owen himself had used the word, and, tosome extent, made it popular; and that the writer of the letter hadheard "our dear social father, " as Owen was called, use it, either insome of his speeches or in conversation. This is the more likely as Owenwas fond of inventing new words. At any rate, one of Owen's associates, now dead, told the present writer that Owen often specifically claimedto have used the word at least ten years before it was adopted by anyother writer. 

The word gradually became more familiar in England. Throughout the years1835-1836, in the pages of Owen's paper, _The New Moral World_, thereare many instances of the word occurring. The French writer, Reybaud, inhis "Reformateurs Modernes, " published in 1840, made the term equallyfamiliar to the reading public of Continental Europe. By him it wasused to designate the teachings not merely of Owen and his followers, but those of all social reformers and visionaries--Saint-Simon, CharlesFourier, Louis Blanc, and others. By an easy transition, it soon cameinto general use as designating all altruistic visions, theories, andexperiments, from the "Republic" of Plato onward through the centuries. 

In this way much confusion arose. The word became too vague andindefinite to be distinctive. It was applied--frequently as anepithet--indiscriminately to persons of widely differing, and oftenconflicting, views. Every one who complained of social inequalities, every dreamer of social Utopias, was called a Socialist. Theenthusiastic Christian, pleading for a return to the faith and practicesof primitive Christianity, and the aggressive atheist, proclaimingreligion to be the bulwark of the world's wrongs; the State worshiper, who would extol Law, and spread the net of government over the whole oflife, and the iconoclastic Anarchist, who would destroy all forms ofsocial authority, have all alike been dubbed Socialists, by theirfriends no less than by their opponents. 

The confusion thus introduced has had the effect of seriouslycomplicating the study of Socialism from the historical point of view. Much that one finds bearing the name of Socialism in the literature ofthe middle of the nineteenth century, for example, is not at allrelated to Socialism as that term is understood to-day. Thus theSocialists of the present day, who do not advocate Communism, regard asa classic presentation of their views the famous pamphlet by Karl Marxand Friederich Engels, _The Communist Manifesto_. They have circulatedit by millions of copies in practically all the languages of thecivilized world. Yet throughout it speaks of "Socialists" withill-concealed disdain, and always in favor of Communism and theCommunist Party. The reason for this is clearly explained by Engelshimself in the preface written by him for the English edition, but thathas not prevented many an unscrupulous opponent of Socialism fromquoting the _Communist Manifesto_ of Marx and Engels against theSocialists of the Marx-Engels school. [7] In like manner, the utterancesand ideas of many of those who formerly called themselves Socialistshave been quoted against the Socialists of to-day, notwithstanding thatit was precisely on account of their desire to repudiate all connectionwith, and responsibility for, such ideas that the founders of the modernSocialist movement took the name "Communists. "

Nothing could be clearer than the language in which Engels explains whythe name Communist was chosen, and the name Socialist discarded. Hesays: "Yet, when it (the _Manifesto_) was written, we could not havecalled it a _Socialist Manifesto_. By Socialists, in 1847, wereunderstood, on the one hand, the adherents of the various Utopiansystems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of thesealready reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out;on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks, who, by allmanner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capitaland profit, all sorts of social grievances; in both cases men outside ofthe working-class movement, and looking rather to the 'educated' classesfor support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convincedof the insufficiency of mere political revolution and had proclaimed thenecessity of a total social change, that portion, then, called itselfCommunist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort ofCommunism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enoughamong the working class to produce the Utopian Communism, in France, ofCabet, and in Germany, of Weitling. Thus Socialism was, in 1847, amiddle-class movement; Communism a working-class movement. Socialismwas, on the Continent at least, 'respectable'; Communism was the veryopposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that the'emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working classitself, ' there could be no doubt as to which of the names we must take. Moreover, we have ever since been far from regretting it. "[8]

There is still, unfortunately, much misuse of the word "Socialism, " evenby some accredited Socialist exponents. Writers like Tolstoy, Ibsen, Zola, and many others, are constantly referred to as Socialists, when, in fact, they are nothing of the sort. Still, the word is now prettygenerally understood as defined by the Socialists--not the "Socialists"of sixty years ago, who were mostly Communists, but the Socialists ofto-day, whose principles find classic expression in the _CommunistManifesto_, and to the attainment of which they have directed theirpolitical parties and programmes. In the words of Professor ThorsteinVeblen: "The Socialism that inspires hopes and fears to-day is of theschool of Marx. No one is seriously apprehensive of any other so-calledSocialistic movement, and no one is seriously concerned to criticise orrefute the doctrines set forth by any other school of 'Socialists. '"[9]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Republican National Platform, 1908. 

[2] I quote the English translation from the London _Clarion_, December18, 1905. 

[3] William Morris. 

[4] Isaiah ii. 4. 

[5] See _Socialism and Social Democracy_, by John Spargo. _The Comrade_, Vol. II, No. 6, March, 1903. 

[6] In _The International Socialist Review_, Vol. VI, No. 1, July, 1905. 

[7] As an instance of this I note the following example: "No severercritic of Socialists ever lived than Karl Marx. No one more bitterlyattacked them and their policy toward the trade unions than he.... Andyet Socialists regard him as their patron saint. " Mr. Samuel Gompers, in_The American Federationist_, August, 1905. 

[8] Preface to _The Communist Manifesto_, by F. Engels, Kerr edition, page 7. 

[9] _Quarterly Journal of Economics. _

CHAPTER II

ROBERT OWEN AND THE UTOPIAN SPIRIT

I

As a background to modern, or scientific, Socialism there is theSocialism of the Utopians, which the authors of the _Manifesto_ soseverely criticised. It is impossible to understand the modern Socialistmovement, the Socialism which is rapidly becoming the dominant issue inthe thought and politics of the world, without distinguishing sharplybetween it and the Utopian visions which preceded it. Failure to makethis distinction is responsible for the complete misunderstanding of theSocialism of to-day by many earnest and intelligent persons. 

It is not necessary that we study the Utopian movements which flourishedand declined prior to the rise of scientific Socialism in detail. Itwill be sufficient if we consider the Utopian Socialism of Owen, whichis Utopian Socialism at its best and nearest approach to the modernmovement. Thus we shall get a clear view of the point of departure whichmarked the rise of the later scientific movement with its revolutionarypolitical programmes. Incidentally, also, we shall get a view of thegreat and good Robert Owen, whom Liebknecht, greatest political leaderof the movement, has called, "By far the most embracing, penetrating, and practical of all the harbingers of scientific Socialism. "[10]

Friederich Engels, a man not given to praising overmuch, has spoken ofOwen with an enthusiasm which he rarely showed in his descriptions ofmen. He calls him, "A man of almost sublime and childlike simplicity ofcharacter, " and declares, "Every social movement, every real advance inEngland on behalf of the workers, links itself on to the name of RobertOwen. "[11] And even this high praise from the part-author of _TheCommunist Manifesto_ who for so many years was called the "Nestor of theSocialist movement, " falls short, because it does not recognize thegreat influence of the man in the United States at a most importantperiod of our history. 

Robert Owen was born of humble parentage, in a little town in NorthWales, on the fourteenth day of May, 1771. A most precocious child, atseven years of age, so he tells us in his "Autobiography, " he hadfamiliarized himself with Milton's "Paradise Lost, " and by the time hewas ten years old he had grappled with the ages-old problems of Whenceand Whither and become a skeptic! It is doubtful whether his"skepticism" really consisted of anything more than the consciousnessthat there were apparent contradictions in the Bible, a discovery whichmany a precocious lad has made at quite as early an age, and the failureof the usual theological subterfuges to satisfy a boy's frank spirit. Still, it is worthy of note as indicating his inquiring spirit. 

The great dream of his childhood was that he might become an educatedman. He thirsted for knowledge and wanted above all things a universityeducation. A passion for knowledge was the controlling force of hislife. But his parents were too poor to gratify his desire for anextensive education. He was barely ten years old when his scantyschooling ended, and he set out to fight the battle of life for himselfin London. 

He was apprenticed to a draper, named McGuffeg, who seems to have been arather superior type of man. From a small peddling business he had builtup one of the largest and wealthiest establishments in that part ofLondon, catering to the wealthy and the titled nobility. Above all, McGuffeg was a man of books, and in his well-stocked library young Owencould read several hours each day, and thus make up in a measure for hisearly lack of educational opportunities. During the three years of hisapprenticeship he read prodigiously, and laid the foundations of thatliterary culture which characterized his whole life and addedtremendously to his power. 

This is not in any sense a biographical sketch of Robert Owen. [12] If itwere, the story of the rise of this poor, strange, strong lad, frompoverty to the very pinnacle of industrial and commercial power andfame, as one of the leading manufacturers of his day, would lead throughpathways of romance as wonderful as any in our biographical literature. We are concerned, however, only with his career as a social reformer andthe forces which molded it. And that, too, has its romantic side. 

II

The closing years of the eighteenth century marked the beginning of agreat and far-reaching industrial revolution. The introduction of newmechanical inventions enormously increased the productive powers ofEngland. In 1770 Hargreaves patented his "spinning jenny, " and in thefollowing year Arkwright invented his "water frame, " a patent spinningmachine which derived its name from the fact that it was worked by waterpower. Later, in 1779, Crompton invented the "mule, " which was really acombination of the principles of both machines. This was a long stepforward, and greatly facilitated the spinning of the raw material intoyarn. The invention was, in fact, a revolution in itself. Like so manyother great inventors, Crompton died in poverty. 

Even now, however, the actual weaving had to be done by hand. Not until1785, when Dr. Cartwright, a parson, invented a "power loom, " was itdeemed possible to weave by machinery. Cartwright's invention, coming inthe same year as the general introduction of Watt's steam engine in thecotton industry, made the industrial revolution. Had the revolution comeslowly, had the inventors of the new industrial processes been able toaccomplish that, it is most probable that much of the misery of theperiod would have been avoided. As it was, terrible poverty and hardshipattended the birth of the new industrial order. Owing to the expense ofintroducing the machines, and the impossibility of competing with themby the old methods of production, the small manufacturers themselveswere forced to the wall, and their misery, compelling them to becomewage-workers in competition with other already far too numerouswage-workers, added greatly to the woe of the time. William Morris'sfine lines, written a hundred years later, express vividly what many amanufacturer must have felt at that time:--

 "Fast and faster our iron master, The thing we made, forever drives. "

But perhaps the worst of all the results of the new régime was thedestruction of the personal relations which had hitherto existed betweenthe employers and their employees. No attention was paid to theinterests of the latter. The personal relation was forever gone, andonly a hard, cold cash nexus remained. Wages went down at an alarmingrate, as might be expected; the housing conditions became simplyinhuman. Now it was discovered that a child at one of the new loomscould do more than a dozen men had done under the old conditions, and atremendous demand for child workers was the result. At first, as H. DeB. Gibbins[13] tells us, there was a strong repugnance on the part ofparents to sending their children into the factories. It was, in fact, considered a disgrace to do so. The term "factory girl" was an insultingepithet, and it was impossible for a girl who had been employed in afactory to obtain other employment. She could not look forward tomarriage with any but the very lowest of men, so degrading was factoryemployment considered to be. But the manufacturers had to get childrensomehow, and they got them. They got them from the workhouses. Pretending that they were going to apprentice them to a trade, theyarranged with the overseers of the poor regular days for the inspectionof these workhouse children. Those chosen were conveyed to theirdestination, packed in wagons or canal boats, and from that moment weredoomed to the most awful form of slavery. 

"Sometimes regular traffickers would take the place of themanufacturer, " says Gibbins, [14] "and transfer a number of children to afactory district, and there keep them, generally in some dark cellar, till they could hand them over to a mill owner in want of hands, whowould come and examine their height, strength, and bodily capacities, exactly as did the slave owners in the American markets. After that thechildren were simply at the mercy of their owners, nominally asapprentices, but in reality as mere slaves, who got no wages and whom itwas not worth while even to feed and clothe properly, because they wereso cheap and their places could be so easily supplied. It was oftenarranged by the parish authorities, in order to get rid of imbeciles, that one idiot should be taken by the mill owner with every twenty sanechildren. The fate of these unhappy idiots was even worse than that ofthe others. The secret of their final end has never been disclosed, butwe can form some idea of their awful sufferings from the hardships ofthe other victims to capitalist greed and cruelty. The hours of theirlabor were only limited by exhaustion, after many modes of torture hadbeen unavailingly applied to force continued work. Children were oftenworked sixteen hours a day, by day and by night. "

Terrible as this summary is, it does not equal in horror the accountgiven by "Alfred, "[15] in his "History of the Factory System": "Instench, in heated rooms, amid the constant whirl of a thousand wheels, little fingers and little feet were kept in ceaseless action, forcedinto unnatural activity by blows from the heavy hands and feet of themerciless overlooker, and the infliction of bodily pain by instrumentsof punishment invented by the sharpened ingenuity of insatiableselfishness. " The children were fed upon the cheapest and coarsest food, often the same as that served to their master's pigs. They slept byturns, and in relays, in filthy beds that were never cool. There wasoften no discrimination between the sexes, and disease, misery, and viceflourished. Some of these miserable creatures would try to run away, andto prevent them, those suspected had irons riveted on their ankles, withlong links reaching up to the hips, and were compelled to sleep and workwith them on, young women and girls, as well as boys, suffering thisbrutal treatment. The number of deaths was so great that burials tookplace secretly, at night, lest an outcry should be raised. Many of thechildren committed suicide. 

These statements are so appalling that, as Mr. R. W. Cooke-Taylorsays, [16] they would be "absolutely incredible" were they not fullyborne out by evidence from other sources. It is not contended, ofcourse, that conditions in all factories were as bad as those described. But it must be said emphatically that there were worse horrors than anyhere quoted, and equally emphatically that the very best factories wereonly a little better than those described. Take, for instance, theaccount given by Robert Owen of the conditions which obtained in the"model factory" of the time, the establishment at New Lanark, Scotland, owned by Mr. David Dale, where Owen himself was destined to introduce somany striking reforms. Owen assumed control of the New Lanark mills onthe first day of the year 1800. In his "Autobiography, "[17] he givessome account of the conditions which he found there, in the "bestregulated factory in the world, " at that time. There were, says Owen, about five hundred children employed, who "were received as early as sixyears old, the pauper authorities declining to send them at any laterage. " They worked from six in the morning until seven in the evening, and _then their education began_. They hated their slavery, and manyabsconded. Many were dwarfed and stunted in stature, and when they werethrough their "apprenticeship, " at thirteen or fifteen years of age, they commonly went off to Glasgow or Edinburgh, with no guardians, ignorant and ready--"admirably suited, " is Owen's phrase--to swell thegreat mass of vice and misery in the towns. The people in New Lanarklived "almost without control, in habits of vice, idleness, poverty, debt, and destitution. Thieving was general. " With such conditionsexisting in a model factory, under a master whose benevolence wascelebrated everywhere, it can be very readily believed that conditionselsewhere must have been abominable. 

As a result of the appalling poverty which developed, it soon becamenecessary for poor parents to permit their children to go into thefactories. The mighty machines were far too powerful for the prejudicesof parental hearts. Child wage-workers became common. They weresubjected to little better conditions than the parish apprentices hadbeen; in fact, they were often employed alongside of them. Fathers wereunemployed and frequently took meals to their little ones who were atwork--a condition which sometimes obtains in some parts of the UnitedStates even to this day. Michael Sadler, a member of the House ofCommons and a fearless champion of the rights of the poor andoppressed, described this aspect of the evil in touching verse. [18]

During all this time, let it be remembered, the English philanthropists, and among them many capitalists, were agitating against negro slavery inAfrica and elsewhere, and raising funds for the emancipation of theslaves. Says Gibbins, [19] "The spectacle of England buying the freedomof black slaves by riches drawn from the labor of her white ones affordsan interesting study for the cynical philosopher. "

As we read the accounts of the distress which followed upon theintroduction of the new mechanical inventions, it is impossible toregard with surprise or with condemnatory feelings, the riots of themisguided "Luddites" who went about destroying machinery in their blinddesperation. Ned Lud, after whom the Luddites were named, was an idiot, but wiser men, finding themselves reduced to abject poverty through theintroduction of the giant machines, could see no further than he. It wasnot to be expected that the masses should understand that it was not themachines, but the institution of their private ownership, and use forprivate gain, that was wrong. And just as we cannot regard with surprisethe action of the Luddites in destroying machinery, it is easy tounderstand how the social unrest of the time produced Utopian movementswith numerous and enthusiastic adherents. 

The Luddites were not the first to make war upon machinery. In 1758, forexample, Everet's first machine for dressing wool, an ingeniouscontrivance worked by water power, was set upon by a mob and reduced toashes. From that time on similar outbreaks occurred with more or lessfrequency; but it was not until 1810 that the organized bodies ofLuddites went from town to town, sacking factories and destroying themachines in their blind revolt. The contest between the capitalist andthe wage-worker, which, as Karl Marx says, dates back to the very originof capital, took on a new form when machinery was introduced. Henceforth, the worker fights not only, nor even mainly, against thecapitalist, but against the machine, as the material basis of capitalistexploitation. This is a distinct phase of the struggle of theproletariat everywhere. 

In the sixteenth century the ribbon loom, a machine for weaving ribbon, was invented in Germany. Marx quotes an Italian traveler, AbbéLancellotti, who wrote in 1579, as follows: "Anthony Müller, of Danzig, saw about fifty years ago, in that town, a very ingenious machine, whichweaves four to six pieces at once. But the mayor, being apprehensivethat this invention might throw a large number of workmen on thestreets, caused the inventor to be secretly strangled or drowned. "[20]In 1629 this ribbon loom was introduced into Leyden, where the riots ofthe ribbon weavers forced the town council to prohibit it. In 1676 itsuse was prohibited in Cologne, at the same time that its introductionwas causing serious disturbances in England. "By an imperial Edict ofthe 19th of February, 1685, its use was forbidden throughout allGermany. In Hamburg it was burned in public, by order of the Senate. TheEmperor Charles VI, on the 9th of February, 1719, renewed the Edict of1685, and not till 1765 was its use openly allowed in the Electorate ofSaxony. This machine, which shook all Europe to its foundations, was infact the precursor of the mule and power loom, and of the industrialrevolution of the eighteenth century. It enabled a totally inexperiencedboy to set the whole loom, with all its shuttles, in motion by simplymoving a rod backward and forward, and in its improved form producedfrom forty to fifty pieces at once. "[21]

The introduction of machinery has universally caused the workers torevolt. Much futile denunciation has been poured upon the blind, stupidresistance of the workers, but in view of the misery and poverty whichthey have suffered, it is impossible to judge them harshly. Theirpassionate, futile resistance to the irresistible moves to pity ratherthan to condemnation. As Marx justly says, "It took both time andexperience before the work people learned to distinguish betweenmachinery and its employment by capital, and to direct their attacks, not against the material instruments of production, but against the modein which they are used. "[22]

III

Under the new industrial régime, Robert Owen, erstwhile a poor draper'sapprentice, soon became one of the most successful manufacturers inEngland. At eighteen years of age we find him entering into themanufacture of the new cotton-spinning machines, with a borrowed capitalof $500. His partner was a man named Jones, and though the enterprisewas successful from a financial point of view, the partnership proved tobe most disagreeable. Accordingly it was dissolved, Owen taking three ofthe "mules" which they were making as a reimbursement for hisinvestment. With these and some other machinery, Owen entered the cottonmanufacturing industry, employing at first only three men. He made $1500as his first year's profit. 

Erelong Owen ceased manufacturing upon his own account, and becamesuperintendent of a Manchester cotton mill, owned by a Mr. Drinkwater, and employing some five hundred work people. A most progressive man, inhis new position Owen was always ready to introduce new machinery, andto embark upon experiments, with a view to improving the quality of theproduct of the factory. [23] In this he was so successful that the goodsmanufactured at the Drinkwater mill soon commanded a fifty per centadvance above the regular market prices. Drinkwater, delighted atresults like these, made Owen his partner. Thus when he was barelytwenty years of age Owen had secured an eminent position among thecotton manufacturers of the time. It is interesting to recall that Owen, in that same year, 1791, used the first cotton ever brought into Englandfrom the United States. "American sea island cotton, " as it was calledfrom the fact that it was then grown only upon the islands near thesouthern coast of the United States, was not believed to be of any valuefor manufacture on account, chiefly, of its poor color. But when acotton broker named Spear received three hundred pounds of it from anAmerican planter, with the request that he get some competent spinner totest it, Owen, with characteristic readiness, undertook the test andsucceeded in making a much finer product than had hitherto been madefrom the French cotton, though inferior to it in color. That was thefirst introduction of American cotton, destined soon to furnish Englishcotton mills with the greater part of their raw material. 

Owen did not long remain with Mr. Drinkwater. He accepted anotherprofitable partnership in Manchester, and it was at this time that hebecame active in social reform work. As a member of an importantliterary and philosophical society, he was thrown much into the companyof men distinguished in all walks of life, one of his friends andadmirers being the poet Coleridge. Here he began that agitation whichled to the passing of the very first factory act of Sir Robert Peel, in1802. The suffering of the children moved his great humane heart topity. He well knew that his own wealth and the wealth of hisfellow-capitalists had been purchased at a terrible cost in child life. He was only a philanthropist as yet; he saw only the pitiful waste oflife involved, and sought to impress men of wealth with what he felt. His mind was constantly occupied with plans for practical, constructivephilanthropy upon a scale never before attempted. 

On the first day of the nineteenth century, Owen entered upon thewonderful philanthropic career at New Lanark, which attracted universalattention, and ultimately led him to those social experiments andtheories which won for him the title of "Father of Modern Socialism. "We have already seen what the conditions were in the "model factory"when Owen assumed control. His influence was at once directed to thetask of ameliorating the condition of the work people. He shortened thehours of labor, introduced sanitary reforms, protected the peopleagainst the exploitation of traders through a vicious credit system, opening a store and supplying them with goods at cost, and establishedinfant schools, the first of their kind, for the care and education ofchildren from two years of age and upward. Still, the workers themselveswere suspicious of this man who, so different from other employers, waszealous in doing things for them. He really knew nothing of the workingclass, and it had never occurred to him that they might do anything forthemselves. New Lanark under Owen was, to use the phrase which Mr. Ghenthas adopted from Fourier, "a benevolent feudalism. " Owen complainspathetically, "Yet the work people were systematically opposed to everychange which I proposed, and did whatever they could to frustrate myobject. "[24]

Opportunity to win the affection and confidence of his employees came toOwen at last, and he was not slow to embrace it. In 1806 the UnitedStates, in consequence of a diplomatic rupture with England, placed anembargo upon the shipment of raw cotton to that country. Everywheremills were shut down, and there was the utmost distress in consequence. The New Lanark mills, in common with most others, were shut down forfour months, during which time Owen paid every worker his or her wagesin full, at a cost of over $35, 000. Forever afterward he enjoyed thelove and trust of his work people. In spite of all his seeminglyreckless expenditure upon purely philanthropic work, the mills yieldedan enormous profit. But Owen was constantly in conflict with hisbusiness associates, who sought to restrict his philanthropicexpenditures, with the result that he was compelled again and again tochange partners, always securing their interests and returning them bigprofits upon their investments, until finally, in 1829, he left NewLanark altogether. 

During twenty-nine years he had carried on the business with splendidcommercial success and at the same time attracted universal attention toNew Lanark as the theater of the greatest experiments in socialregeneration the modern world had known. Every year thousands of personsfrom all parts of the world, many of them statesmen and representativesof the crowned heads of Europe, visited New Lanark to study theseexperiments, and never were they seriously criticised or their successchallenged. It was a wonderful achievement. Had Owen's life ended in1829, he must have taken rank in history as one of the truly great menof the nineteenth century. 

IV

Let us now consider briefly the forces which led this gentlephilanthropist onward to the goal of Communism. His experiences at NewLanark had convinced him that human character depends in large partupon, and is shaped by, environment. Others before Owen had perceivedthis, but he must ever be regarded as one of the pioneers in the spreadof the idea, one of the first to give it definite form and todemonstrate its truth upon a large scale. In the first of those keen"Essays on the Formation of Human Character, " in which he recounts theresults of his New Lanark system of education, Owen says, "Any generalcharacter from the best to the worst, from the most ignorant to the mostenlightened, may be given to any community, even to the world at large, by the application of proper means; which means are to a great extent atthe command and under the control of those who have influence in theaffairs of men. "

We may admit that there is a good deal of overemphasis in thisstatement, but the doctrine itself does not seem strange or sensationalto-day. It might be promulgated in any fashionable church, or in anyministerial conference, without exciting more than a languid, passinginterest. But in Owen's time it was far otherwise. Such a doctrinestruck at the very roots of current theology and all that organizedChristianity consciously stood for. It denied the doctrine of thefreedom of the will, upon which the elaborate theology of the churchrested. No wonder, then, that it brought much bitter denunciation uponthe heads of its promulgators. A poet of the period, in a poem dedicatedto Owen, aptly expresses the doctrine in somewhat prosaic verse:--

 "We are the creatures of external things, Acting on inward organs, and are made To think and do whate'er our tutors please. What folly, then, to punish or reward For deeds o'er which we never held a curb! What woeful ignorance, to teach the crime And then chastise the pupil for his guilt!"[25]

Owen learned other things at New Lanark besides the truth that characteris formed largely by environment. Starting out with no other purposethan to ameliorate the conditions of his work people, he realized beforemany years had passed that he could never do for them the one essentialthing--secure their real liberty. "The people were slaves of my mercy, "he writes. [26] He saw, though but dimly at first, that no man could befree who depended upon another for the right to earn his bread, nomatter how good the bread-master might be. The hopelessness of expectingreform from the manufacturers themselves was painfully forced upon him. First of all, there was the bitter hostility of those of his class whohad no sympathy with his philanthropic ideas, manifested from thebeginning of his agitation at Manchester. Then there was the incessantconflict with his own associates, who, though they represented thenoblest and best elements of the manufacturing class, constantly opposedhim and regarded as dangerous and immoral his belief in the inherentright of every child to the opportunities of sound physical, mental, andmoral culture. Class consciousness had not yet become a recognized termin sociological discussions, but class consciousness, the instinctiveconformity of thought and action with class interests, was a fact whichconfronted Owen at every step. 

The Luddite riots of 1810-1811 awakened England to the importance of thelabor question, and Owen, who since 1805 had been devoting much time toits study, secured a wider audience and a much more serious hearing thanever before. Then came the frightful misery of 1815, due to the crisiswhich the end of the great war produced. Every one seemed to think thatwhen the war was over and peace restored, there would be a tremendousincrease in prosperity. What happened was precisely the opposite; for atime at least things were immeasurably worse than before. Peace did notbring with it plenty, but penury. 

Owen, more clearly than any other man of the time, explained the realnature of the crisis. The war had given an important spur to industryand encouraged many new inventions and chemical discoveries. "The warwas the great and most extravagant customer of farmers, manufacturers, and other producers of wealth, and many during this period became verywealthy.... And on the day on which peace was signed, the great customerof the producers died, and prices fell as the demand diminished, untilthe prime cost of the articles required for war could not beobtained.... Barns and farmyards were full, warehouses loaded, and suchwas our artificial state of society that this very superabundance ofwealth was the sole cause of the existing distress. _Burn the stock inthe farmyards and warehouses, and prosperity would immediatelyrecommence, in the same manner as if the war had continued. _ This wantof demand at remunerating prices compelled the master producers toconsider what they could do to diminish the amount of their productionsand the cost of producing until these surplus stocks could be taken outof the market. To effect these results, every economy in producing wasresorted to, and men being more expensive machines for producing thanmechanical and chemical inventions and discoveries so extensivelybrought into action during the war, the men were discharged and themachines were made to supersede them--while the numbers of theunemployed were increased by the discharge of men from the army andnavy. Hence the great distress for want of work among all classes whoselabor was so much in demand while the war continued. This increase ofmechanical and chemical power was continually diminishing the demandfor, and value of, manual labor, and would continue to do so, and wouldeffect great changes throughout society. "[27]

In this statement there are several points worthy of attention. In thefirst place, the analysis of the crisis of 1815 is very like the lateranalyses of commercial crises by the Marxists; secondly, the antagonismof class interests is clearly developed, so far as the basic interestsof the employers and their employees are concerned. The former, in orderto conserve their interests, have to dismiss the workers, thus forcingthem into the direst poverty. Thirdly, the conflict between manual laborand machine production is frankly stated. Owen's studies were leadinghim from mere philanthropism to Socialism. 

During the height of the distress of 1815, Owen called together a largenumber of cotton manufacturers at a conference, held in Glasgow, toconsider the state of the cotton trade and the prevailing distress. Heproposed (1) that they should petition Parliament for the repeal of therevenue tariff on raw cotton; (2) that they should call upon Parliamentto shorten the hours of labor in the cotton mills by legislativeenactment, and otherwise seek to improve the condition of the workingpeople. The first proposition was carried with unanimity, but thesecond, and to Owen the more important, did not even secure aseconder. [28] The conference plainly showed the power of classinterests. The spirit in which Owen faced his fellow-manufacturers isbest seen in the following extract from the address delivered by him, with copies of which he afterward literally deluged the kingdom:--

"True, indeed, it is that the main pillar and prop of the politicalgreatness and prosperity of our country is a manufacture which, as nowcarried on, is destructive of the health, morals, and social comfort ofthe mass of people engaged in it. It is only since the introduction ofthe cotton trade that children, at an age before they had acquiredstrength or mental instruction, have been forced into cottonmills, --those receptacles, in too many instances, for living humanskeletons, almost disrobed of intellect, where, as the business is oftennow conducted, they linger out a few years of miserable existence, acquiring every bad habit which they may disseminate throughout society. It is only since the introduction of this trade that children and evengrown people were required to labor more than twelve hours in a day, notincluding the time allotted for meals. It is only since the introductionof this trade that the sole recreation of the laborer is to be found inthe pot-house or ginshop, and it is only since the introduction of thisbaneful trade that poverty, crime, and misery have made rapid andfearful strides throughout the community. 

"Shall we then go unblushingly and ask the legislators of our country topass legislative acts to sanction and increase this trade--to sign thedeath warrants of the strength, morals, and happiness of thousands ofour fellow-creatures, and not attempt to propose corrections for theevils which it creates? If such shall be your determination, I, for one, will not join in the application, --no, I will, with all the faculties Ipossess, oppose every attempt made to extend the trade that, except inname, is more injurious to those employed in it than is the slavery inthe West Indies to the poor negroes; for deeply as I am interested inthe cotton manufacture, highly as I value the extended political powerof my country, yet knowing as I do, from long experience both here andin England, the miseries which this trade, as it is now conducted, inflicts on those to whom it gives employment, I do not hesitate to say:_Perish the cotton trade, perish even the political superiority of ourcountry, if it depends on the cotton trade, rather than that they shallbe upheld by the sacrifice of everything valuable in life. _"[29]

This conference doubtless had much to do with Owen's acceptance of acommunistic ideal approaching that of modern Socialism in many importantrespects. It certainly intensified the hatred and fear of thosemanufacturers whose interests he had so courageously attacked. In 1817we find him proposing to the British government the establishment ofcommunistic villages, as the best means of remedying the terribledistress which prevailed at that time. From this time onward hisinterest in mere surface reforms such as he had been carrying on at NewLanark seemed to wane. He became at this juncture an apostle ofCommunism, or as he later preferred to say, Socialism. His ideal was acoöperative world, with perfect equality between the sexes. He hadcompletely demonstrated to his own mind that private property wasincompatible with social well-being. Every month of his experience atNew Lanark had deeply impressed him with the conviction that to make itpossible for all people to live equally happy and moral lives they musthave equal material resources and conditions of life, and he could notunderstand why it had never occurred to others before him. 

Here we have the essential characteristic of Utopian Socialism asdistinguished from modern, or scientific, Socialism. The Utopians regardhuman life as something plastic and capable of being shaped and moldedaccording to systems and plans. All that is necessary is to take someabstract principle as a standard, and then prepare a plan for thereorganization of society in conformity with that principle. If the planis perfect, it will be enough to demonstrate its advantages as one woulddemonstrate a sum in arithmetic. The scientific Socialists, on the otherhand, are evolutionists. Society, they believe, cannot take leaps atwill; social changes are products of the past and the present. Theydistrust social inventors and schemes. Socialism is not an ingeniousplan for the realization of abstract Justice, or Brotherhood, but anecessary outgrowth of the centuries. Owen, then, was a Utopian. Heregarded himself as one inspired, an inspired inventor of a new socialsystem, and believed that it was only necessary for him to demonstratethe truth of his contentions and theories, by argument and practicalexperiment, to bring about the transformation of the world. Heconducted a tremendous propaganda, by means of newspapers, pamphlets, lectures, and debates, and established various communities in Englandand this country. In face of a bitter opposition and repeated failure, he kept on with sublime faith and unbounded courage which nothing couldshake. 

In 1825 Owen began the greatest and most splendid of his socialexperiments in the village of Harmonie, Indiana, in the beautiful valleyof the Wabash. The place had already been the theater of an interestingexperiment in religious communism, Owen having bought the property fromthe Rappites. In February and March, 1825, the brave reformer addressedtwo of the most distinguished audiences ever gathered in the Hall ofRepresentatives at the national capital. In the audiences were thePresident of the United States, the Judges of the Supreme Court, severalmembers of the cabinet, and almost the entire membership of both housesof Congress. Owen explained his plans for the regeneration of society indetail, exhibiting a model of the buildings to be erected. It is almostimpossible to realize at this day the tremendous interest which hisappeal to Congress awakened. His vision of a re-created world caught thepopular imagination. 

Among those whose minds were fired was a boy of sixteen, tall, lank, uncouth, and poor. Word had come to him of Owen's splendid undertaking, and he had caught something of the enthusiasm of the great dreamer. Above all, it was said that New Harmony was to be a wonderful center oflearning, that the foremost educators of the world would establish greatschools there, fully equipped with books and all sorts of appliances. Tobe a scholar had been the boy's one great ambition, so he yearnedwistfully for an opportunity to join the new community. But his fatherforbidding, claiming his services, the boy suffered grievousdisappointment. One wonders what effect residence at New Harmony wouldhave had upon the life of Abraham Lincoln, and upon the history ofAmerica! And how much, one wonders, was that splendid life influenced bythat boyish interest in the regeneration of the world?

That the influence of New Harmony was felt by Lincoln we know. It was achild of New Harmony, Robert Dale Owen, son of Robert Owen, who, whenemancipation seemed to hang in the balance, penned his remarkable letterto President Lincoln, dated September seventeenth, 1862. "Its perusalthrilled me like a trumpet call, " said the great President. Five daysafter its receipt the Preliminary Proclamation was issued. "Your letterto the President had more influence on him than any other document whichreached him on the subject--I think I might say than all others puttogether. I speak of that which I know from personal conference withhim, " wrote Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury. 

New Harmony failed. Other communities established by Owen failed, butthe story of their failure is nevertheless full of inspiration. Theworld has long since written the word "Failure" as an epitaph for RobertOwen. But what a splendid failure that life was! Standing by his graveone day, in the picturesque little churchyard at Newton, by a bend ofthe winding river, not far from the ruins of the ancient castle home ofthe famous Deist, Lord Herbert, the writer said to an old Welsh laborer, "But his life was a failure, was it not?" The old man gazed awhile atthe grave, and then with a voice of unforgettable reverence and loveanswered, "I suppose it was, sir, as the world goes; a failure likeJesus Christ's. But I don't call it failure, sir. He established infantschools; he founded the great coöperative movement; he helped to makethe trade unions;[30] he helped to give us the factory acts; he workedfor peace between two great countries. His Socialism has not beenrealized yet, nor has Christ's--but it will come!"

V

Owen was not the only builder of Utopias in his time. In the same yearthat Owen launched his New Harmony venture, there died in Paris anotherdreamer of social millenniums, a gentle mystic, Henry de Saint-Simon, and in 1837, the year of Owen's third Socialist congress, another greatUtopist died in the French capital, Charles Fourier. Each of thesecontributed something to the development of the theories of Socialism, each has a legitimate place in the history of the Socialist movement. But this little work is not intended to give the history ofSocialism. [31] I have taken only one of the three great Utopists, asrepresentative of them all: one who seems to me to be much nearer to thelater scientific movement pioneered by Marx and Engels than any of theothers. In the Socialism of Owen, we have Utopian Socialism at its best. 

What distinguishes the Utopian Socialists from their scientificsuccessors we have already noted. Engels expresses the principle veryclearly in the following luminous passage: "One thing is common to allthree. Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests ofthat proletariat which historical development had ... Produced. Like theFrench philosophers, [32] they do not claim to emancipate a particularclass to begin with, but all humanity at once. Like them, they wish tobring in the kingdom of reason and eternal justice, but this kingdom, asthey see it, is as far as heaven from earth from that of the Frenchphilosophers. 

"For, to our three social reformers, the bourgeois world, based upon theprinciples of these philosophers, is quite as irrational and unjust, and, therefore, finds its way to the dust hole quite as readily, asfeudalism and all the earlier stages of society. If pure reason andjustice had not, hitherto, ruled the world, this has been the case onlybecause men have not rightly understood them. What was wanted was theindividual man of genius, who has now arisen and who understands thetruth. That he has now arisen, that the truth has now been clearlyunderstood, is not an inevitable event, following of necessity in thechain of historical development, but a mere happy accident. He mightjust as well have been born five hundred years earlier, and might thenhave spared humanity five hundred years of error, strife, andsuffering. "[33]

Neither of these great Utopists had anything like the conception ofsocial evolution, determined by economic conditions and the resultingconflicts of economic classes, which constitutes the base of thephilosophy of the scientific Socialists. Each of them had some faintcomprehension of isolated facts, but neither of them developed hisknowledge very far, nor could the facts appear to them as correlatedlater by Marx. Saint-Simon, as we know, recognized the class struggle inthe French Revolution, and saw in the Reign of Terror only the momentaryreign of the non-possessing masses;[34] he saw, too, that the politicalquestion was fundamentally an economic question, declaring that politicsis the science of production, and prophesying that politics would beabsorbed by economics. [35] Fourier, we also know, applied the principleof evolution to society. He divided the history of society into fourgreat epochs--savagery, barbarism, the patriarchate, andcivilization. [36] But just as Saint-Simon failed to grasp thesignificance of the class conflict, and its relation to the fundamentalcharacter of economic institutions, which he dimly perceived, so Fourierfailed to grasp the significance of the evolutionary process which hedescribed, and, like Saint-Simon, he halted upon the brink, so to speak, of an important discovery. His concept of social evolution meant littleto him and possessed only an academic interest. And Owen, in manyrespects the greatest of the three, realized in a practical manner thatthe industrial problem was a class conflict. Not only had he found in1815 that pity was powerless to move the hearts of hisfellow-manufacturers when their class interests were concerned, butlater, in 1818, when he went to present his famous memorial to theCongress of Sovereigns at Aix-la-Chapelle, he had another lesson of thesame kind. At Frankfort, Germany, he tarried on his way to the Congress, and was invited to attend a notable dinner to meet the Secretary of theCongress, M. Gentz, a famous diplomat of the day, "who enjoyed the fullconfidence of the leading despots of Europe. " After Owen had outlinedhis schemes for social amelioration, M. Gentz was asked for his reply, and Owen tells us that the diplomat answered, "We know very well thatwhat you say is true, but how could we govern the masses, if they werewealthy, and so, independent of us?"[37] Lord Lauderdale, too, hadexclaimed on another occasion, "Nothing [_i. E. _ than Owen's plans] couldbe more complete for the poor and working classes, but what will becomeof us?"[38] Scattered throughout Owen's writings and speeches arenumerous evidences that he at times recognized the class antagonisms inindustrial society as the heart of the industrial problem, [39] but tohim, also, the germ of an important truth meant practically nothing. Hesaw only the facts in their isolation, and made no attempt to discovertheir meaning or to relate them to his teaching. 

Each of the three men regarded himself as the discoverer of the truthwhich would redeem the world; each devoted himself with magnificentfaith and heroic courage to his task; each failed to realize his hopes;and each left behind him faithful disciples and followers, confidentthat the day must come at last when the suffering and disinherited ofearth will be able to say, in Owen's dying words, "Relief has come. "Perhaps no better estimate of the value of the visions of these greatUtopists has ever been penned than that by Emerson in the followingtribute to Owen:[40]--

"Robert Owen of New Lanark came hither from England in 1845 to readlectures or hold conversations wherever he could find listeners--themost amiable, sanguine, and candid of men. He had not the least doubtthat he had hit on the plan of right and perfect Socialism, or thatmankind would adopt it. He was then seventy years old, and being asked, 'Well, Mr. Owen, who is your disciple? how many men are there possessedof your views who will remain after you are gone to put them inpractice?' 'Not one, ' was the reply. Robert Owen knew Fourier in his oldage. He said that Fourier learned of him all the truth that he had. Therest of his system was imagination, and the imagination of a visionary. Owen made the best impression by his rare benevolence. His love of menmade us forget his 'three errors. ' His charitable construction of menand their actions was invariable. He was the better Christian in hiscontroversies with Christians. 

"And truly I honor the generous ideas of the Socialists, themagnificence of their theories, and the enthusiasm with which they havebeen urged. They appeared inspired men of their time. Mr. Owen preachedhis doctrine of labor and reward with the fidelity and devotion of asaint in the slow ears of his generation. 

"One feels that these philosophers have skipped no fact but one, namely, life. They treat man as a plastic thing, or something that may be put upor down, ripened or retarded, molded, polished, made into solid or fluidor gas at the will of the leader; or perhaps as a vegetable, from which, though now a very poor crab, a very good peach can by manure andexposure be in time produced--and skip the faculty of life which spawnsand spurns systems and system makers; which eludes all conditions; whichmakes or supplants a thousand Phalanxes and New Harmonies with eachpulsation.... 

"Yet, in a day of small, sour and fierce schemes, one is admonished andcheered by a project of such friendly aims, and of such bold andgenerous proportions; there is an intellectual courage and strength init which is superior and commanding; it certifies the presence of somuch truth in the theory, and in so far is destined to be fact. 

"I regard these philanthropists as themselves the effects of the age inwhich they live, in common with so many other good facts theefflorescence of the period and predicting the good fruit that ripens. They were not the creators that they believed themselves to be; but theywere unconscious prophets of the true state of society, one which thetendencies of nature lead unto, one which always establishes itself forthe sane soul, though not in that manner in which they paint it. "

 "Our visions have not come to naught, Who saw by lightning in the night; The deeds we dreamed are being wrought By those who work in clearer light; In other ways our fight is fought, And other forms fulfill our thought Made visible to all men's sight. "[41]

FOOTNOTES:

[10] _Karl Marx: Biographical Memoirs_, by Wilhelm Liebknecht, page 101. 

[11] _Socialism, Utopian and Scientific_, by F. Engels, London, 1892, pages 20-25. 

[12] For good accounts of the life of Owen the reader is referred to theBiography, by Lloyd Jones, in _The Social Science Series_, 1890, published by Swan, Sonnenschein & Co. , London, and the _Life of RobertOwen_, by Frank Podmore, 2 vols. , New York, 1907. 

[13] _The Industrial History of England_, by H. De B. Gibbins, London, Methuen and Co. 

[14] _Industrial History of England_, page 179. 

[15] This anonymous historian is now known to have been Mr. Samuel Kydd, barrister-at-law (_vide_ Cooke-Taylor). 

[16] _The Factory System and the Factory Acts_, by R. W. Cooke-Taylor, London, 1894. 

[17] In two volumes: London, Effingham Wilson, 1857 and 1858. Vol. Icontains the Life; Vol. II is a Supplementary Appendix. Quotations arefrom Vol. I. 

[18] See _Songs of Freedom_, by H. S. Salt, pages 81-83. 

[19] _Industrial History of England_, page 181. 

[20] _Capital_, by Karl Marx, Vol. I, page 467, Kerr edition. 

[21] _Idem_, Vol. I, page 468. 

[22] _Capital_, Vol. I, page 468. 

[23] For instance, he so improved the machinery and increased thefineness of the threads that, instead of spinning seventy-five thousandyards of yarn to the pound of cotton, he spun two hundred and fiftythousand! At that time a pound of cotton, which in its raw state wasworth $1. 25, became worth $50 when spun. --_Life of Robert Owen_, Philadelphia, 1866. --_Anonymous. _

[24] _Autobiography. _

[25] _The Force of Circumstances_, a poem, by John Garwood, Birmingham, 1808. 

[26] Quoted by Engels, _Socialism, Utopian and Scientific_, page 22(English edition, 1892). 

[27] Quoted by H. M. Hyndman, _The Economics of Socialism_, page 150. 

[28] _The New Harmony Communities_, by George Browning Lockwood, page71. 

[29] Quoted by Lockwood, _The New Harmony Communities_, pages 71-72. 

[30] Owen presided at the first organized Trade Union Congress inEngland. 

[31] For the history of these and other Utopian Socialist schemes, thereader is referred to Professor Ely's _French and German Socialism_(1883); Kirkup's _History of Socialism_ (1900); and Hillquit's _Historyof Socialism in the United States_ (1903). 

[32] The Encyclopædists. 

[33] Engels, _Socialism, Utopian and Scientific_, pages 6-7. 

[34] Engels, _Socialism, Utopian and Scientific_, page 15. 

[35] _Idem. _

[36] _Idem_, page 18. 

[37] _Autobiography. _

[38] _Idem. _

[39] See, for instance, _The Revolution in Mind and Practice_, by RobertOwen, pages 21-22. 

[40] _Essay on Robert Owen. _

[41] Gerald Massey. 

CHAPTER III

THE "COMMUNIST MANIFESTO" AND THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT

I

The _Communist Manifesto_ has been called the birth-cry of the modernscientific Socialist movement. When it was written, at the end of 1847, little remained of those great movements which in the early part of thecentury had inspired millions with high hopes of social regeneration andrekindled the beacon fires of faith in the world. The Saint-Simonianshad, as an organized body, disappeared; the Fourierists were a dwindlingsect, discouraged by the failure of the one great trial of their system, the famous Brook Farm experiment, in the United States; the Owenitemovement had never recovered from the failures of the experiments at NewHarmony and elsewhere, and had lost much of its identity through themultiplicity of interests embraced in Owen's later propaganda. Chartismand Trade Unionism on the one hand, and the Coöperative Societies on theother, had, between them, absorbed most of the vital elements of theOwenite movement. 

There was a multitude of what Engels calls "social quacks, " but thereally great social movements, Owenism in England, and Fourierism inFrance, were utterly demoralized and rapidly dwindling away. One thingonly served to keep the flame of hope alive--"the crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of Communism" of the workers. This Communism ofthe working class differed very essentially from the Socialism ofFourier and Owen. It was Utopian, being based, like all Utopianmovements, upon abstract ideas. It differed from Fourierism and Owenism, however, in that instead of a universal appeal based upon Brotherhood, Justice, Order, and Economy, its appeal was, primarily, to the laborer. Its basis was the crude class doctrine of "the rights of Labor. " Thelaborer was appealed to as one suffering from oppression and injustice. It was, therefore, distinctly a class movement, and itsclass-consciousness was sufficiently developed to keep its leaders fromwasting their lives in abortive appeals to the master class. The leadingexponents of this Communism of the workers were Wilhelm Weitling, inGermany, and Étienne Cabet, in France. 

Weitling was a man of the people. He was born in Magdeburg, Germany, in1808, the illegitimate child of a humble woman and her soldier lover. Hebecame a tailor, and, as was the custom in Germany at that time, traveled extensively during his apprenticeship. In 1838 his firstimportant work, "The World As It Is, and As It Might Be, " appeared, published in Paris by a secret revolutionary society consisting ofGerman workingmen of the "Young Germany" movement. In this work Weitlingfirst expounded at length his communistic theories. It is claimed[42]that his conversion to Communism was the result of the chance placing ofa Fourierist paper upon the table of a Berlin coffeehouse, by AlbertBrisbane, the brilliant friend and disciple of Fourier, his firstexponent in the English language. This may well be true, for, as weshall see, Weitling's views are mainly based upon those of the greatFrench Utopist. In 1842 Weitling published his best-known work, the bookupon which his literary fame chiefly rests, "The Guaranties of Harmonyand Freedom. " This work at once attracted wide attention, and gaveWeitling a foremost place among the writers of the time in theaffections of the educated workers. It was an elaboration of thetheories contained in his earlier book. Morris Hillquit[43] thusdescribes Weitling's philosophy and method:--

"In his social philosophy, Weitling may be said to have been theconnecting link between primitive and modern Socialism. In the main, heis still a Utopian, and his writings betray the unmistakable influenceof the early French Socialists. In common with all Utopians, he baseshis philosophy exclusively upon moral grounds. Misery and poverty are tohim but the results of human malice, and his cry is for 'eternaljustice' and for the 'absolute liberty and equality of all mankind. ' Inhis criticism of the existing order, he leans closely on Fourier, fromwhom he also borrowed the division of labor into three classes of theNecessary, Useful, and Attractive, and the plan of organization of'attractive industry. '

"His ideal of the future state of society reminds us of theSaint-Simonian government of scientists. The administration of affairsof the entire globe is to be in the hands of the three greatestauthorities on 'philosophical medicine, ' physics, and mechanics, who areto be reënforced by a number of subordinate committees. His state of thefuture is a highly centralized government, and is described by theauthor with the customary details. Where Weitling, to some extent, approaches the conception of modern Socialism, is in his recognition ofclass distinctions between employer and employee. This distinction neveramounted to a conscious indorsement of the modern Socialist doctrine ofthe 'class struggle, ' but his views on the antagonism between the 'poor'and the 'wealthy' came quite close to it. He was a firm believer inlabor organizations as a factor in developing the administrativeabilities of the working class; the creation of an independent laborparty was one of his pet schemes, and his appeals were principallyaddressed to the workingmen. "

Weitling visited the United States in 1846, a group of German exiles, identified with the Free Soil movement, having invited him to become theeditor of a magazine, the _Volkstribun_, devoted to the principles ofthe movement. By the time he reached America, however, the magazine hadsuspended publication. He stayed little more than a year, hastening backto the fatherland to share in the revolutionary activities of 1848. Hereturned to America again in 1849, after the failure of the "gloriousrevolution, " and for many years thereafter was an active and tirelesspropagandist. He died in Brooklyn in 1871. 

Étienne Cabet was, in many ways, a very different type of man fromWeitling, but their ideas were not so dissimilar. Cabet, born in Dijon, France, in 1788, was the son of a fairly prosperous cooper, and receiveda good university education. He studied both medicine and law, adoptingthe profession of the latter and early achieving marked success in itspractice. He took a leading part in the Revolution of 1830 as a memberof the "Committee of Insurrection, " and upon the accession of LouisPhilippe was "rewarded" by being made Attorney-General for Corsica. There is no doubt that the government desired to remove Cabet from thepolitical life of Paris, quite as much as to reward him for his servicesduring the Revolution; his strong radicalism, combined with his sturdyindependence of character, being rightly regarded as dangerous to LouisPhilippe's régime. His reward, therefore, took the form of practicalbanishment. The wily advisers of Louis Philippe used the gloved hand. But the best-laid schemes of mice and courtiers "gang aft agley. " Cabet, in Corsica, joined the radical anti-administration forces, and became athorn in the side of the government. Removed from office, he returned toParis, whereupon the citizens of Dijon, his native town, elected him astheir deputy to the lower chamber in 1834. Here he continued hisopposition to the administration, and was at last tried on a charge of_lèse majesté_, and given the option of choosing between two years'imprisonment and five years' exile. 

Cabet chose exile, and took up his residence in England, where he fellunder the influence of Owen's agitation and became a convert to hisSocialistic views. During this time of exile, too, he became acquaintedwith the "Utopia" of Sir Thomas More and was fascinated by it. The ideaof writing a similar work of fiction to propagate his Socialist beliefimpressed itself upon his mind, and he wrote "a philosophical and socialromance, " entitled "Voyage to Icaria, " which was published soon afterhis return to Paris, in 1839. In this novel Cabet follows closely themethod of More, and describes "Icaria" as "a Promised Land, an Eden, anElysium, a new terrestrial Paradise. " The plot of the book is simple inthe extreme, and its literary merit is not very great. The writerrepresents that he met, in London, a nobleman, Lord William Carisdall, who, having by chance heard of Icaria and the wonderful and strangecustoms and form of government of its inhabitants, visited the country. Lord William kept a diary in which he described all that he saw in thiswonderland. This record, we are told, the traveler had permitted to bepublished through the medium of his friend, and under his editorialsupervision. The first part of the book contains an attractive accountof the coöperative system of the Icarians, their communistic government, equality of the sexes, and high standard of morality. The second part isdevoted to an account of the history of Icaria, prior to and succeedingthe revolution of 1782, when the great national hero, Icar, establishedCommunism. 

The book created a tremendous furore in France. It appealed strongly tothe discontented masses, and it is said that by 1847 Cabet had no lessthan four hundred thousand adherents among the workers of France. Thenumerical strength of revolutionary movements is almost invariablygreatly exaggerated, however, and it is not likely that the figurescited are exceptional in this regard. It is possible, _cum granosalis_, to accept the figures only by remembering that a veryinfinitesimal proportion of these were adherents in the sense of beingready to follow Cabet's leadership, as subsequent events showed. Whenthe clamor rose for a practical test of the theories set forth soalluringly, Cabet visited Robert Owen in England and sought advice as tothe best site for such an experiment. Owen recommended Texas, thenrecently admitted into the union of states and anxious for settlers. Cabet accepted Owen's advice and called for volunteers to form the"advance guard" of settlers, the number responding being pitifully, almost ludicrously, small. Still, the effect of the book was very great, and it served to fire the flagging zeal of those workers for socialregeneration whose hearts must otherwise have become deadly sick fromlong-deferred hopes. 

The confluence of these two streams of Communist propaganda representedby Weitling and Cabet constituted the real Communist "movement" of1840-1847. Its organized expression was the Communist League, a secretorganization with its headquarters in London. The League was formed inParis by German refugees and traveling workmen, and seems to have beenan offspring of Mazzini's "Young Europe" agitation of 1834. At differenttimes it bore the names, "League of the Just, " "League of theRighteous, " and, finally, "Communist League. "[44] For many years itremained a mere conspiratory society, exclusively German, and existedmainly for the purpose of fostering the "Young Germany" ideas. Later itbecame an International Alliance with societies in many parts of Europe. 

In 1847 Karl Marx was residing in Brussels. During a prior residence inParis he had come into close association with the leaders of the Leaguethere, and had agreed to form a similar society in Brussels. Engels wasin Paris in 1847, and it was probably due to his activities that theParis League officially invited both him and Marx to join theinternational organization, promising that a congress should be convenedin London at an early date. We may, in view of the after career ofEngels as the politician of the movement, surmise so much. Be that howit may, the invitation, with its promise to call a congress in London, was extended and accepted. The reason for the step, the object of theproposed congress, is quite clear. Marx himself has placed it beyonddispute. During his stay in Paris he and Engels had discussed theposition of the League with some of its leaders, and he had, later, criticised it in the most merciless manner in some of his pamphlets. [45]Marx desired a revolutionary working class political party with adefinite aim and policy. Those leaders of the League who agreed with himin this were the prime movers for the congress, which was held inLondon, in November, 1847. 

At the congress, Marx and Engels presented their views at great length, and outlined the principles and policy which their famous pamphlet latermade familiar. Perhaps it was due to the very convincing manner in whichthey argued that the emancipation of the working class must be the workof that class itself, that there was some opposition to them, on thepart of a few delegates, on the ground that they were "Intellectuals"and not members of the proletariat, a criticism which pursued them allthrough their lives. Their views found general favor, however, as mightbe expected from such an inchoate mass of men, revolutionaries to thecore, and waiting only for effective leadership. A resolution wasadopted requesting Marx and Engels to prepare "a complete theoreticaland working programme" for the League. This they did. It took the formof the _Communist Manifesto_, published in the early part of January, 1848. 

II

The authors of the _Manifesto_ were men of great intellectual gifts. Either of them alone must have won fame; together, they won immortality. Their lives, from the date of their first meeting in Paris, in 1844, tothe death of Marx, almost forty years later, are inseparably interwoven. The friendship of Damon and Pythias was not more remarkable. 

Karl Heinrich Marx was born on the fifth day of May, 1818, at Treves, the oldest town in Germany, dating back to Roman times. His parents wereboth people of remarkable character. His mother--_née_ Pressburg--wasthe descendant of Hungarian Jews who in the sixteenth century hadsettled in Holland. Many of her ancestors had been rabbis. Marx waspassionately devoted to his mother, always speaking of her with reverentadmiration. On his father's side, also, Marx boasted of a long line ofrabbinical ancestors, and it has been suggested that he owed to thisrabbinical ancestry some of his marvelous gift of luminous exposition. The true family name was Mordechia, but that was abandoned by hisgrandfather, who took the name of Marx, which the grandson was destinedto make famous. The father of Karl was a lawyer of some prominence andconsiderable learning, and a man of great force of character. In 1824, the boy Karl being then six years old, he renounced the Jewish religionand embraced Christianity, all the members of the family being baptizedand received into the Church. 

There is a familiar legend that this act was the result of compulsion, being taken in response to an official edict. [46] He held at the timethe position of notary public at the county court, and it is claimedthat the official edict in question required all Jews holding officialpositions to forego them, and to abandon the practice of law, or toaccept the Christian faith. Many writers, including Liebknecht[47] andone of the daughters of Karl Marx, [48] have given this explanation ofthe renunciation of Judaism by the elder Marx. It seems certain, however, that the act was purely voluntary, and that there was no suchedict. [49] It may be that social ambitions had something to do with it, that he hoped to attain, as a Christian, a measure of success notpossible to an adherent of the Hebrew faith. Whatever the motive, theact was a voluntary one. A great admirer of the eighteenth-century"materialists, " and a disciple of Voltaire, he believed in God, he said, as Newton, Locke, and Leibnitz had done before him. He discussedreligious and philosophical questions very freely and frankly with hisson, and read Voltaire and Racine with him. As for the mother of Marx, she also believed in God--"not for God's sake, but for my own, " sheexplained when asked about it. 

At the earnest behest of his father, Marx studied law at theuniversities of Bonn, Berlin, and Jena. But "to please himself" hestudied history and philosophy, winning great distinction in thesebranches of learning. He graduated in 1841, as a Doctor of Philosophy, with an essay on the philosophy of Epicurus, and it was his purpose tosettle at Bonn as a professor of philosophy. The plan was abandoned, partly because he had already discovered that his bent was towardpolitical activity, and partly because the Prussian government had madescholastic independence impossible, thus destroying the attractivenessof an academic career. Accordingly, Marx accepted the editorship of ademocratic paper, the _Rhenish Gazette_, in which he waged bitter, relentless war upon the government. Time after time the censorsinterfered, but Marx was too brilliant a polemicist, even thus early inhis career, and far too subtle for the censors. Finally, at the requestof his managers, who hoped thus to avoid being compelled to suspend thepublication, Marx retired from the editorship. This did not serve tosave the paper, however, and it was suppressed by the government inMarch, 1843. 

Soon after this Marx went to Paris, with his young bride of a fewmonths, Jenny von Westphalen, the playmate of his childhood. The VonWestphalens were of the nobility, and a brother of Mrs. Marx afterwardbecame a Prussian Minister of State. The elder Von Westphalen was halfScotch, related, on his maternal side, to the Argyles. He was a linealdescendant of the Duke of Argyle who was beheaded in the reign of JamesII. His daughter tells an amusing story of how Marx, many years later, having to pawn some of his wife's heirlooms, especially some heavy, antique silver spoons which bore the Argyle crest and motto, "Truth ismy maxim, " narrowly escaped arrest on suspicion of having robbed theArgyles![50] To Paris, then, Marx went, and there met, among others, Heinrich Heine, many of whose poems he suggested, Arnold Ruge, the poet, P. J. Proudhon, and Michael Bakunin, the Anarchist philosopher, and, above all, the man destined to be his very _alter ego_, FriedrichEngels, with whom he had already had some correspondence. [51]

The attainments of Engels have been somewhat overshadowed by those ofhis friend. Born at Barmen, in the province of the Rhine, November 28, 1820, he was educated in the gymnasium of that city, and after servinghis period of military service, from 1837 to 1841, was sent, in theearly part of 1842, to Manchester, England, to look after acotton-spinning business of which his father was principal owner. Herehe seems to have at once begun a thorough investigation of social andindustrial conditions, the results of which are contained in a book, "The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, " which remainsto this day a classic presentation of the social and industrial life ofthe period. From the very first, already predisposed, as we know, hesympathized with the views of the Chartists and the Owenite Socialists. He became friendly with the Chartist leaders, notably with FeargusO'Connor, to whose paper, the _Northern Star_, he became a contributor. He also became friendly with Robert Owen, and wrote for his _New MoralWorld_. [52] His linguistic abilities were very great; it is said that hehad thoroughly mastered no less than ten languages--a gift which helpedhim immensely in his literary and political associations with Marx. 

When the two men met for the first time, in 1844, they were drawntogether by an irresistible impulse. They were kindred spirits. Marx hadgone to Paris mainly for the purpose of studying the Socialist movementof the time. During his editorship of the _Rhenish Gazette_ severalarticles had appeared on the subject, and he had refused to attack theSocialists in any manner. He had gone to Paris with a considerablereputation already established as a leader of radical thought, and atonce sought out the Saint-Simonians, under whose influence he was led todeclare himself definitely a Socialist. At first this seems difficult toexplain, so wide is the chasm which yawns between the "New Christianity"of Saint-Simon and the materialism of Marx. There seems to be no bond ofsympathy between the religious mysticism of the French dreamer and thescientific thought of the German economist and philosopher. 

Marx has been described as being "rigidly mathematical, "[53] and thepicture of the man one gets from his writings is that of a cold, unemotional philosopher, dealing only with facts and caring nothing foridealism. But the real Marx was a very different sort of man. His lifewas itself a splendid example of noble idealism, and underlying all hismaterialism there was a great religious spirit, using the word"religious" in its noblest and best sense, quite independent of dogmatictheology. All his life he was a deep student of Dante, the _DivineComedy_ being his constant companion, so that he knew it almostcompletely by heart. Some of his attacks upon Christianity are verybitter, and have been much quoted against Socialism, but they are notone whit more bitter than the superb thunderbolts of invective whichthe ancient Hebrew prophets hurled against an unfaithful Church andpriesthood. For the most part, they are attacks upon religious hypocrisyrather than upon Christianity. Marx was, of course, an agnostic, even anatheist, but he was full of sympathy with the underlying ethicalprinciples of all the great religions. Always tolerant of the religiousopinions of others, he had nothing but scorn and contempt for theblatant dogmatic atheism of his time, and vigorously opposed committingthe Socialist movement to atheism as part of its programme. [54] Inshort, he was a man of fine spiritual instincts, splendidly religious inhis irreligion. 

This spiritual side of Marx must be considered if we would understandthe man. It is not necessary, however, to ascribe the influence ofSaint-Simonian thought upon him to a predisposing spiritual temperament. Marx, with his usual penetration, saw in Saint-Simonism the hidden germof a great truth, the embryo of a profound social theory. Saint-Simon, as we have seen, had vaguely indicated the two ideas which wereafterward to be cardinal doctrines of the Marx-Engels _Manifesto_--theantagonism of classes, and the economic foundation of politicalinstitutions. Not only so, but Saint-Simon's grasp of politicalquestions, instanced by his advocacy, in 1815, of a triple alliancebetween England, France, and Germany, [55] appealed to Marx, andimpressed him alike by its fine perspicacity and its splendid courage. Engels, in whom, as stated, the working-class spirit of Chartism andthe ideals of Owenism were blended, found in Marx a twin spirit. Theywere, indeed, --

 "Two souls with but a single thought, Two hearts that beat as one. "

III

The _Communist Manifesto_ is the first declaration of an InternationalWorkingmen's Party. Its fine peroration is a call to the workers totranscend the petty divisions of nationalism and sectarianism: "Theproletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world towin. Workingmen of all countries, unite!" These concluding phrases ofthe _Manifesto_ have become the shibboleths of millions. They arerepeated with fervor by the disinherited workers of all the lands. Evenin China, lately so rudely awakened from the slumbering peace of thecenturies, they are voiced by an ever increasing army of voices. Nosentences ever coined in the mint of human speech have held such magicpower over such large numbers of men and women of so many diverse racesand creeds. As a literary production, the _Manifesto_ bears theunmistakable stamp of genius. 

But it is not as literature that we are to consider the historicdocument. Its importance for us lies, not in its form, but in itsfundamental principle. And the fundamental principle, the essence orsoul of the declaration, is contained in this pregnant summary byEngels:--

"In every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic productionand exchange, and the _social organization necessarily following fromit, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can beexplained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch_, thatconsequently the whole history of mankind (since primitive tribalsociety holding land in common ownership) has been a history of classstruggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling andoppressed classes. "[56]

Thus Engels summarizes the philosophy--as apart from the proposals ofimmediate measures to constitute the political programme of theparty--of the _Manifesto_; the basis upon which the whole superstructureof modern, scientific Socialist theory rests. This is the materialistic, or economic, conception of history which distinguishes scientificSocialism from all the Utopian Socialisms which preceded it. Socialismis henceforth a theory of social evolution, not a scheme ofworld-building; a spirit, not a thing. Thus, twelve years before theappearance of "The Origin of Species, " nearly twenty years after thedeath of Lamarck, the authors of the _Communist Manifesto_ formulated agreat theory of social evolution as the basis of the mightiestproletarian movement in history. Socialism had become a science insteadof a dream. 

IV

Naturally, in view of its historic rôle, the joint authorship of the_Manifesto_ has been much discussed. What was the respective share ofeach of its creators? What did Marx contribute, and what Engels? It maybe, as Liebknecht says, an idle question, but it is a perfectly naturalone. The pamphlet itself does not assist us. There are no internal signspointing now to the hand of the one, now to the hand of the other. Wemay hazard a guess that most of the programme of ameliorative measureswas the work of Engels, and perhaps the final section. It was the workof Engels throughout his life to deal with present social and politicalproblems in the light of the fundamental theories to the systematizationand elucidation of which Marx was devoted. 

Beyond this mere conjecture, we have the word of Engels with regard tothe basal principle which he has summarized in the passage alreadyquoted. "The _Manifesto_ being our joint production, " he says, "Iconsider myself bound to state that the fundamental proposition whichforms its nucleus belongs to Marx.... This proposition, which, in myopinion, is destined to do for history what Darwin's theory has donefor biology, we, both of us, had been gradually approaching for someyears before 1845. How far I had progressed toward it is best shown bymy 'Condition of the Working Class in England. '[57] But when I again metMarx at Brussels, in spring, 1845, he had it ready worked out, and putit before me in terms almost as clear as those in which I have stated ithere. "[58]

Engels has lifted the veil thus far, but the rest is hidden. Perhaps itis well that it should be; well that no man should be able to say whichpassages came from the mind of Marx and which from the mind of Engels. In life they were inseparable, and so they must be in the Valhalla ofhistory. The greatest political pamphlet of all time must forever bear, with equal honor, the names of both. Their noble friendship unites themeven beyond the tomb. 

 "Twin Titans! Whom defeat ne'er bowed, Scarce breathing from the fray, Again they sound the war cry loud, Again is riven Labor's shroud, And life breathed in the clay. Their work? Look round--see Freedom proud And confident to-day. "[59]

FOOTNOTES:

[42] Cf. _Social Democracy Red Book_, edited by Frederic Heath (1900), page 79. 

[43] _History of Socialism in the United States_, by Morris Hillquit, pages 161-162. 

[44] E. Belfort Bax, article on _Friederich Engels_, in _Justice_(London), No. 606, Vol. XII, August 24, 1895. 

[45] _Disclosures about the Communists' Process, Herr Vogt_, etc. 

[46] Cf. G. Adler, _Die Grundlagen der Karl Marx'schen Kritik derbestehenden Volkswirthschaft_ (1887), page 226. 

[47] _Karl Marx: Biographical Memoirs_, by Wilhelm Liebknecht, page 14. 

[48] _Idem_, page 164. 

[49] Cf. F. Mehring's _Aus dem literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx, Friederich Engels, und Ferdinand Lassalle_, 1902; the _Neue Beitrage zurBiographie von Karl Marx und Friederich Engels, in Die Neue Zeit_, 1907, and Mehring's _Geschichte der deutschen Sozialdemokratie_, 1903. 

[50] _Memoirs of Marx_, by Wilhelm Liebknecht, page 164. 

[51] Karl Kautsky, article on F. Engels, _Austrian Labor Almanac_, 1887. 

[52] E. Belfort Bax, article on _Friederich Engels_, in _Justice_(London), No. 606, Vol. XII, August 24, 1895. 

[53] Cf. _Reminiscences of Karl Marx_, by W. Harrison Riley, in _TheComrade_, Vol. III, No. 1, pages 5-6. 

[54] Marx opposed the "Alliance de la Démocratic Socialiste, " formed byBakunin, with its headquarters at Geneva, almost as vigorously for itsatheistic plank as for its denial of political methods. The first plankin the programme of the "Alliance" was as follows:--

"The Alliance declares itself Atheist; it demands the abolition of allworship, the substitution of science for faith, and of human justice forDivine justice; the abolition of marriage, so far as it is a political, religious, juridical, or civil institution. "

This programme is frequently quoted against the Socialistpropaganda, --as, for example, by George Brooks, in _God's England or theDevil's_?--in spite of the fact that the "Alliance" was an Anarchistorganization, bitterly opposed by Marx, and, in turn, bitterly opposinghim. 

In this connection, it may be well to call attention to an alleged"quotation from Marx" which is frequently used by the opponents ofSocialism. It appears in the work of Brooks, quoted above, and inProfessor Peabody's _Jesus Christ and the Social Question_ (1907), page16. Used in a public discussion by a New York labor union official, inApril, 1908, it was widely discussed by the press, and, according tothat same press, drew from the President of the United Statesenthusiastic praise of the labor-union official in question. The passagereads: "The idea of God must be destroyed. It is the keystone of aperverted civilization. The true root of liberty, of equality, ofculture, is Atheism. Nothing must restrain the spontaneity of the humanmind. " Had the opponents of Socialism been familiar with the teachingsof Marx, they would have known that he could not have said anything likethis, that it is absolutely at variance with all his teaching. The manwho formulated the materialist conception of history could not by anypossibility utter such balderdash. The fact is, the quotation is notfrom Karl Marx at all, but from a very different writer, an Anarchist, Wilhelm Marr, who was _a most bitter opponent of Socialism_. As given, the quotation is a free translation of a passage contained in Marr's_Das junge Deutschland in der Schweiz_, pages 131-134. Marr's programme, as given in the _Report of the Royal Commission on Labor_ (Vol. V, Germany), was the abolition of Church, State, property, and marriage, with the one positive tenet of "a bloody and fearful revenge upon therich and powerful. "

[55] See F. Engels, _Socialism, Utopian and Scientific_, page 16 (Londonedition, 1892). 

[56] F. Engels, Introduction to the _Communist Manifesto_ (Englishtranslation, 1888). The italics are mine. J. S. 

[57] F. Engels, _The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844_. See, for instance, pages 79, 80, 82, etc. 

[58] Introduction to the _Communist Manifesto_ (English edition, 1888). 

[59] From _Friederich Engels_, a poem by "J. L. " (John Leslie), in_Justice_ (London), August 17, 1895. 

CHAPTER IV

THE MATERIALISTIC CONCEPTION OF HISTORY

I

Socialism, then, in the modern, scientific sense, is a theory of socialevolution. Its hopes for the future rest, not upon the genius of someUtopia-builder, but upon the inherent forces of historical development. The Socialist state will never be realized except as the result ofeconomic necessity, the culmination of successive epochs of industrialevolution. Thus the existing social system appears to the Socialist ofto-day, not as it appeared to the Utopians and as it still must appearto mere ideologist reformers, as a triumph of ignorance or wickedness, the reign of false _ideas_, but as the result of an age-longevolutionary process, determined, not wholly indeed, but mainly, bycertain methods of producing the necessities of life in the first place, and secondly, of effecting their exchange. 

Not, let it be understood, that Socialism has become a mere mechanicaltheory of economic fatalism. The historical development, the socialevolution, upon the laws of which the theories of Socialism are based, is a human process, involving all the complex feelings, emotions, aspirations, hopes, and fears common to man. To ignore this fundamentalfact, as they must who interpret the Marx-Engels theory of history as adoctrine of economic fatalism, is to miss the profoundest significanceof the theory. While it is true that the scientific spirit destroys theidea of romantic, magic transformations of the social system and thebelief that the world may be re-created at will, rebuilt upon the plansof some Utopian architect, it still, as we shall see, leaves room forthe human factor. Otherwise, indeed, it would only be a new kind ofUtopianism. They who accept the theory that the production of thematerial necessities of life is the main impelling force, the _geist_, of human evolution, may rightly protest against social injustice andwrong just as vehemently as any of the ideologists, and aspire just asfervently toward a nobler and better state. The Materialistic Conceptionof History does not involve the fatalist resignation summed up in thephrase, "Whatever is, is natural, and, therefore, right. " It does notinvolve belief in man's helplessness to change conditions. 

II

The idea of social evolution is admirably expressed in the fine phraseof Leibnitz, "The present is the child of the past, but it is the parentof the future. "[60] The great seventeenth-century philosopher was notthe first to postulate and apply to society that doctrine of flux, ofcontinuity and unity, which we call evolution. In all ages of whichrecord has been preserved to us, it has been sporadically, and more orless vaguely, expressed. Even savages seem to have dimly perceived it. The saying of the Bechuana chief, recorded by the missionary, Casalis, was probably, judging by its epigrammatic character, a proverb of hispeople. "One event is always the son of another, " he said--a sayingstrikingly like that of Leibnitz. 

Since the work of Lyell, Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, Huxley, Youmans, andtheir numerous followers--a brilliant school embracing the foremosthistorians and sociologists of Europe and America--the idea of evolutionas a universal law has made rapid and certain progress. Everythingchanges; nothing is immutable or eternal. Whatever is, whether ingeology, astronomy, biology, or sociology, is the result of numberless, inevitable, related changes. Only the law of change is changeless. Thepresent is a phase only of a great transition process from what was, through what is, to what will be. 

The Marx-Engels theory is an exploration of the laws governing thisprocess of evolution in the domain of human relations: an attempt toprovide a key to the hitherto mysterious succession of changes in thepolitical, juridical, and social relations and institutions of mankind. Whence, for instance, arose the institution of chattel slavery, sorepugnant to our modern ideas of right and wrong, and how shall weexplain its defense and justification in the name of religion andmorality? How account for the fact that what Yesterday regarded asrighteous, To-day condemns as wrong; that what at one period of theworld's history is regarded as perfectly natural and right--the practiceof polygamy, for example--becomes abhorrent at another period; or thatwhat is regarded with horror and disgust in one part of the world issanctioned by the ethical codes, and freely practiced elsewhere? Ferrigives two examples of this kind: the cannibalism of Central Africantribes, and the killing of parents, as a religious duty, in Sumatra. [61]To reply "custom" is to beg the whole question, for customs do not existwithout reason, however difficult it may be to discern the reason forany particular custom. To reply that these things are mysteries, as theold theologians did when the doctrine of the Trinity was questioned, isto leave the question unanswered and to challenge doubt andinvestigation. The human mind abhors a mystery as nature abhors avacuum. Despite Spencer, the human mind has never admitted the existenceof the _Unknowable_. To explore the _Unknown_ is man's universalimpulse; and with each fresh discovery the _Unknown_ is narrowed by theexpansion of the _Known_. 

The theory that ideas determine progress, that, in the words ofProfessor Richard T. Ely, "all that is significant in human history maybe traced back to ideas, "[62] is only true in the sense that a halftruth is true. It is true, nothing but the truth, but it is less thanthe whole truth. Truly all that is significant in human history may betraced back to ideas, but in like manner the ideas themselves can betraced back to material sources. For ideas have histories, too, and thecausation of an idea must be understood before the idea itself can servefully to explain anything. We must go back of the idea to the causeswhich gave it birth if we would interpret anything by it. We may tracethe American Revolution, for example, back to the revolutionary ideas ofthe colonists, but that will not materially assist us to understand theRevolution. For that, it is necessary to trace the ideas themselves totheir source, the economic discontent of an exploited people. This isthe spirit which illumines the works of historians like Green, McMaster, Morse Stephens, and others of the modern school, who emphasize socialforces rather than individual facts, and find the _geist_ of history insocial experiences and institutions. 

What has been called the "Great Man theory, " the theory according towhich Luther created the Protestant Reformation, to quote only oneexample, and which ignored the great economic changes consequent uponthe break-up of feudalism and the rise of a new industrial order, longdominated our histories. According to this theory, an idea, developed inthe mind of Luther, independent of external circumstances, changed thepolitical and social life of Europe. Had there been no Luther, therewould have been no Reformation; or had Luther died before giving hisidea to the world, the Reformation would have been averted. The studentwho seeks in the bulk of the histories written prior to, say, 1870, whathe has a legitimate reason for seeking, namely, a picture of the actuallife of the people at any period, will be sadly disappointed. He willfind records of wars and treaties of peace, royal genealogies andgossip, wildernesses of names and dates. But he will not find suchcareful accounts of the jurisprudence of the period, nor any hint of theeconomical conditions of its development. He will find splendid accountsof court life, with its ceremonials, scandals, intrigues, and follies;but no such pictures of the lives of the people, their socialconditions, and the methods of labor and commerce which obtained. Hewill be unable to visualize the life of the period. In other words, thehistories lack realism; they are unreal, and, therefore, deceptive. Thenew spirit, in the development of which the materialist conception ofMarx and Engels has been an important creative influence, is concernedless with the chronicle of notable events and dates than with theirunderlying causes and the manner of life of the people. Had it no otherbearing, the Marx-Engels theory, considered solely as a contribution tothe science of history, would have been one of the greatest intellectualachievements of the nineteenth century. By emphasizing the importance ofthe economic factors in social evolution, it has done much for economicsand more for history. [63]

III

While the Materialistic Conception of History bears the names of Marxand Engels, as the theory of organic evolution bears the names of Darwinand Wallace, it is not claimed that the idea had never before beenexpressed. Just as thousands of years before Darwin and Wallace thetheory which bears their names had been dimly perceived, so the ideathat economic conditions dominate historical developments had itsforeshadowings. The famous dictum of Aristotle, that only by theintroduction of machines would the abolition of slavery ever be madepossible, is a conspicuous example of many anticipations of the theory. It is true that "In dealing with speculations so remote, we have toguard against reading modern meanings into writings produced in ageswhose limitations of knowledge were serious, whose temper and standpointare wholly alien to our own, "[64] but the Aristotelian saying admits ofno other interpretation. It is clearly a recognition of the fact thatthe supreme politico-social institution of the time depended upon handlabor. 

In later times, the idea of a direct connection between economicconditions and legal and political institutions reappears in the worksof various writers. Professor Seligman[65] quotes from Harrington's"Oceana" the argument that the prevailing form of government dependsupon the conditions of land tenure, and the extent of itsmonopolization. Saint-Simon, too, as already stated, taught thatpolitical institutions depend upon economic conditions. But it is toMarx and Engels that we owe the first formulation into a definite theoryof what had hitherto been but a suggestion, and the beginnings of aliterature, now of considerable proportions, dealing with history fromits standpoint. No more need be said concerning the "originality" of thetheory. 

A word as to the designation of the theory. Its authors gave it the name"historical materialism, " and it has been urged that the name is, formany reasons, unfortunately chosen. Two of the leading exponents of thetheory, Professor Seligman and Mr. Ghent, the former an opponent, thelatter an advocate of Socialism, have expressed this conviction in verydefinite terms. The last-named writer bases his objection to the name onthe ground that it is repellent to many persons who associate the wordmaterialism with the philosophy "that matter is the only substance, andthat matter and its motions constitute the universe. "[66] That is an oldobjection, and undoubtedly contains much truth. It is interesting inconnection therewith to read the sarcastic comment of Engels upon it inthe introduction to his "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific. " Theobjection of Professor Seligman is based upon another ground entirely. He impugns its accuracy. "The theory which ascribes all changes insociety to the influence of climate, or to the character of the faunaand flora, is materialistic, " he says, "and yet has little in commonwith the doctrine here discussed. The doctrine we have to deal with isnot only materialistic, but also economic in character; and the betterphrase is ... The 'economic interpretation' of history. "[67] For thisreason he discards the name given to the theory by its authors andadopts the luminous phrase of Thorold Rogers, without credit to thatwriter. 

By French and Italian writers the term "economic determinism" has longbeen used, and it has been adopted to some extent in this country bySocialist writers. But this term, as Professor Seligman points out, isobjectionable, because it exaggerates the theory, and gives it, byimplication, a fatalistic character, conveying the idea that economicinfluence is the _sole_ determining factor--a view which its authorsspecifically repudiated. While the reasoning of Professor Seligman inthe argument quoted against the name "historical materialism" is neithervery profound nor conclusive, since climate and fauna and flora areincluded in the term "economic" as clearly as in the term"materialistic, " much may be said in favor of his choice of the term heborrows from Thorold Rogers, and it is used by many Socialist writers inpreference to that used by Marx and Engels. 

Many persons have doubtless been deceived into believing that the theoryinvolves the denial of all influence to idealistic or spiritual factors, and the assumption that economic forces _alone_ determine the course ofhistorical development. Much of the criticism of the theory, especiallyby the Germans, rests upon that assumption. The theory is attacked, also, as being sordid and brutal upon the same false assumption that itimplies that men are governed solely by their economic _interests_, thatindividual conduct is never inspired by anything higher than theeconomic interest of the individual. These are misconceptions of thetheory, due, no doubt, to the overemphasis placed upon it by itsauthors--a common experience of new doctrines--and, above all, theexaggerations of too zealous, unrestrained disciples. There is a wisesaying of Schiller's which suggests the spirit in which theseexaggerations of a great truth--exaggerations by which it becomesfalsehood--should be regarded: "Rarely do we reach truth, except throughextremes--we must have foolishness ... Even to exhaustion, before wearrive at the beautiful goal of calm wisdom. "[68] When it is contendedthat the "Civil War was at bottom a struggle between two economicprinciples, "[69] we have the presentation of an important truth, the keyto the proper understanding of a great historical event. But when thatimportant fact is exaggerated and torn from its legitimate place to suitthe propaganda of a theory, and we are asked to believe that Garrison, Lovejoy, and other abolitionists were inspired solely by economicmotives, that the urge and passion of human freedom did not enter intotheir souls, we are forced to reject it. But let it be clearlyunderstood that it forms no part of the theory, that it is evenexpressly denied in the very terms in which Marx and Engels formulatedthe theory, and that its authors repudiated such perversions of it. 

In no respect has the theory been more grossly exaggerated andmisrepresented than in its application to religion. True philosopherthat he was, Marx realized the absurdity of attempting "to abstractreligious sentiment from the course of history, to place it byitself. "[70] He recognized that all religion is, fundamentally, man'seffort to put himself into harmonious relation with, and to discover aninterpretation of, the forces of the universe. The more incomprehensiblethose forces, the greater man's need of an explanation of them. He couldnot fail to see that the religion of a people always bears a markedrelation to their mental development and their special environment. Heknew that at various stages the Yahve of the Hebrews represented verydifferent conceptions, answering to changes in the social and politicalconditions of the people. To the primitive Israelitish tribes, Yahvewas, as Professor Rauschenbusch remarks, [71] a tribal god, fortunatelystronger than the gods of the neighboring tribes, but not fundamentallydifferent from them, and the way to win his favor was to sacrificeabundantly. Later, with the development of a national spirit, thereligious ideal became a theocracy, and Yahve became a King and SupremeLord. In times of oppression and war Yahve was a God of War, but underother conditions he was a God of Peace. At every step the conception ofYahve bears a very definite relation to the material life. [72]

Marx knew that primitive religions have often a celestial pantheonfashioned after the existing social order, kings being gods, aristocratsbeing demigods, and common mortals occupying a celestial rank equal totheir terrestrial one. The celestial hierarchy of the Chinese, forexample, is an exact reproduction of the earthly hierarchy, and all theprivileges of rank are observed celestially as on earth. So in India wefind the religions reproducing in their concepts of heaven the degreesand divisions of the various castes, [73] while our own American Indianconceived of a celestial hunting ground, with abundant reward of game, as his Paradise. "The religious world is but the reflex of the realworld, " said Marx, [74] and the phrase has been used, both by disciplesand critics, as an attack upon religion itself; as showing that theMarxian philosophy excludes the possibility of religious belief. Obviously, however, the passage will not bear such an interpretation. Tosay that "the religious world is but the reflex of the real world" isby no means to deny that men have been benefited by seeking aninterpretation of the forces of the universe, or to assert that thequest for such an interpretation is incompatible with rational conduct. In his scorn for Bakunin's "Alliance" programme with its dogmaticatheism[75] Marx was perfectly consistent. The passage quoted simplylays down, in bare outline, a principle which, if well founded, enablesus to study comparative religion from a new viewpoint. 

It is not a denial of religion, then, which the famous utterance of Marxinvolves, but a recognition of the fact that, even as all religions maybe traced to the same fundamental instinct in mankind, so the differentforms which the religious conception assumes are, or may be, reflexes ofthe material life of those making them. Thus man makes religion forhimself under the urge of his deepest instincts. The application of thetheory to religion is analogous to its application to historical events. To say that a given religion assumes the form it does as an unconsciousreflex of the environment in which it is produced, is no more a denialof that religion than to say that the Reformation arose out of economicand social conditions, and not out of an idea in Luther's mind, is adenial of the fact that there was a Reformation, or that theReformation benefited the people. The value of the theory to the studyof religions and religious movements is not less than to the study ofhistory. Does anybody pretend that we can understand Christianitywithout taking into account the Roman Empire; or that we can understandCatholicism without knowing something of the economic life of medievalEurope; or Methodism without knowing the social condition of England inWesley's day?[76]

In one of the very earliest of his writings upon the subject, somecomments upon the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, and intended to formthe basis of a separate work, we find Marx insisting that man is not amere automaton, driven irresistibly by blind economic forces. He says:"The materialistic doctrine, that men are the products of conditions andeducation, different men, therefore, the products of other conditionsand changed education, _forgets that circumstances may be altered bymen, and that the educator has himself to be educated_. "[77] Thus earlywe see the master taking a position entirely at variance with those ofhis disciples who would claim that the human factor has no influenceupon historical development, that man is without power over his owndestiny. From that position Marx never departed. Both he and Engelsrecognized the human character of the problem, and the futility ofattempting to reduce all the processes of history and human progress toone sole basic cause. And in no case, so far as I am aware, has eitherof them attempted to do this. 

In another place, Marx contends that "men make their own history, butthey make it not of their own accord or under self-chosen conditions, but under given and transmitted conditions. The tradition of all deadgenerations weighs like a mountain upon the brain of the living. "[78]Here, again, the influence of the human will is not denied, though itslimitations are indicated. This is the application to social man of thetheory of limitations of the will commonly accepted as applying toindividuals. Man is only a freewill agent within certain sharp andrelatively narrow bounds. In a given contingency, I may be "free" to actin a certain manner, or to refrain from so acting. I may take my choice, in the one direction or the other, entirely free, to all appearances, from restraining or compelling influences. Thus, I have acted upon my"will. " But what factors formed my will? What circumstances determinedmy decision? Perhaps fear, or shame, or pride; perhaps tendenciesinherited from my ancestors. 

Engels admits that the economic factor in evolution has sometimes beenunduly emphasized. He says: "Marx and I are partly responsible for thefact that the younger men have sometimes laid more stress on theeconomic side than it deserves. In meeting the attacks of our opponents, it was necessary for us to emphasize the dominant principle denied bythem; and we did not always have the time, place, or opportunity to letthe other factors which were concerned in the mutual action and reactionget their deserts. "[79] In another letter, [80] he says: "According tothe materialistic view of history, the factor which is in _lastinstance_ decisive in history is the production and reproduction ofactual life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Butwhen any one distorts this so as to read that the economic factor is thesole element, he converts the statement into a meaningless, abstract, absurd phrase. The economic condition is the basis; but the variouselements of the superstructure, --the political forms of the classcontests, and their results, the constitutions, --the legal forms, andalso all the reflexes of these actual contests in the brains of theparticipants, the political, legal, philosophical theories, the_religious views_ ... All these exert an influence on the development ofthe historical struggles, and, in many instances, determine their form. "

It is evident, therefore, that the doctrine does not imply economicfatalism. It does not deny that ideals may influence historicaldevelopments and individual conduct. While, as we shall see in a laterchapter, it is part of the doctrine that classes are formed upon a basisof unity of material interests, it does not deny that men may, and oftendo, act in accordance with the promptings of noble impulses andhumanitarian ideals, when their material interests would lead them to dootherwise. We have a conspicuous example of this in the life of Marxhimself; in his splendid devotion to the cause of the workers throughyears of terrible poverty and hardship when he might have chosen wealthand fame. It is known, for example, that Bismarck made the mostextravagant offers to enlist the services of Marx, who declined them atthe very time when he was suffering awful privations. Marx himself hasnoted more than one instance of individual idealism triumphing overmaterial interests and class environment, and, by a perversity that isastonishing, and not wholly disingenuous, some of his critics, notablyLudwig Slonimski, [81] have used these instances as arguments against histheory, claiming that they disprove it! We are to understand thematerialistic theory, then, as teaching, not that history is determinedby economic forces only, but that in human evolution the chief factorsare social factors, and that these factors in turn are _mainly_ moldedby economic circumstances. [82]

This, then, is the basis of the Socialist philosophy, which Engelsregarded as "destined to do for history what Darwin's theory has donefor biology. " Marx himself made a similar comparison. [83] Marx was, soLiebknecht tells us, one of the first to recognize the importance ofDarwin's investigations to sociology. His first important treatment ofthe materialistic theory, in "A Contribution to the Critique ofPolitical Economy, " appeared in 1859, the year in which "The Origin ofSpecies" appeared. "We spoke for months of nothing else but Darwin, andthe revolutionizing power of his scientific conquests, "[84] saysLiebknecht. Darwin, however, had little knowledge of political economy, as he acknowledged in a letter to Marx, thanking the latter for a copyof "Das Kapital. " "I heartily wish that I possessed a greater knowledgeof the deep and important subject of economic questions, which wouldmake me a more worthy recipient of your gift, " he wrote. [85]

IV

The test of such a theory must lie in its application. Let us, then, apply the materialistic principle, first to a specific event, and thento the great sweep of the historic drama. Perhaps no single event hasmore profoundly impressed the imaginations of men, or filled a moreimportant place in our histories, than the discovery of America byColumbus. In the schoolbooks, this great event figures as a splendidadventure, arising out of a romantic dream. But the facts are, as weknow, far otherwise. [86] In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries therewere numerous and well-frequented routes from Hindustan, that vaststorehouse of treasure from which Europe drew its riches. Along theseroutes cities flourished. There were the great ports, Licia in theLevant, Trebizond on the Black Sea, and Alexandria. From these ports, Venetian and Genoese traders bore the produce over the passes of theAlps to the Upper Danube and the Rhine. Here it was a source of wealthto the cities along the waterways, from Ratisbon and Nuremburg, toBruges and Antwerp. Even the slightest acquaintance with the history ofthe Middle Ages must suffice to give the student an idea of theimportance of these cities. 

When all these routes save the Egyptian were closed by the hordes ofsavages which infested Central Asia, it became an easy matter for theMoors in Africa and the Turks in Europe to exact immense revenues fromthe Eastern trade, solely through their monopoly of the route oftransit. Thus there developed an economic parasitism which crippled thetrade with the East. The Turks were securely seated at Constantinople, threatening to advance into the heart of Europe, and building up animmense military system out of the taxes imposed upon the trade ofEurope with the East--a military power, which, in less than a quarter ofa century, enabled Selim I to conquer Mesopotamia and the holy towns ofArabia, and to annex Egypt. [87] It became necessary, then, to find a newroute to India; and it was this great economic necessity which setColumbus thinking of a pathway to India over the Western Sea. It wasthis same great problem which engaged the attention of all thenavigators of the time; it was this economic necessity which inducedFerdinand and Isabella to support the adventurous plan of Columbus. In aword, without detracting in any manner from the splendid genius ofColumbus, or from the romance of his great voyage of discovery, we seethat, fundamentally, it was the economic interest of Europe which gavebirth to the one and made the other possible. The same explanationapplies to the voyage of Vasco da Gama, six years later, which resultedin finding a way to India over the southeast course by way of the Capeof Good Hope. 

Kipling asks in his ballad, "The British Flag"--

 "And what should they know of England, who only England know?"

There is a profound truth in the defiant line, a truth which appliesequally to America or any other country. The present is inseparable fromthe past. We cannot understand one epoch without reference to itspredecessors; we cannot understand the history of the United Statesunless we seek the key in the history of Europe--of England and Francein particular. At the very threshold, in order to understand how theheroic navigator came to discover the vast continent of which the UnitedStates is part, we must pause to study the economic conditions of Europewhich impelled the adventurous voyage, and led to the discovery of agreat continent stretching across the ocean path. Such a view of historydoes not rob it of its romance, but rather adds to it. Surely, thewonderful linking of circumstances--the demand for spices and silks tominister to the fine tastes of aristocratic Europe, the growth of thetrade with the East Indies, the grasping greed of Moor and Turk--allplaying a rôle in the great drama of which the discovery of America isbut a scene, is infinitely more fascinating than the latter eventdetached from its historical setting!

It is not easy to give in the compass of a few pages an intelligent viewof the main currents of history. The sketch here introduced--not withouthesitation--is an endeavor to state the Socialist concept of the courseof social evolution in a brief outline and to indicate the principaleconomic causes which have operated to determine that course. 

It is now generally admitted that primitive man lived under Communism. Lewis H. Morgan[88] has calculated that if the life of the human race beassumed to have covered one hundred thousand years, at least ninety-fivethousand years were spent in a crude, tribal Communism, in which privateproperty was practically unknown, and in which the only ethic wasdevotion to tribal interests, and the only crime antagonism to tribalinterests. Under this social system the means of making wealth were inthe hands of the tribes, or _gens_, and distribution was likewisesocially arranged. Between the different tribes warfare was constant, but in the tribe itself there was coöperation and not struggle. Thisfact is of tremendous importance in view of the criticisms which havebeen directed against the Socialist philosophy from the so-calledDarwinian point of view, according to which competition and struggle isthe law of life; that what Professor Huxley calls "the Hobbesial war ofeach against all" is the normal state of existence. 

This is described as "the so-called Darwinian" theory advisedly, for thestruggle for existence as the law of evolution has been exaggerated outof all likeness to the conception of Darwin himself. In "The Descent ofMan, " for instance, Darwin raises the point under review, and shows how, in many animal societies, the _struggle_ for existence is replaced by_coöperation_ for existence, and how that substitution results in thedevelopment of faculties which secure to the species the best conditionsfor survival. "Those communities, " he says, "which included the greatestnumber of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best and rear thegreatest number of offspring. "[89] Despite these instances, and thewarning of Darwin himself that the term "struggle for existence" shouldnot be too narrowly interpreted or overrated, his followers, instead ofbroadening it according to the master's suggestions, narrowed it stillmore. Thus the theory has been exaggerated into a mere caricature of thetruth. This is almost invariably the fate of theories which deal withhuman relations, perhaps it would be equally true to say of alltheories. The exaggerations of Malthus's law of population is a case inpoint. The Marx-Engels theory of the materialistic conception of historyis, as we have seen, another. 

Kropotkin, among others, has developed the theory along the linessuggested by Darwin. He points out that "though there is an immenseamount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various classes ofanimals, there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, ofmutual support, mutual aid, mutual defense, amidst animals belonging tothe same species or, at least, to the same society. Sociability is asmuch a law of nature as mutual struggle.... If we resort to an indirecttest, and ask nature: 'Who are the fittest: those who are continually atwar with each other, or those who support one another?' we at once seethat those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedlythe fittest. They have more chances to survive, and they attain, intheir respective classes, the highest development of intelligence andbodily organization. If the numberless facts which can be broughtforward to support this view are taken into account, we may safely saythat mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle, butthat, as a factor of evolution, it most probably has a far greaterimportance, inasmuch as it favors the development of such habits andcharacters as insure the maintenance and further development of thespecies, together with the greatest amount of welfare and enjoyment oflife for the individual, with the least waste of energy. "[90]

From the lowest forms of animal life up to the highest, man, this lawproves to be operative. It is not denied that there is competition forfood, for life, within the species, human and other. But thatcompetition is not usual; it arises out of unusual and specialconditions. There are instances of hunger-maddened mothers tearing awayfood from their children; men drifting at sea have fought for water andfood as beasts fight, but these are not normal conditions of life. "Happily enough, " says Kropotkin again, "competition is not the ruleeither in the animal world or in mankind. It is limited among animals toexceptional periods.... Better conditions are created by the_elimination of competition_ by means of mutual aid and mutualsupport. "[91] This is the voice of science now that we have passedthrough the extremes and arrived at the "beautiful goal of calm wisdom. "Competition is not, in the verdict of modern science, the law of life, but of death. Strife is not nature's way of progress. 

Anything more important to our present inquiry than this verdict ofscience it would be difficult to imagine. Men have for so long believedand declared struggle and competition to be the "law of nature, " andopposed Socialism on the ground of its supposed antagonism to that law, that this new conception of nature's method comes as a vindication ofthe Socialist position. The naturalist testifies to the universality ofthe principle of coöperation throughout the animal world, and thehistorian and sociologist to its universality throughout the greatestpart of man's history. Present economic tendencies toward combinationand away from competition, in industry and commerce, appear as thefulfilling of a great universal law. And the vain efforts of men to stopthat process, by legislation, boycotts, and divers other methods, appearas efforts to set aside immutable law. Like so many Canutes, they bidthe tides halt, and, like Canute's, their commands are vain and mockedby the unheeding tides. 

Under Communism, then, man lived for many thousands of years. As farback as we can go into the paleo-ethnology of mankind, we find evidencesof this. All the great authorities, Morgan, Maine, Lubbock, Taylor, Bachofen, and many others, agree in this. And under this Communism allthe great fundamental inventions were evolved, as Morgan and others haveshown. The wheel, the potter's wheel, the lever, the stencil plate, thesail, the rudder, the loom, were all evolved under Communism in itsvarious stages. So, too, the cultivation of cereals for food, thesmelting of metals, the domestication of animals, --to which we owe somuch, and on which we still so largely depend, --were all introducedunder Communism. Even in our day there have been found many survivals ofthis Communism among primitive peoples. Mention need only be made hereof the Bantu tribes of Africa, whose splendid organization astonishedthe British, and the Eskimos. It is now possible to trace with a fairamount of certainty the progress of mankind through various stages ofCommunism, from the unconscious Communism of the nomad to theconsciously organized and directed Communism of the most highlydeveloped tribes, right up to the threshold of civilization, whenprivate property takes the place of common, tribal property, andeconomic classes appear. [92]

V

Private property, other than that personal ownership and use of things, such as weapons and tools, which involves no class or caste domination, and is an integral feature of all forms of Communism, first appears inthe ownership of man by man. Slavery, strange as it may seem, isdirectly traceable to tribal Communism, and first appears as a tribalinstitution. When one tribe made war upon another, its efforts weredirected to the killing of as many of its enemies as possible. Cannibaltribes killed their foes for food, rarely or never killing theirfellow-tribesmen for that purpose. Non-cannibalistic tribes killed theirfoes merely to get rid of them. But when the power of mankind over theforces of external nature had reached that point in its developmentwhere it became relatively easy for a man to produce more than wasnecessary for his own maintenance, the custom arose of making captivesof enemies and setting them to work. A foe captured had thus an economicvalue to the tribe. Either he could be set to work directly, his surplusproduct enriching the tribe, or he could be used to relieve some of hiscaptors from other necessary duties, thus enabling them to produce morethan would otherwise be possible, the effect being the same in the end. The property of the tribe at first, slaves become at a later stageprivate property--probably through the institution of the tribaldistribution of wealth. Cruel, revolting, and vile as slavery appears toour modern sense, --especially the earlier forms of slavery before thebody of legislation, and, not less important, sentiment, whichsurrounded it later arose, --it still was a step forward, a distinctadvance upon the older customs of cannibalism and wholesale slaughter. 

Nor was it a progressive step only on the humanitarian side. It hadother, profounder consequences from the evolutionary point of view. Itmade a leisure class possible, and provided the only conditions underwhich art, philosophy, and jurisprudence could be evolved. The secret ofAristotle's saying, that only by the invention of machines would theabolition of slavery ever be made possible, lies in his recognition ofthe fact that the labor of slaves alone made possible the devotion of aclass of men to the pursuit of knowledge instead of to the production ofthe primal necessities of life. The Athens of Pericles, for example, with all its varied forms of culture, its art and its philosophy, was asemi-communism of a caste above, resting upon a basis of slave laborunderneath. Similar conditions prevailed in all the so-called ancientdemocracies of civilization. 

The private ownership of wealth producers and their products madeprivate exchange inevitable; individual ownership of land took the placeof communal ownership, and a monetary system was invented. Here, then, in the private ownership of land and laborer, private production andexchange, we have the economic factors which caused the great revolts ofantiquity, and led to that concentration of wealth into few hands, withits resulting mad luxury on the one hand and widespread proletarianmisery upon the other, which conspired to the overthrow of Greek andRoman civilization. The study of those relentless economic forces whichled to the break-up of Roman civilization is important as showing howchattel slavery became modified and the slave to be regarded as a serf, a servant bound to the soil. The lack of adequate production, thecrippling of commerce by hordes of corrupt officials, the overburdeningof the agricultural estates with slaves, so that agriculture becameprofitless, the crushing out of free labor by slave labor, and the riseof a wretched class of freemen proletarians, these, and other kindredcauses, led to the breaking up of the great estates; the dismissal ofsuperfluous slaves, in many cases, and the partial enfranchisement ofothers by making them hereditary tenants, paying a fixed share of theirproduct as rent--here we have the embryonic stage of feudalism. It was arevolution, this transformation of the social system of Rome, ofinfinitely greater importance than the sporadic risings of a fewthousand slaves. Yet, such is the lack of perspective which thehistorians have shown, it is given a far less important place in thehistories than the risings in question. Slavery, chattel slavery, diedbecause it had ceased to be profitable; serf labor arose because it wasmore profitable. Slave labor was economically impossible, and the laborof free men was morally impossible; it had, thanks to the slave system, come to be regarded as a degradation. In the words of Engels, "Thisbrought the Roman world into a blind alley from which it could notescape.... There was no other help but a complete revolution. "[93]

The invading barbarians made the revolution complete. By the poorfreemen proletarians who had been selling their children into slavery, the barbarians were welcomed. Misery, like opulence, has no patriotism. Many of the proletarian freemen had fled to the districts of thebarbarians, and feared nothing so much as a return to Roman rule. What, then, should the proletariat care for the overthrow of the Roman stateby the barbarians? And how much less the slaves, whose condition, generally speaking, could not possibly change for the worse? The freeproletarian and the slave could join in saying, as men have saidthousands of times in circumstances of desperation:--

 "Our fortunes may be better; they can be no worse. "

VI

Feudalism is the essential politico-economic system of the Middle Ages. Obscure as its origin is, and indefinite as the date of its firstappearances, there can be no doubt whatever that the break-up of theRoman system, and the modification of the existing form of slavery, constituted the most important of its sources. Whether, as some writershave contended, the feudal system of land tenure and serfdom istraceable to Asiatic origins, being adopted by the ruling class of Romein the days of the economic disintegration of the empire, or whether itrose spontaneously out of the Roman conditions, matters little to us. Whatever its archæological interest, it does not affect the narrowerscope of our present inquiry whether economic necessity caused theadoption of an alien system of land tenure and agricultural production, or whether economic necessity caused the creation of a new system. Thecentral fact is the same in either case. 

That period of history which we call the Middle Ages covers a span ofwell-nigh a thousand years. If we arbitrarily date its beginning fromthe successful invasion of Rome by the barbarians in the early part ofthe fifth century, and its ending with the final development of thecraft guilds in the middle of the fourteenth century, we have asufficiently exact measure of the time during which feudalism developed, flourished, and declined. There are few things more difficult than thebounding of epochs in social evolution by exact dates. Just as theripening of the wheat fields comes almost imperceptibly, so that thefarmer can say when the wheat is ripe, yet cannot say when the ripeningoccurred, so with the epochs into which social history divides itself. There is the unripe state and the ripe, but no chasm yawns between them;they are merged together. We speak of the "end" of chattel slavery, andthe "rise" of feudalism, therefore, in a wide, general sense. As amatter of fact, chattel slavery survived to some extent for centuries, existing alongside of the new form of servitude; and its disappearancetook place, not simultaneously throughout the civilized world, but atvarying intervals. Likewise, there is a vast difference between thefirst, crude, ill-defined forms of feudalism and its subsequentdevelopment. 

The theory of feudalism is the "divine right of kings. " God is theSupreme Lord of all the earth, the kings are His vice-regents, devolvingtheir authority in turn upon whomsoever they will. All land is held asbelonging to the king, God's chosen representative. He divides the realmamong his barons, to rule over and defend. For this they pay tribute tothe king--military service in times of war and, at a later period, money. In turn, the barons divide the land among the lesser nobility, receiving tribute from them. By these divided among the freemen, whoalso pay tribute, the land is tilled by the serfs, who pay service tothe freeman, the lord of the manor. The serf pays no tribute directly tothe king, only to his liege lord; the liege lord pays to his superior, and so on, up to the king. This is the economic framework of feudalism;with its ecclesiastical side we are not here concerned. 

At the base of the whole superstructure, then, was the serf, hisrelation to his lord differing only in degree, though in materialdegree, from that of the chattel slave. He might be, and often was, asbrutally ill-treated as the slave before him had been; he might beill-fed and ill-housed; his wife or daughters might be ravished by hismaster or his master's sons. Yet, withal, his condition was better thanthat of the slave. He could maintain his family life in an independenthousehold; he possessed some rights, chief of which perhaps was theright to labor for himself. Having his own allotment of land, he was ina much larger sense a human being. Compelled to render so many days'service to his lord, tilling the soil, clearing the forest, quarryingstone, and doing domestic work, he was permitted to devote a certain, often an equal, number of days to work for his own benefit. Not only so, but the service the lord rendered him, in protecting him and his familyfrom the lawless and violent robber hordes which infested the country, was considerable. 

The feudal estate, or manor, was an industrial whole, self-dependent, and having few essential ties binding it to the outside world. Thebarons and their retainers, lords, thanes, and freemen, enjoyed acertain rude plenty, some of the richer barons enjoying a considerableamount of luxury and splendor. The _villein_ and his sons tilled thesoil, reaped the harvests, felled trees for fuel, built the houses, raised the necessary domestic animals, and killed the wild animals; hiswife and daughters spun the flax, carded the wool, made the homespunclothing, brewed the mead, and gathered the grapes which they made intowine. There was little real dependence upon the outside world exceptfor articles of luxury. 

Such was the basic economic institution of feudalism. But alongside ofthe feudal estate with its serf labor, there were the free laborers, nolonger regarding labor as shameful and degrading. These free laborerswere the handicraftsmen and free peasants, the former soon organizingthemselves into guilds. There was a specialization of labor, but, asyet, little division. Each man worked at a particular craft andexchanged his individual products. The free craftsman would exchange hisproduct with the free peasant, and sometimes his trade extended to thefeudal manor. The guild was at once his master and protector; rigid inits rules, strict in its surveillance of its members, it was strong andeffective as a protector against the impositions and invasions of feudalbarons and their retainers. Division of labor first appears in itssimplest form, the association of independent individual workers formutual advantage, sharing their products upon a basis of equality. Thissimple coöperation involved no fundamental, revolutionary change insociety. That came later with the development of the workshop system, and the division of labor upon a definite, predetermined plan. Menspecialized now in the making of _parts_ of things; no man could say ofa finished product, "This is _mine_, for I made it. " Production hadbecome a social function. 

VII

At first, in its simple beginnings, the coöperation of many producers inone great workshop did not involve any general or far-reaching changesin the system of exchange. But as the new methods spread, and it becamethe custom for one or two wealthy individuals to provide the workshopand necessary tools and materials for production, the product of thecombined laborers being appropriated in its entirety by the owners ofthe agencies of production, who paid the workers a money wagerepresenting less than the actual value of their product, and based uponthe cost of their subsistence, the whole economic system was once morerevolutionized. The custom of working for wages, hitherto rare andexceptional, became general and customary; individual production foruse, either directly or through the medium of personal exchange, wassuperseded by social production for private profit. The wholesaleexchange of social products for private gain took the place of thepersonal exchange of commodities. The difference between the total costof the production of commodities, including the wages of the producers, and their exchange value--determined at this stage by the cost ofproducing similar commodities by individual labor--constituted the shareof the capitalist, his profit, and the objective of his investment. 

The new system did not spring up spontaneously and full-fledged. Likefeudalism, it was a growth, a development of existing forms. And just aschattel slavery lingered on after the rise of the feudal régime, so theold methods of individual production and direct exchange of commoditiesfor personal use lingered on in places and isolated industries longafter the rise of the system of wage-paid labor and production forprofit. But the old methods of production and exchange gradually becamerare and almost obsolete. In accordance with the stern economic law thatMarx afterward developed so clearly, the man whose methods ofproduction, including his tools, are less efficient and economical thanthose of his fellows, thereby making his labor more expensive, musteither adapt himself to the new conditions or fall in the struggle whichensues. The triumph of the new system of capitalist production, with itsfar greater efficiency arising from associated production upon a plan ofspecialized division of labor, was, therefore, but a question of time. The class of wage-workers thus gradually increased in numbers; as menfound that they were unable to compete with the new methods, theyaccepted the inevitable and adapted themselves to the new conditions. The industrial revolution which established capitalism was, like thegreat revolutions which ushered in preceding social epochs, the productof man's tools. 

FOOTNOTES:

[60] Edward Clodd, _Pioneers of Evolution from Thales to Huxley_, page1. 

[61] _Socialism and Modern Science_, by Enrico Ferri, page 96. 

[62] _Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society_, by R. T. Ely, page 3. 

[63] Cf. Seligman, _The Economic Interpretation of History_. 

[64] Clodd, _Pioneers of Evolution from Thales to Huxley_, page 8. 

[65] Seligman, _The Economic Interpretation of History_, page 50. 

[66] _Mass and Class_, by W. J. Ghent, page 9. 

[67] Seligman, _The Economic Interpretation of History_, page 4. 

[68] Schiller, _Philosophical Letters_, Preamble. 

[69] Seligman, _The Economic Interpretation of History_, page 86. 

[70] Karl Marx, _Notes on Feuerbach_ (written in 1845), published as anAppendix to _Feuerbach, The Roots the Socialist Philosophy_, byFriederich Engels. English translation by Austin Lewis (1903). 

[71] _Christianity and the Social Crisis_, by Walter Rauschenbusch(1907), page 4. 

[72] For a very scholarly discussion of this subject, the reader isreferred to the series of articles by my friend, M. Beer, on _The Riseof Jewish Monotheism_, in the _Social Democrat_ (London), 1908. 

[73] Cf. _The Economic Foundations of Society_, by Achille Lorio, page26. 

[74] _Capital_, by Karl Marx (Kerr edition). Vol. I, page 91. 

[75] Cf. _Karl Marx on Sectarianism and Dogmatism_ (A letter written tohis friend, Bolte), in the _International Socialist Review_, March, 1908, page 525. 

[76] Very significant of the possibilities of a study of religiousmovements from this economic and social viewpoint is Professor Thomas C. Hall's little book, _The Social Meaning of Modern Religious Movements inEngland_ (1900). 

[77] Appendix to F. Engels' _Feuerbach, the Roots of the SocialistPhilosophy_, translated by Austin Lewis, 1903. 

[78] _The Eighteenth Brumaire. _

[79] Quoted from _The Sozialistische Akademiker_, 1895, by Seligman, _The Economic Interpretation of History_, page 142. 

[80] _Idem_, page 143. 

[81] _Karl Marx's Nationaloekonomische Irrlehren_, von Ludwig Slonimski, Berlin, 1897. 

[82] I have not attempted to give a history of the development of thetheory. For a more minute study of the theory, I must refer the readerto the writings of Engels, Seligman, Ferri, Ghent, Bax, and othersquoted in these pages. 

[83] _Capital_, Vol. I, page 406 n. (Kerr edition). 

[84] Liebknecht, _Memoirs of Karl Marx_, page 91. 

[85] _Charles Darwin and Karl Marx, A Comparison_, by Edward Aveling, London, 1897. 

[86] See Thorold Rogers, _The Economic Interpretation of History_, second edition, 1891, pages 10-12. 

[87] For various reasons, chief of which is that it would take me toofar away from my present purpose, I do not attempt to develop theserious consequences of these events to Europe. See _The EconomicInterpretation of History_, Chapter I, for a brief account of this. 

[88] _Ancient Society, or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress fromSavagery through Barbarism to Civilization_, by Lewis H. Morgan. Newedition, Chicago, 1907. 

[89] Darwin, _The Descent of Man_, second edition, page 163. 

[90] _Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution_, by Peter Kropotkin, pages 5-6. 

[91] _Idem_, page 74. 

[92] Cf. _Ancient Society_, by Lewis H. Morgan, and _The Origins of theFamily, Private Property, and the State_, by Friederich Engels. 

[93] Engels, _Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State_, p. 182. 

CHAPTER V

CAPITALISM AND THE LAW OF CONCENTRATION

I

Such was the mode of the development of capitalistic production in itsfirst stage. In this stage a permanent wage-working class was formed, new markets were developed, many of them by colonial expansion andterritorial conquest, and production for sale and profit became therule, instead of the exception as formerly when men produced primarilyfor use and sold only their surplus products. A new form of classdivision thus arose out of this economic soil. Instead of being bound tothe land as the serfs had been under feudalism, the wage-workers werebound to their tools. They were not bound to a single master, they werenot branded on the cheek, but they were, nevertheless, dependent uponthe industrial lords. Economic mastery gradually shifted from theland-owning class to the class of manufacturers. The political andsocial history of the Middle Ages is largely the record of the strugglefor supremacy which was waged between these two classes. That struggleis the central fact of the Protestant Reformation and the CromwellianCommonwealth. 

The second stage of capitalism begins with the birth of the machine age;the introduction of the great mechanical inventions of the latter halfof the seventeenth century, and the resulting industrial revolution, thesalient features of which we have already traced. That revolutioncentered in England, whose proud but, from all other points of view thanthe commercial, foolish boast for a full century it was to be "theworkshop of the world. " The new methods of production, and thedevelopment of trade with India, and the colonies and the United Statesof America, providing a vast and apparently almost unlimited market, atremendous rivalry was created among the people of England, tauntingly, but with less originality than bitterness, designated "a nation ofshopkeepers" by Napoleon the First. Competition flourished and commercegrew under its mighty urge. Quite naturally, therefore, competition cameto be regarded as "the life of trade, " and the one supreme law ofprogress by British economists and statesmen. The economic conditions ofthe time fostered a sturdy individualism on the one hand, expressingitself in a policy of _laissez faire_, which, paradoxically, they assurely destroyed. The result was the paradox of a nation of theoreticindividualists becoming, through its poor laws, and more especiallythrough the vast body of industrial legislation which developed inspite of theories of _laissez faire_, a nation of practicalcollectivists. 

The third and last stage of capitalism is characterized by new forms ofindustrial ownership, administration, and control. Concentration ofindustry and the elimination of competition are the distinguishingfeatures of this stage. When, more than half a century ago, theSocialists predicted an era of industrial concentration and monopoly asthe outcome of the competitive struggles of the time, their prophecieswere mocked and derided. Yet, at this distance of time, it is easy tosee what they were foresighted enough to envisage in the future; easyenough to see that competition carries in its bosom the germs of its owninevitable destruction. In words which, as Professor Ely says, [94] seemto many, even non-Socialists, like a prophecy, Karl Marx argued that thebusiness units in production would continuously increase in magnitude, until at last monopoly emerged from the competitive struggle. Thismonopoly becoming a shackle upon the system under which it has grown up, and thus becoming incompatible with capitalist conditions, socializationmust, according to Marx, naturally and necessarily follow. [95] In thisas in all the utterances of Marx upon the subject we are reminded ofthe distinction which must be made between Socialism as he conceived itand the Socialism of the Utopians. We never get away from the law ofeconomic interpretation. Socialism, according to Marx, will develop outof capitalist society, and follow capitalism necessarily and inevitably. It is not a plan to be adopted, but a stage of social development to bereached. 

II

For the moment, we are not concerned with the prediction that Socialismmust follow the full development of capitalism. The important point forour present study is the predicted growth of monopoly out ofcompetition, and the manner in which that prediction has been realized. Concerning the manner and extent of the fulfillment of this prediction, there have been many keen controversies, both within and without theranks of the followers of Marx. While Marx and Engels are properlyregarded as the first scientific Socialists, having been the first topostulate Socialism as the outcome of evolution, and to explore the lawsof that evolution, they were not wholly free from the failings of theUtopists. It would be unreasonable to expect them to be absolutely freefrom the spirit of their age and their associates. There is, doubtless, something Utopian in the very mechanical conception of capitalistconcentration which Marx held; the process is too simple and sweeping, the revolution too imminent. Still, by followers and critics alike, itis generally conceded that the _control_ of the means of production isbeing concentrated into the hands of small and ever smaller groups ofcapitalists. In recent years the increase in the number of industrialestablishments has not kept pace with the increase in the number ofworkers employed, the increase of capital, or the value of the productsmanufactured. Not only do we find small groups of men controllingcertain industries, but a selective process is clearly observable, giving to the same groups of men control of various industries otherwiseutterly unrelated. 

In the early stages of the movement toward concentration andtrustification, it was possible to classify the leading capitalistsaccording to the industries with which they were identified. One set ofcapitalists, "Oil Kings, " controlled the oil industry; another set, "Steel Kings, " controlled the iron and steel industry; another set, "Coal Barons, " controlled the coal industry, and so on throughout theindustrial and commercial life of the nation. To-day all this has beenchanged. An examination of the "Directory of Directors" shows that thesame men control varied enterprises. The Oil King is at the same time aSteel King, a Coal Baron, a Railway Magnate, and so on. The men whocomprise the Standard Oil group, for instance, are found to controlhundreds of other companies. They include in the scope of theirdirectorate, banking, insurance, milling, real estate, railroad andsteamship lines, gas companies, sugar, coffee, cotton, and tobaccocompanies, and a heterogeneous host of other concerns. Not only so, butthese same men are large holders of investments in all the greatEuropean countries, as well as India, Australia, Africa, Asia, and theSouth American countries, while foreign capitalists similarly, but to aless extent, hold large investments in American companies. Thus, theconcentration of industrial control, through its finance, has becomeinterindustrial and is rapidly becoming international. The predictionsof Marx are being fulfilled, even though not in the precise manneranticipated by him. 

III

During recent years there have been many criticisms of the Marxiantheory, aiming to show that this concentration has been, and is, muchmore apparent than real. Some of the most important of these criticismshave come from within the ranks of the Socialist movement itself, andhave been widely exploited as portending the disintegration of theSocialist movement. _Inter alia_, it may be remarked here that a certainfretfulness of temper characterizes most of the critics of Socialism. Strict adherence to the letter of Marx is pronounced as a sign ofintellectual bondage of the movement and its leaders to the "Marxianfetish, " and, on the other hand, every recognition of the humanfallibility of Marx by a Socialist thinker is hailed as a sure portentof a split in the movement. Yet the most serious criticisms of Marx havecome from the ranks of his followers--perhaps only another sign of theintellectual bankruptcy of the academic opposition to Socialism. 

Of course, Marx was human and fallible. If "Capital" had never beenwritten, there would still have been a Socialist movement, and if itcould be destroyed by criticism, the Socialist movement would remain. Socialism is the product of economic conditions, not of a theory or abook. "Capital" is the intellectual explanation of the genesis ofSocialism, and neither its cause nor an argument for it by which it mustbe judged. Hence the futility of such missions as that undertaken by Mr. W. H. Mallock, for example, based upon the assumption that attacks uponthe text of Marx will serve to destroy or seriously hinder the livingmovement. Like a prophet's rebuke to these critics, as well as to thosewithin the ranks of the Socialist movement who would make of the wordsof Marx and Engels fetters to bind the movement to a dogma, come thewords of Engels, published recently, letters in which he writesvigorously to his friend Sorge concerning the working-class movement inEngland and America. Of his compatriots, the handful of German Socialistexiles in America, who sought to make the American workers swallow amass of ill-digested Marxian theory, he writes, "The Germans have neverunderstood how to apply themselves from their theory to the lever whichcould set the American masses in motion; to a great extent they do notunderstand the theory itself and treat it in a doctrinaire and dogmaticfashion.... It is a credo to them, not a guide to action. " And again, "Our theory is not a dogma, but the exposition of a process ofevolution, and that process involves several successive phases. " Of theEnglish movement he writes, "And here an instinctive Socialism is moreand more taking possession of the masses which, _fortunately_, isopposed to all distinct formulation according to the dogmas of one orthe other so-called organizations, " and again, he condemns "the bringingdown of the Marxian theory of development to a rigid orthodoxy. "[96] Thecritics who hope to destroy the Socialist movement of to-day bystringing together mistaken predictions of Marx and Engels, or who thinkthat Socialism is losing its grip because it is adjusting itsexpressions to the changed conditions which the progress of fifty yearshas brought about, utterly mistake the character of the movement. Inits abandonment of the errors of Marx it is most truly Marxian--becauseit is expressing life instead of repeating dogma. 

Doubtless Marx anticipated a much more complete concentration of capitaland industry than has yet taken place; doubtless, too, he underrated thepowers of endurance of some petty industries, and saw the breakdown ofcapitalism in a cataclysm, whereas modern Socialists see its merginginto a form of socialization. But, when all this is admitted, it cannotbe fairly said that the sum of criticism has seriously affected thegeneral Marxian theory, as apart from its particular exposition by Marxhimself. So far as the criticism has touched the subject of capitalistconcentration, it has been pitifully weak, and the furore it has createdseems almost pathetic. The main results of this criticism may be brieflysummarized as follows: First, in industry, the persistence, and, in somecases, even increase, of petty industries; second, in agriculture, thefailure of large-scale farming, and the decrease of the average farmacreage; third, in retail trade, the persistence of the small stores, despite the growth in size and number of the great department stores;fourth, the fact that concentration of industry does not imply a likeconcentration of wealth, the number of shareholders in a greatindustrial combination being frequently greater than the number ofowners in the units of industry prior to the combination. At firstsight, and stated in this manner, it would seem as if these conclusions, if justified by the facts, involved a serious and far-reaching criticismof the Socialist theory of a universal tendency toward the concentrationof industry and commerce into units of ever increasing magnitude. 

But upon closer examination, these conclusions, their accuracy admitted, are seen to involve no very damaging criticism of the theory. To thesuperficial observer, the mere increase in the number of industrialestablishments seems a much more important matter than to the carefulstudent, who is not easily deceived by appearances. The student seesthat while some petty industries undoubtedly do increase in number, theincrease of large industries employing many more workers and much largercapitals is vastly greater. Furthermore, he sees what the superficialobserver constantly overlooks, namely, that these petty industries are, for the most part, unstable and transient, being continually absorbed bythe larger industrial combinations or crushed out of existence, as soonas they have obtained sufficient vitality and strength to make themworthy of notice, either as tributaries to be desired or potentialcompetitors to be feared. Petty industries in a very large number ofcases represent a stage in social descent, the wreckage of largerindustries whose owners are economically as dependent as the ordinarywage-workers, or even poorer and more to be pitied. Where, on thecontrary, it is a stage in social ascent, the petty industry is, paradoxical as the idea may appear, frequently part of the process ofindustrial concentration. By independent gleaning, it endeavors to findsufficient business to maintain its existence. If it fails in this, itsowner falls back to the proletarian level from which, in most instances, he arose. If it succeeds only to a degree sufficient to maintain itsowner at or near the average wage-earner's level of comfort, it may passunnoticed and unmolested. If, on the other hand, it gleans sufficientbusiness to make it desirable as a tributary, or potentially dangerousas a competitor, the petty business is pounced upon by its mightierrival and either absorbed or crushed, according to the temper or need ofthe latter. Critics of the Marxian theory have for the most partcompletely failed to recognize this significant aspect of the subject, and attached far too much importance to the continuance of pettyindustries. 

IV

What is true of petty industry is true in even greater measure of retailtrade. Nothing could well be further from the truth than the hastygeneralization of some critics, that an increase in the number of retailbusiness establishments invalidates the theory of a progressiveconcentration of capital. In the first place, many of theseestablishments have no independence whatsoever, but are merely agenciesof larger enterprises. Mr. Macrosty has shown that in London the cheaprestaurants are in the hands of four or five firms, and this is a branchof business which, because it calls for relatively small capital, showsin a marked manner the increase of establishments. Much the sameconditions exist in connection with the trade in milk and bread. [97]Similar conditions prevail in almost all the large cities of thiscountry. Single companies are known to control hundreds of saloons, restaurants, cigar stores, shoe stores, bake shops, coal depots, and thelike. A multitude of other businesses are subject to this rule, and itis doubtful whether, after all, there has been the real increase ofindividual ownership which Mr. Ghent concedes. [98] However that may be, it is certain that a very large number of the business establishmentswhich figure as statistical units in the argument against the Socialisttheory of the concentration of capital might very properly be regardedas so many evidences in its favor. 

A very large number of small businesses, moreover, are reallymanipulated by speculators, and serve only as a means of divestingprudent and thrifty artisans and others of their little savings. Whoever has lived in the poorer quarters of a great city, where smallstores are most numerous, and has watched the changes constantlyoccurring in the stores of the neighborhood, will realize thesignificance of this observation. The writer has known stores on theupper East Side of New York, where for several years he resided, changehands as many as six or seven times in a single year. What happened wasgenerally this: A workingman having been thrown out of employment, orforced to give up his work by reason of age, sickness, or accident, decided to attempt to make a living in "business. " In a few weeks, or afew months at most, his small savings were swallowed up, and he had toleave the store, making place for the next victim. An acquaintance ofthe writer owns six tenement houses in different parts of New York City, the ground floors of which are occupied by small stores. These storesare rented by the month just as other portions of the buildings are, andthe owner, on going over his books for a period of five years, foundthat the average duration of tenancy in them had been less than eightmonths. 

During the past few years in the United States, as a result of thedevelopment of the many inventions for the production of "movingpictures, " a new kind of cheap, popular theater has become common. Usually the charge of admission is five cents, whence the name"Nickelodeon"; the entertainment consists usually of a number of more orless dramatic incidents portrayed by means of the pictures, and a fewsongs, generally illustrated by pictures, and sung to the accompanimentof a mechanical piano. In almost every town in the United States thesecheap pictorial theaters have appeared and their number will, doubtless, considerably swell the total of business establishments. In the smalltowns of the State of New York, the writer made an investigation andfound that there were frequently several such places in the same town;that they were practically all built by the same persons, started bythem, and then leased to others. These were generally people with smallsavings who, in the course of a few weeks, lost all their money andretired, their places being taken by other victims of the speculators. What seemed to the casual observer an admirable and conspicuous exampleof an increase in petty business, proved, upon closer study, to be avery striking example of concentration, disguised for purposes ofspeculation. 

Thus reduced, the increase of small industries and retail establishmentsaffects the contention that there is a general tendency to concentrationvery little. It does perhaps seriously weaken, or even destroy, someextreme statements of the theory, contending that the process ofmonopolization must be a direct, simple process of continuous absorptionand elimination, leaving each year fewer small units than before. Smallstores do exist; they have not been put out of existence by the bigdepartment stores as was at one time confidently predicted. They serve areal social need by supplying the minor commodities of everyday use insmall quantities, just as the petty industries serve a real social need. Many of them are conducted by married women to supplement the earningsof their husbands, or by widows; others by men unable to work, whoseincome from them is less than the wages of artisans. Together, theseprobably constitute a majority of the small retail establishments whichshow any tendency to increase. [99]

The effect of this increase is still further lessened when it isremembered that only the critics of Socialism interpret the Marxiantheory to mean that _all_ petty industry and business must disappear, that all must be concentrated into large industrial and commercialunits, to make Socialism possible. If we are to judge Marxism as thebasis of the Socialist movement, we must judge it by the interpretationgiven to it by the Socialists, and not otherwise. There is no Socialistof note to-day who does not realize that many small industrial andbusiness enterprises will continue to exist for a very long time, evencontinuing to exist under a Socialist régime. Kautsky, perhaps theablest living exponent of the Marxian theories, leader of the "Orthodox"Marxists, admits this. He has very ably argued that the ripeness ofsociety for Socialism, for social production and control, depends, notupon the number of little industries that still remain, but upon thenumber of great industries which already exist. [100] The ripeness ofsociety for Socialism is not disproved by the number of ruins and relicsabounding. "Without a developed great industry, Socialism isimpossible, " says this writer. "Where, however, a great industry existsto a considerable degree, it is easy for a Socialist society to_concentrate production, and to quickly rid itself of the littleindustry_. "[101] It is the increase of large industries, then, whichSocialists regard as the essential preliminary condition of Socialism. 

Far more important than the increase or decrease of the number of unitsis their relative significance in the total production, a phase of thesubject which is rather disingenuously avoided by most critics ofMarxism. Mr. Lucien Sanial, a Socialist statistician of repute, and oneof the profoundest Marxian students in America, has shown this in anumber of suggestive tables. For example, he takes twenty-seven typicalmanufacturing industries for the years 1880, 1900, and 1905, andcompares the number of establishments in each year with the total amountof capital invested and workers employed. In 1880 the number ofestablishments was 63, 233; in 1900 the number was 51, 912, and in 1905 itwas only 44, 142. From 1880 to 1905 there had been a decrease in thenumber of establishments of 35. 3 per cent, of which 15 per cent tookplace within the last five years. But within the same period there hadbeen an increase in the amount of capital invested in these twenty-sevenindustries as follows: from $1, 276, 600, 000 in 1880 to $3, 324, 500, 000 in1900 and to $4, 628, 800, 000 in 1905--a total increase from 1880 to 1905of 262. 6 per cent. On the other hand, the number of wage-workersincreased in the same period only 60. 2 per cent, the number in 1905being 1, 731, 500, as against 1, 611, 000 in 1900 and 1, 080, 200 in 1880. 

In another table, forty-seven industries are taken. These forty-sevenindustries comprised 29, 800 establishments in 1900; five years laterthere were but 26, 182. In 1900 the total capital invested in theseindustries was $1, 005, 400, 000, and in 1905 it had increased to$1, 339, 500, 000. In the same five years the number of wage-workersincreased only from 618, 000 to 749, 000. Thus, in the group of largerindustries and the group of smaller ones we find the same evidences ofconcentration: less establishments, larger capitals, and an increase ofwage-workers not equal to the increase in capitalization. [102]

In connection with these figures, the following table may be profitablystudied, as showing the relative insignificance of the small producer inthe total volume of manufacture. It will be seen that the two largestclasses of establishments have only 24, 163 establishments, 11. 2 per centof the total number. But they have $10, 333, 000, 000, or 81. 5 per cent ofthe total manufacturing capital, and employ 71. 6 per cent of allwage-workers in manufacturing industries. It may be added that they turnout 79. 3 per cent of the total product. Of the petty industries proper, those having a capital of less than $5000, it will be observed that theynumber 32. 9 per cent of the total number of establishments, but employonly 1. 3 per cent of the capital invested, and only 1. 9 per cent of thewage-workers. It is clear, therefore, that our manufacturing industry invery highly concentrated, and that the petty industries are, despitetheir number, a very insignificant factor. 

TABLE OF MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS, 1905[103]

CAPITALS NUMBER PER TOTAL CAPITAL PER NO. OF PER CENT CENT WAGE-WORKERS CENT

Less than$5, 000 71, 162 32. 9 $165, 300, 000 1. 3 106, 300 1. 9

$5, 000 to$20, 000 72, 806 33. 7 531, 100, 000 4. 2 419, 600 7. 7

$20, 000 to$100, 000 48, 144 22. 2 1, 655, 800, 000 13. 0 1, 027, 700 18. 8

$100, 000 to$1, 000, 000 22, 281 10. 0 5, 551, 700, 000 43. 8 2, 537, 550 46. 4

Over$1, 000, 000 1, 882 0. 9 4, 782, 300, 000 37. 7 1, 379, 150 25. 2

When we turn to agriculture, the criticisms of the Socialist theoryappear more substantial and important. A few years ago we witnessed therise and rapid growth of the great bonanza farms in this country. It wasshown that the advantages of large capital and the consolidation ofproductive forces resulted, in farming as in manufacture, in greatlycheapened production. [104] The end of the small farm was declared to beimminent, and it seemed for a while that concentration in agriculturewould even outrun concentration in manufacture. This predictedabsorption of the small farms by the larger, and the average increase offarm acreage, has not, however, been fulfilled to any great degree. Anincrease in the number of small farms, and a decrease in the averageacreage, is shown in almost all the states. The increase of greatestates shown by the census figures probably bears little or no relationto real farming, consisting mainly of great stock grazing ranches in theWest, and unproductive gentlemen's estates in the East. 

Apparently, then, the Socialist theory that "the big fish eat up thelittle ones, and are in turn eaten by still bigger ones, " is notapplicable to agriculture. On the contrary, it seems that the greatfarms cannot compete successfully with the smaller farms. It istherefore not surprising that writers so sympathetic to Socialism asProfessor Werner Sombart and Professor Richard T. Ely should claim thatthe Marxian system breaks down when it reaches the sphere ofagricultural industry, and that it seems to be applicable only tomanufacture. This position has been taken by a not inconsiderable bodyof Socialists in recent years, and is one of the tenets of that criticalmovement within the Socialist ranks which has come to be known as"Revisionism. " Nothing is more delusive than statistical argument ofthis kind, and while these conclusions should be given due weight, theyshould not be too hastily accepted. An examination of the statisticalbasis of the argument is necessary. 

In the first place, small agricultural holdings do not necessarilyimply economic independence, any more than do petty industries orbusinesses. When we examine the census figures carefully, the firstimportant fact which challenges attention is that, whereas of the farmsin the United States in 1880, 71. 6 per cent were operated by theirowners, in 1900 the _proportion_ had declined to 64. 7 per cent. In 1900, of the 5, 739, 657 farms in the United States, no less than 2, 026, 286 wereoperated by tenants. Concerning the ownership of these rented farmslittle investigation has been made, and it is likely that carefulinquiry would elicit the fact that this is a not unimportant phase ofagricultural concentration, though not revealed by the figures in thecensus reports. It remains to be said concerning these figures, however, that they do not lend support to the theory that the small farms arebeing swallowed up by the larger ones, for in the same period there wasa very decided increase in the _number_ of farms operated by theirowners. Thus we have the same set of figures used to support both sidesof the controversy--one side calling attention to the decreased_proportion_ of farms operated by their owners, the other to theincreased _number_. 

A similar difficulty presents itself in connection with the subject ofmortgaged farm holdings. In 1890, the mortgaged indebtedness of thefarmers of the United States amounted to the immense sum of$1, 085, 995, 960, a sum almost equal to the value of the entire wheatcrop. Now, while a mortgage is certainly not suggestive of independence, it may be either a sign of decreasing or increasing independence. It maybe a step toward the ultimate loss of one's farm or a step toward theultimate ownership of one. Much that has been written by Populist andSocialist pamphleteers and editors upon this subject has been based uponthe entirely erroneous assumption that a mortgaged farm meant loss ofeconomic independence, whereas it often happens that it is a step towardit. The fact is that we know very little concerning the ownership ofthese mortgages, which is the crux of the question. It is known thatmany of the insurance, banking, and trust companies have investedlargely in farm mortgages. This is another phase of concentration whichthe critics of the theory have overlooked almost entirely. One thingseems certain, namely, that farm ownership is not on the decline. It isnot being supplanted by tenantry; the small farms are not being absorbedby larger ones. It seems a fair deduction from the facts, then, that thesmall farmer will continue to be an important factor--indeed, the mostimportant factor--in American agriculture for a long time to come, perhaps permanently. If the Socialist movement is to succeed in America, it must recognize this fact in its propaganda. 

V

Most of the criticism of the Marxian theory of concentration is basedupon a very unsatisfactory definition of what is meant by concentration. The decrease of small units and their absorption or supercession bylarger units is generally understood when concentration is spoken of. But concentration may take other, very different forms. There may be aconcentration of _control_, for example, without concentration of actualownership, or there may be concentration of actual ownership disguisedby mortgages, as already suggested. The sweated trades are a familiarexample of the former method of concentration. It has been shown overand over again that while small establishments remain a necessarycondition of sweated industry, there is almost always effectiveconcentration of control. To all appearances an independent manufactureron a small scale, the sweater is generally nothing more than the agentof some big establishment, which finds it more economical to let thework be done in sweatshops than in its own factories. The same thingholds good of the retail trades, many of the apparently independentretail stores being simply agencies for big wholesale houses, controlledby them in every way. In an even larger measure, agriculture is subjectto a control that is quite independent of actual or even nominalownership of the farm. Manifestly, therefore, we need a more accurateand comprehensive definition of concentration than the one generallyaccepted. Mr. A. M. Simons, in an admirable study of the agriculturalquestion from the Socialist viewpoint, defines concentration as "amovement tending to give a continually diminishing minority of thepersons engaged in any industry, a constantly increasing control overthe essentials, and a continually increasing share of the total value ofthe returns of the industry. "[105] It is no part of the purpose of thischapter to discuss this definition at length. It is sufficient to havethus emphasized that concentration may be quite as effective when it islimited to control as when it embraces ownership. 

There are, then, other forms of concentration than the physical one, theamalgamation of smaller units to form larger ones, and very often theseforms of concentration go on unperceived and unsuspected. There can beno doubt that this is especially true of agricultural industry. Manybranches of farming, as the industry was carried on by our fathers andtheir fathers before them, have been transferred from the farmhouse tothe factory. Butter and cheese making, for example, have largely passedout of the farm kitchen into the factory. The writer recalls a visit toa large farm in the Middle West. The sound of a churn is never heardthere, notwithstanding that it is a "dairy farm, " and all the butterand cheese consumed in that household is bought at the village store. Doubtless this farm but presented an exaggerated form of a conditionthat is becoming more and more common. The invention of labor-savingmachinery and its application to agriculture leads to a division of theindustry and the absorption by the factory of the parts most influencedby the new processes. When we remember the tremendous rôle which complexagencies outside of the farm play in modern agricultural industry, wesee the subject of concentration as it applies to that industry in a newlight. The grain elevators, cold-storage houses, creameries, and evenrailroads, are part of the necessary equipment of production, but theyare owned and operated independently of the farm. There is a good dealof concentration of production in agriculture which takes the form ofthe absorption of some of its processes by factories instead of by otherfarms. 

VI

We must also distinguish between the concentration of industry and theconcentration of wealth. While there is a natural relation between thesetwo phenomena, they are by no means identical. The trustification of agiven industry may bring together a score of industrial units in onegigantic concern, so concentrating capital and production, but it isconceivable that every one of the owners of the units which compose thetrust may have a share in it equal to the capital value of hisparticular unit, but more profitable. In that case, there can obviouslybe no concentration of wealth. What occurs is that all are benefited bycertain economies, in exact proportion to their holdings in the capitalstock. It may even happen that a larger number of persons participate, as shareholders, in the amalgamation than were formerly concerned in theownership of the units of which the amalgamation is composed. Assuming, for the purposes of our argument, that these persons are represented bynew capital, that the former owners of independent units share upon anequitable basis, there will be increased diffusion of wealth instead ofits concentration. As Professor Ely says, "If the stock of the UnitedStates Steel Corporation were owned by individuals holding one shareeach, the concentration in industry would be just as great as it is now, but there would be a wide diffusion in the ownership of the wealth ofthe corporation. "[106]

Obvious as this distinction may seem, it is very often lost sight of, and when recognized it presents difficulties which are almostinsurmountable. It is well-nigh impossible to present statistically therelation of the concentration of capital to the concentration ordiffusion of wealth, important as the point is in its bearings uponmodern Socialist theory. While the distinction does not affect theargument that the concentration of capital and industry makes theirsocialization possible, it is nevertheless an important matter. If, assome writers, notably Bernstein, [107] the Socialist, have argued, theconcentration of capital and industry really leads to thedecentralization of wealth, and the diffusion of the advantages ofconcentration among the great mass of the people, especially by creatinga new class of salaried dependents, then, instead of creating a class ofexploiters ever becoming less numerous, and a class of proletarians everbecoming more numerous, the tendency of modern capitalism is todistribute the gains of industry over a widening area--a process ofdemocratization in fact. It is very evident that if this contention is acorrect one, there must be a softening rather than an intensifying ofclass antagonisms; a tendency away from class divisions, and to greatersatisfaction with present conditions, rather than increasing discontent. If this theory can be sustained, the advocates of Socialism will beobliged to change the nature of their propaganda from an appeal to theeconomic interest of the proletariat to the general ethical sense ofmankind. There can be no successful movement based upon the interestsof one class if the tendency of modern capitalism is to democratize thelife of the world and diffuse its wealth over larger social areas thanever before. 

The exponents of this theory have based their arguments upon statisticaldata chiefly relating to: (1) The number of taxable incomes in countrieswhere incomes are taxed; (2) the number of investors in industrial andcommercial countries; (3) the number of savings bank deposits. As oftenhappens when reliance is placed upon the direct statistical method, theresult of all the discussion and controversy upon this subject isextremely disappointing and confusing. The same figures are used tosupport both sides of the argument with equal plausibility. Thedifficulty lies in the fact that the available statistics do not includeall the facts essential to a scientific and conclusive result. 

It is not intended here to add to the Babel of voices in thisdiscussion, but to present the conclusions of two or three of the mostcareful investigators in this field. Professor Ely[108] quotes a tableof incomes in the Grand Duchy of Baden, based upon the income taxreturns of that country, which has formed the theme of much dispute. Thetable shows that in the two years, 1886 and 1896, less than one per centof the incomes assessed were over 10, 000 marks a year, and from thisfact it has been argued that wealth in that country has not beenconcentrated to any very great extent. In like manner, the Frencheconomist, Leroy-Beaulieu, has argued that the fact that in 1896 only2750 persons in Paris had incomes of over 100, 000 francs a year betokensa wide diffusion of wealth and an absence of concentration. [109] But theimportant point of the discussion, the _proportion of the total wealthowned by these classes_, is entirely lost sight of by those who argue inthis manner. Further, it must always be borne in mind that there is adecided tendency in all income tax schedules to understate the amount ofincomes above a certain size, the larger the income the more likelihoodof its being understated in the returns. The psychology of this factneeds no elaborate demonstration. Taking the figures for the Grand Duchyof Baden as they are given, we have no particulars at all concerning thenumber of incomes under 500 marks, but of the persons assessed uponincomes of 500 marks and over, in 1886, the poorest two thirds had aboutone third of the total income, and the richest 0. 69 per cent had 12. 78per cent of the total income. So far, the figures show a much greaterconcentration of wealth than appears from the simple fact that less thanone per cent of the incomes assessed were over 10, 000 marks a year. 

Going further, we compare the two years, 1886 and 1896, and find thatthis concentration increased during the ten-year period as follows: In1886, there were 2212 incomes of more than 10, 000 marks assessed, being0. 69 per cent of the total number. In 1896, there were 3099 incomes ofmore than 10, 000 marks assessed, being 0. 78 per cent of the totalnumber. In 1886, 0. 69 per cent of the incomes assessed amounted to51, 403, 000 marks, representing 12. 77 per cent of the total assessedwealth; while in 1896, 0. 78 per cent of the incomes assessed amounted to81, 986, 000 marks, representing 15. 02 per cent of the total wealth soassessed. In 1886 there were 18 incomes of over 200, 000 marks a year, aggregating 6, 864, 000 marks, 1. 70 per cent of the total value of allincomes assessed; in 1896, there were 28 such incomes, aggregating12, 481, 000 marks, or 2. 29 per cent of the total value of all incomesassessed. The increase of concentration shown by these figures is notdisputable, it seems to the present writer, when they are thus carefullyanalyzed, notwithstanding the fact that the table from which they aredrawn is sometimes used to support the opposite contention. 

According to the late Professor Richmond Mayo-Smith, [110] seventy percent of the population of Prussia have incomes below the income taxstandard, their total income representing only one third of the totalincome of the population. An additional one fourth of the populationenjoys one third of the total income, while the remaining one third goesto about four per cent of the people. The significance of these figuresis clearly shown by the following diagram:--

[Illustration:

 DIAGRAM

 SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME BY CLASSES IN PRUSSIA]

In Saxony the statistics show that "two thirds of the population possessless than one third of the income, and that 3. 5 per cent of the upperincomes receive more than 66 per cent at the lower end. " From a tableprepared by Sir Robert Giffen, a notoriously optimistic statistician, always the exponent of an ultra-roseate view of social conditions, Professor Mayo-Smith concludes that in England, "about ten per cent ofthe people receive nearly one half of the total income. "[111] Thesefigures are rather out of date, it is true, but they err in understatingthe amount of concentration rather than otherwise, as the researches ofMr. Chiozza Money, M. P. , and others show. [112]

In this country, the absence of income tax figures makes it impossibleto get direct statistical evidence as to the distribution of incomes. The most careful estimate of the distribution of wealth in the UnitedStates yet made is that by the late Dr. Charles B. Spahr. [113] Writtenin 1895, Dr. Spahr's book cannot be regarded as an accurate presentationof conditions as they exist at the present moment, yet here again thereis every reason to believe that the process of concentration has gone onunchecked since he wrote. It is not necessary for our present purpose, however, to accept the estimate of Dr. Spahr as authoritative andconclusive. The figures are quoted here simply as the result reached bythe most patient, conscientious, and scientific examination of thedistribution of wealth in this country yet made. Dr. Spahr's conclusionwas that in 1895 less than one half of the families in the United Stateswere property-less; but that, nevertheless, seven eighths of thefamilies owned only one eighth of the national wealth, while one percent of the families owned more than the remaining ninety-nine per cent. 

Mr. Lucien Sanial, in a most careful analysis of the census for 1900, shows that, classified according to occupations, 250, 251 personspossessed $67, 000, 000, 000, out of a total of $95, 000, 000, 000 given asthe national wealth; that is to say, 0. 9 per cent of the total number inall occupations owned 70. 5 per cent of the total national wealth. Themiddle class, consisting of 8, 429, 845 persons, being 29. 0 per cent ofthe total number in all occupations, owned $24, 000, 000, 000, or 25. 3 percent of the total national wealth. The lowest class, the proletariat, consisting of 20, 393, 137 persons, being 70. 1 per cent of the totalnumber in all occupations, owned but $4, 000, 000, 000, or 4. 2 per cent ofthe total wealth. To recapitulate: Of the 29, 073, 233 persons ten yearsold and over engaged in occupations, 0. 9 per cent own 70. 5 per cent of total wealth. 29. 0 per cent own 25. 3 per cent of total wealth. 70. 1 per cent own 4. 2 per cent of total wealth. 

Startling as these figures are, it will be evident upon reflection thatthey do not adequately represent the amount of wealth concentration. Theoccupational basis is not quite satisfactory as applied to the richestclass. It serves for the proletarian class, of course, and for a verylarge part of the middle class. In these classes, as a rule, the_occupied_ persons represent wealth ownership. But this is by no meanstrue of the richest class. In this class we have a very considerableproportion of the wealth owned by _unoccupied_ persons, such as thewives rich in their own right, children and other unoccupied members offamilies rich by inheritance. Mr. Henry Laurens Call, in a paper readbefore the American Association for the Advancement of Science, atColumbia University, at the end of 1906, made these figures the basis ofthe startling estimate that one per cent of our population own not lessthan ninety per cent of our total wealth. 

There is a peculiarity of modern capitalism which enables the greatcapitalists to control vastly more wealth than they own. Take any groupof large capitalists, and it will be found that they _control_ a muchgreater volume of capital than they _own_. The invested capital of amultitude of small investors is in their keeping, and they can and douse it for purposes of their own. Thus we have a concentration ofcapitalist control which goes far beyond the concentration of ownership. And this concentration of the essential control of the capital of acountry becomes more and more important each year. It is recognizedto-day that the most important capitalist is not he who himself owns thegreatest amount of capital, but he who controls the greatest amount, quite irrespective of its ownership. 

The growth of immense private fortunes is an indisputable evidence ofthe concentration of wealth. In 1854 there were not more thantwenty-five millionaires in New York City, their total fortunesaggregating $43, 000, 000. There were not more than fifty millionaires inthe whole of the United States, their aggregate fortunes not exceeding$80, 000, 000. To-day there are several individual fortunes of more than$80, 000, 000 each. New York City alone is said to have over two thousandmillionaires, and the United States more than five thousand. By acurious mental process, the _New York World_, when the first edition ofthis little book appeared, sought to prove in a labored editorial thatthe increase of millionaires tended to prove an increasing diffusion ofwealth rather than the contrary. It is hardly worth while, perhaps, making any reply to such puerility. Every student knows that themultimillionaire is only possible as a result of the concentration ofwealth, that such fortunes are realized by the absorption of numeroussmaller ones. Further, it is only necessary to add that all themillionaires of 1854, together with the half millionaires, owned notmore than about $100, 000, 000 out of the total wealth, which was at thattime something like $10, 000, 000, 000. In other words, they owned not morethan one per cent of the wealth of the country. In 1890, when the wealthof the country was slightly more than $65, 000, 000, 000, Senator Ingallscould quote in the United States Senate a table showing that themillionaires and half millionaires of that time, 31, 100 persons in all, owned $36, 250, 000, 000, or just fifty-six per cent of the entire wealthof the United States. [114] Professor Ely accepts the logic of thestatistical data gathered in Europe and the United States, and says"such statistics as we have ... All indicate a marked concentration ofwealth, both in this country and Europe. "[115]

VII

Summing up, we may state the argument of this chapter very briefly asfollows: The Socialist theory is that competition is self-destructive, and that the inevitable result of the competitive process is to producemonopoly, either through the crushing out of the weak by the strong, orthe combination of units as a result of a conscious recognition of thewastes of competition and the advantages of coöperation. The law ofcapitalist development, therefore, is from competition and division tocombination and concentration. As this concentration proceeds, a largeclass of proletarians is formed on the one hand, and a small class ofcapitalist lords on the other, an essential antagonism of interestsexisting between the two classes. Petty industries may continue toexist, though, upon the whole, the tendency is toward their extinction. In certain industries, their number may even increase, but theirrelative importance is constantly decreasing. While Socialism does notpreclude the continued existence of small private industry or business, it does require and depend upon the development of a large body ofconcentrated industry, monopolies which can be transformed into socialmonopolies whenever the people may decide so to transform them. Theseconditions are being fulfilled in the evolution of our economic system. 

The interindustrial and international trustification of industry shows aremarkable fulfillment of the law of capitalist concentration which theSocialists were the first to formulate; the existence of pettyindustries and businesses, or their numerical increase even, being arelatively insignificant matter compared with the enormous increase inlarge industries and businesses, and their share in the total volume ofindustry and commerce. In agriculture, concentration, while it does notproceed so rapidly or directly as in manufacture and commerce, and whileit takes directions and forms unforeseen by the Socialists of ageneration ago, proceeds surely nevertheless. Along with thisconcentration of capital and industry proceeds the concentration ofwealth into proportionately fewer hands. While a certain diffusion ofwealth takes place through the mechanism of capitalist concentration, bydeveloping a new class of highly salaried officials, and enablingnumerous small investors to own shares in great industrial andcommercial corporations, it is not sufficient to balance theexpropriation which goes on in the competitive struggle, and it is truethat a larger proportion of the national wealth is owned by a minorityof the population than ever before, that minority being proportionatelyless numerous than ever before. Further, the peculiar financialorganization of modern capitalist society enables the ruling capitaliststo control and use to their own advantage the wealth of others investedin industrial and commercial corporations. Thus to the concentration ofownership must be added the concentration of control, which plays anincreasingly important part in capitalist economics. 

Whatever defects there may be in the Marxian theory, as outlined by Marxhimself, and whatever modifications of his statement of it may berendered necessary by changed conditions, in its main and essentialfeatures it has successfully withstood all the criticisms which havebeen directed against it. Economic literature is full of prophecies, butin its whole range there is not an instance of prophecy more literallyand abundantly fulfilled than that which Marx made concerning the trendof capitalist development. And Karl Marx was not a prophet--he but readclearly the meaning of certain facts which others had not learned toread, the law of social dynamics. That is not prophecy, but science. 

FOOTNOTES:

[94] _Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society_, by R. T. Ely, page 95. 

[95] _Capital_, Vol. I (Kerr edition), page 837. 

[96] _Briefe und Auszüge aus Briefen von Joh. Phil. Becker, Jos. Dietzgen, Friederich Engels, Karl Marx u. A. An F. A. Sorge und Andere_, Stuttgart, 1906. 

[97] H. W. Macrosty, _The Growth of Monopoly in English Industry_(Fabian Tract). 

[98] _Our Benevolent Feudalism_, by W. J. Ghent, pages 17-21. 

[99] A factor of tremendous importance in the maintenance of pettyindustries and business establishments in this country, which Marx couldnot have anticipated, has been the unprecedented volume of foreignimmigration. Not only have some menial personal services--such as shoecleaning, for example--been transformed into regular businesses byimmigrants from certain countries, but the massing together ofimmigrants, aliens in language, customs, tastes, and manners, provides avery favorable soil for the development of small business enterprises. 

[100] _The Social Revolution_, by Karl Kautsky, Part I, page 144. Seealso the argument by Paul Lafargue, Marx's son-in-law, that Socialismwill not oppose petty agriculture by private individuals working theirown farms. --_Revue Politique et Parliamentaire_, October, 1898, page 70. 

[101] Kautsky, _The Social Revolution_, page 144. 

[102] The figures are quoted from _Socialism Inevitable_, by GaylordWilshire, pages 325-326. 

[103] The table is quoted from _Socialism Inevitable_, by GaylordWilshire, page 326. 

[104] The cost of raising wheat in California, where large farming hasbeen most scientifically developed, is said to vary from 92. 5 cents per100 pounds on farms of 1000 acres to 40 cents on farms of 50, 000 acres. 

[105] _The American Farmer_, by A. M. Simons, page 97. 

[106] _Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society_, by Richard T. Ely, page 255. 

[107] _Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus_, by Edward Bernstein, page47. 

[108] _Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society_, by Richard T. Ely, pages 261-262. 

[109] _Essai sur la repartition des richesses et sur la tendance à unemoindre inégalité des conditions_, par Leroy-Beaulieu, page 564. 

[110] _Statistics and Economics_, by Richmond Mayo-Smith, Book III, Distribution. 

[111] _Statistics and Economics_, by Richmond Mayo-Smith, Book III, Distribution. 

[112] Cf. _Riches and Poverty_, by Chiozza Money, M. P. ; also, _FabianTract_, No. 5. 

[113] _The Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States_, byCharles B. Spahr (1896). 

[114] _Writings and Speeches of John J. Ingalls_, page 320. 

[115] _Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society_, page 265. 

CHAPTER VI

THE CLASS STRUGGLE THEORY

I

No part of the theory of modern Socialism has called forth so muchcriticism and opposition as the doctrine of the class struggle. Many whoare otherwise sympathetic to Socialism denounce this doctrine as narrow, brutal, and productive of antisocialistic feelings of class hatred. Uponall hands the doctrine is condemned as an un-American appeal to passionand a wicked exaggeration of social conditions. When President Rooseveltattacks the preachers of the doctrine, and wrathfully condemnsclass-consciousness as "a foul thing, " he doubtless expresses the viewsof a majority of American citizens. The insistence of Socialists uponthis aspect of their propaganda is undoubtedly responsible for keeping agreat many outside of their movement who otherwise would be identifiedwith it. If the Socialists would repudiate the doctrine that Socialismis a class movement, and make their appeal to the intelligence andconscience of all classes, instead of to the interests of a specialclass, they could probably double their numerical strength at once. Tomany, therefore, it seems a fatuous and quixotic policy to preach such adoctrine, and it is very often charitably ascribed to the peculiarintellectual and moral myopia of fanaticism. 

Before accepting this conclusion, and before indorsing the Rooseveltianverdict, the reader is bound as a matter of common fairness, and ofintellectual integrity, to consider the Socialist side of the argument. There is no greater fanaticism than that which condemns what it does nottake the trouble to understand. The Socialists claim that the doctrineis misrepresented; that it does not produce class hatred; and that it isa vital and pivotal point of Socialist philosophy. The class struggle, says the Socialist, is a law of social development. We only recognizethe law, and are no more responsible for its existence than for the lawof gravitation. The name of Marx is associated with the law in just thesame manner as the name of Newton is associated with the law ofgravitation, but Marx is no more responsible for the social law hediscovered than was Newton for the physical law he discovered. Therewere class struggles thousands of years before there was a Socialistmovement, thousands of years before Marx was born, and it is thereforeabsurd to charge us with the creation of the class struggle, or classhatred. We realize perfectly well that if we ignored this law in ourpropaganda, making our appeal to a universal sense of abstract justiceand truth, many who now hold aloof from us would join our movement. Butwe should not gain strength as a result of their accession to our ranks. We should be obliged to emasculate Socialism, to dilute it, in order towin a support of questionable value. History teems with examples of thedisaster which inevitably attends such a course. We should be quixoticand fatuous indeed if we attempted anything of the kind. Such, brieflystated, are the main outlines of the reply which the average Socialistgives to the criticism of the class struggle doctrine described. 

The class struggle theory is part of the economic interpretation ofhistory. Since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, the modes ofeconomic production and exchange have inevitably grouped men intoeconomic classes. The theory is thus admirably stated by Engels in theIntroduction to the _Communist Manifesto_:--

"In every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic productionand exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can beexplained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch; and, consequently, the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution ofprimitive society, holding land in common ownership) has been a historyof class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, rulingand oppressed classes; that the history of these class struggles forms aseries of evolution in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached wherethe exploited and oppressed class--the proletariat--cannot attain itsemancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class--thebourgeoise--without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, classdistinctions, and class struggles. "[116]

In this classic statement of the theory, there are several fundamentalpropositions. First, that class divisions and class struggles arise outof the economic life of society. Second, that since the dissolution ofprimitive tribal society, which was communistic in character, mankindhas been divided into economic groups or classes, and all its historyhas been a history of struggles between these classes, ruling and ruled, exploiting and exploited, being forever at war with each other. Third, that the different epochs in human history, stages in the evolution ofsociety, have been characterized by the interests of the ruling class. Fourth, that a stage has now been reached in the evolution of societywhere the struggle assumes a form which makes it impossible for classdistinctions and class struggles to continue if the exploited andoppressed class, the proletariat, succeeds in emancipating itself. Inother words, the cycle of class struggles which began with thedissolution of rude, tribal communism, and the rise of private property, ends with the passing of private property in the means of socialexistence and the rise of Socialism. The proletariat in emancipatingitself destroys all the conditions of class rule. 

II

As we have already seen, slavery is historically the first system ofclass division which presents itself. Some ingenious writers haveendeavored to trace the origin of slavery to the institution of thefamily, the children being the first slaves. It is fairly certain, however, that slavery originated in conquest. When a tribe was conqueredand enslaved by some more powerful tribe, all the members of thevanquished tribe sunk to one common level of servility and degradation. Their exploitation as laborers was the principal object of theirenslavement, and their labor admitted of little gradation. It is easy tosee the fundamental class antagonisms which characterized slavery. Hasthere been no uprisings of the slaves, no active and conscious struggleagainst their masters, the antagonism of interests between them andtheir masters would be none the less apparent. But the overthrow ofslavery was not the result of the rebellions and struggles of theslaves. While these undoubtedly helped, the principal factors in theoverthrow of chattel slavery as the economic foundation of society werethe disintegration of the system to the point of bankruptcy, and therise of a new, and sometimes, as in the case of Rome, alien rulingclass. 

The class divisions of feudal society are not less obvious than those ofchattel slavery. The main division, the widest gulf, divided the feudallord and the serf. Often as brutally ill-treated as theirslave-forefathers had been, the feudal serfs from time to time madeabortive struggles. The class distinctions of feudalism were constant, but the struggles between the lords and the serfs were sporadic, and ofcomparatively little moment, just as the risings of their slaveforefathers had been. But alongside of the feudal estate there existedanother class, the free handicraftsmen and peasants, the formerorganized into powerful guilds. It was this class, and not the serfclass, which was destined to challenge the rule of the feudal nobility, and wage war upon it. As the feudal class was a landed class, so theclass represented by the guilds became a moneyed and commercial class, the pioneers of our modern capitalist class. As Mr. Brooks Adams[117]has shown very clearly, it was this moneyed, commercial class, whichgave to the king the instrument for weakening and finally overthrowingfeudalism. It was this class which built up the cities and towns fromwhich was drawn the revenue for the maintenance of a standing army, thusliberating the king from his dependence upon the feudal lords. Thecapitalist class triumphed over the feudal nobility, and its interestsbecame in their turn the dominant interests in society. Capitalism inits development effectually destroyed all those institutions offeudalism which obstructed its progress, leaving only those which wereinnocuous and safely to be ignored. 

In capitalist society, the main class division is that which separatesthe employing, wage-paying class from the employed, wage-receivingclass. Notwithstanding all the elaborate arguments made to prove thecontrary, the frequently heard myth that the interests of Capital andLabor are identical, and the existence of pacificatory associationsbased upon that myth, there is no fact in the whole range of socialphenomena more self-evident than the existence of an inherent, fundamental antagonism in the relationship of employer and employee. Asindividuals, in all other relations, they may have a commonality ofinterests, but as employer and employee they are fundamentally andnecessarily opposed. They may belong to the same church, and so havereligious interests in common; they may have common racial interests, as, for instance, if negroes, in protecting themselves against theattacks made in a book like _The Clansman_, or, if Jews, in opposinganti-Semitic movements; as citizens they may have the same civicinterests, be equally opposed to graft in the city government, orequally interested in the adoption of wise sanitary precautions againstepidemics. They may even have a common industrial interest in thegeneral sense that they may be equally interested in the development ofthe industry in which they are engaged, and fear, equally, the resultsof a depression in trade. But their special interests as employer andemployee are antithetical. 

It cannot be denied that, in certain circumstances, these otherinterests may become so accentuated that the class antagonisms aremomentarily lost sight of, or completely dwarfed in importance; nor issuch a denial implied in the Socialist theory. It is not difficult tosee that in the case of a general uprising against the members of theirrace, in which their lives are imperiled, Jewish employers and employeesmay forget their _class_ interests and remember only that they are Jews. So with negroes and other oppressed races. The economic interests of theclass may be engulfed in the solidarity of the race. It is notdifficult, either, to see that in the presence of some great commondanger or calamity, class interests may likewise be completelysubordinated. An admirable example of this occurred at the time of theSan Francisco earthquake and fire. The enormous demand for laboroccasioned by that disaster practically enabled the artisans, most ofwhom were organized into unions, to demand and obtain almost fabulouswages. But there was no thought of taking advantage of the calamity. Onthe contrary, the unions immediately announced that they would make noattempt to do so. Not only that, but they voluntarily waived rules whichin normal times they would have insisted upon with all their powers. Thetemporary overshadowing of the economic interests of classes by otherspecial interests which have been thrust into special prominence, isnot, however, evidence that these class interests do not prevail innormal times. Recognition of this fact effectually destroys muchcriticism of the theory. 

The interest of the wage-worker, as wage-worker, is to receive thelargest wage possible for the least number of hours spent in labor. Theinterest of the employer, as employer, on the other hand, is to securefrom the worker as many hours of service, as much labor power, aspossible for the lowest wage which the worker can be induced to accept. The workers employed in a factory may be divided by a hundred differentforces. They may be divided by racial differences, for instance; butwhile preserving these differences in a large measure, they will tend tounite upon the basis of their economic interests. Some of the greatlabor unions, notably the United Mine Workers, [118] afford remarkableillustrations of this fact. If the difference of religious interestsleads to division, the same unanimity of economic interests will sooneror later be developed. No impartial investigator who studies theinfluence of a great labor union which includes in its membershipworkers of various nationalities and adherents of various religiouscreeds, can fail to observe the fact that the community of economicinterests which unites them is a powerful factor making for theiramalgamation into a harmonious civic whole. 

With the employers it is the same. They, too, may be divided by ahundred forces; the competition among them may be keen and fierce, butcommon economic interests will tend to unite them against theorganizations of the workers they employ. Racial, religious, social, andother divisions and distinctions, may be maintained, but they will, ingeneral, unite for the protection and furtherance of their commoneconomic interests. 

So much, indeed, belongs to the very primer stage of economic theory. Adam Smith is rather out of fashion nowadays, but there is still much in"The Wealth of Nations" which will repay our attention. No Socialistwriter, not even Marx, has stated the fundamental principle of theantagonism between the employing and employed classes more clearly, aswitness the following:--

"The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little aspossible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, thelatter in order to lower the wages of labor.... Masters are always andeverywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate. To violate thiscombination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort ofreproach to a master among his neighbors and equals.... Masters toosometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages oflabor.... These are always conducted with the utmost silence andsecrecy, till the moment of execution.... Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of theworkmen; who sometimes, too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of labor. Their usualpretenses are, sometimes the high price of provisions; sometimes thegreat profits which the masters make by their work. But whether thesecombinations be offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heardof. In order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they have alwaysrecourse to the loudest clamor, and sometimes to the most shockingviolence and outrage. They are desperate, and act with the extravaganceand folly of desperate men, who must either starve, or frighten theirmasters into an immediate compliance with their demands. The mastersupon these occasions are just as clamorous upon the other side, and_never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with somuch severity against the combinations of servants, laborers, andjourneymen_. "[119]

Thus Adam Smith. Were it essential to our present purpose, it would beeasy to quote from all the great economists in support of the Socialistclaim that the interests of the capitalist and those of the laborer areirreconcilably opposed. That individual workers and employers will befound who do not recognize their class interests is true, but that factby no means invalidates the contention that, in general, men willrecognize and unite upon a basis of common class interests. In bothclasses are to be found individuals who attach greater importance to thepreservation of racial, religious, or social, than to economic, interests. But because the economic interest is fundamental, involvingthe very basis of life, the question of food, clothing, shelter, andcomfort, these individuals are and must be exceptions to the generalrule. Workers sink their racial and religious differences and unite tosecure better wages, a reduction of their hours of labor, and betterconditions in general. Employers, similarly, unite to oppose whatevermay threaten their class interests, without regard to otherrelationships. The Gentile who is himself an anti-Semite has no qualmsof conscience about employing Jewish workmen, at low wages, to competewith Gentile workers; he does not object to joining with Jewishemployers in an Employers' Association, if thereby his economicinterests may be safeguarded. And the Jewish employer, likewise, has noobjection to joining with the Gentile employer for mutual protection, orto the employment of Gentile workers to fill the places of hisemployees, members of his own race, who have gone out on strike forhigher wages. 

III

The class struggle, therefore, presents itself in the present stage ofsocial development, in capitalist countries, as a conflict between thewage-paying and the wage-paid classes. That is the dominating andall-absorbing conflict of the industrial age in which we live. True, there are other class interests more or less involved. This isespecially true in the United States with its enormous agriculturalindustry, to which the description of the industrial conflict cannot beapplied. There are the indefinite, inchoate, vague, and uncertaininterests of that large, so-called middle class, composed of farmers, retailers, professional workers, and so on. The interests of this largeclass are not, and cannot be, as definitely defined. They vacillate, conforming now to the interest of the wage-workers, now to the interestof the employers. Thus the farmer may oppose an increase in the wages offarm laborers, because that touches him directly as an employer. Hisrelation to the farm laborer is substantially that of the capitalist tothe city worker, and his attitude upon that question is the attitude ofthe capitalist class as a whole. At the same time, he may heartily favoran increase of wages for miners, carpenters, bricklayers, shoemakers, printers, painters, factory workers, and non-agricultural laborers ingeneral, for the reason that while a general rise of wages, resulting ina general rise of prices, will affect him slightly as a consumer, andcompel him to pay more for what he buys, it will benefit him much moreas a seller of the products of his farm. In short, consciously veryoften, but unconsciously oftener still, personal or class interestscontrol our thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and actions. 

It is impossible with the data at our disposal at present to make suchan analysis of our population as will enable us to determine theparticular class interests of the various groups. Of the twenty-fourmillion men and boys engaged in industry there are some six millionfarmers and tenants; three million seven hundred and fifty thousand farmlaborers; eleven million mechanics, laborers, clerks, and servants; onemillion five hundred thousand professional workers, agents, and thelike; and about two million employers, large and small. Accurately toplace each of these groups is out of the question until such time as wehave a much more detailed study of our economic life than has yet beenattempted. We may, however, roughly relate some of the groups. 

First: It is evident that the interests of the eleven millionwage-earners are, as a whole, opposed to those of the employing class. There may be exceptions, as in the case of those whose very occupationas confidential agents of the capitalists, overseers, and the like, places them outside of the sphere of working-class interests. They maynot receive a salary much above the wage of the mechanic, yet theirfunction is such as to place them psychologically with the capitalistsrather than with the workers. It is also evident that, while their_interests_ may be demonstrably antagonistic to those of the employers, not all of the wage-earners will be _conscious_ of that fact. The_consciousness_ of class interests develops slowly among rural andisolated workers, especially as between the small employer and hisemployee. And even when there is the consciousness of antagonisticinterests among these workers it is very difficult for them actively toexpress it. Hence they cannot play an important part in the actualconflict of classes. 

Second: We may safely place the three million seven hundred and fiftythousand farm laborers, as regards their economic _interests_, with thegeneral mass of wage-workers, with one important qualification. So faras they are in the actual relation of wage-paid laborers, hired by themonth, week, or day, and bearing no other relation to their employers, they belong, in their economic interests, to the proletariat. But thereare many farm laborers included in our enumeration who do not hold thatrelation to their employers. They are the sons of the farmersthemselves, expecting to assume their fathers' positions, and theirposition as wage-paid laborers is largely nominal and fictitious. Howmany such there are it is impossible to ascertain with anything likecertainty, and we can only say, therefore, that the position of theclass, as such, must be determined without including these. But whilethis class has economic interests similar to those of the industrialproletariat, because of their isolation and scattered position, andbecause of the personal relations which they bear to theiremployers--farmer and laborer often working side by side, equally hard, and not infrequently having approximately the same standards ofliving--these cannot, to any very great extent, become an active factorin the class conflict in the same sense as the industrial wage-workerscan, by engaging in strikes, boycotts, and other manifestations of theclass war. Still, they may, and in fact do, play an important rôle inthe _political_ aspects of the struggle. Let a political movement of theproletariat arise and it will be found that these agricultural laborerswill join it not less enthusiastically than their fellows from thefactories in the cities. It would probably surprise most thoughtfulAmericans if they could see the organization maps in the offices of theSocialist Party of the United States, dotted with little red-capped pinsdenoting local organizations of the party. These are quite as common inthe agricultural states as in the industrial states. So, too, inGermany. The movement is politically nearly as strong in the agrariandistricts as elsewhere. This is a fact of vital significance, one whichmust not be lost sight of in studying the progress of Socialism inAmerica. 

Third: Of the exact position of the remaining groups it is verydifficult to speak with anything like assurance. In an earlier chapterwe have noticed the persistence of the small farm in America, and thefact that a class of small farmers forms a very important part of ourpopulation. As already observed, the economic condition of the smallfarmer is very often little, if any, superior to that of the laborers heemploys. Elsewhere, I have shown that the actual income of the smallfarmer is not infrequently less than that of the hired laborer. [120]This is just as true of the small dealer, and the small manufacturer. But mere poverty of income, companionship in misery, the sharing of anequally poor existence, does not suffice to place the farmer in theproletarian class, as many Socialist writers have shown. [121] The smallfarmers constitute a distinct class. They are not, as the small dealersand manufacturers are, mere remnants of a disappearing class. The classis a permanent one, apparently, as much so as the class of industrialwage-workers. As a class it is just as essential to agriculturalproduction as the industrial proletariat is essential to manufacture. Itis thus a class analogous to the industrial proletariat, and Kautsky haswell said that the small farmer is the "proletariat of the country. " Theexploitation of the small farmer is not direct, like that of thewage-worker by his employer, but indirect, through the great capitalisttrusts and railroads. It also happens that these derive their chiefincome from the direct exploitation of the wage-workers, so that thesmall farmer and the wage-worker in the city factory have commonexploiters. As they become conscious of this, the two classes will tendto unite their forces in the one sphere where such unity of action ispossible, the sphere of political action. 

This is also true, in some degree at least, of a considerable fractionof the one million five hundred thousand workers included in theprofessional and agent classes, and of the two million employers, thesmall dealers and manufacturers being included in this enumeration. Thatthere is such a considerable fraction of each of these two classes whoseinterests lead them to make common cause with the proletariat is not atall a matter of theory or speculation, but of experience. These classesare represented very largely in the membership of the Socialist partiesof this country and of Europe. 

IV

Although it is sometimes so interpreted, the theory that classes arebased upon commonality of interests does not imply that men are neveractuated by other than selfish motives; that a sordid materialism is theonly motive force at work in the world. Marx and Engels carefullyavoided the use of the word _interests_ in such manner as to suggestthat material interests control the course of history. They invariablyused the term _economic conditions_, and the careful reader will notfail to perceive that although economic conditions produce interestswhich form the basis of class divisions, it is not unusual for men toact contrary to their personal _interests_ as a result of existing_conditions_. In general, class interests and personal interestscoincide, but there are certainly occasions when they conflict. Many anemployer, having no quarrel with his employees and confident that hewill be the loser thereby, joins in a fight upon labor unions because heis conscious that the interests of his class are involved. In a similarway, workingmen enter upon sympathetic strikes, consciously, at animmediate loss to themselves, because they place class loyalty beforepersonal gain. It is significant of class feeling and temper that whenemployers act in this manner, and lock out employees with whom they haveno trouble, simply to help other employers to win their battles, theyare lauded by the very newspapers which denounce the workers when theyadopt a like policy. 

It is also true that there are individuals in both classes who neverbecome conscious of their class interests, and steadfastly refuse tojoin with the members of their class. The workingman who refuses to joina union, or who "scabs" when his fellow-workers go out on strike, mayact from ignorance or from sheer self-interest and greed. His action maybe due to his placing personal interest before the larger interest ofhis class, or from being too shortsighted to see that ultimately his owninterests and those of his class must merge. Many an employer, likewise, may refuse to join in any concerted action of his class for either ofthese reasons, or he may even rise superior to his class and personalinterests and support the workers because he believes in the justness oftheir cause, realizing perfectly well that their gain means loss to himor to his class. This ought to be a sufficient answer to those shallowcritics who think that they dispose of the class struggle theory ofmodern Socialism by enumerating those of its leading exponents who donot belong to the proletariat. 

The influence of class environment upon men's beliefs and ideals is asubject which our most voluminous ethicists have scarcely touched uponas yet. It is a commonplace saying that each age has its own standardsof right and wrong, but little effort has been made, if we except theSocialists, to trace this fact to its source, to the economic conditionsprevailing in the different ages. [122] Still less effort has been madeto account for the different standards held by the different socialclasses at the same time, and by which each class judges the others. Inour own day the idea of slavery is generally held in abhorrence. Therewas a time, however, when it was almost universally looked upon as adivine institution, alike by slaveholder and slave. It is simplyimpossible to account for this complete revolution of feeling upon anyother hypothesis than that slave-labor then seemed absolutely essentialto the life of the world. The slave lords of antiquity, and, morerecently, the Southern slaveholders in our own country, all believedthat slavery was eternally right. When the slaves took an opposite viewand rebelled, they were believed to be in rebellion against God andnature. The Church represented the same view just as vigorously as itnow opposes it. The slave owners who held slavery to be a divineinstitution, and the priests and ministers who supported them, were justas honest and sincere in their belief as we are in holding antagonisticbeliefs to-day. 

What was accounted a virtue in the slave was accounted a vice in theslaveholder. Cowardice and a cringing humility were not regarded asfaults in a slave. On the contrary, they were the stock virtues of thepattern slave and added to the estimation in which he was held, just assimilar traits are valued in personal servants--butlers, waiters, valets, footmen, and other flunkies--in our own day. But similar traitsin the slaveholder, or the "gentleman" of to-day, would be regarded asterrible faults. As Mr. Algernon Lee very tersely puts it, "The slavewas not a slave because of his slavish ideals and beliefs; the slave wasslavish in his ideals and beliefs because he lived the life of aslave. "[123]

In the industrial world of to-day we find a similar divergence ofethical standards. What the laborers regard as wrong, the employersregard as absolutely and immutably right. The actions of the workers informing unions and compelling unwilling members of their own class tojoin them, even resorting to the bitter expedient of striking againstthem with a view to starving them into submission, seem terribly unjustto the employers and the class to which the employers belong. To theworkers themselves, on the other hand, such actions have all thesanctions of conscience. Similarly, many actions of the employers, inwhich they themselves see no wrong, seem almost incomprehensibly wickedto the workers. 

Leaving aside the wholesale fraud of our ordinary commercialadvertisements, the shameful adulteration of goods, and a multitude ofother such nefarious practices, it is at once interesting andinstructive to compare the employers' denunciations of "the outrageousinfringement of personal liberty, " when the "oppressor" is a laborunion, with some of their everyday practices. The same employers wholoudly, and, let it be said, quite sincerely, condemn the members of aunion who endeavor to bring about the discharge of a fellow-workerbecause he declines to join their organization, have no scruples ofconscience about discharging a worker simply because he belongs to aunion, and so effectually "blacklisting" him that it becomes almost orquite impossible for him to obtain employment at his trade elsewhere. They do not hesitate to do this secretly, conspiring against the verylife of the worker. While loudly declaiming against the "conspiracy" ofthe workers to raise wages, they see no wrong in an "agreement" ofmanufacturers or mine owners to reduce wages. If the members of a laborunion should break the law, especially if they should commit an act ofviolence during a strike, the organs of capitalist opinion teem withdenunciation, but there is no breath of condemnation for the outragescommitted by employers or their agents against union men and theirfamilies. 

During the great anthracite coal strike of 1903, and again during thedisturbances in Colorado in 1904, it was evident to every fair-mindedobserver that the mine owners were at least quite as lawless as thestrikers. [124] But there was hardly a scintilla of adverse comment uponthe mine owners' lawlessness in the organs of capitalist opinion, whilethey poured forth torrents of righteous indignation at the lawlessnessof the miners. When labor leaders, like the late Sam Parks, for example, are accused of extortion and receiving bribes, the employers and theirretainers, through pulpit, press, and every other avenue of publicopinion, denounce the culprit, the bribe taker, in unmeasured terms--butthe bribe giver is excused, or, at worst, only lightly criticised. Theseare but a few common illustrations of class conscience. Any carefulobserver will be able to add almost indefinitely to the number. 

It would be easy to compile a catalogue of such examples as these fromthe history of the past few years sufficient to convince the mostskeptical that class interests do produce a class conscience. Mr. Ghentaptly expresses a profound truth when he says: "There is a spiritualalchemy which transmutes the base metal of self-interest into the goldof conscience; the transmutation is real, and the resulting frame ofmind is not hypocrisy, but conscience. It is a class conscience, andtherefore partial and imperfect, having little to do with absoluteethics. But partial and imperfect as it is, it is generallysincere. "[125] No better test of the truth of this can be made than byreading carefully for a few weeks the comments of half a dozenrepresentative capitalist newspapers, and of an equal number ofrepresentative labor papers, upon current events. The antitheticalnature of their judgments of men and events demonstrates the existenceof a distinct class conscience. It cannot be interpreted in any otherway. 

V

A great many people, while admitting the important rôle class struggleshave played in the history of the race, strenuously deny the existenceof classes in the United States. They freely admit the class divisionsand struggles of the Old World, but deny that a similar class antagonismexists in this country; they fondly believe the United States to be aglorious exception to the rule, and regard the claim that classes existhere as falsehood and treason. The Socialists are forever being accusedof seeking to apply to American life judgments based upon European factsand conditions. It is easy to visualize the class divisions ofmonarchical countries, where there are hereditary ruling classes--eventhough these are only nominally the ruling classes in most cases--fixedby law. But it is not so easy to recognize the fact that, even in thesecountries, the power is held by the financial and industrial lords, andnot by the kings and their titular nobility. The absence of ahereditary, titular ruling class serves to hide from many people thereal class divisions existing in this country. 

Nevertheless, there is a perceptible growth of uneasiness and unrest; awidening and deepening conviction that while we may retain the outwardforms of democracy, and shout its shibboleths with patriotic fervor, its essentials are lacking. The feeling spreads, even in the mostconservative circles, that we are developing, or have already developed, a distinct ruling class. The anomaly of a ruling class without legalsanction or titular prestige has seized upon the popular mind; titleshave been created for our great "untitled nobility"--mock titles whichhave speedily assumed a serious import and meaning. Our financial"Kings, " industrial "Lords, " "Barons, " and so on, have received theircrowns and patents of nobility from the populace. President Rooseveltgives expression to the serious thought of our most conservativecitizenry when he says: "In the past, the most direful among theinfluences which have brought about the downfall of republics has everbeen the growth of the class spirit.... If such a spirit grows up inthis republic, it will ultimately prove fatal to us, as in the past ithas proven fatal to every community in which it has becomedominant. "[126]

With the exception of the chattel slaves, we have had no hereditaryclass in this country with a legally fixed status. But

 "Man is more than constitutions, "

and there are other laws than those formulated in senates and recordedin statute books. The vast concentration of industry and wealth, resulting in immense fortunes on the one hand, and terrible poverty onthe other, has separated the two classes by a chasm as deep and wide asever yawned between czar and moujik, kaiser and vagrant, prince andpauper, feudal baron and serf. The immensity of the power and wealththus concentrated into the hands of the few, to be inherited by theirsons and daughters, tends to establish this class division hereditarily. Heretofore, passage from the lower class to the class above has beencomparatively easy, and it has blinded people to the existing classantagonisms, though, as Mr. Ghent justly observes, it should no more betaken to disprove the existence of classes than the fact that so manythousands of Germans come to this country to settle is taken to disprovethe existence of the German Empire. [127] The stereotyping of classes isundeniable. That a few men pass from one class to another is no disproofof this. The classes exist and the tendency is for them to remainpermanently fixed, as a whole, in our social life. 

But passage from the lower class to the upper tends to become, if notabsolutely impossible and unthinkable, at least practically impossible, and as difficult and rare as the transition from pauperism to princedomin the Old World is. A romantic European princess may marry a penuriouscoachman, and so provide the world with a nine days' sensation, butsuch cases are no rarer in the royal courts of Europe than in our ownplutoaristocratic court circles. Has there ever been a king in moderntimes with anything like the power of Mr. Rockefeller? Is any feature ofroyal recognition withheld from Mr. Morgan when he goes abroad in state, an uncrowned king, fraternizing with crowned but envious fellow-kings?The existence of classes in America to-day is as evident as theexistence of America itself. 

VI

Antagonisms of class interests have existed from the very beginning ofcivilization, though not always recognized. It is only the consciousnessof their existence, and the struggle which results from thatconsciousness, that are new. As we suddenly become aware of the pain andravages of disease, when we have not felt or heeded its premonitorysymptoms, so, having neglected the fundamental class division ofsociety, the bitterness of the strife resulting therefrom shocks andalarms us. So long as it is possible for the stronger and more ambitiousmembers of an inferior class to rise out of that class and join theranks of a superior class, so long will the struggle which ensues as thenatural outgrowth of opposing interests be postponed. 

Until quite recently, in the United States, this has been possible. Transition from the status of wage-worker to that of capitalist has beeneasy. But with the era of concentration and the immense capitalsrequired for industrial enterprise, and the exhaustion of our supply offree land, these transitions become fewer and more difficult, and classlines tend to become permanently fixed. The stronger and more ambitiousmembers of the lower class, finding it impossible to rise into the classabove, thus become impressed with a consciousness of their class status. The average worker no longer dreams of himself becoming an employerafter a few years of industry and thrift. The ambitious and aggressivefew no longer look with the contempt of the strong for the weak upontheir less aggressive fellow-workers, but become leaders, preachers of asignificant and admittedly dangerous gospel of class consciousness. 

President Roosevelt has assailed the preachers of class consciousnesswith all the energy of a confirmed moralizer. It is evident, however, that he has never taken the trouble to study either the preachers ortheir gospel. Never in his utterances has there been any hint given of arecognition of the fact that there could be no preaching of classconsciousness had there been no classes. Never has he manifested thefaintest recognition of the existence of conditions which developclasses, out of which the class consciousness of the propagandistssprings naturally. He does not see that there is danger only when thepreachers are not wise enough, nor sufficiently educated to see theirposition in its historical perspective; when in blind revolt theyengender class hatred, personal hatred of the capitalist by the worker. But when there is the historical perspective, wisdom to see thateconomic conditions develop slowly, and that the capitalist is no moreresponsible for conditions than the worker, there is not only nopersonal hatred for the capitalist engendered, but, more importantstill, the workers get a new view of the relationship of the classes, and their efforts are directed to the bringing about of peaceful change. 

The Socialists, accused as they are of seeking to stir up hatred andstrife, by placing the class struggle in its proper light, as one of thegreat social dynamic forces, have done and are doing more to allayhatred and bitterness of feeling, and to save the world from the redcurse of anarchistic vengeance, than all the Rooseveltian preaching inwhich thousands of venders of moral platitudes are engaged. TheSocialist movement is vastly more powerful as a force against Anarchism, in its violent manifestations, than any other agency in the world. Wherever, as in Germany, the Socialist movement is strong, Anarchism isimpotent and weak. The reason for this is the very obvious one heregiven. Class divisions are not created by Socialists, but developed inthe womb of economic conditions. Class consciousness is not somethingwhich Socialism has developed. Before there was a Socialist movement, inthe days of Luddite attacks upon machinery, and Captain Swing'srick-burners, there was class consciousness expressed in class revolt. Modern Socialism simply takes the class consciousness of the worker andeducates it to see the futility of machine-destroying, or other foolishand abortive attacks upon capitalists and their property, and organizesit into a political movement for the peaceful transformation of society. 

VII

Nowhere in the world, at any time in its history, has the antagonism ofclasses been more evident than in the United States at the present time. With an average of over a thousand strikes a year, [128] some of theminvolving, directly, tens of thousands of producers, a few capitalists, and millions of noncombatants, consumers; with strikes like this, boycotts, lockouts, injunctions, and all the other incidents oforganized class strife reported daily by the newspapers, denials of theexistence of classes, or of the struggle between them, are manifestlyabsurd. We have, on the one hand, organizations of workers, laborunions, with a membership of something over two million in the UnitedStates; one organization alone, the American Federation of Labor, havingan affiliated membership of one million seven hundred thousand. On theother hand, we have organizations of employers, formed for the expressedpurpose of fighting the labor unions, of which the National Associationof Manufacturers is the most perfect type yet evolved. 

While the leaders on both sides frequently deny that their organizationsbetoken the existence of a far-reaching fundamental class conflict, and, through ostensibly pacificatory organizations like the National CivicFederation, proclaim the "essential identity of interests betweencapital and labor"; while an intelligent and earnest labor leader likeMr. John Mitchell joins with an astute capitalist leader like the lateSenator Marcus A. Hanna in declaring that "there is no necessaryhostility between labor and capital, " that there is no "necessary, fundamental antagonism between the laborer and the capitalist, "[129] abrief study of the constitutions of these class organizations, and theirpublished reports, in conjunction with the history of the labor strugglein the United States, in which the names of Homestead, Hazelton, Coeurd'Alene and Cripple Creek appear in bloody letters, will show thesedenials to be the offspring of hypocrisy or delusion. If thismuch-talked-of unity of interests is anything but a stupid fiction, thegreat and ever increasing strife is only a matter of mutualmisunderstanding. All that is necessary to secure permanent peace is toremove that misunderstanding. If we believe this, it is a sad commentaryupon human limitations, upon man's failure to understand his own life, that not a single person on either side has arisen with sufficientintelligence and breadth of vision to state the relations of the twoclasses with clarity and force enough to accomplish that end, to makethem understand each other. 

Let us get down to fundamental principles. [130] Why do men organize intounions? Why was the first union started? Why do men pay out of theirhard-earned wages to support unions now? The first union was not startedbecause the men who started it did not understand their employers, orbecause they were misunderstood by their employers. The explanationinvolves a deeper insight into things than that. When the individualworkingman, feeling that from the labor of himself and his fellows camethe wealth and luxury of his employer, demanded higher wages, areduction of the hours of labor, or better conditions in general, he wasmet with a reply from the employer--who understood the workingman'sposition very well, much better, in fact, than the workingman himselfdid--something like this, "If you don't like this job, and my terms, there are plenty of others outside ready to take your place. " Theworkingman and the employer, then, understood each other perfectly. Theemployer understood the position of the worker, that he was dependentupon him, the employer, for opportunity to earn his bread. The workerunderstood that so long as the employer could discharge him and fill hisplace with another, he was powerless. The combat between the workers andthe masters of their bread has from the first been an unequal one. 

Nothing remained for the individual workingman but to join with hisfellows in a collective and united effort. So organizations of workersappeared, and the employers could not treat the demands for higher wagesor other improvements in conditions as lightly as before. The workers, when they organized, could take advantage of the fact that there were noorganizations of the employers. Every strike added to the ordinaryterrors of the competitive struggle for the employers. The manufacturerwhose men threatened to strike often surrendered because he feared mostof all that his trade, in the event of a suspension of work, would besnatched by his rival in business. So, by playing upon the inherentweakness of the competitive system as it affected the employers, theworkers gained many substantial advantages. There is no doubt whatsoeverthat under these conditions the wage-workers got better wages, betterworking conditions, and a reduction in the hours of labor. It was inmany ways the golden age of trade unionism. But there was an importantlimitation of the workers' power--the unions could not absorb the manoutside; they could not provide all the workers with employment. That isan essential condition of capitalist industry, there is always the"reserve army of the unemployed, " to use the expressive phrase ofFriederich Engels. Rare indeed are the times when all the availableworkers in any industry are employed, and the time has probably neveryet been when all the available workers in all industries were employed. 

Notwithstanding this important limitation of power, it isincontrovertible that the workers were benefited by their organization. But only for a time. There came a time when the employers began toorganize unions also. That they called their organizations by other andhigh-sounding names does not alter the fact that they were in realityunions formed to combat the unions of the workers. Every employers'association is, in reality, a union of the men who employ labor againstthe unions of the men they employ. When the organized workers went toindividual, unorganized employers, who feared their rivals more thanthey feared the workers, or, rather, who feared the workers most of allbecause rivals waited to snatch their trade, a strike making theiremployees allies with their competitors, the employers were easilydefeated. The workers could play one employer against another employerwith constant success. But when the employers also organized, it wasdifferent. Then the individual employer, freed from his worst terrors, could say, "Do your worst. I, too, am in an organization. " Then itbecame a battle betwixt organized capital and organized labor. When theworkers went out on strike in one shop or factory, depending upon theirbrother unionists employed in other shops or factories, the employers ofthese latter locked them out, thus cutting off the financial support ofthe strikers. In other cases, when the workers in one place went out onstrike, the employer got his work done through other employers, by thevery fellow-members upon whom the strikers were depending for support. Thus the workers were compelled to face this dilemma, either to withdrawthese men, thus cutting off their financial supplies, or to be beaten bytheir own members. 

Under these changed conditions, the workers were beaten time after time. It was a case of the worker's cupboard against the master's warehouse, purse against bank account, poverty against wealth. The workers' chancesare slight in such a combat! A strike means that the employers on oneside, and the workers on the other, seek to force each other tosurrender by waiting patiently to see who first feels the pinch ofhardship and poverty. Employers and employees determine to play thewaiting game. Each waits patiently in the hope that the other willweaken. At last one--most often the workers'--side weakens and gives upthe struggle. When the workers are thus beaten in a strike, they are notconvinced that their demands are unreasonable or unjust; they are simplybeaten because their resources are too small to enable them to stand thestruggle. 

When the master class, the masters of jobs and bread, organized theirforces, they set narrow and sharp boundaries to the power of labororganizations. Henceforth the chances of victory were overwhelmingly onthe side of the employers. The workers learned by bitter and costlyexperience that they could not play the interests of individualemployers against other employers' interests. Meantime, too, they havelearned that they are not only exploited as producers, but also asbuyers, as consumers. For long, dominated by economic theories, theSocialists refused to recognize this aspect of the labor struggle, though the workers felt it strongly enough. They set their fine-spuntheories against the facts of life. Their contention was that wagesbeing determined by the cost of living, it mattered nothing how much orhow little the workers got in wages, the cost of living and wagesadjusted themselves to each other. But in actual experience the workersfound that when prices fall, wages are _quick_ to follow, whereas whenprices soar high, wages are _slow_ to follow. Wages climb with leadenfeet when prices soar with eagle wings. Because the workers areconsumers, almost to the last penny of their incomes, having to spendpractically every penny earned, that form of exploitation becomes aserious matter. 

But against this exploitation the unions have ever been absolutelypowerless. Workingmen have never made any very serious attempt toprotect the purchasing capacity of their wages, notwithstanding itstremendous importance. [131] The result has been that not a few of the"victories" so dearly won by trade union action have turned out to behollow mockeries. When better wages have been secured, prices have oftengone up, most often, in fact, so that the net result has been little tothe advantage of the workers. In many cases, where the advance in wagesapplied only to a restricted number of trades, the advance in pricesbecoming general, the total result has been against the working class asa whole, and little or nothing to the advantage of the few who receivedthe advance in immediate wages. At this point, the need is felt of asocial revolution, not a violent revolution, be it understood, but acomprehensive social change which will give to the workers the controlof the implements of labor, and also of the product of their labor. Inother words, the demand arises for independent, working-class action, aiming at the socialization of the means of production and the product. 

VIII

A line of cleavage thus presents itself between those, on the one hand, who would continue the old methods of economic warfare, together withthe advocates of physical force, and, on the other hand, the advocatesof united political action by the working class, consciously directedtoward the socialization of industry and its products. The measure ofthe crystallization of this latter force is represented by the strengthof the political Socialist movement. Whoever has studied the labormovement during the past few years must have realized that there is atremendous drift of sentiment in favor of that policy in the laborunions of the country. The clamor for political action in the laborunions presages an enormous advance of the political Socialist movementduring the next few years. 

The struggle between the capitalist and working classes must become apolitical issue, the supreme political issue. This must result, not onlybecause the collective ownership of property can best be brought aboutby political methods, but also because the capitalists themselves havetaken the industrial struggle into the political arena to suitthemselves; and when the workers realize the issue and accept it, thecapitalists will not be able to resist them. One is reminded of thesaying of Marx that capitalism produces its own gravediggers. In takingthe industrial issue into the political sphere, to suit their ownimmediate advantages, the capitalists were destined to reveal to theworkers, sooner or later, their power and opportunity. 

Realizing that all the forces of government are on their side, thelegislative, judicial, and executive powers being controlled by theirown class, the employers have made the fight against labor political aswell as economic in its character. When the workers have gone on strikeand the employers have not cared to play the "waiting game, " choosingrather to avail themselves of the great reserve army of unemployedworkers outside, the natural resentment of the strikers, findingthemselves in danger of being beaten by members of their own class, hasled to violence which has been remorselessly suppressed by all thepolice and military forces at the command of the government. In manyinstances, the employers have purposely provoked striking workers toviolence, and then called upon the government to crush the revolt thusmade. Workers have been shot down at the shambles in almost every state, no matter which political party has been in power. Nor have these forcesof our class government been used merely to punish lawless union men andwomen on strike, to uphold the "sacred majesty of the law, " as thehypocritical phrase goes. They have been also used to deny strikers therights which belonged to them, and to protect capitalists and theiragents in breaking the laws. No one can read with anything like animpartial spirit the records of the miners' strike in the Coeurd'Alene mine, Idaho, or the labor disturbances in the state of Coloradofrom 1880 to 1905 and dispute this assertion. 

Most important of all has been the powerful opposition of the makers andinterpreters of the law. A body of class legislation, in the interestsof the employing class, has been created, while the workers have beggedin vain for protective legislation. In no country of the world have theinterests of the workers been so neglected as in the United States. There is practically no such thing as employers' liability for accidentsto workers; no legislation worthy of mention relating to occupationswhich have been classified as "dangerous" in most industrial countries;women workers are sadly neglected. Whenever a law of distinct advantageto the workers in their struggle has been passed, a servile judiciaryhas been ready to render it null and void by declaring it to beunconstitutional. No more powerful blows have ever been directed againstthe workers than by the judiciary. Injunctions have been issued, robbingthe workers of the most elemental rights of manhood and citizenship. They have forbidden things which no law forbids, and even things whichthe Constitution and statute law declare to be legal. 

Mr. John Mitchell refers to this subject, in strong but not too strongterms. "No weapon, " he says, "has been used with such disastrous effectagainst trade unions as the injunction in labor disputes. By means ofit, trade unionists have been prohibited under severe penalties fromdoing what they had a legal right to do, and have been specificallydirected to do what they had a legal right not to do. It is difficult tospeak in measured tones or moderate language of the savagery and venomwith which unions have been assailed by the injunction, and to theworking classes, as to all fair-minded men, it seems little less than acrime to condone or tolerate it. "[132] This is strong language, but whoshall say that it is too strong when we remember the many injunctionswhich have been hurled at organized labor since the famous Debs casebrought this weapon into general use?

In this celebrated case, which grew out of the Pullman strike, in 1894, Eugene V. Debs, president of the American Railway Union, was arrestedand arraigned on indictments of obstructing the mails and interstatecommerce. Although arraigned, he was not tried, the case beingabandoned, despite his demands for a trial. President Cleveland's strikecommission subsequently declared, "There is no evidence before thecommission that the officers of the American Railway Union at any timeparticipated in or advised intimidation, violence, or destruction ofproperty. " Realizing that it had no sort of evidence upon which a jurymight be hoped to convict, a new way was found. Debs and his officerswere enjoined in a famous "blanket" injunction directed against Debs andall other officials of the union, and "all persons whomsoever. " For analleged violation of that injunction, Judge Woods, without trial byjury, sentenced Debs to six months' imprisonment and his associates tothree months'. The animus and class bias of the whole proceeding may bejudged from the fact that President Cleveland selected to represent theUnited States Government, at Chicago, Mr. Edwin Walker, general counselat that very time for the General Managers' Association, representingthe twenty-four railroads centering or terminating in Chicago. And theserailroads were operating in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law atthe time. [133]

In 1899 an injunction was issued out of the United States Circuit Courtof West Virginia against "John Smith and others, " without naming the"others, " in the interest of the Wheeling Railway Company. Two men, neither of them being John Smith, nor found to be the agent of "JohnSmith and others, " were jailed for contempt of court![134] In 1900members of the International Cigarmakers' Union, in New York City, wereenjoined by Justice Freeman, in the Supreme Court, from even approachingtheir former employers for the purpose of attempting to arrange apeaceable settlement! The cigarmakers were further enjoined frompublishing their grievances, or in any manner making their case known tothe public, if the tendency of that should be to vex the plaintiffs ormake them uneasy; from trying, even in a peaceful way, in any place inthe city, even in the privacy of a man's own home, to persuade a newemployee that he ought to sympathize with the union cause sufficientlyto refuse to work for unjust employers; and, finally, the union wasforbidden to pay money to its striking members to support them and theirfamilies. In the great steel strike of 1901, the members of theAmalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers were enjoined frompeaceably discussing the merits of their claim with the men who were atwork, even though the latter might raise no objection. In Pennsylvania, in the case of the York Manufacturing Company _vs. _ Obedick, it was heldthat workmen had "no legal right" to persuade or induce other workmen toquit, or not to accept, employment. [135] In the strike of the members ofthe International Typographical Union against the Buffalo _Express_, thestrikers were enjoined from discussing the strike, or talking about thepaper in any way which might be construed as being against the paper. Ifone of the strikers advised a friend not to buy a "scab" paper, he wasliable under the terms of that injunction to imprisonment for contemptof court. The members of the same union were, in the case of the SunPrinting and Publishing Company _vs_. Delaney and others, enjoined byJustice Bookstaver, in the Supreme Court of New York, from publishingtheir side of the controversy with the _Sun_ as an argument why personsfriendly to organized labor should not advertise in a paper hostile toit. In 1906 members of the same union were enjoined by Supreme CourtJustice Gildersleeve from "making any requests, giving any advice, orresorting to any persuasion ... To overcome the free will of any personconnected with the plaintiff [a notorious anti-union publishing company]or its customers as employees or otherwise. "[136]

These are only a few examples of the abuse of the injunction in labordisputes, hundreds of which have been granted, many of them equallysubversive of all sound principles of popular government. There isprobably not another civilized country in which such judicial tyrannywould be tolerated. It is not without significance that in WestVirginia, where, as a result of an outcry against a number ofparticularly glaring abuses of the power to issue injunctions, thelegislature passed a law limiting the right to issue injunctions, theSupreme Court decided that the law was unconstitutional, upon the groundthat the legislature had no right to attempt to restrain the courtswhich were coördinate with itself. 

Even more dangerous to organized labor than the injunction is what ispopularly known by union men as "Taff Vale law. " Our judges have notbeen slow to follow the example set by the English judges in the famouscase of the Taff Vale Railway Company against the officers of theAmalgamated Society of Railway Servants, a powerful labor organization. The decision in that case was most revolutionary. It compelled theworkers to pay damages, to the extent of $115, 000, to the railroadcompany for losses sustained by the company through a strike of itsemployees, members of the defendant union. That decision struck terrorinto the hearts of British trade unionists. At last they had to face amode of attack even more dangerous than the injunction which theirtransatlantic brethren had so long been contending against. Taff Valelaw could not long be confined to England. Very soon, our Americancourts followed the English example. A suit was instituted against themembers of a lodge of the Machinists' Union in Rutland, Vermont, and thedefendants were ordered to pay $2500. A writ was served upon each memberand the property of every one of them attached. Since that time, numerous other decisions of a like nature have been rendered in variousparts of the country. Thus the unions have been assailed in a vitalplace, their treasuries. It is manifestly foolish and quite useless forthe members of a union to strike against an employer for any purposewhatever, if the employer is to be able to recover damages from theunion. Taff Vale judge-made law renders the labor union _hors de combat_at a stroke. 

IX

The immediate effect of the revolutionary judicial decision in Englandwas to arouse the workers to the necessity for class-conscious politicalaction. The cry went up that the unions must adopt a policy ofindependent political action. There is no doubt whatever that thetremendous advance of the Socialist movement in England during the pastfew years began as a result of the attack made upon the funds of thelabor unions. From the moment of the Taff Vale decision the Socialistmovement in England took rapid strides. A similar process is going on inthis country, gathering momentum with every injunction against organizedlabor, every hostile enactment of legislatures, and every use of thejudicial and executive powers to defeat the workers in their struggleagainst capitalism. The workers are being educated to politicalSocialism by the stern experiences resulting from capitalist rule. Underneath the thin veneer of party differences, the worker sees theclass identity of the great political parties, and cries out, "A plagueon both your houses!" The Socialist argument comes to him with a twofoldforce: not only does it show him how he is enslaved and exploited as aproducer, but it convinces him that as a citizen he has it in his powerto control the government and make it what he will. He can put an end togovernment by injunctions, to the use of police, state, and federaltroops to break strikes, and to the sequestration of union funds byhostile judges. He can, if he so decides, own and control thegovernment, and, through the government, own and control the essentialsof life: be master of his own labor, his own bread, his own life. 

If we take for granted that the universal increase of Socialistsentiment, and the growth of political Socialism, as measured by itsrapidly increasing vote, presage this great triumph of the workingclass; that the heretofore despised and oppressed proletariat is, in anot far distant future, to rule instead of being ruled, the questionarises, will the last state be better than the first? Will society bebettered by the change of masters?

The very form of the question must be denied. It is not a movement for achange of masters. To regard this struggle of the classes as one ofrevenge, of exploited masses ready to overturn the social structure thatthey may become exploiters instead of exploited, is to misread the wholemovement. The political and economic conquest of society by the workingclass means the end of class divisions once and forever. A socialdemocracy, a society in which all things essential to the common lifeand well-being are owned and controlled by the people in common, democratically organized, precludes the existence of class divisions inour present-day economic and political sense. Profit, through humanexploitation, alone has made class divisions possible, and the Socialistrégime will abolish profit. The working class, in emancipating itself, at the same time makes liberty possible for the whole race of man, anddestroys the conditions of class rule. 

FOOTNOTES:

[116] The _Communist Manifesto_, Kerr edition, page 8. 

[117] In _Centralization and the Law: Scientific Legal Education, AnIllustration_, edited by Melville M. Bigelow. 

[118] See, for instance, _The Coal Mine Workers_, by Frank Julian Warne, Ph. D. (1905). 

[119] Adam Smith, _The Wealth of Nations_, Vol. I, Book I, Chapter VIII. 

[120] _The Common Sense of Socialism_, by John Spargo, page 131 (1908). 

[121] See, for instance, _The American Farmer_, by A. M. Simons, page130; _Agrarfrage_, by Karl Kautsky, pages 305-306. 

[122] Mr. Ghent's excellent work, _Mass and Class_, and Karl Kautsky's_Ethics and the Materialistic Conception of History_, may be named asexcellent examples of what Socialists have done in this direction. 

[123] In _The Worker_ (New York), March 25, 1905. 

[124] Cf. , for instance, _The Labor History of the Cripple CreekDistrict_, by Benjamin McKie Rastall (1908), and Senate Document No. 122, being _A Report on Labor Disturbances in the State of Colorado, from 1880 to 1904, Inclusive_, by Carroll D. Wright (1905), for evidenceof this from sources not specially friendly to the miners. 

[125] _Mass and Class_, page 101. 

[126] _Message to Congress_, January, 1906. 

[127] _Mass and Class_, page 53. 

[128] Vide _War of the Classes_, by Jack London, page 17. 

[129] _Organized Labor_, by John Mitchell, page ix. 

[130] The remainder of this chapter is largely reproduced from my littlepamphlet, _Shall the Unions go into Politics?_

[131] This aspect of the exploitation of the laborers has been broughtto the front very dramatically by the many recent "strikes" against highrents and high prices for meat and other commodities. Rent strikes andriots against high prices have become common events in our large cities. 

[132] _Organized Labor_, by John Mitchell, page 324. 

[133] See _Report of Commission of Investigation_, Senate Ex. Doc. No. 7, Fifty-third Congress, third session. 

[134] Particulars are taken from a pamphlet by five members of the NewYork Bar and issued by the Social Reform Club, New York, in 1900. 

[135] See the article by Judge Seabury, _The Abuses of Injunctions, inThe Arena_, June, 1903. 

[136] See the New York daily papers, January 31, 1906. 

CHAPTER VII

KARL MARX AND THE ECONOMICS OF SOCIALISM

I

The first approach to a comprehensive treatment by Marx of thematerialistic conception of history appeared in 1847, several monthsbefore the publication of the _Communist Manifesto_, in "La Misère de laPhilosophie, "[137] the famous polemic with which Marx assailed J. P. Proudhon's _La Philosophie de la Misère_. Marx had worked out his theoryat least two years before, so Engels tells us, and in his writings ofthat period there are several evidences of the fact. In "La Misère de laPhilosophie, " the theory is fundamental to the work, and not merely thesubject of incidental allusion. This little book, all too little knownin England and America, is therefore important from this historicalpoint of view. In it, Marx for the first time shows his completeconfidence in the theory. It needed confidence little short of sublimeto challenge Proudhon in the audacious manner of this scintillatingcritique. The torrential eloquence, the scornful satire, and fierceinvective of the attack, have rather tended to obscure for readers of alater generation the real merit of the book, the importance of thefundamental idea that history must be interpreted in the light ofeconomic development, that economic evolution determines social life. The book is important for two other reasons. First, it was the author'sfirst serious essay in economic science--in the preface he boldly andfrankly calls himself an economist--and, second, in it appears a fulland generous recognition of that brilliant coterie of English Socialistwriters of the Ricardian school from whom Marx has been unjustly, andalmost spitefully, charged with "pillaging" his principal ideas. 

What led Marx to launch out upon the troubled sea of economic science, when all his predilections were for the study of pure philosophy, wasthe fact that his philosophical studies had led him to a point whencefurther progress seemed impossible, except by way of economics. TheIntroduction to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy"makes this perfectly clear. Having decided that "the method ofproduction in material existence conditions social, political, andmental evolution in general, " a study of economics, and especially ananalysis of modern industrial society, became inevitable. During theyear 1845, when the theory of the economic interpretation of history wasabsorbing his attention, Marx spent six weeks in England with hisfriend Engels, and became acquainted with the work of the RicardianSocialists already referred to. [138] Engels had been living in Englandabout three years at this time, and had made an exhaustive investigationof industrial conditions there, and become intimately acquainted withthe leaders of the Chartist movement. His fine library contained most ofthe works of contemporary writers, and it was thus that Marx came toknow them. 

Foremost of this school of Socialists which had arisen, quite naturally, in the land where capitalism flourished at its best, were WilliamGodwin, Charles Hall, William Thompson, John Gray, Thomas Hodgskin, andJohn Francis Bray. With the exception of Hall, of whose privatelyprinted book, "The Effects of Civilisation on the People of the EuropeanStates, " 1805, he seems not to have known, Marx was familiar with thewritings of all the foregoing, and his obligations to some of them, especially Thompson, Hodgskin, and Bray, were not slight. While thecharge, made by Dr. Anton Menger, [139] among others, that Marx took hissurplus value theory from Thompson is quite absurd, and rests, asBernstein has pointed out, upon nothing but the fact that Thompson usedthe words "surplus value" frequently, but not at all in the same senseas that in which Marx uses them, [140] we need not attempt to dispute thefact that Marx gleaned much of value from Thompson and the two otherwriters. While criticising them, and pointing out their shortcomings, Marx himself frequently pays tributes of respect to each of them. Hisindebtedness to any of them, or to all of them, consists simply in thefact that he recognized the germinal truths in their writings, and sawfar beyond what they saw. 

Godwin's most important work, "An Inquiry Concerning Political Justice, "appeared in 1793, and contains the germ of much that is called MarxianSocialism. In it may be found the broad lines of the thought which marksmuch of our present-day Socialist teaching, especially the criticism ofcapitalist society. Marx, however, does not appear to have been directlyinfluenced by it to any extent. That he was influenced by it indirectly, through William Thompson, Godwin's most illustrious disciple, is, however, quite certain. Thompson wrote several works of a Socialistcharacter, of which "An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distributionof Wealth most Conducive to Human Happiness, Applied to the newlyproposed System of Voluntary Equality of Wealth, " 1824, and "LabourRewarded. The Claims of Labour and Capital Conciliated, or How to Secureto Labour the Whole Products of its Exertions, " 1827, are the mostimportant and best known. Thompson must be regarded as one of thegreatest precursors of Marx in the development of modern Socialisttheory. A Ricardian of the Ricardians, he states the law of wages inlanguage that is almost as emphatic as Lassalle's famous _EhernesLohngesetz_, which Marx made the butt of his satire. [141] Accepting theview of Ricardo, --and indeed, of Adam Smith and other earlier Englisheconomists, including Petty, --that labor is the sole source of exchangevalue, [142] he shows by cogent argument the exploitation of the laborer, and uses the term "surplus value" to designate the difference betweenthe cost of maintaining the laborer and the value of his labor product, assisted, of course, by machinery and other capital, which goes to thecapitalist. By a most labored argument, Professor Anton Menger hasattempted to create the impression that Marx took, withoutacknowledgment, his _theory of the manner in which surplus value isproduced_ from Thompson, simply because Thompson frequently used the_term itself_. [143] Marx never claimed to have originated the term. Itis to be found in the writings of earlier economists than Thompson even, and Marx quotes an anonymous pamphlet entitled _The Source and Remedy ofthe National Difficulties_. _A Letter to Lord John Russell_, publishedin London in 1821, in which the phrase "the quantity of the surplusvalue appropriated by the capitalist" appears. [144] Nor did Marx claimto be the first to distinguish surplus value. That had been done veryclearly by many others, including Adam Smith. [145] What is original inMarx is the explanation of the manner in which surplus value isproduced. 

John Gray's "A Lecture on Human Happiness, " published in 1825, has beendescribed by Professor Foxwell as being "certainly one of the mostremarkable of Socialist writings, "[146] and the summary of the rarelittle work which he gives amply justifies the description. Graypublished other works of note, two of which, "The Social System, aTreatise on the Principle of Exchange, " 1831, and "Lectures on theNature and Use of Money, " 1848, Marx subjects to a rigorous criticism in"A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. " Thomas Hodgskin'sbest-known works are "Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital, "1825, and "The Natural and Artificial Right of Property Contrasted, "1832. The former, which Marx calls "an admirable work, " is only a smalltract of thirty-four pages, but its influence in England and America wasvery great. Hodgskin was a man of great culture and erudition, with agenius for popular writing upon difficult topics. It is interesting toknow that in a letter to his friend, Francis Place, he sketched a bookwhich he proposed writing, "curiously like Marx's 'Capital, '" accordingto Place's biographer, Mr. Wallas, [147] and from which the conservativeold reformer dissuaded him. John Francis Bray was a journeyman printerabout whom very little is known. His "Labour's Wrongs and Labour'sRemedy, " published in Leeds in 1839, Marx calls "a remarkable work, " andin his attack upon Proudhon he quotes from it extensively to show thatBray had anticipated the French writer's theories. [148]

The justification for this lengthy digression from the main theme of thepresent chapter lies in the fact that so many critics have sought tofasten the charge of dishonesty upon Marx, and claimed that the ideaswith which his name is associated were taken by him, withoutacknowledgment, from these English Ricardians. As a matter of fact, noeconomist of note ever quoted his authorities, or acknowledged hisindebtedness to others, more generously than did Marx, and it isexceedingly doubtful whether even the names of the precursors whoseideas he is accused of stealing would be known to his critics but forhis frank recognition of them. No candid reader of Marx can fail tonotice that he is most careful to show how nearly these writersapproached the truth as he conceived it. 

II

When the February revolution of 1848 broke out, Marx was in Brussels. The authorities there compelling him to leave Belgian soil, at therequest of the Prussian government, he returned to Paris, but not for along stay. The revolutionary struggle in Germany stirred his blood, andwith Engels, Wilhelm Wolf, the intimate friend to whom he laterdedicated the first volume of "Capital, " and Ferdinand Freiligrath, thefiery poet of the movement, Marx started the _New Rhenish Gazette_. Unlike the first _Rhenish Gazette_, the new journal was absolutely freefrom control by business policy. Twice Marx was summoned to appear atthe Cologne assizes, upon charges of inciting the people to rebellion, and each time he defended himself with superb audacity and skill, andwas acquitted. But in June, 1849, the authorities suppressed the paper, because of the support it gave to the risings in Dresden and the RhineProvince. Marx was expelled from Prussia and once more sought a refugein Paris, which he was allowed to enjoy only for a very brief time. Forbidden by the French government to stay in Paris, or any other partof France except Brittany, which, says Liebknecht, was considered"fireproof, " Marx turned to London, the mecca of all political exiles, arriving there toward the end of June, 1849. 

His removal to London was one of the crucial events in the life of Marx. It became possible for him, in the classic land of capitalism, to pursuehis economic studies in a way that was not possible anywhere else in theworld. As Liebknecht says: "Here in London, the metropolis (mother city)and the center of the world, and of the world of trade--the watch towerof the world whence the trade of the world and the political andeconomical bustle of the world may be observed, in a way impossible inany other part of the globe--here Marx found what he sought and needed, the bricks and mortar for his work. 'Capital' could be created in Londononly. "[149]

Already much more familiar with English political economy than mostEnglish writers of his time, and with the fine library of the BritishMuseum at his command, Marx felt that the time had at last arrived whenhe could devote himself to his long-cherished plan of writing a greattreatise upon political economy as a secure basis for the theoreticalstructure of Socialism. With this object in view, he resumed hiseconomic studies in 1850, soon after his arrival in London. The workproceeded slowly, however, principally owing to the long and bitterstruggle with poverty which encompassed Marx and his gentle wife. Foryears they suffered all the miseries of acute poverty, and evenafterward, when the worst was past, the principal source of income, attimes almost the only source in fact, was the five dollars a weekreceived from the _New York Tribune_, for which Marx acted as specialcorrespondent, and to which he contributed some of his finest work. [150]There are few pictures more pathetic, albeit also heroic, than thatwhich we have of the great thinker and his devoted wife strugglingagainst poverty during the first few years of their stay in London. Often the little family suffered the pangs of hunger, and Marx and agroup of fellow-exiles used to resort to the reading room of the BritishMuseum, weak from lack of food very often, but grateful for the warmthand shelter of that hospitable spot. The family lived some time in twosmall rooms in a cheap lodging house on Dean Street, the front roomserving as reception room and study, and the back room serving foreverything else. In a diary note, Mrs. Marx has herself left us animpressive picture of the suffering of those early years in London. Early in 1852, death entered the home for the first time, taking away alittle daughter. Only a few weeks later another little daughter died, and Mrs. Marx wrote concerning this event:--

"On Easter of the same year--1852--our poor little Francisca died ofsevere bronchitis. Three days the poor child was struggling with death. It suffered so much. Its little lifeless body rested in the small backroom; we all moved together into the front room, and when nightapproached, we made our beds on the floor. There the three livingchildren were lying at our side, and we cried about the little angel, who rested cold and lifeless near us. The death of the dear child fellinto the time of the most bitter poverty ... (the money for the burialof the child was missing). In the anguish of my heart I went to a Frenchrefugee who lived near, and who had sometimes visited us. I told him oursore need. At once with the friendliest kindness he gave me two pounds. With that we paid for the little coffin in which the poor child nowsleeps peacefully. I had no cradle for her when she was born, and eventhe last small resting place was long denied her. What did we sufferwhen it was carried away to its last place of rest!"[151]

The poverty, of which we have here such a graphic view, lasted forseveral years beyond the publication of the "Critique, " on to theappearance of the first volume of "Capital. " When this struggle isremembered and understood, it becomes easier to appreciate the life workof the great Socialist thinker. "It was a terrible time, but it wasgrand nevertheless, " wrote Liebknecht years afterward to Eleanor Marx. As this is the last place in which the personality of Marx, or hispersonal affairs, will be discussed in this volume, and in view ofconstant misrepresentations on the part of unscrupulous opponents ofSocialism, a further word concerning his family life may not be out ofplace. Those persons who regard Socialism as being antagonistic to thefamily relation, and fear it in consequence, will find no suggestion ofsupport for that view in either the life of Marx or his teaching. Thelove of Marx and his wife for each other was beautiful and idyllic. Atrue account of their love and devotion would rank with the mostbeautiful love stories in literature. Their friends understood that, too, and there is a world of significance in the one brief sentencespoken by Engels, when told of the death of his friend's beautiful wife, who was likewise his own dear friend: "Mohr [Negro, a nickname given toMarx by his friends when young, on account of his mass of black hair andwhiskers] is dead too, " he said simply. He knew that from this blow Marxcould not recover. It was indeed true. Though he lingered on for aboutthree months after her death, the life of Marx really ended when theplaymate of his boyhood, and the lover and companion of all the years ofstruggle, died with the name of her dear "Karl" upon her lips. 

Marx was an ideal father as well as an ideal husband. Alwayspassionately fond of children, he could not resist the temptation tojoin the games of children upon the streets, and in the neighborhoodswhere he lived the children soon learned to regard him as their friend. To his own children he was a real companion, always ready to amuse andto be amused by them. 

III

The studious years spent in the reading room of the British Museumcomplete the anglicization of Marx. "Capital" is essentially an Englishwork, the fact of its having been written in German, by a German writer, being merely incidental. No more distinctively English treatise onpolitical economy was ever written, not even "The Wealth of Nations. "Even the method and style of the book are, contrary to general opinion, much more distinctly English than German. I do not forget his Hegeliandialectic with its un-English subtleties, but against that must beplaced the directness, vigor, and pointedness of style, and the cogentreasoning, with its wealth of concrete illustrations, which are ascharacteristically English. Marx belongs to the school of Petty, Smith, and Ricardo, and their work is the background of his. "Capital" was thechild of English industrial conditions and English thought, born bychance upon German soil. 

Toward the middle of the nineteenth century, English economic thoughtwas entirely dominated by the ideas and methods of Ricardo, who has beendescribed by Senior, not without justice, as "the most incorrect writerwho ever attained philosophical eminence. "[152] So far as such asweeping criticism can be justified by looseness in the use of terms, itis justified by Ricardo's failing in this respect. That he should haveattained the eminence he did, dominating English economic thought for somany years, in spite of the confusion which his loose and uncertain useof words occasioned, is not less a tribute to Ricardo's genius thanevidence of the poverty of political economy in England at that time. Inview of the constant and tiresome reiteration of the charge that Marxpillaged his labor-value theory from Thompson, Hodgskin, Bray, or someother more or less obscure writer of the Ricardian school, it is well toremember that there is nothing in the works of any of these writersconnected with the theory of value which is not to be found in theearlier work of Ricardo himself. In like manner, the theory can betraced back from Ricardo to the master he honored, Adam Smith. Furthermore, almost a century before the appearance of "The Wealth ofNations, " Sir William Petty had anticipated the so-called Ricardianlabor-value theory of Smith and his followers. 

Petty, rather than Smith, is entitled to be regarded as the founder ofthe classical school of political economy, and Cossa justly calls him"one of the most illustrious forerunners of the science of statisticalresearch. "[153] He may indeed fairly be said to have been the father ofstatistical science, and was the first to apply statistics, or"political arithmetick, " as he called it, to the elucidation of economictheory. He boasts that "instead of using only comparative andsuperlative Words, and intellectual Arguments, " his method is to speak"in Terms of Number, Weight, or Measure; to use only Arguments of Sense;and to consider only such Causes, as have visible Foundations in Nature;leaving those that depend upon the mutable Minds, Opinions, Appetites, and Passions of particular Men, to the Consideration of others. "[154]The celebrated saying of this sagacious thinker that "labor is thefather and active principle of wealth; lands are the mother, " is moreMarxian than Ricardian. Petty divided the population into two classes, the productive and non-productive, and insisted that the value of allthings depends upon the labor it costs to produce them. This is, as weshall see, entirely Ricardian, but not Marxian. But these are the ideasMarx is supposed to have borrowed, without acknowledgment, fromcomparatively obscure followers of Ricardo, in spite of the fact that hegives abundant credit to the earlier writer. It has been asked withample justification whether these critics of Marx have read either theworks of Marx or his predecessors. 

Adam Smith, who accepted the foregoing principles laid down by Petty, followed his example of basing his conclusions largely upon observedfacts instead of abstractions. It is not the least of Smith's meritsthat, despite his many digressions, looseness of phraseology, and otheradmitted defects, his love for the concrete kept his feet upon the solidground of fact. With his successors, notably Ricardo and John StuartMill, it was far otherwise. They made political economy an isolatedstudy of abstract doctrines. Instead of a study of the meaning andrelation of facts, it became a cult of abstractions, and the aim of itsteachers seemed to be to render the science as little scientific, andas dull, as possible. They set up an abstraction, an "economic man, " andcreated for it a world of economic abstractions. It is impossible toread either Ricardo or John Stuart Mill, but especially the latter, without feeling the artificiality of the superstructures they created, and the justice of Carlyle's description of such political economy asthe "dismal science. " With a realism greater even than Adam Smith's, anda more logical method than Ricardo or John Stuart Mill, Marx restoredthe science of political economy to its old fact foundations. 

IV

The superior insight of Marx is shown in the very first sentence of hisgreat work. The careful reader at once perceives that the firstparagraph of the book strikes a keynote which distinguishes it from allother economic works comparable to it in importance. Marx was a greatmaster of the art of luminous and exact definition, and nowhere is thismore strikingly shown than in this opening sentence of "Capital": "Thewealth of those societies _in which the capitalist mode of productionprevails_ presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities, itsunit being a single commodity. "[155] In this simple, lucid sentence thetheory of social evolution is clearly implied. The author repudiates, by implication, the idea that it is possible to lay down universal oreternal laws, and limits himself to the exploration of the phenomenaappearing in a certain stage of historical development. We are not tohave another abstract economic man with a world of abstractions all hisown; lone, shipwrecked mariners upon barren islands, imaginarycommunities nicely adapted for demonstration purposes in college classrooms, and all the other stage properties of the political economists, are to be entirely discarded. Our author does not propose to give us aset of principles by which we shall be able to understand and explainthe phenomena of human society at all times and in all places--theIsrael of the Mosaic Age, the nomadic life of Arab tribes, Europe in theMiddle Ages, and England in the nineteenth century. 

In effect, the passage under consideration says: "Political economy isthe study of the principles and laws governing the production anddistribution of wealth. Because of the fact that in the progress ofsociety different systems of wealth production and exchange, anddifferent concepts of wealth, prevail at different times, and at variousplaces at the same time, we cannot formulate any laws which will applyto all times and all places. We must choose for examination and study acertain form of production, representing a particular stage ofhistorical development, and be careful not to attempt to apply any ofits laws to other forms of production, representing other stages ofdevelopment. We might have chosen to investigate the laws which governedthe production of wealth in the ancient Babylonian Empire, or inMediæval Europe, had we so desired, but we have chosen instead theperiod in which we live. "

This that we call the capitalist epoch has grown out of the geographicaldiscoveries and the mechanical inventions of the past three hundredyears or so, especially of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Itschief characteristic, from an economic point of view, is that ofproduction for sale instead of direct use as in earlier stages of socialdevelopment. Of course, barter and sale are much older than this epochwhich we are discussing. In all ages men have exchanged their surplusproducts for other things more desirable to them, either directly bybarter or through some medium of exchange. In the very nature of things, however, such exchange as this must have been incidental to the life ofthe people engaging in it, and not its principal aim. Under suchconditions of society wealth consists in the possession of usefulthings. The naked savage, so long as he possessed plenty of weapons, andcould get an abundance of fish or game, was, from the viewpoint of thesociety in which he lived, a wealthy man. In other words, the wealth ofpre-capitalist society consisted in the possession of use-values, andnot of exchange-values. Robinson Crusoe, for whom the possibility ofexchange did not exist, was, from this pre-capitalist viewpoint, a verywealthy man. 

In our present society, production is carried on primarily for exchange, for sale. The first and essential characteristic feature of wealth inthis stage of social development is that it takes the form ofaccumulated exchange-values, or commodities. Men are accounted rich orpoor according to the exchange-values they can command, and notaccording to the use-values they can command. To use a favorite example, the man who owns a ton of potatoes is far richer in simple use-valuesthan the man whose only possession is a sack of diamonds, but, becausein present society a sack of diamonds will exchange for an almostinfinite quantity of potatoes, the owner of the diamonds is muchwealthier than the owner of the potatoes. The criterion of wealth incapitalist society is exchangeable value as opposed to use-value, thecriterion of wealth in primitive society. The unit of wealth istherefore a commodity, and we must begin our investigation with it. Ifwe can analyze the nature of a commodity so that we can understand howand why it is produced, and how and why it is exchanged, we shall beable to understand the principle governing the production and exchangeof wealth in this and every other society where similar conditionsprevail, where, that is to say, the unit of wealth is a commodity, andwealth consists in an accumulation of commodities. 

V

The visit to America, in 1907, of a distinguished English critic ofSocialism, Mr. W. H. Mallock, had the effect of thrusting intoprominence a common misconception of Marxian Socialism, and it is highlysignificant that, except in the Socialist press, none of the numerouscomments which the series of university lectures delivered by thatgentleman occasioned, called attention to the fact that they were basedthroughout upon a misstatement of the Marxian position. Briefly, Mr. Mallock insisted that Marx believed and taught that all wealth isproduced by manual labor, and that, therefore, it ought to belong to themanual workers. In order that there may be no misstatement of ouramiable critic's position, it will be best to quote his own words. Hesays, in Lecture I: "The practical outcome of the scientific economicsof Marx is summed up in the formula which is the watchword of popularSocialism. 'All wealth is due to labor; therefore all wealth ought to goto the laborer'--a doctrine in itself not novel, but presented by Marxas the outcome of an elaborate system of economics"[156] (page 6). Thecareful reader will notice that Mr. Mallock does not profess to givethe exact words of Marx, nor refer to any particular passage, but saysthat the formula quoted by him is the "practical outcome" of theeconomic system of Marx, "presented by Marx" as such. But to quoteagain: "Wealth, says Marx, not only ought to be, but actually can bedistributed amongst a certain class of persons, namely, the laborers.... Because these laborers comprise in the acts of labor everything that isinvolved in the production of it" (page 7). Again: " ... Marx makes ofhis doctrine that labor alone produces all economic wealth" (page 7). Also: " ... That theory of production which the genius of Karl Marxinvested with a semblance, at all events, of sober, scientific truth, and which ascribes all wealth to that _ordinary manual labor whichbrings the sweat to the brow of the ordinary laboring man_" (page12). [157] All the foregoing passages are taken from a single lecture, the first of the series. We will take only a few from the others: " ... The doctrine of Marx that all productive effort is absolutely equal inproductivity" (Lecture III, page 46); "Marx based the ethics ofdistribution on what purported to be an analysis of production" (LectureIV, page 61); " ... Count Tolstoy, ... Like Socialists of the school ofMarx, declares that ordinary manual labor is the source of all wealth"(Lecture IV, page 76). "One is the attempt of Marx and his school, which represents ordinary manual labor as the sole producer of wealth"(Lecture IV, page 81); " ... The Marxian doctrine ... That manual laboris the sole producer of wealth" (Lecture V, page 115). It would be easyto add many other quotations very similar to these, but it isunnecessary. From the quotations given we can gather Mr. Mallock'sconception of what Marx taught regarding the source of wealth. 

It will be seen that Mr. Mallock alleges: (1) That Marx believed andtaught that all wealth is produced by ordinary manual labor; (2) that heheld, as a consequence, that all wealth ought to belong to the manuallaborers, thus basing an ethic of distribution upon production; (3) thathe taught that all productive effort is absolutely equal in productivevalue, in other words, that ten hours' work of one kind is economicallyas valuable as ten hours' of any other kind, so long as the labor isproductive. 

It is not easy to command the necessary self-restraint to reply withdignity to such wholesale misrepresentation as this. There is not theslightest scintilla of a foundation in fact for any one of the threestatements. Not a single passage can be quoted from Marx which justifiesany one of them. As we shall see, Marx specifically repudiated each oneof them, a great deal more forcefully than Mr. Mallock does. That suchmisrepresentations of Marx should have been permitted to passunchallenged in so many of our great colleges and universities is to ournational shame. We will briefly consider the teaching of Marx under eachof the three heads. 

First, the source of wealth. It is true that such phrases as "Labor isthe source of all wealth" are constantly met with in the popularliterature of Socialism, but so far as that is the case it is not due tothe teaching of Marx, but rather in spite of it. In the writings of theearly Ricardian Socialists these phrases abound, but nowhere in all thewritings of Marx will such a statement be found. For many years theopening sentence in the Programme of the German party contained thephrase "Labor is the source of all wealth and of all culture, " _but itwas adopted in spite of the protest of Marx_. The Gotha Programme wasadopted in 1875. A draft was submitted to Marx and he wrote of it thatit was "utterly condemnable and demoralizing to the party. " Of thepassage in question, he wrote: "Labor is _not_ the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use-values (and of such, to besure, is material wealth composed) as is labor, which itself is but theexpression of a natural force, of human labor-power. "[158] That theclause was adopted was a bitter disappointment to Marx, and was due tothe insistence of the followers of Ferdinand Lassalle. To say that Marxheld labor to be the sole source of wealth is to misrepresent his wholeteaching. [159]

But while the Lassallians, and before them the Ricardians, used the_phrase_, it is evident that they assumed the inclusion of what Marxcalls "Nature. " They know very well that labor, mere exertion ofphysical strength, could produce nothing. If, for instance, a man wereto spend all his strength trying to lift the pyramids, alone and unaidedby mechanical power, it is quite evident to the meanest intellect thathis exertions would not produce a single atom of wealth. It is equallyobvious that if we take any use-value, whether it be an exchange-valueor not being immaterial, we cannot eliminate from it the substance ofwhich it is composed. Take, for example, the canoe of a savage, which isa simple use-value, and a meerschaum pipe, which is a commodity. In thecanoe we have part of the trunk of a tree taken from the primevalforest, one of Nature's products. But without the labor of the savage itwould never have become a canoe. It would have remained simply part ofthe trunk of a tree, and would not have acquired the use-value it has asa canoe. But it is likewise true that without the tree the canoe couldnot have existed. So with our meerschaum pipe. It is not simply ause-value: it is also an article of commerce, an exchange-value, acommodity. Its elements are, the silicate mineral which Nature providedand the form which human labor has given it. We can apply this test toevery form of wealth, whether simple use-values or commodities, and weshall find that, in Mill's phrase, wealth is produced by the applicationof human labor to _appropriate natural objects_. 

This brings us to the second point in Mr. Mallock's criticism, namely, that Marx held that only "ordinary manual labor" is capable of producingwealth, and that, therefore, all wealth ought to go to the manuallaborers. One looks in vain for a single passage in all the writings ofMarx which will justify this criticism. It may be conceded at once thatif Marx taught anything of the kind, the defect in Marxian theory isfatal. But it must be proven that the defect exists--and the _onusprobandi_ rests upon Mr. Mallock. One need not be a trained economist ora learned philosopher to see how absurd such a theory must be. Supposewe take, for example, a man working in a factory, at a great machine, making screws. We go to that man and say: "Every screw here is made bymanual labor alone. The machine does not count; the brains of theinventors of the machine have nothing to do with the making of screws. "Our laborer might be illiterate and unable to read a single page ofpolitical economy with understanding, but he would know that ourstatement was foolish and untrue. Or, suppose we take the machine itselfand say to the laborer: "That great machine with all its levers andwheels and springs working in such beautiful harmony was made entirelyby manual workers, such as molders, blacksmiths, and machinists; nobrain workers had anything to do with the making of it; the labor of theinventors, and of the men who drew the plans and supervised the making, had nothing to do with the production of the machine"--our laborer wouldrightly conclude that we were either fools or seeking to mock him asone. 

Curiously enough, notwithstanding the frequent reiteration of thiscriticism of Marx by Mr. Mallock, he himself, in an unguarded moment, provides the answer by which Marx is vindicated! Thus, speaking of thegreat classical economists, Adam Smith, Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill, he points out that they included "all forms of living industrial effort, from those of a Watt or an Edison down to those of a man who tars afence, grouped together under the common name of labor" (Lecture I, page16). And again: "At present the orthodox economists and the socialisticeconomists alike give us _all human effort_[160] tied up, as it were, ina sack, and ticketed 'human labor'" (Lecture I, page 18). Now, if theSocialist includes in his definition of labor "all human effort, " itstands to reason that he does not mean only "ordinary manual labor" whenhe uses the term. Thus Mallock answers Mallock and vindicates Marx!

Of course, Marx, like all the great economists, includes in his conceptof labor every kind of productive effort, mental as well as physical, asMr. Mallock, to the utter destruction of his disingenuous criticism, unconsciously--we must suppose--admitted. Take, for example, thisdefinition: "By labor power or capacity for labor is to be understoodthe aggregate of those _mental and physical_ capabilities existing in ahuman being, which he exercises when he produces a use-value of anydescription. "[161] As against this luminous and precise definition, itis but fair to quote that of Mr. Mallock himself. He defines labor as"the faculties of an individual _applied to his own labor_"[162]--ameaningless jumble of words. The fifty-seven letters contained in thatsentence would mean just as much if put in a bag, well shaken, and puton paper just as they happened to fall from the bag. 

Marx never argued that the producers of wealth had a _right_ to thewealth produced. The "right of labor to the whole of its produce" was, it is true, the keynote of the theories of the Ricardian Socialists. Anecho of the doctrine appeared in the Gotha Programme of the GermanSocialists to which reference has already been made, and in the popularagitation of Socialism in this and other countries it is echoed more orless frequently. Just in proportion as the ethical argument forSocialism is advanced, and appeals made to the sense of justice, therich idler is condemned and an ethic of distribution based uponproduction becomes an important feature of the propaganda. But Marxnowhere indulges in this kind of argument. Not in a single line of"Capital, " or his minor economic treatises, can any hint of the doctrinebe found. He invariably scoffed at the "ethical distribution" idea. Inthe judgment of the present writer, this is at once his great strengthand weakness, but that is beside the point of this discussion. Sufficeit to say, though it involves some reiteration, that Marx never took theposition that Socialism _ought_ to take the place of capitalism, because the producers of wealth _ought_ to get the whole of the wealththey produce. His position was rather that Socialism _must_ come, simplybecause capitalism _could not_ last. 

Finally, we come to the charge that Marx taught that "all productiveeffort is absolutely equal in productivity. " Incredible as it may seem, it is nevertheless a fact that everything Marx has to say upon thesubject is directly opposed to this notion, and that, as we shall seelater on, his famous theory of value is not only not dependent upon abelief in the equal productivity of all productive effort, but would becompletely shattered by it. Not only Marx, but also Mill, Ricardo, andSmith, his great predecessors, recognized the fact that all labor is notequally productive. Of course, it requires no special genius todemonstrate this. That a poor mechanic with antiquated tools willproduce less in a given number of hours than an expert mechanic withgood tools, for example, is too obvious for comment. The Marx assailedby Mr. Mallock, and numerous critics like him, is a myth. The real Marxthey do not touch--hence the futility of their work. The Marx theyattack is a man of straw, not the immortal thinker. Endowed

 "With just enough of learning to misquote, "

their assaults are vain. 

VI

Having thus disposed of some of the more prevalent criticisms of Marx asan economist, we are ready for a definite, consecutive statement of theeconomic theory of modern Socialism. First, however, a word as to theterm "scientific" as commonly applied to Marxian Socialism. Even some ofthe friendliest of Socialist critics have contended that the use of theterm is pretentious, bombastic, and altogether unjustified. From acertain narrow point of view, this appears to be an unimportant matter, and the vigor with which Socialists defend their use of the term seemsexceedingly foolish, and accountable for only as a result ofenthusiastic fetish worship--the fetish, of course, being Marx. 

Such a view is very crude and superficial. It cannot be doubted that theSocialism represented by Marx and the modern political Socialistmovement is radically different from the earlier Socialism with whichthe names of Fourier, Saint-Simon, Cabet, Owen, and a host of otherbuilders of "cloud palaces for an ideal humanity, " are associated. Theneed of some word to distinguish between the two is obvious, and theonly question remaining is whether or not the word "scientific" is themost suitable and accurate one to make that distinction clear; whetherthe words "scientific" and "utopian" express with reasonable accuracythe nature of the difference. Here the followers of Marx feel that theyhave an impregnable position. The method of Marx is scientific. From thefirst sentence of his great work to the last, the method pursued is thatof a painstaking scientist. It would be just as reasonable to complainof the use of the word "scientific" in connection with the work ofDarwin and his followers, to distinguish it from the guesswork ofAnaximander, as to cavil at the distinction made between the Socialismof Marx and Engels and their followers, and that of visionaries likeOwen and Saint-Simon. 

Doubtless both Marx and Engels lapsed occasionally into Utopianism. Wesee instances of this in the illusions Marx entertained regarding theCrimean War bringing about the European Social Revolution; in the theoryof the increasing misery of the proletariat; in Engels' confidentprediction, in 1845, that a Socialist revolution was imminent andinevitable; and in the prediction of both that an economic cataclysmmust create the conditions for a sudden and complete revolution insociety. These, I say, are Utopian ideas, evidences that the founders ofscientific Socialism were tinctured with the older ideas of theUtopists, and even more with their spirit. But when we speak of"Marxism, " what mental picture does the word suggest, what intellectualconcept is the word a name for? Is it these forecasts and guesses, andthe exact mode of realizing the Socialist ideal which Marx laid down, oris it the great principle of social evolution determined by economicdevelopment? Is it his naïve and simple description of the process ofcapitalist concentration, in which no hint appears of the circuitouswindings that carried the actual process into unforeseen channels, orthe broad fact that the concentration has taken place and that monopolyhas come out of competition? Is it his statement of the extent to whichlabor is exploited, or the _fact_ of the exploitation? If we are tojudge Marx by the essential things, rather than by the incidental andnon-essential things, then we must admit his claim to be reckoned withthe great scientific sociologists and economists. 

After all, what constitutes scientific method? Is it not the recognitionof the law of causation, putting exact knowledge of facts abovetradition or sentiment; accumulating facts patiently until sufficienthave been gathered to make possible the formulation of generalizationsand laws enabling us to connect the present with the past, and in somemeasure to foretell the outcome of the present, as Marx foretold theculmination of competition in monopoly? Is it not to see past, present, and future as one whole, a growth, a constant process, so that insteadof vainly fashioning plans for millennial Utopias, we seek in the factsof to-day the stream of tendencies, and so learn the direction of theimmediate flow of progress? If this is a true concept of scientificmethod, and the scientific spirit, then Karl Marx was a scientist, andmodern Socialism is aptly named Scientific Socialism. 

FOOTNOTES:

[137] An English edition of this work, translated by H. Quelch, waspublished in 1900 under the title _The Poverty of Philosophy_. 

[138] Cf. F. Engels, Preface to _La Misère de la Philosophie_, Englishtranslation, _The Poverty of Philosophy_, page iv. 

[139] _The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour_, by Anton Menger, 1899. 

[140] Edward Bernstein, _Ferdinand Lassalle as a Social Reformer_, pageix. 

[141] _Criticism of the Gotha Programme_, from the posthumous papers ofKarl Marx. 

[142] It should perhaps be pointed out here, to avoid misunderstanding, that Ricardo hedged this doctrine about with importantqualifications--not always observed by his followers--till it no longerremained the simple proposition stated above. See Dr. A. C. Whitaker's_History and Criticism of the Labour Theory of Value in EnglishPolitical Economy_, page 57, for a suggestive treatment of this point. 

[143] _The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour. _

[144] Cf. _Capital_, Vol. I, page 644, and Vol. II, page 19, Kerredition. 

[145] Cf. , for instance, _The Wealth of Nations_, Vol. I, Chapter VI. 

[146] Introduction to Menger's _The Right to the Whole Produce ofLabour_. 

[147] _The Life of Francis Place_, by Graham Wallas, M. A. , London, 1898, page 268. 

[148] For this brief sketch of the works of these Ricardian Socialistwriters I have drawn freely upon Menger's _The Right to the WholeProduce of Labour_, and Professor Foxwell's Introduction thereto. 

[149] _Karl Marx: Biographical Memoirs_, by Wilhelm Liebknecht, translated by E. Untermann, 1901, page 32. 

[150] Much of this work has been collated and edited by Marx's daughter, the late Mrs. Eleanor Marx-Aveling, and her husband, Dr. Edward Aveling, and published in two volumes, _The Eastern Question_ and _Revolution andCounter-Revolution_. 

[151] The note is quoted by Liebknecht, _Memoirs of Marx_, page 177, andin the Introduction to _Revolution and Counter-Revolution_, by theeditor, Eleanor Marx-Aveling. 

[152] _Political Economy_, page 115. 

[153] Luigi Cossa, _Guide to the Study of Political Economy_, Englishtranslation, 1880. 

[154] _The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty_, edited by CharlesHenry Hull, Vol. I, page 244. 

[155] The italics are mine. --J. S. 

[156] All quotations from Mr. Mallock are taken from the volumecontaining the text of his lectures, entitled _Socialism_, published byThe National Civic Federation, New York, 1907. 

[157] The italics are mine. --J. S. 

[158] _Letter on the Gotha Programme_, by Karl Marx, published in thecollection of the posthumous writings of Marx and Engels, edited byMehring, 1902. See a translation of the letter by Dr. Harriet E. Lothrop, _International Socialist Review_, May, 1908. 

[159] I note that my friend, Mr. J. R. Macdonald, M. P. , "Whip" of theLabour Party in the British House of Commons, so misrepresents Marx inhis admirable little book, _Socialism_, page 54. 

[160] Italics mine. --J. S. 

[161] The italics are mine. The passage occurs on page 186, Vol. I, of_Capital_, Kerr edition. In the last of the series of lectures printedin his book, Mr. Mallock attempts a reply to the criticism of anAmerican Socialist, Mr. Morris Hillquit who quoted this passage fromMarx to show that Mr. Mallock was in error in saying that Marx regardedmanual labor as the sole source of wealth. He evades the real point, namely, that Marx clearly included mental as well as physical labor inhis use of the term, and with an ingenuity equaled only by thedisingenuousness of the argument, seeks refuge in the fact that it doesnot cover the special "directive ability" which is a special function, "a productive force distinct from labor. " The trick will not do. Thefact is that Marx clearly and precisely covers that point in anotherplace. The reader is referred to Chapter XIII of Part IV, Vol. I, of_Capital_, pages 363-368, Kerr edition, for a brilliant and honesttreatment of the whole subject of the place of the "directing few" inmodern industry. We shall treat the matter briefly later on. 

[162] Italics mine. --J. S. The passage occurs in Lecture III, page 36. 

CHAPTER VIII

OUTLINES OF SOCIALIST ECONOMIC THEORY

I

The _geist_ of social and political evolution is economic, according tothe Socialist philosophy. This view of the importance of man's economicrelations involves some very radical changes in the methods andterminology of political economy. The philosophical view of social andpolitical evolution as a world-process, through revolutions formed inthe matrices of economic conditions, at once limits and expands thescope of political economy. It destroys on the one hand the idea of theeternality of economic laws and limits them to particular epochs. On theother hand, it enhances the importance of the science of politicaleconomy as a study of the motive force of social evolution. With Marxand his followers, political economy is more than an analysis of theproduction and distribution of wealth; it is a study of the principaldeterminant factor in the social and political progress of society, consciously recognized as such. 

The sociological viewpoint appears throughout the whole of Marxianeconomic thought. It appears, for instance, in the definition of acommodity as the unit of wealth _in those societies in which thecapitalist mode of production prevails_. Likewise wealth and capitalconnote special social relations or categories. Wealth, which in certainsimpler forms of social organization consists in the ownership ofuse-values, under the capitalist system consists in the ownership ofexchange-values. Capital is not a thing, but a social relation betweenpersons established through the medium of things. Robinson Crusoe'sspade, the Indian's bow and arrow, and all similar illustrations givenby the "orthodox" economists, do not constitute capital any more than aninfant's spoon is capital. They do not serve as the medium of the socialrelation between wage-worker and capitalist which characterizes thecapitalist system of production. The essential feature of capitalistsociety is the production of wealth in the commodity form; that is tosay, in the form of objects that, instead of being consumed by theproducer, are intended to be exchanged or sold at a profit. Capital, therefore, is wealth set aside for the production of other wealth with aview to its exchange at a profit. A house may consist of certaindefinite quantities of bricks, timber, lime, iron, and other substances, but similar quantities of these substances piled up without plan willnot constitute a house. Bricks, timber, lime, and iron become a houseonly in certain circumstances, when they bear a given ordered relationto each other. "A negro is a negro; it is only under certain conditionsthat he becomes a slave. A certain machine, for example, is a machinefor spinning cotton; it is only under certain defined conditions that itbecomes capital. Apart from these conditions, it is no more capital thangold _per se_ is money; capital is a social relation ofproduction. "[163]

This sociological principle pervades the whole of Socialist economics. It appears in every economic definition, practically, and theterminology of the orthodox political economists is thereby often givena new meaning, radically different from that originally given to it andcommonly understood. The student of Socialism who fails to appreciatethis fact will most frequently land in a morass of confusion anddifficulty, but the careful student who fully understands it will findit of great assistance. Take, as an illustration, the phrase "theabolition of capital" which frequently occurs in Socialist literature. The reader who thinks of capital as consisting of _things_, such asmachinery, materials of production, money, and so on, finds the phrasebewildering. He wonders how it is conceivable that production should goon if these things were done away with. But the student who fullyunderstands the sociological principle outlined above comprehends atonce that it is not proposed to do away with the _things_, but with_certain social relations expressed through them_. He understands thatthe "abolition of capital" no more involves the destruction of thephysical things than the abolition of slavery involved the destructionof the slave himself. What is aimed at is the social relation which isestablished through the medium of the things commonly called capital. 

II

In common with all the great economists, Socialists hold that wealth isproduced by human labor applied to appropriate natural objects. This, aswe have seen, does not mean that labor is the sole source of wealth. Still less does it mean that the mere expenditure of labor upon naturalobjects must inevitably result in the production of wealth. If a manspends his time digging holes in the ground and filling them up again, or dipping water from the ocean in a bucket and pouring it back again, the labor so expended upon natural objects would not produce wealth ofany kind. Nor is the productivity of mental labor denied. In the term"labor" is implied the totality of human energies expended inproduction, regardless of whether those energies be physical or mental. In modern society wealth consists of social use-values, commodities. 

We must, therefore, begin our analysis of capitalist society with ananalysis of a commodity. "A commodity, " says Marx, "is, in the firstplace, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfieshuman wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes nodifference. Neither are we here concerned to know how the objectsatisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, orindirectly as means of production. "[164] But a commodity must besomething more than an object satisfying human wants. Such objects aresimple use-values, but commodities are something else in addition tosimple use-values. The manna upon which the pilgrim exiles of the Biblestory were fed, for instance, was not a commodity, though it fulfilledthe conditions of this first part of our definition by satisfying humanwants. We must carry our definition further, therefore. In addition touse-value, then, a commodity must possess exchange-value. In otherwords, it must have a social use-value, a use-value to others, and notmerely to the producer. 

Thus, things may have the quality of satisfying human wants withoutbeing commodities. To state the matter in the language of theeconomists, use-values may, and often do, exist without economic value, value, that is to say, in exchange. Air, for example, is absolutelyindispensable to life, yet it is not--except in special, abnormalconditions--subject to sale or exchange. With a use-value that is beyondcomputation, it has no exchange-value. Similarly, water is ordinarilyplentiful and has no economic value; it is not a commodity. A seemingcontradiction exists in the case of the water supply of cities wherewater for domestic use is commercially supplied, but a moment'sreflection will show that it is not the water, but the social service ofbringing it to a desired location for the consumer's convenience thatrepresents economic value. Over and above that there is, however, theelement of monopoly-price which enters into the matter. With that wehave not, at this point, anything to do. Under ordinary circumstances, water, like light, is plentiful; its utility to man is not due to man'slabor, and it has, therefore, no economic value. But in exceptionalcircumstances, as in an arid desert or in a besieged fortress, amillionaire might be willing to give all his wealth for a little water, thus making the value of what is ordinarily valueless almost infinite. What may be called natural use-values have no economic value. And evenuse-values that are the result of human labor may be equally withouteconomic value. If I make something to satisfy some want of my own, itwill have no economic value unless it will satisfy the want of some oneelse. So, unless a use-value is social, unless the object produced is ofuse to some other person than the producer, it will have no value in theeconomic sense: it will not be _exchangeable_. 

A commodity must therefore possess two fundamental qualities. It musthave a use-value, must satisfy some human want or desire; it must alsohave an exchange-value arising from the fact that the use-valuecontained in it is social in its nature and exchangeable for otherexchange-values. With the unit of wealth thus defined, the subsequentstudy of economics is immensely simplified. [165]

The trade of capitalist societies is the exchange of commodities againsteach other, through the medium of money. Commodities utterly unlike eachother in all apparent physical properties, such as color, weight, size, shape, substance, and so on, and utterly unlike each other in respect tothe purposes for which intended and the nature of the wants theysatisfy, are exchanged for one another, sometimes equally, sometimes inunequal ratio. The question immediately arises: what is it thatdetermines the relative value of commodities so exchanged? A dress suitand a kitchen stove, for example, are very different commodities, possessing no outward semblance to each other, and satisfying verydifferent human wants, yet they may, and actually do, exchange upon anequality in the market. To understand the reason for this similarity ofvalue of dissimilar commodities, and the principle which governs theexchange of commodities in general, is to understand an important partof the mechanism of modern capitalist society. 

This is the problem of value which all the great economists have triedto solve. Sir William Petty, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John StuartMill, and Karl Marx developed what is known as the labor-value theory asthe solution of the problem. This theory, as developed by Marx, not inits cruder forms, is one of the cardinal principles in Socialisteconomic theory. The Ricardian statement of the theory is that therelative value of commodities to one another is determined by therelative amounts of human labor embodied in them; that the quantity oflabor embodied in them is the determinant of the value of allcommodities. When all their differences have been carefully noted, allcommodities have at least one quality in common. The dress suit and thekitchen range, toothpicks and snowshoes, pink parasols andsewing-machines, are unlike each other in every other particular saveone--they are all products of human labor, crystallizations of humanlabor-power. Here, then, say the Socialists, as did the great classicaleconomists, we have a hint of the secret of the mechanism of exchange incapitalist society. The amount of labor-power embodied in theirproduction is in some way connected with the measure of the exchangeablevalue of the commodities. 

Stated in the simple, crude form, that the quantity of human laborcrystallized in them is the basis and measure of the value ofcommodities when exchanged against one another, the labor theory ofvalue is beautifully simple. At least, the formula is simplicity itself. At the same time, it is open to certain very obvious criticisms. Itwould be absurd to contend that the day's labor of a coolie laborer isequal in productivity to the day's labor of a highly skilled mechanic, or that the day's labor of an incompetent workman is of equal value tothat of the most proficient. To refute such a theory is as beautifullysimple as the theory itself. In all seriousness, arguments such as theseare constantly used against the Marxian theory of value, notwithstandingthat they do not possess the slightest relation to it. Marxism is veryfrequently "refuted" by those who do not trouble themselves tounderstand it. 

The idea that the quantity of labor embodied in them is the determinantof the value of commodities was held by practically all the greateconomists. Sir William Petty, for example, in a celebrated passage, says of the exchange-value of corn: "If a man can bring to London anounce of silver out of the earth in Peru in the same time that he canproduce a bushel of corn, then one is the natural price of the other;now, if by reason of new and more easy mines a man can get two ounces ofsilver as easily as formerly he did one, then the corn will be as cheapat ten shillings a bushel as it was before at five shillings a bushel, _cæteris paribus_. "[166]

Adam Smith, following Petty's lead, says: "The real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is thetoil and trouble of acquiring it. What everything is really worth to theman who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange itfor something else, is the toil and labor which it can save to himself, and which it can impose on other people.... Labor was the first price, the original purchase money, that was paid for all things.... If among anation of hunters, for example, it usually costs twice the labor to killa beaver which it does to kill a deer, one beaver would naturally beworth or exchange for two deer. It is natural that what is usually theproduce of two days' or two hours' labor, should be worth double of whatis usually the produce of one day's or one hour's labor. "[167]

Benjamin Franklin, whose merit as an economist Marx recognized, takesthe same view and regards trade as being "nothing but the exchange oflabor for labor, the value of all things being most justly measured bylabor. "[168] From the writings of almost every one of the greatclassical economists of England it would be easy to compile a formidableand convincing volume of similar quotations, showing that they all tookthe same view that the quantity of human labor embodied in commoditiesdetermines their value. One further quotation, from Ricardo, must, however, suffice. He says:--

"To convince ourselves that this (quantity of labor) is the realfoundation of exchangeable value, let us suppose any improvement to bemade in the means of abridging labor in any one of the various processesthrough which the raw cotton must pass before the manufactured stockingscome to the market to be exchanged for other things; and observe theeffects which will follow. If fewer men were required to cultivate theraw cotton, or if fewer sailors were employed in navigating, orshipwrights in constructing, the ship in which it was conveyed to us; iffewer hands were employed in raising the buildings and machinery, or ifthese, when raised, were rendered more efficient; the stockings wouldinevitably fall in value, and command less of other things. They wouldfall because a less quantity of labor was necessary to their production, and would therefore exchange for a smaller quantity of those things inwhich no such abridgment of labor had been made. "[169]

It is evident from the foregoing quotations that these great writersregarded the quantity of human labor crystallized in them as the basisof all commodity values, and their real measure. The great merit ofRicardo lies in his development of the idea of social labor as againstthe simple concept of the labor of particular individuals, or sets ofindividuals. In the passage cited, he includes in the term "quantity ofhuman labor" not merely the total labor of those immediately concernedin the making of stockings, from the cultivation of the raw cotton tothe actual making of stockings in the factory, but all the laborindirectly expended, even in the making and navigating of ships, and thebuilding of the factories. One does, indeed, find hints of the sociallabor concept in Adam Smith, but it is Ricardo who first clearlydevelops it. Marx further developed this principle, and all criticismsof the labor-value theory in Marxian economic theory which are basedupon the assumption that quantity of labor means the simple, directlabor embodied in commodities fall of their own weight. 

Thus, if we take any commodity, we shall find that it is possible toascertain with tolerable certainty the amount of direct labor embodiedin it, but that it is equally as impossible to ascertain the amount ofthe indirect expenditure of labor power which entered into its making. In the case of a table, for example, it may be possible to trace withsome approximation to accuracy the labor involved in felling the treeand preparing the lumber out of which the table was made; the labordirectly spent in bringing the lumber to the factory, and the directlabor expended in making out of the lumber a finished table; allowancemay also be made for the labor embodied in the nails, glue, stain, andother articles used in making the table. So we have a fairly accuratestatement of the direct labor embodied in the table. But what of thelabor used to make the tools of the men who felled the trees andprepared the lumber? What of the coal miner and the iron miner and thetool maker? And what of the numerous and incalculable expenditures oflabor to make the railroads, the railway engines, and to provide thesewith steam-power? What, also, of the machinery in the factory, and ofthe factory buildings themselves, and, back of them, again, the toolmakers and the providers of raw materials? It is obvious that no humanintellect could ever unravel the tangled skein of human labor, and thatin actual exchange there can be no calculation of the respective laborcontent of commodities. If the law of value holds good, it must operatemechanically, automatically. And this it does, through the incidence ofbargaining and the law of supply and demand. 

We have noted elsewhere the variations in human capacity andproductiveness. Superficial critics still frequently charge Marx withhaving overlooked this very obvious fact, whereas it has not only beenfully treated by him, but was actually covered by Smith and Ricardobefore Marx! With these writers and their followers it is the law ofaverages which solves the difficulties arising from variations inindividual capacity and productivity. It is the _average_ amount oflabor expended in killing the beaver which counts, not the actualindividual labor in a specified case. Nor did these writers overlook theimportant differentiation between simple, unskilled labor and labor thatis highly skilled. If A in ten hours' labor produces exactly double theamount of exchange-value which B produces in the same time devoted tolabor of another kind, it is obvious that the labor of B is not equal invalue to that of A. Quantity of labor cannot, therefore, be measured, inindividual cases, by time units. Despite a hundred passages which, detached from their context, seem to imply the contrary, Adam Smithrecognized this very clearly, and attempted to solve the riddle by adifferentiation of skilled and unskilled labor in which he likensskilled labor to a machine; and insists that the labor and time spent inacquiring the skill which distinguishes skilled labor must bereckoned. [170]

Another frequent criticism of the Marxian theory has not only beenanswered by Marx himself--is, in fact, ruled out by the terms of thetheory itself--but was amply replied to by Ricardo. [171] The criticismin question consists in the selection of what may be called "uniquevalues, " or scarcity values, articles which cannot be reproduced bylabor, and whose value is wholly independent of the quantity of labororiginally necessary to produce them. Such articles are unique specimensof coins and postage stamps, autograph letters, rare manuscripts, Stradivarius violins, Raphael pictures, Caxton books, articlesassociated with great personages--such as Napoleon's snuffbox--greatauks' eggs, and so on _ad infinitum_. No possible amount of human laborcould reproduce these articles, reproduce, that is to say, the exactutilities in them. Napoleon's snuffbox might be exactly duplicated sofar as its physical properties are concerned, but the association withNapoleon's fingers, the sentimental quality which gives it its specialutility, is not reproducible. But the trade of capitalist society doesnot consist in the manufacture and sale of these things, which, afterall, form a very insignificant part of the exchange-values of the world. 

III

Marx saw the soul of truth in the labor-value theory, as propounded byhis predecessors, especially Ricardo, and devoted himself to itsdevelopment and systematization. He has been accused of plagiarizing histheory from the Ricardians, but it is surely not plagiarism when athinker sees the germ of truth in a theory, and, separating it from themass of confusion and error which envelops it, restates it in scientificfashion with all its necessary qualifications. This is precisely whatMarx did. He developed the idea of social labor which Ricardo hadpropounded, disregarding entirely individual labor. He recognized theabsurdity of the contention that the value of commodities is determinedby the amount of labor, either individual or social, _actually embodiedin them_. If two workers are producing precisely similar commodities, say coats, and one of them expends twice as much labor as the other anduses tools and methods representing twice the social labor, it isclearly foolish to suppose that the exchange-value of his coat will betwice as great as that of the other worker, regardless of the fact thattheir utility is equal. Labor, Marx pointed out, has two sides, thequalitative and the quantitative. The qualitative side, the differencein quality between specially skilled and simply unskilled labor, iseasily recognized, though the relative value of the one compared withthe other may be somewhat obscured. The secret of that obscurity lieshidden in the quantitative side of labor. Here we must enter upon anabstract inquiry, that part of the Marxian theory which is mostdifficult to comprehend. Yet, it is not so very difficult, after all, tounderstand that the years devoted to learning his trade, by a mechanicalengineer, for instance, during all of which years he must be providedwith the necessities of life, must be reckoned somewhere and somehow;and that when they are so reckoned, his day's labor may be found tocontain, concentrated, so to speak, an amount of labor time equivalentto two or even many days' simple unskilled labor time. It may be, and infact is, quite impossible to set forth mathematically the relation ofthe two, for the reason that the process of developing skilled labor istoo complex to be unraveled. Of the fact, however, there can be nodoubt. 

The real law of value, then, according to Marx, is as follows: Undercapitalism, _in free competition_, the value of all commodities, otherthan those unique things which cannot be reproduced by human labor, isdetermined by the amount of _abstract_ labor embodied in them; or, better, by the amount of social human labor power necessary, on theaverage, for their production. We may conveniently illustrate thistheory by a concrete example. Let us, therefore, return to ourcoat-makers. Now, always assuming their equal utility, no one will bewilling to pay twice as much for the coat produced by the slow workerwith poor tools as for the other. If the more economical methods ofproduction employed by the man who makes his coats in half the timetaken by the other man are the methods usually employed in themanufacture of coats, and the time he takes represents the average timetaken to produce a coat, then the average value of coats will bedetermined thereby, and coats produced by the slower, less economicalprocess will command only the same price in the market, the fact thatthey may embody twice the amount of actual labor counting for nothing. If we reverse the order of this proposition, and suppose the slower, less economical methods to be those generally prevailing in themanufacture of coats, and the quicker, more economical methods to beexceptional, then, all other things being equal, the exchange-value, ofcoats will be determined by the amount of labor commonly consumed, andthe fortunate producer who adopts the exceptional, economical methodswill, for a time, reap a golden harvest. Only for a time, however. Asthe new methods prevail, competition being the impelling force, theybecome less and less exceptional, and, finally, the regular, normalmethods of production and the standard of value. 

It is this very important qualification, fundamental to the Marxiantheory, which is most often lost sight of by the critics. They persistin applying to individual commodities the test of comparing the amountsof labor-power actually consumed in their production, and so confoundthe Marxian theory with its crude progenitors. In refuting this crudetheory, they are quite oblivious of the fact that Marx himselfaccomplished that by no means difficult feat. To state the Marxiantheory accurately, we must qualify the bald statement that theexchange-value of commodities is determined by the amount of laborembodied in them, and state it in the following manner: _Theexchange-value of commodities is determined by the amount of averagelabor at the time socially necessary for their production. _ This isdetermined, not absolutely in individual cases, but approximately ingeneral, by the bargaining and higgling of the market, to adopt AdamSmith's well-known phrase. 

Now, this theory applies to those things, exclusive of the category of"unique values, " which cannot be made by labor and are commonly supposedto owe their value to their rarity. For example, we may take diamonds. Aman walking along the great wastes of the African _karoo_ comes across alittle stream. As he stoops to drink, he sees in the water a number ofglittering diamonds. To pick them out is the work of a few minutes only, but the diamonds are worth many thousands of dollars. The law of valueabove outlined applies just as much to them as to any other commodity. The value of diamonds is determined by the amount of labor expenditurenecessary _on an average_ to procure them. If the normal method ofobtaining diamonds were simply to go to the nearest stream and pick themout, their value would fall, possibly to zero:--

 "When we have nothing else to wear But cloth of gold and satins rare, For cloth of gold we cease to care-- Up goes the price of shoddy. "

IV

Most writers do not distinguish between price and value with sufficientclearness, using the terms as if they were synonymous andinterchangeable. Where utilities are exchanged directly one foranother, as in the barter of primitive society, there is no need of aprice-form to express value. In highly developed societies, however, where the very magnitude of production and exchange makes direct barterimpossible, and where the objects to be exchanged are not commonly theproduct of individual labor, a medium of exchange becomes necessary; asomething which is generally recognized as a safe and stable commoditywhich can be used to express in terms of its own weight, size, shape, orcolor, the value of other commodities to be exchanged. This is thefunction of money. In various times and places wheat, shells, skins ofanimals, beads, powder, tobacco, and a multitude of other things, haveserved as money, but for various reasons, more or less obvious, theprecious metals, gold and silver, have been most favored. 

In all commercial countries to-day, one or other of these metals, orboth of them, serves as the recognized medium of exchange. They arecommodities also, and when we say that the value of a commodity is acertain amount of gold, we equally express the value of that amount ofgold in terms of the commodity in question. As commodities, the preciousmetals are subject to the same laws as other commodities. If gold shouldbe discovered in such abundance that it became as plentiful and easy toobtain as coal, its value would be no greater than that of coal. Itmight, conceivably, still be used as the medium of exchange, but itwould--unless protected by legislation or otherwise from the operationof economic law, and so given a monopoly-price--have an exchange-valueequal to that of coal, a ton of the one being equal to a ton of theother--provided, of course, that its utility remained. Since thescarcity of gold is an important element in its utility valuation, creating and fostering the desire for its possession, that utility-valuemight largely disappear if gold became as plentiful as coal, in whichcase it would not have the same value as coal, and might cease to be acommodity at all. 

Price, then, is the expression of value in terms of some othercommodity, which, generally used for that purpose of expressing thevalue of other commodities, we call money. It is only an approximationof value, and subject to a much greater fluctuation than value itself. It may, for a time, fall far below or rise above value, but in a freemarket--the only condition in which the operation of the law may bejudged--sooner or later the equilibrium will be regained. Where monopolyexists, the free market condition being non-existent, price may beconstantly elevated above value. Monopoly-price is an artificialelevation of price above value, and must be considered separately as theabrogation of the law of value. 

Failure to discriminate between value and its price-expression, orsymbol, has led to endless difficulty. It lies at the bottom of thenaïve theory that value depends upon the relation of supply and demand. Lord Lauderdale's famous theory has found much support among latereconomists, though it is now rather unpopular when stated in its old, simple form. Disguised in the so-called Austrian theory of finalutility, it has attained considerable vogue. [172] The theory isplausible and convincing to the ordinary mind. Every day we seeillustrations of its working: prices are depressed when there is anoversupply, and elevated when the demand of would-be consumers exceedsthe supply of the commodities they desire to buy. It is not so easy tosee that these effects are temporary, and that there is an automaticadjustment going on. Increased demand raises prices for a while, but italso calls forth an increase in supply which tends to restore the oldprice level, or may even force prices below it. In the latter case, thesupply falls off and prices find their real level. The relation ofsupply to demand causes an oscillation of prices, but it is not thedeterminant of value. When prices rise above a certain level, demandslackens or ceases, and prices are inevitably lowered. Prices may and dofall with a decreased demand, but it is clear that unless the producerscan get a price approximately equal to the value of their commodities, they will cease to produce them, and the supply will diminish or ceasealtogether. Ultimately, therefore, the fluctuations of price through thelack of equilibrium between supply and demand adjust themselves, andprices must tend constantly to approximate values. 

Monopoly-price is, as already observed, an artificial price in the sensethat the laws of free market exchange do not apply to it. The "uniqueutilities, " things not reproducible by human labor, command what mightbe termed natural monopoly-prices. There are many other commodities, however, the price of which is not regulated by the quantity of socialhuman labor necessary to produce them, but simply by the desire of thepurchasers and the means they have of gratifying it and the power of thesellers to control the market and exclude effective competition. SinceKarl Marx wrote, the exceptions to his law of value have become morenumerous, as a result of the changes in industrial and commercialconditions. The development of great monopolies and near-monopolies hasgreatly increased the number of commodities which, for considerableperiods, are placed outside the sphere of the labor-value theory, theirprice depending upon their marginal utility, irrespective of the laboractually embodied in them or necessary to their reproduction. It may, inthe opinion of the present writer, be said in criticism of the followersof Marx that they have not carried on his work, but largely contentedthemselves with repeating generalizations which, true when made, nolonger fit all the facts. But that is not a criticism of Marx, or of hiswork. What he professed to make was an analysis of the methods ofproduction and exchange in competitive capitalist society. His followershave largely failed to allow for the enormous changes which have takenplace, and go on repeating, unchanged, his phrases. 

Professor Seligman has pointed out that Ricardo's contention that valueis determined by the cost of production, and the contention of Jevonsthat value is determined by marginal utility, are not mutuallyexclusive, but, on the contrary, complementary to each other. [173] Thepresent writer has long contended that the marginal utility theory andthe Marxian labor-value theory are likewise not antagonistic butcomplementary. [174] This is not the place to enter into the elaboratediscussion which this contention involves. Only a brief indication ofthe argument for the claim is here and now possible. First, as we haveseen, Marx is very careful to insist that utility is essential to value, and that the utility must be a social utility. But social utility doesnot come of itself, from the skies or elsewhere. It is, so far as thevast majority of commodities is concerned, the product of labor. It istrue that the value of a thing is never independent of its socialutility; it is likewise true that this is determined by the social labornecessary to the reproduction of that utility. To regard the twotheories as antagonistic, it seems to be necessary to say either (1)that the quantity of social labor necessary to produce certaincommodities determines their value, utterly regardless of the amount oftheir social utility, or (2) that we estimate the social utility ofcommodities, estimate what we are willing to pay for them, utterlyregardless of the labor necessary, on an average, for theirreproduction. The latter contention would be absurd, and the formerwould involve the abandonment of the initial premises of the Marxiantheory, contained in his definition of a commodity. In so far as thebasis of social utility is the social labor necessary for itsproduction, the labor-value theory of Marx may be said, I think, toinclude the marginal utility law, as one of the forms in which itoperates. 

V

Labor, the source and determinant of value, has, _per se_, no value. Only when it is embodied in certain forms has it any value. If a manlabors hard digging holes and refilling them, his labor has no value. What the capitalist buys is not labor, but labor-power. Wages in generalis a form of payment for a given amount of labor-power, measured byduration and skill. The laborer sells brain and muscle power, which isthus placed at the temporary disposal of the capitalist to be used uplike any other commodity that he buys. The philosopher Hobbes, in his"Leviathan, " clearly anticipated Marx in thus distinguishing betweenlabor and laboring power in the saying, "_The value or worth of a man is... So much as would be given for the Use of his Power_. " The power tolabor assumes the commodity form, being at once a use-value and anexchange-value. At first sight it appears that piecework is an exceptionto the general rule that the capitalist buys labor-power and not laboritself. It seems that when piece-wages are paid it is not the machine, the living labor-power, but the product of the machine, labor actuallyperformed, that is bought. Superficially, this is so, of course, but itdoes not affect the principle laid down, because, as a matter of fact, the piecework system is only one of the means used to secure a maximumof labor-power. The average output of pieceworkers in a trade alwaystends to become the standard output for the time-workers, and, on theother hand, the average wage of pieceworkers tends to keep very near thestandard of time-wages. 

Now, as a commodity, labor-power is subject to the same laws as allother commodities. Its price, wages, fluctuates just as the price of allother commodities does, and bears the same relation to its value. It maybe temporarily affected by the preponderance of supply over demand, orof demand over supply; it may be made the subject of monopoly in certaincases. There is, therefore, no such thing as an "iron law" of wages, anymore than there is an "iron law" of prices for other commodities. Lassalle took the Ricardian law of wages and, by means of hischaracteristic exaggeration, distorted it out of all semblance to truth. Says Ricardo: "The natural price of labor, therefore, depends on theprice of the food, necessaries, and conveniences required for thesupport of the laborer and his family. With a rise in the price of foodand necessaries, the natural price of labor will rise; with the fall intheir price, the natural price of labor will fall. "[175] This Lassallemade the basis of his famous "iron law, " according to which 96 per centof the wage-workers were precluded from improving their economicposition. Lassalle's chief fault lay in that he made no allowancewhatever for either state interference, or the organized influence ofthe workers themselves. He also attaches too little importance to whatMarx calls the traditional standards of living. [176] It is neverthelesstrue that the price of labor-power, wages, tends to approximate itsvalue, just as the price of all other commodities tends, under normalconditions, to approximate their value. 

And just as the value of other commodities is determined by the amountof social labor necessary on an average for their reproduction, so thevalue of labor-power is likewise determined. Wages tend to a point atwhich they will cover the average cost of the necessary means ofsubsistence for the workers and their families, in any given time andplace, under the conditions and according to the standards of livinggenerally prevailing. Trade union action, for example, may force wagesabove that point, or undue stress in the competitive labor market mayforce wages below it. While, however, a trade union may bring about whatis virtually a monopoly-price for the labor-power of its members, thereis always a counter tendency in the other direction, sometimes even tothe lowering of the standard of subsistence itself to the minimum ofthings required for physical existence. 

To class human labor-power with pig iron as a commodity, subject to thesame laws, may at first seem fantastic to the reader, but a carefulsurvey of the facts will fully justify the classification. The capacityof the worker to labor depends upon his securing certain things; hislabor-power has to be reproduced from day to day, for which a certainsupply of food, clothing, and other necessities of life is essential. Even with these supplied constantly, the worker sooner or later wearsout and dies. If the race is not to be extinguished, a certain supply ofthe necessities of life must be provided for the children during theyears of their development to the point where their labor-power becomesmarketable. The average cost of production in the case of labor-powerincludes, therefore, the necessities for a wife and family as well asfor the individual worker. Far from being the iron law Lassalleimagined, this law of wages is one of considerable elasticity. Thestandard of living itself, far from being a fixed thing, determined onlyby the necessities of physical existence, varies according tooccupational groups; to localities sometimes, as a result of historicaldevelopment; to nationality and race, as a result of tradition; to thegeneral standard of intelligence, and the degree in which the workersare organized for the promotion of their economic interests. The advancein the culture of the people as a whole, expressing itself inlegislation for compulsory education, the abolition of child labor, improvement of housing and general sanitary conditions, and so on, tends to raise the standard of living. Finally, the fluctuations in theprice of labor-power due to the operation of the law of supply anddemand are much more important than Lassalle imagined. 

This living commodity, labor-power, differs in one remarkable way fromall other commodities, in that when it is used up in the process of theproduction of other commodities in which it is embodied, it creates newvalue in the process of being used up, and embodies that new value inthe commodity it assists to produce. In the case of raw materials andmachinery this is not so. In the manufacture of tables, for example, thewood used up is transformed into tables, embodied in them, but the woodhas added nothing to its own value. The same is true of machinery. Butwith human labor-power it is otherwise. The capitalist buys from thelaborer his labor-power at its full value as a commodity. But thelaborer, in embodying that labor-power in some concrete form, createsmore value than his wages represents. For the commodity he sells, his_power_ to labor, he has been paid its full value, namely, the sociallabor-cost of its production; but that power may be capable of producingthe equivalent of twice its own cost of production. This is the centralidea of the famous and much-misunderstood Marxian theory ofsurplus-value, by which the method of capitalism, the exploitation ofthe wage-workers, and the resulting class antagonisms of the system areexplained. This theory becomes the groundwork of all the social theoriesand movements protesting against and seeking to end the exploitation ofthe laboring masses. To understand it is, therefore, of paramountimportance. 

VI

As we have seen in an earlier chapter, Marx was not the first torecognize that the secret of capitalism, the object of capitalistindustry, is the extraction of surplus-value from the labor-power of theworker. Nor was he the first to use the term. By no means a happy term, since it adds to the difficulty of comprehending the meaning and natureof _value_, Marx took it from the current economic discussion of histime as a term already fairly well understood. What we owe to the geniusof Marx is an explanation of the manner in which surplus-value isextracted by the capitalist from the labor-power of the worker, and thepart it plays in capitalist society. 

The essence of the theory can be very briefly stated, but itsdemonstration involves, naturally, a more extensive study. Under normalconditions, the worker will produce a value equivalent to his means ofsubsistence, or to the wages actually paid to him, in a very smallnumber of hours. If he owned and controlled the means ofproduction, --land, machinery, raw materials, and so on, --he would, therefore, need to work only so many hours as the production of thenecessities of life for himself and his family required. But the laborerin capitalist society does not own the means of production, thatcondition being quite incompatible with machine production upon a largescale. A separation of the worker from the ownership of the means ofproduction has taken place as one of the inevitable results ofindustrial evolution. So the laborer must sell the only commodity he hasto sell, namely, his labor-power. He sells the utility of that commodityto the capitalist for its exchange-value, or market price. Like anyother commodity, the utility of labor-power, its use-value, belongs tothe purchaser, the capitalist. It is his to use as he sees fit. He hasit used to produce other commodities which he in turn hopes to sell--hasthe labor-power used up in the manufacture of other commodities, just ashe has the raw materials used up. He buys, for example, the labor-powerof the workers for a day of ten hours. In five hours, say, the workercreates value equivalent to his wages, but he does not cease at thatpoint. He goes on working for another five hours, thus producing in aday double the amount of his wages, the exchange-value of thelabor-power he sold the capitalist. Thus the capitalist, having paidwages equivalent to the product of five hours, receives the product often hours. This balance represents the surplus-value (_Mehrwerth_). 

This takes place all through industry. If the capitalist employs athousand workers under these conditions, each day he receives theproduct of five thousand hours over and above the product actually paidfor. This constitutes his income. If the capitalist owned the land, machinery, and raw materials, absolutely, without incumbrances of anykind, the whole of that surplus-value would, naturally, belong to him. But as a general rule this is not the case. He rents the land and mustpay rent to the landlord, or he works upon borrowed capital and must payinterest upon loans, so that the surplus-value extracted from thelaborer must be divided into rent, interest, and profit. But how thesurplus-value is divided among landlords, moneylenders, creditors, speculators, and actual employers is a matter of absolutely no moment tothe workers as a class. That is why such movements as that representedby the followers of Henry George fail to vitally interest the workingclass. [177] The division of the surplus-value wrung from the toil of theworkers gives rise to much quarrel and strife within the ranks of theexploiting class, but the working class recognizes, and vaguely andinstinctively feels where it does not clearly recognize, that it has nointerest in these quarrels. All that interests it vitally is how tolessen the extent of the exploitation to which it is subjected, and howultimately to end that exploitation altogether. That is the objective ofthe movement for the socialization of the means of life. 

Such, briefly stated, is the theory. We may illustrate it by thefollowing example: Let us say the average cost of a day's subsistence isthe product of five hours' social labor, which is represented by a wageof $1 per day. In a factory there are 1000 workers. Their labor-powerthey have sold at its exchange value, $1 per day per man, a total of$1000. They use up $1000 worth of labor-power, then. They also use up$1000 worth of raw material and wear out the plant to the extent of $100in the course of their work. Now, instead of working five hours each, that being the amount of time necessary to reproduce the value of theirwages, as above described, they all work ten hours. Thus, in place ofthe $1000 they received as wages for the labor-_power_ they sold, theycreate labor _products_, valued at just twice that sum, $2000. Accordingto our suppositions, therefore, the gross value of the day's productwill be $3100, the whole of it belonging to the capitalist, for thesimple and sufficient reason that he bought and paid for, at their fullvalue as commodities, all the elements entering into its production, themachinery, materials, and labor-power. The capitalist pays, --

 For labor-power $1000 For materials 1000 For repairs and replacement of machinery 100 ----- He receives, for the gross product 3100 $2100 The surplus-value is, therefore 1000

and this sum is the fund from which rent, interests, and profits must bepaid. 

It will be observed that there is no moral condemnation of thecapitalist involved in this illustration. He simply buys the commodity, labor-power, at its full market price, as in the case of all othercommodities. No ethical argument enters into it at all. It is veryevident, however, that the interest of the capitalist will be to get asmuch surplus-value as possible, by buying labor-power at the lowestprice possible, prolonging the working day, and intensifying theproductivity of the labor-power he buys, while the interest of theworkman will be equally against these things. Here we have the cause ofclass antagonism--not in the speeches of agitators, but in the facts ofindustrial life. 

This is the Marxian theory of surplus-value in a nutshell. Rent, interest, and profit, the three great divisions of capitalist incomeinto which this surplus-value is divided, are thus traced to theexploitation of labor, resting fundamentally upon the ownership by theexploiting class of the means of production. Other economists, bothbefore and since Marx, have tried to explain the source of capitalistincome in very different ways. An early theory was that profitoriginates in exchange, through "buying cheap and selling dear. " Thatthis is so in the case of individual traders is obvious. If A sells to Bcommodities above their value, or buys commodities from him below theirvalue, it is plain that he gains by it. But it is equally plain that Bloses. If one group of capitalists gains what another group loses, thegains and losses balance each other; there is no gain to the capitalistclass as a whole. Yet that is precisely what occurs--the capitalistclass as a whole does gain, and gain enormously, despite the losses ofindividual members of that class. It is that gain to the great body ofcapitalists, that general increase in their wealth, which must beaccounted for, and which exchange cannot explain. Only when we think ofthe capitalist class buying labor-power from outside its own ranks, generally at its natural value, and using it, is the problem solved. Thecommodity which the capitalist buys creates a value greater than its ownin being used up. 

The theory that profit is the wages of risk is answerable insubstantially the same way. It does not in any way explain the increasein the aggregate wealth of the capitalist class to say that theindividual capitalist must have a chance to receive interest upon hismoney in order to induce him to turn it into capital, to hazard losingit wholly or in part. While the theory of risk helps to explain somefeatures of capitalism, the changes in the flow of capital into certainforms of investment, and, to some small extent, the commercial crisesincidental thereto, it does not explain the vital problem, the source ofcapitalist income. The chances of gain, as a premium for the risksinvolved, explain satisfactorily enough the action of the gambler whenhe enters into a game of roulette or faro. It cannot be said, however, that the aggregate wealth of the gamblers is increased by playingroulette or faro. Then, too, the risks of the laborers are vastly morevital than those of the capitalist. Yet the premium for their risks ofhealth and life itself does not appear, unless, indeed, it be in theirwages, in which case the most superficial glance at our industrialstatistics will show that wages are by no means highest in thoseoccupations where the risks are greatest and most numerous. Further, thewages of the risks for capitalists and laborers alike are drawn from thesame source, the product of the laborers' toil. 

To consider, even briefly, all the varied theories of surplus-valueother than these would be a prolonged, dull, and profitless task. Thetheory of abstinence, that profit is the just reward of the capitalistfor saving part of his wealth and using it as a means of production, isanswerable by _a priori_ arguments and by a vast volume of facts. Abstinence obviously produces nothing; it can only save the wealthalready produced by labor, and no automatic increase of that saved-upwealth is possible. If it is to increase without the labor of its owner, it can only be through the exploitation of the labor of others, so thatthe abstinence theory in no manner controverts the Marxian position. Onthe other hand, we see that those whose wealth increases most rapidlyare not given to frugality or abstinence by any means. It may, certainly, be possible for an individual to save enough by practicingfrugality and abstinence to enable him to invest in some profitableenterprise, but the source of his profit is not his abstinence. Thatmust be sought elsewhere. Abstinence may provide him with the means fortaking the profit, but the profit itself must come from the valuecreated by human labor-power over and above its cost of production. 

Still less satisfactory is the idea that surplus-value is nothing morethan the "wages of superintendence, " or the "rent of ability. " Thistheory has been advocated with much specious argument. Essentially itinvolves the contention that there is no distinction between wages andprofits, or between capitalists and laborers; that the capitalist is aworker, and his profits simply wages for his useful and highly importantwork of directing industry. It is a bold theory with a very small basisof fact. Whoever honestly considers it, must, one would think, see thatit is both absurd and untrue. Not only is the larger part of industryto-day managed by salaried employees who have no part, or only a veryinsignificant part, in the ownership of the concerns they manage, butthe profits are distributed among shareholders who, as shareholders, have never contributed service of any kind to the industries in whichthey are shareholders. Whatever services are performed, even by thefigure-head "dummy" directors of companies, are paid for before profitsare considered at all. This is the invincible answer to such criticismsas that of Mr. Mallock, that Marx and his followers have not recognized"the functions of the directive ability of the few. " When all thesalaries of the directing "few" have been paid, as well as the wages ofthe many, and the cost of all materials and maintenance of machinery, there remains a surplus to be distributed among those who belong neitherto the "laboring many" nor the "directing few. " That profit Mr. Mallockcannot explain away. Marx himself, in "Capital, " called attention to the"directing ability of the few, " quite as clearly as Mr. Mallock hasdone. He first shows how the "collective power of masses" is really anew creation; that it involves a special kind of leadership, ordirecting authority, just as an orchestra does; then he proceeds topoint out the development of a special class of supervisors anddirectors of industry, "a special kind of wage laborer.... The _work ofsupervision becomes their established and exclusive function_. "[178]Socialists, contrary to Mr. Mallock, have not overlooked the functionexercised by the directing few, but they have pointed out that whenthese have been paid, their salaries being sometimes almost fabulous, there is still a surplus-value to be distributed among those who havenot shared in the production, either as mental or manual workers. As Mr. Algernon Lee says:--

"The profits produced in many American mills, factories, mines, andrailway systems go in part to Englishmen or Belgians or Germans whonever set foot in America, and who obviously can have no share in eventhe mental labor of direction. A certificate of stock may belong to achild, to a maniac, to an imbecile, to a prisoner behind the bars, andit draws profit for its owner just the same. Stocks and bonds may liefor months or years in a safe-deposit vault, while an estate is beingdisputed, before their ownership is determined; but whoever is declaredto be the owner gets the dividends and interest "earned" during all thattime. "[179]

It is an easy task to set up imaginary figures labeled "Marxism, " andthen to demolish them by learned argument--but the occupation is asfruitless as it is easy. It remains the one central fact of capitalism, however, that a surplus-value is created by the working class and takenby the exploiting class, from which develops the class struggle of ourtime. 

FOOTNOTES:

[163] _The People's Marx_, by Gabriel Deville, page 288. 

[164] _Capital_, Vol. I, Kerr edition, page 41. 

[165] Professor J. S. Nicholson, a rather pretentious critic of Marx, has called sunshine a commodity because of its utility, _Elements ofPolitical Economy_, page 24. Upon the same ground, the song of theskylark and the sound of ocean waves might be called commodities. Suchuse of language serves for nothing but the obscuring of thought. 

[166] William Petty, _A Treatise on Taxes and Constitutions_ (1662), pages 31-32. 

[167] _The Wealth of Nations_, Vol. I, Chapters V-VI. 

[168] Benjamin Franklin, _Remarks and Facts Relative to the AmericanPaper Money_ (1764), page 267. 

Marx thus speaks of Franklin as an economist: "The first sensibleanalysis of exchange-value as labor-time, made so clear as to seemalmost commonplace, is to be found in the work of a man of the NewWorld, where the bourgeois relations of production, imported togetherwith their representatives, sprouted rapidly in a soil which made up itslack of historical traditions with a surplus of _humus_. That man wasBenjamin Franklin, who formulated the fundamental law of modernpolitical economy in his first work, which he wrote when a mere youth(_A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency_), and published in 1721. " _A Contribution to the Critique of PoliticalEconomy_, by Karl Marx, English translation by N. I. Stone, 1894, page62. 

[169] David Ricardo, _Principles of Political Economy and Taxation_, Chapter I, § III. 

[170] _Wealth of Nations_, Book I, Chapter X. 

[171] _Principles of Political Economy and Taxation_, Chapter I, Sec. 1, § 4. 

[172] See "The Final Futility of Final Utility, " in H. M. Hyndman's_Economics of Socialism_, for a remarkable criticism of the "finalutility" theory, showing its identity with the doctrine of supply anddemand as the basis of value. 

I refer to the theory of final or marginal utility as the "so-calledAustrian theory" for the purpose, mainly, or calling attention to thefact that, as Professor Seligman has ably and clearly demonstrated, itwas conceived and excellently stated by W. F. Lloyd, Professor ofPolitical Economy at Oxford, in 1833. (See the paper, _On Some NeglectedBritish Economists_, in the _Economic Journal_, V, xiii, pages 357-363. )This was two decades before Gossen and a generation earlier than Mengerand Jevons. In view of this fact, the criticism of Marx for his lack oforiginality by members of the "Austrian" school is rather amusing. 

[173] _Principles of Economics_, by Edwin R. A. Seligman (1905), page198. 

[174] Cf. , for instance, my little volume, in the _Standard SocialistSeries_ (Kerr), entitled _Capitalist and Laborer_; Part II, _ModernSocialism_, page 112. 

[175] _Principles of Political Economy and Taxation_, Chapter V, § 35. 

[176] _Value, Price, and Profit_, by Karl Marx, Chapter XIV. 

[177] It is worthy of note that the taxation of land values, commonlyassociated with the name of Henry George, was advocated as a palliativein the _Communist Manifesto_ of Marx and Engels. 

[178] _Capital_, by Karl Marx, Vol. I, Chapter XIII, of Part IV. 

[179] _The Worker_ (New York), February 5, 1905. 

CHAPTER IX

OUTLINES OF THE SOCIALIST STATE

I

Many persons who have thought of Socialism as a scheme, the plan of anew social edifice, have been disappointed not to find in all thevoluminous writings of Marx any detailed description of such a plan, anyforecast of the future. But when they have grasped the fundamentalprinciples of the Marxian system of thought, they realize that it wouldbe absurd to attempt to give detailed specifications of the Socialiststate. As the Socialist movement has outgrown the influence of the earlyUtopians, its adherents have abandoned the habit of speculating upon thepractical application of Socialist principles in future society. Theformulation of schemes, more or less detailed, has given place to firminsistence that Socialism must be regarded as a principle, namely, theefficient organization of wealth production and distribution to the endthat the exploitation of the wealth producers by a privileged class maybe rendered impossible. Whatever contributes to that end is acontribution to the fulfillment of the Socialist ideal. 

Still, it is natural and inevitable that earnest Socialists andstudents of Socialism should seek something more tangible by way of adescription of the future state than the bald statement that it will befree from the struggle between exploiting and exploited classes. Thequestion is, can we go further in our attempt to scan the future withoutentering the realms of Utopian speculation? If Socialism is, objectivelyconsidered, a state of society which is being developed in the womb ofthe present, are there any signs by which its peculiar form and spirit, as distinguished from the form and spirit of the present, may bevisualized? Within certain limits, an affirmative answer seems possibleto each of these questions. There are certain fundamental principleswhich may be said to be essential to the existence of Socialist society. Without them, the Socialist state cannot exist. Regardless of the factthat Karl Marx never attempted to describe his ideal, to give such adescription of his concept of the next epoch in evolution as wouldenable us to compare it with the present and to measure the difference, it is probable that every Socialist makes, privately at least, his ownforecast of the manner in which the new society must shape itself. 

There is nothing Utopian or fantastic in trying to ascertain thetendencies of economic development; nothing unscientific in trying toread out of the pages of social evolution such lessons as may becontained therein. So long as we bear in mind that our forecasts mustnot take the form of plans for the arbitrary shaping of the future, specifications of the Coöperative Commonwealth, but that they must, onthe contrary, be based upon the facts of life--not abstract principlesborn in the heart's desire--and attempt to discern the tendencies ofsocial and economic evolution, we are upon safe ground. Such forecastsmay indeed be helpful, not only in so far as they provide us with a moreor less concrete picture of the ideal to be aimed at, but also, and evenmore important, in that they at once enable us to gauge from time totime the progress made by society toward the realization of the ideal, and to formulate our policies most effectively. Especially as there arecertain fundamental principles essential to the existence of a Socialiststate, we may take these and correlate them, and these principles, together with our estimate of economic tendencies, drawn from the factsof the present, may provide us with a suggestive and approximate outlineof the Socialist society of the future. So far we may proceed with fullscientific sanction; beyond are the realms of fancy and dream, theElysian Fields of Utopia. [180] We must not set about our task with themental attitude so well displayed by the yearning of Omar--

 "Ah Love! could you and I with Him conspire To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire, Would not we shatter it to bits--and then Remold it nearer to the Heart's Desire!"

From that spirit only vain dreams and fantastic vagaries can ever come. What we must bear in mind is that the social fabric of to-morrow, likethat of yesterday, whose ruins we contemplate to-day, will not springup, complete, in response to our will, but will grow out of socialexperience and needs. 

II

One of the greatest and most lamentable errors in connection with thepropaganda of modern Socialism has been the assumption of its friends, in many instances, and its foes, in most instances, that Socialism andIndividualism are entirely antithetical concepts. Infinite confusion hasbeen caused by setting the two against each other. Society consists ofan aggregation of individuals, but it is something more than that injust the same sense as a house is something more than an aggregation ofbricks. It is an organism, though as yet an imperfectly developed one. While the units of which it is composed have distinct and independentlives within certain limits, they are, outside of those limits, interdependent and inter-related. Man is governed by two great forces. On the one hand, he is essentially an egoist, ever striving to attainindividual freedom; on the other hand, he is a social animal, everseeking association and avoiding isolation. This duality expressesitself in the life of society. There is a struggle between its membersmotived by the desire for individual expression and gain; and, alongsideof it, a sense of solidarity, a movement to mutual, reciprocalrelations, motived by the gregarian instinct. All social life isnecessarily an oscillation between these two motives. The social problemin its last analysis is nothing more than the problem of combining andharmonizing social and individual interests and actions springingtherefrom. 

In dealing with this social problem, the problem of how to secureharmony of social and individual interests and actions, it is necessaryfirst of all to recognize that both motives are equally important andnecessary agents of human progress. The idea largely prevails thatSocialists ignore the individual motive and consider only the socialmotive, just as the ultra-individualists have erred in an oppositediscrimination. The Socialist ideal has been conceived to be a greatbureaucracy. Mr. Anstey gave humorous and vivid expression to this ideain _Punch_ some years ago, when he represented the citizens of theSocialist state as being all clothed alike, known only by numbers, strangers to all the joys of family life, plodding through theirallotted tasks under a race of hated bureaucrats, and having the solaceof chewing gum in their leisure time as a specially paternal provision. Some such mental picture must have inspired Herbert Spencer's "ComingSlavery, " and it must be confessed that the early forms of Socialismwhich consisted mainly of detailed plans of coöperative commonwealthsafforded some excuse for the idea. Most intelligent Socialists, ifcalled upon to choose between them, would probably prefer to live inThibet under a personal despotism, rather than under the hierarchies ofmost of the imaginary commonwealths which Utopian Socialists havedepicted. 

Even in the later propaganda of the modern political Socialist movement, there has been more than enough justification for those who regardSocialism as impossible except under a great bureaucracy. In numberlessSocialist programmes and addresses Socialism has been defined as meaning"The social ownership and control of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange. " Critics of Socialism are not to beseriously blamed if they take such "definitions" at their face value andinterpret them quite literally. It is not difficult to see that in orderto place "all means of production, distribution, and exchange" undersocial ownership and control, the creation of such a bureaucracy as theworld has never seen would be necessary. A needle is a means ofproduction quite as much as an electric power machine in a factory is, the difference being in their degrees of efficiency. A jackknife is, likewise, in certain circumstances, a means of production, just assurely as a powerful planing machine is, the difference being in degreesof efficiency. So a market basket is a means of distribution quite assurely as an ocean steamship is; a wheelbarrow quite as much as alocomotive. They differ in degrees of efficiency, that is all. The ideathat the housewife in the future, when she wants to sew a button upon agarment, will be obliged to go to some department and "take out" aneedle, having it properly checked in the communal accounts, and beingresponsible for its return, is, of course, worthy only of opera bouffe. So is the notion of the state owning wheelbarrows and market baskets andmaking their private ownership illegal. "The socialization of _all_ themeans of production, distribution, and exchange, " literally interpreted, is folly. But none of those using the phrase must be regarded asseriously contemplating its literal interpretation. For many years thephrase was included in the statement of its "Object" by the EnglishSocial Democratic Federation, and even now it appears in a slightlymodified form, the word "all" being omitted, [181] perhaps because of itstautological character. For several years the writer was a member of theFederation, actively engaged in the propaganda, and how we spent much ofour time explaining to popular audiences in halls and upon streetcorners that the socialization of jackknives, needles, sewing machines, market baskets, beer mugs, frying pans, and toothpicks was not our aim, is a merry memory. 

When this is understood, the nightmare of the bureaucracy of Socialismvanishes. It is no longer necessary to fret ourselves asking how agovernment is to own and manage everything without making slaves of itscitizens. The question propounded by that venerable and distinguishedCanadian scholar, Professor Goldwin Smith, [182] whether a government canbe devised which shall hold all the instruments of production, distribute to the citizens their tasks, pick out inventors, philosophers, artists, and laborers, and set them to work, withoutdestroying personal liberty, loses its force when it is remembered thatSocialism involves no such necessity. 

The Socialist ideal may be said to be a form of social organization inwhich every individual will enjoy the greatest possible amount offreedom for self-development and expression; and in which socialauthority will be reduced to the minimum necessary for the preservationand insurance of that right to all individuals. There is anincontestable right of the individual to full and free self-developmentand expression so long as no other individual's right to a like freedomis infringed upon. No individual right can be an _absolute_ right in asociety, but must be subject to such restrictions as may be necessary tosafeguard the like right of every other individual, and of society as awhole. _Absolute_ personal liberty is not possible; to grant it to anyone individual would be equivalent to denying it to others. If, in acertain community, a need is commonly felt for a system of drainage toprotect the citizens against the perils of a possible outbreak oftyphoid or some other epidemic disease, and all the citizens agree upona scheme except two or three, who, in the name of personal liberty, declare that their property must not be touched, what is to be done? Ifthe citizens, out of solicitude for the personal liberty of theobjecting individuals, abandon or modify their plans, is it not clearthat the liberty of the many has been sacrificed to the liberty of thefew, which is the essence of tyranny? Absolute individual liberty isincompatible with social liberty. The liberty of each must, in Mill'sphrase, be bounded by the like liberty of all. Absolute personal libertyis a chimera, a delusion. 

Even the Anarchist must come to a realization of the fact that libertyis not an absolute, but a relative and limited, right. Kropotkin, forexample, realizes that, even under Anarchism, any individual who didnot live up to his obligations, or who persisted in conducting himselfin a manner obnoxious or injurious to the community, would have to beexpelled. [183] This is very like Spencer's practical abandonment of thedoctrine of _laissez faire_ individualism. Says he: "Many facts haveshown us that while the individual man has acquired liberty as a citizenand greater religious liberty, he has also acquired greater liberty inrespect of his occupations; and here we see that he has simultaneouslyacquired greater liberty of combination for industrial purposes. Indeed, in conformity with the universal law of rhythm, _there has been a changefrom excess of restriction to deficiency of restriction_. As is impliedby legislation now pending, the facilities for forming companies andraising compound capitals have been too great. "[184] Here is a verydefinite confession of the insufficiency of natural law, the failure ofthe _laissez faire_ theory, and a virtual appeal for restrictive andcoercive legislation. 

This is inevitable. The dual forces which serve as the motives ofindividual and collective action, spring, unquestionably, from the factthat individuals are at once alike and unlike, equal and unequal. Alikein our needs of certain fundamental necessities, such as food, clothing, shelter, coöperation for producing these necessities, forprotection from foes, human and other, we are unlike in tastes, appetites, temperaments, character, will, and so on, till our diversitybecomes as great and as general as our likeness. Now, the problem is toinsure equal opportunities of full development to all these diverselyconstituted and endowed individuals, and, at the same time, to maintainthe principle of equal obligations to society on the part of everyindividual. This is the problem of social justice: to insure to each thesame social opportunities, to secure from each a recognition of the sameobligations toward all. The basic principle of the Socialist state mustbe justice; no privileges or favors can be extended to individuals orgroups of individuals. 

III

Politically, the organization of the Socialist state must be democratic. Socialism without democracy is as impossible as a shadow without light. The word "Socialism" applied to schemes of paternalism, and togovernment ownership when the vital principle of democracy is lacking, is a misnomer. As with Peter Bell--

 "A primrose by a river's brim, A yellow primrose was to him"

and nothing more than that, so there are many persons to whom Socialismsignifies nothing more than government ownership. Yet it ought to beperfectly clear that Russia, with her state-owned railways, and liquorand other monopolies, is no nearer Socialism than the United States. Thesame applies to Germany with her state railways. Externally similar inone respect to Socialism, they radically differ. In so far as theyprepare the necessary forms for Socialism, all examples of publicownership may be said to be "socialistic, " or making for Socialism. Whatthey lack is a spiritual quality rather than a mechanical one. They arenot democratic. Socialism is political democracy allied to industrialdemocracy. 

Justice requires that the legislative power of society rest uponuniversal adult suffrage, the political equality of all men and women, except lunatics and criminals. It is manifestly unjust to exactobedience to the laws from those who have had no share in making themand can have no share in altering them. Of course, there are exceptionsto this principle. We except (1) minors, children not yet arrived at theage of responsibility agreed upon by the citizens; (2) lunatics andcertain classes of criminals; (3) aliens, non-citizens temporarilyresident in the state. 

Democracy in the sense of popular self-government, the "government ofthe people, by the people, and for the people, " of which politicalrhetoricians boast, is only approximately attainable in any society. While all can equally participate in the legislative power, all cannotparticipate directly in the administrative power, and it becomesnecessary, therefore, to adopt the principle of delegated authority, representative government. But care must be taken to preserve a maximumof power in the hands of the people. In this respect the United StatesConstitution is defective. It is not, and was not intended by itsframers to be, a democratic instrument, [185] and we are vainly tryingto-day to make democratic government through an undemocratic medium. Thepolitical democracy of the Socialist state must be real, keeping thepower of government in the hands of the people. 

How is this to be done? Direct legislation by the people might berealized through the adoption of the principles of popular initiativeand referendum. Or, if representative legislative bodies should bedeemed best, these measures, together with proportional representationand the right of recall, might be adopted. There is no apparent reasonwhy _all_ legislation, except temporary legislation as in war time, famine, plague, and such abnormal conditions, could not be directlyinitiated and enacted, leaving only the just and proper enforcement ofthe law to delegated authority. In practically all the politicalprogrammes of Socialist parties throughout the world, these principlesare included at the present time; not merely as means to secure agreater degree of political democracy within the existing social state, but also, and primarily, to prepare the required political framework ofdemocracy for the industrial commonwealth of the future. 

The great problem for such a society, politically speaking, consists inchoosing wisely the trustees of delegated power and authority, andseeing that they justly and wisely use it for the common good, withoutabuse, either for the profit of themselves or their friends, and withoutprejudice to any portion of society. Will there be abuses? Will notpolitical manipulators and bosses betray their trusts? To thesequestions, and all other questions of a like nature, the Socialist canonly give one answer, namely, that there is no such a thing as an"automatic democracy, " that eternal vigilance will be the price ofliberty under Socialism as it has ever been. There can be no othersafeguard against the usurpation of power than the popular will andconscience ever alert upon the watch-towers. With political machinery soresponsive to the popular will when it is asserted and an alert andvigilant electorate, political democracy attains its maximumdevelopment. Socialism requires that development. 

IV

With these general principles prevised, we may consider, briefly, therespective rights of the individual and of society. The rights of theindividual may be summarized as follows: There must be freedom ofmovement, including the right to withdraw from the domain of thegovernment, to migrate at will to other territories. Freedom of movementis a fundamental condition of personal liberty, but it is easy to seethat it cannot be made an absolute right. Quarantine laws, for socialprotection, for example, may seriously inconvenience the individual, butbe imperatively necessary for all that. There must be immunity fromarrest, except for infringing others' rights, with compensation of somekind for improper arrest; respect of the privacy of domicile andcorrespondence; full liberty of dress, subject to decency; freedom ofutterance, whether by speech or publication, subject only to theprotection of others from insult, injury, or interference with theirequal liberties, the individual being held responsible to society forthe proper use of that right. Freedom of the individual in all thatpertains to art, science, philosophy, and religion, and their teaching, or propaganda, is essential. The state can have nothing to do with thesematters, they belong to the personal life alone. [186] Art, science, philosophy, and religion cannot be protected by any authority of thestate, nor is such authority needed. 

Subject to the ultimate control of society, certainly, but normally freefrom collective authority and control, these may be regarded asimperative rights of the individual. Doubtless many Socialists, incommon with many Individualists, would considerably extend the list. Some, for instance, would include the right to possess and bear arms forthe defense of person and property. On the other hand, it might beobjected with good show of reason by other Socialists that such a rightmust always be liable to abuses imperiling the peace of society, andthat the same ends would be served more surely if individual armamentwere made impossible. Again, some Socialists, like some Individualists, would include in the category of private acts outside the sphere of lawand social authority the union of the sexes. They would do away withlegal intervention in marriage and make it and the parental relationexclusively a private concern. On the other hand, probably anoverwhelming majority of Socialists would object. They would insist thatthe state must, in the interest of the children, and for its ownself-preservation, assume certain responsibilities for, and exercise acertain control over, all marriages. They would have the state insistupon such conditions as mature age, freedom from dangerous diseases andphysical defects. While believing that under Socialism marriage would nolonger be subject to economic motives, --matrimonial markets for titlesand fortunes no longer existing, --and that the maximum of personalfreedom together with the minimum of social authority would be possiblein the union of the sexes, they would still insist upon the necessity ofthat minimum of legal control. 

The abolition of the legal marriage tie, and the substitution thereforof voluntary sex union, which so many people believe to be part of theSocialist programme, is not only not a part of that programme, but isprobably condemned by more than ninety-five per cent of the Socialistsof the world, and favored by no appreciable proportion of Socialistsmore than non-Socialists. There is no such thing as a Socialist view ofmarriage, any more than there is a Republican or Democratic view ofmarriage; or any more than there is a Socialist view of vaccination, vivisection, vegetarianism, or homeopathy. The same may be said of thedrink evil and tobacco smoking. Some Socialists would prohibit bothsmoking and drinking; others would permit smoking, but prohibit themanufacture of intoxicating liquors; most Socialists recognize theevils, especially of drunkenness, but believe that it would be foolishat this time to state in what manner the evils must be dealt with by theSocialist state. 

Our hasty summary by no means exhausts the category of personalliberties, nor does it rigidly define such liberties. To presume to dothat would be a piece of charlatanry, social quackery of the worst type. It is not for the Socialist of to-day to determine what the citizens ofa generation hence shall do. The citizens of the future, like thecitizens of to-day, will be living human beings, not mere automatons;they will not accept places and forms imposed upon them, but make theirown. The object of this phase of our discussion is simply to show thatindividual freedom would by no means be crushed out of existence by theSocialist state. The intolerable bureaucracy of collectivism is whollyan imaginary evil. There is nothing in the nature of Socialism as it isunderstood to-day by its adherents which would prevent a wide extensionof personal liberties in the social régime. 

In the same general manner, we may summarize the principal functions ofthe state[187] as follows: the state has the right and power to organizeand control the economic system, comprehending in that term theproduction and distribution of all social wealth, wherever privateenterprise is dangerous to the social well-being, or is inefficient;the defense of the community from invasion, from fire, flood, famine, ordisease; the relations with other states, such as trade agreements, boundary treaties, and the like; the maintenance of order, including thejuridical and police systems in all their branches; and public educationin all its departments. It will be found that these five functionsinclude all the services which the state may properly undertake, andthat not one of them can safely be intrusted to private enterprise. Onthe other hand, it is not at all necessary to assume that the state musthave an _absolute monopoly_ of any one of these groups of functions inthe social organism. It would not be necessary, for example, for thestate to prohibit its citizens from entering into voluntary relationswith the citizens of other countries for the promotion of internationalfriendship, for trade reciprocity, and so on. Likewise, the juridicalfunctions being in the hands of the state would not prevent voluntaryarbitration; or the state guardianship of the public health preventvoluntary associations of citizens from taking measures to advance thehealth of their communities. On the contrary, all such efforts would beadvantageous to the state. Our study becomes, therefore, a study ofsocial physiology. 

The principle already postulated, that the state must undertake theproduction and distribution of wealth wherever private enterprise isdangerous, or inefficient, clarifies somewhat the problem of theindustrial organization of the Socialist régime, which is a vastly moredifficult problem than that of its political organization. Socialism byno means involves the suppression of all private industrial enterprises. Only when these fail in efficiency or result in injustice and inequalityof opportunities does socialization present itself. There are manypetty, subordinate industries, especially the making of articles ofluxury, which might be well allowed to remain in private hands, subjectonly to such general regulation as might be found necessary for theprotection of health and the public order. For example, suppose that thestate undertakes the production of shoes upon a large scale as a resultof the popular conviction that private enterprise in shoemaking iseither inefficient or injurious to society in that the manufacturersexploit the shoemakers on the one hand, and, through the establishmentof monopoly-prices, the consumers upon the other hand. The state thusbecomes the employer of shoeworkers and the vender of shoes to thecitizens. But A, being a fastidious citizen, does not like the factoryproduct of the state any more than he formerly did the factory productof private enterprise. Under the old conditions, he used to employ B, ashoemaker who does not like factory work, a craftsman who likes to makethe whole shoe. Naturally, B was not willing to work for wagesmaterially lower than those he could earn in the factory. A willinglypaid enough for his hand-made shoes to insure B as much wages as hewould get in the factory. What reason could the state possibly have forforbidding the continuance of such an arrangement between two of itscitizens?

Or take the case of a farmer maintaining himself and family upon amodest acreage, by his own labor. He exploits no one, and the questionof inefficiency does not present itself as a public question, for thereason that there is plenty of farming land available, and anyinefficiency of the small farmer does not injure the community in anymanner. What object could the state have in taking away that farm andcompelling the farmer to work upon a communal, publicly owned andmanaged farm? Of course, the notion is perfectly absurd. [188] On theother hand, there are things, natural monopolies, which cannot be safelyleft to private enterprise. The same is true of large productive anddistributive enterprises upon which great masses of the people depend. Land ownership[189] and all that depends thereon, such as mining, transportation, and the like, must be collective. 

It will help us to get rid of the difficulty presented by pettyindustry and agriculture if we bear in mind that collective ownership isnot, as is commonly supposed, the supreme, fundamental condition ofSocialism. It is proposed only as a means to an end, not as the enditself. The wealth producers are exploited by a class whose source ofincome is the surplus-value extracted from the workers. Instinctively, the workers struggle against that exploitation, to reduce the amount ofsurplus-value taken by the capitalists to a minimum. To do away withthat exploitation social ownership and control is proposed. If the endcould be attained more speedily by other methods, those methods would beadopted. It follows, therefore, that to make collective property ofthings not used as a means of exploiting labor does not necessarily formpart of the Socialist programme. True, some such things might besocialized in response to an urgent demand for efficiency, but, ofnecessity, the struggle will be principally concerned with thesocializing of the means of production which are used as means ofexploitation by a class deriving its income from the surplus-valueproduced by another class. It is easy enough to see that, according tothis principle of differentiation, it would be necessary to socializethe railroad, but not at all necessary to socialize the wheelbarrow;while it would be necessary to socialize a clothing factory, it wouldnot be necessary to take away a woman's domestic sewing machine. Independent, self-employment, as in the case of a craftsman working inhis own shop with his own tools, or groups of workers workingcoöperatively, is quite consistent with Socialism. 

In the Socialist state, then, certain forms of private industry will betolerated, and perhaps even definitely encouraged by the state, but thegreat fundamental economic activities will be collectively managed. TheSocialist state will not be static and, consequently, what at first maybe regarded as being properly the subject of private enterprise maydevelop to an extent or in directions which necessitate itstransformation to the category of essentially social properties. Hence, it is not possible to give a list of things which would be socializedand another list of things which would remain private property, butperfectly possible to state the principle which must be the chiefdeterminant of the extent of socialization. With this principle in mindit is fairly possible to sketch the outlines at least of the economicdevelopment of the collectivist commonwealth; the conditions essentialto that stage of social evolution at which it will be possible andnatural to speak of capitalism as a past and outgrown stage, and of thepresent as the era of Socialism. 

Socialists, naturally, differ very materially upon this point. Probably, however, an overwhelming majority of the leaders of Socialist thought inEurope and this country would agree with the writer that it is fairlyprobable that the economic structure of the new society will include atleast the following measures of socialization: (1) Ownership of allnatural resources, such as land, mines, forests, waterways, oil wells, and so on; (2) operation of all the means of transportation andcommunication other than those of purely personal service; (3) operationof all industrial production involving large compound capitals andassociated labor, except where carried on by voluntary, democraticcoöperation, with the necessary regulation by the state; (4)organization of all labor essential to the public service, such as thebuilding of schools, hospitals, docks, roads, bridges, sewers, and thelike; the construction of all the machinery and plant requisite to thesocial production and distribution, and of things necessary for themaintenance of those engaged in such public services as the nationaldefense and all who are wards of the state; (5) a monopoly of themonetary and credit functions, including coinage, banking, mortgaging, and the extension of credit to private enterprise. 

With these economic activities undertaken by the state, a pure democracydiffering vitally from all the class-dominated states of history, private enterprise would by no means be excluded, but limited to anextent making the exploitation of labor and public needs and interestsfor private gain impossible. Socialism thus becomes the defender ofindividual liberty, not its enemy. 

V

As owner of the earth and all the major instruments of production andexchange, society would occupy a position which would enable it toinsure that the physical and mental benefits derived from its wealth, its natural resources, its collective experience, genius, and labor, were universalized as befits a democracy. It would be able to guaranteeto all its citizens the right to labor, through preventing private orclass monopolization of the land and instruments of production andsocial opportunities in general. It would be in a position to make everydevelopment from competition to monopoly the occasion for furthersocialization. Thus there would be no danger to the state in permitting, or even fostering, private industry within the limits described. As theorganizer of the vast body of labor essential to the operation of themain productive and distributive functions of society, and to the otherpublic services, the state would automatically, so to speak, set thestandards of income and leisure which private industry would becompelled, by competitive force, to observe. The regulation ofproduction, too, would be possible, and as a result the crises arisingfrom glutted markets would disappear. Finally, in the control of all thefunctions of credit, the state would effectually prevent theexploitation of the mass of the people through financial agencies, oneof the greatest evils of our present system. 

The application of the principles of democracy to the organization andadministration of these great economic services of production, exchange, and credit is a problem full of alluring invitations to speculation. "This that they call the Organization of Labor, " said Carlyle, "is theUniversal Vital Problem of the World. " This description applies not towhat we commonly mean by the "organization of labor, " namely, theorganization of the laborers in unions for class conflict, but to theorganization of the brain and muscle of the world to secure the greatestefficiency. This is the great central problem of the socialization ofindustry and the state, before which all other problems pale intoinsignificance. It is comparatively easy to picture an ideal politicaldemocracy; and the main structural economic organization of theSocialist régime, with its private and public functions more or lessclearly defined, is not very difficult of conception. These areforeshadowed with varying degrees of distinctness in present society, and the light of experience illumines the pathway before us. It is whenwe come to the methods of organization and management, the _spirit_ ofthe economic organization of the future state, that the light fails andwe must grope our way into the great unknown with imagination and oursense of justice for guides. 

Most Socialist writers who have attempted to deal with this subjecthave simply regarded the state as the greatest employer of labor, carrying on its business upon lines not materially different from thoseadopted by the great corporations of to-day. Boards of experts, chosenby civil service methods, directing all the economic activities of thestate--such is their general conception of the industrial democracy ofthe Socialist régime. They believe, in other words, that the methods nowemployed by the capitalist state, and by individual and corporateemployers within the capitalist state, would simply be extended underthe Socialist régime. If this be so, a psychological anomaly in theSocialist propaganda appears in the practical abandonment of the claimthat, as a result of the class conflict in society, the public ownershipevolved within the capitalist state is essentially different from, andinferior to, the public ownership of the Socialist ideal. It isperfectly clear that if the industrial organization under Socialism isto be such that the workers employed in any industry have no more voicein its management than the postal employees in this country, forexample, have at the present time, it cannot be otherwise than absurd tospeak of it as an industrial democracy. 

Here, in truth, lies the crux of the greatest problem of all. We mustface the fact that, in anything worthy the name of an industrialdemocracy, the terms and conditions of employment cannot be whollydecided without regard to the will of the workers themselves on the onehand, nor, on the other hand, by the workers alone without reference tothe general body of the citizenry. If the former method fails to satisfythe requirements of democracy by ignoring the will of the workers in theorganization of their work, the alternate method involves a hierarchicalgovernment, equally incompatible with democracy. Some way must be foundby which the industrial government of society, the organization ofproduction and distribution, may be securely and fairly based upon thedual basis of common civic rights and the rights of the workers in theirspecial relations as such. 

And here we are not wholly left to our imaginations, not wholly withoutexperience to guide us. In actual practice to-day, in those industriesin which the organization of the workers into unions has been mostsuccessful, the workers, through their organizations, do exercise acertain amount of control over the conditions of their employment. Theirright to share in the determination of the conditions of labor isconceded. They make trade agreements, for instance, in which suchmatters as wages, hours of labor, apprenticeship, output, engagement anddischarge of workers, and numerous other matters, are provided for andmade subject to the joint control of the workers and their employers. Ofcourse, this share in the control of the industry in which they areemployed is a right enjoyed only as a fruit of conquest, won by war andmaintained by ceaseless vigilance and armed strength. It is notinconceivable that in the Socialist state there might be a frankextension of this principle. The workers in the main groups ofindustries might form autonomous organizations for the administration oftheir special interests, subject only to certain fundamental laws of thestate. Thus the trade unions of to-day would evolve into administrativepolitico-economic organizations, after the manner of the mediævalguilds, and become constructive agencies in society instead of mereagencies of class warfare as at present. 

The economic organization of the Socialist state would consist, then, ofthree distinct divisions, as follows: (1) Private production andexchange, subject only to such general supervision and control by thestate as the interests of society demand, such as protection againstmonopolization, sanitary laws, and the like; (2) voluntary coöperation, subject to similar supervision and control; (3) production anddistribution by the state, the administration to be by the autonomousorganizations of the workers in industrial groups, subject to thefundamental laws and government of society as a whole. [190]

VI

Two other functions of the economic organization of society remain to beconsidered, the distribution of labor and its remuneration. In theorganization of industry society will have to achieve a twofold result, a maximum of general, social efficiency, on the one hand, and ofpersonal liberty and comfort to the workers on the other. The statewould not only guarantee the right to labor, but, as a corollary, itwould impose the duty of labor upon every competent person. The Paulineinjunction, "If any man will not work, neither shall he eat, " would beapplied in the Socialist state to all except the incompetent to labor. The immature child, the aged, the sick and infirm members of society, would alone be exempted from labor. The result of this would be thatinstead of a large unemployed army, vainly seeking the right to work, onthe one hand, accompanied by the excessive overwork of the great mass ofthe workers fortunate enough to be employed, a vast increase in thenumber of producers from this one cause alone would make possible muchgreater leisure for the whole body of workers. Benjamin Franklinestimated that in his day four hours' labor from every adult male ableto work would be more than sufficient to provide wealth enough for humanwants; and it is certain that, without resorting to any standards ofSpartan simplicity, Franklin's estimate could be easily realised to-daywith anything approaching a scientific organization of labor. 

Not only would the productive forces be enormously increased by theabsorption of those workers who under the present system are unemployed, and those who do not labor or seek labor; in addition to these, therewould be a tremendous transference of potential productive energy fromoccupations rendered obsolete and unnecessary by the socialization ofsociety. Thus there are to-day tens of thousands of bankers, lawyers, traders, middlemen, speculators, advertisers, and others, whosefunctions, necessary to the capitalist system, would in most casesdisappear. Because of this, they would be compelled to enter theproducing class. The possibilities of the scientific organization ofindustry are therefore almost unlimited. Every gain made by the state inthe direction of economy of production would test the private enterpriseexisting and urge it onward in the same direction. Likewise, every gainmade by the private producers would test the social production and urgeit onward. Whether socialized production extended its sphere, orremained confined to its minimum limitations, would depend upon thecomparative success or failure resulting. The state would not be a forceoutside of the people, arbitrarily extending its functions regardless oftheir will. The decision would rest with the people; they would _be_ thestate, and would, naturally, resort to social effort only where itdemonstrated its ability to serve the community more efficiently thanprivate enterprise, with greater comfort and liberty to the individualand to the community. 

While in the Socialist régime labor would be compulsory, it isinconceivable that a free people would tolerate a bureaucratic ruleassigning to each individual his or her proper task, no matter howingenious the assignment might be. Even if the bureaucracy wereomniscient, such a condition of life would be intolerable. Just as it isnecessary to insist that all must be secured in their right to labor, and required to labor, it is necessary also that the choice of one'soccupation should be as far as possible personal and free, subject onlyto the laws of supply and demand. The greatest amount of personalfreedom compatible with the requisite efficiency would be secured to theworkers in their chosen occupations through their craft organizations. 

But, it will be objected, all occupations are not equally desirable. There are certain forms of work which, disagreeable in themselves, arejust as essential to the well-being of society as the most artistic andpleasing. Who will do the dirty work, and the dangerous work, underSocialism? Will these occupations also be left to choice, and, if so, will there not be an insurmountable difficulty arising from the naturalreluctance of men to choose such work?

In answering the question and affirming the principle of freechoice--for so it must be answered--the Socialist is called upon to showthat the absence of compulsion would not involve the neglect of thesedisagreeable, but highly important, social services; that it would becompatible with social safety to leave them to personal choice. In thefirst place, much of this kind of work that is now performed by humanlabor could be more efficiently done by mechanical means. Much of thework done by sweated women and children in our cities is in fact done incompetition with machines. Machinery has been invented, and is nowavailable, to do thousands of the disagreeable and hurtful things nowdone by human beings. Professor Franklin H. Giddings is perfectly rightwhen he says: "Modern civilization does not require, it does not need, the drudgery of needle-women or the crushing toil of men in a score oflife-destroying occupations. If these wretched beings should drop outof existence and no others take their places, the economic activities ofthe world would not greatly suffer. A thousand devices latent ininventive brains would quickly make good any momentary loss. "[191]

When, in England, a law was passed forbidding the practice of forcinglittle boys through chimneys, to clean them, chimneys did not cease tobe swept. Other, less disagreeable and less dangerous, means werequickly invented. When the woolen manufacturers were prevented fromemploying little boys and girls, they invented the piecing machine. [192]Thousands of instances might be compiled in support of the contention ofProfessor Giddings, equally as pertinent as these. Another importantpoint is that the amount of such disagreeable and dangerous work to bedone would be very much less than now. That would be an inevitableresult of the scientific organization of industry. It is likely that, ifthe subject could be properly investigated, it could be shown that theamount of such labor involved in wasteful and unnecessary advertisingalone is enormous. 

Addressing an audience composed mainly of scientific men upon thesubject of Socialism, the writer was once questioned upon this phase ofthe subject. "Gentlemen, " was the reply, "it is impossible for me tosay exactly how the intelligence of the people in a more or less remotefuture will solve the problem. The Socialist state will be a democracy, not a dictatorship. But if I were dictator of society to-day and wantedto solve the problem, I should assign to such men as yourselves all themost disagreeable and dangerous tasks I could find. This I should dobecause I should know that at once your inventive brains would begin todevise mechanical and other means of doing the work. You would makesewer cleaning as pleasant as any other occupation in the world. " Therewas, of course, nothing original in the reply, but the men of sciencerecognized its force, and it fairly states one important part of theSocialist answer to the objection we are discussing. Still, with allpossible reduction of the quantity of such work to be done, and with allthe mechanical genius brought to bear upon it, we may freely concedethat, for a long time to come, there must be some work quite dangerous, altogether disagreeable and repellent, and a great difference in thedegree of attractiveness of some occupations as compared with someothers. But an occupation repellent in itself might be made attractive, if the hours of labor were relatively few as compared with otheroccupations. If six hours be regarded as the normal working day, it isquite easy to believe that, for sake of the larger leisure, with itsopportunities for the pursuit of special interests, many a man wouldgladly accept a disagreeable position for three hours a day. 

The same holds true of superior remuneration. Under the Socialistrégime, just as to-day, many a man would gladly exchange his work forless pleasant work, if the remuneration offered were higher. To the oldUtopian ideas of absolute equality and uniformity of income thesemethods would be fatal, but they are not at all incompatible withmodern, scientific Socialism. Nothing could well be sillier, or morefutile, than the Rooseveltian attacks upon the Socialism of to-day as ifit meant equality of possession, or equality of anything exceptopportunity. [193] Finally, in connection with this question, we must notforget that there is a natural inequality of talent, of power. In anystate of society most men will prefer to do the things they are bestfitted for, the things they can do best. The man who feels himself to bebest fitted to be a hewer of wood or a drawer of water will choose thatrather than some loftier task. There is no reason at all to suppose thatleaving the choice of occupation to the individual would involve theslightest risk to society. 

While equality of remuneration, meaning by that uniformity of rewardfor labor, is not an essential condition of the Socialist régime, it maybe freely admitted that _approximate equality of income_ is the ideal tobe ultimately aimed at. Otherwise, if there should be the presentinequality of remuneration, represented by the enormous salary of amanager like Mr. Schwab, to quote a conspicuous example, and the meagerwage of the average laborer, class formations must take place and theold problems incidental to economic inequality reappear. There is noneed to regard uniformity of reward for all as the only solution of thisproblem, however. Given such an industrial democracy as is hereinsuggested as the essential condition of Socialism, there is littlereason to doubt that gradually, by the free play of economic law, approximate equality would be attained. This brings us to the method ofthe remuneration of labor. 

VII

Socialists are too often judged by their shibboleths, rather than by theprinciples which those shibboleths imperfectly express, or seek toexpress. Declaiming, rightly, against the wages system as a form ofslave labor, [194] the "abolition of wage slavery, " forever inscribed ontheir banners, the average man is forced to the conclusion that theSocialists are working for a system in which the workers will dividetheir actual products and then barter the surplus for the surplusproducts of other workers. Either that, or the most rigid system ofgovernmental production and a method of distributing rations anduniforms similar to that which obtains in the military organization ofpresent-day governments. It is easily seen, however, that such plans donot conform to the democratic ideals of the Socialists, on the one hand, nor would either of them, on the other hand, be compatible with the widepersonal liberty herein put forward as characteristic of the Socialiststate. 

The earlier Utopian Socialists did propose to do away with wages; infact, they proposed to do away with money altogether, and inventedvarious forms of "Labor Notes" as a means of giving equality ofremuneration for given quantities of labor, and providing a medium forthe exchange of wealth. But when the Socialists of to-day speak of the"abolition of wages, " or of the wages system, they use the words in thesame sense as they speak of the abolition of capital: _they wouldabolish only the social relations implied in the terms_. Just as they donot mean by the abolition of capital the destruction of the machineryand implements of production, but the social relation in which they areused to create profit for the few, so, when they speak of the abolitionof the wages system, they mean only the use of wages to exploit theproducers for the gain of the owners of the means of production andexchange. Though the name "wages" might not be changed, a money paymentfor labor in a democratic arrangement of industry, representing anapproximation to the full value of the labor, minus only its share ofthe cost of maintaining the public services, and the weaker, dependentmembers of society, would be vastly different from a money payment forlabor by one individual to other individuals, representing anapproximation to their cost of living, bearing no definite relation tothe value of their labor products, and paid in lieu of those productswith a view to the gathering of a rich surplus value by the payer. 

Karl Kautsky, perhaps the greatest living exponent of the theories ofmodern Socialism, has made this point perfectly clear. He acceptswithout reserve the belief that wages, unequal and paid in money, willbe the method of remuneration for labor in the Socialist régime. [195]When too many laborers rush into certain branches of industry, thenatural way to lessen their number and to increase the number oflaborers in other branches where there is need for them, will be toreduce wages in the one and to increase them in the other. Socialism, instead of being defined as an attempt to make men equal, might perhapsbe more justly and accurately defined as a social system based upon thenatural inequalities of mankind. Not human equality, but equality ofopportunity, and the prevention of the creation of artificialinequalities by privilege, is the essence of Socialism. 

What, it may be asked, will society do to prevent the hoarding of wealthon the one hand, and the exploitation of the spendthrift by theabstinent upon the other? Here, as throughout this discussion, we mustbe careful to refrain from laying down dogmatic rules, givingcategorical replies to questions which the future will settle in its ownway. At best, we can only reason as to what possible answers arecompatible with the fundamental principles of Socialism. Thus we maysafely answer that in the Socialist régime society will not attempt todictate to the individual how he shall spend his income. If Jonesprefers _objets d'art_, and Smith prefers fast horses or a steam yacht, each will be free to follow his inclinations so far as his resourceswill permit. If, on the contrary, one should prefer to hoard his wealth, he would be free to do so. The inheritance of such accumulated property, other than personal objects, of course, might be denied, the state beingmade the only possible inheritor of such accumulated property. Even inthe absence of such a regulation, the inheritance of hoarded wealthwould not be a serious matter and would speedily adjust itself. Therewould be no opportunity for its _investment_, so that at mostindividuals inheriting such property would be enabled to live idly, orwith extra luxury, until it was spent. The fact of inheriting propertywould not give the individual power over the life and labor of others. By either method, full play for individual liberty would be coupled withfull economic security for society. There would be no danger of thedevelopment of a ruling class as a result of natural inequalities. 

With such conditions as these, it is not difficult nor in any senseromantic to suppose that the tendency to hoard wealth would largelydisappear. In the same way we must regard the possibilities of theexploitation of man by man developing in the Socialist state, throughthe wastefulness and improvidence of the one and the frugality, abstinence, and cunning of the other, as slight. With the creditfunctions entirely in the hands of the state, the improvident man wouldbe able to obtain credit upon the same securities as from a privatecreditor, without extortion. Society would further secure itself againstthe weakness and failure of the improvident by insuring all its membersagainst sickness, accident, and old age. 

VIII

The administration of justice is necessarily a social function in ademocratic society. All juridical functions should be socialized in thestrict sense of being maintained at the social expense for the freeservice of its citizens. Court fees, advocates' charges, and otherexpenses incidental to the administration of justice in present societyare all anti-democratic and subversive of justice. 

Finally, education is likewise a social necessity which society itselfmust assume responsibility for. We have discovered that forself-protection society must insist upon a certain minimum of educationfor every child able to receive it; that it is too vital a matter to beleft to the option of parents or the desires of the immature child. Wehave made a certain minimum of education compulsory and free; theSocialist state would make a minimum--probably much larger than ourpresent minimum--compulsory, but it would also make _all_ educationfree. From the first stages, in the kindergartens, to the last, in theuniversities, education must be wholly free or equality of opportunitycannot be realized. So long as a single barrier exists to prevent anychild from receiving all the education it is capable of profiting by, democracy is unattained. 

Whether the Socialist state could tolerate the existence of elementaryschools other than its own, such as privately conducted kindergartens, religious schools, and so on, is by no means agreed upon by Socialists. It is like the question of marriage, a matter which is wholly beyond thescope of present knowledge. The future will decide for itself. There arethose who believe that the state would not content itself with refusingto permit religious doctrines or ideas to be taught in the schools, butwould go further, and, as the protector of the child, guard itsindependence of thought in later life as far as possible by forbiddingreligious teaching of any kind in schools for children below a certainage. It would not, of course, attempt to prevent parental instruction inreligious beliefs in the home. Beyond the age prescribed, religiouseducation, in all other than public institutions of learning, would befreely admitted. This restriction of religious education to the years ofjudgment and discretion implies no hostility to religion on the part ofthe state, but complete neutrality. Not the least important of therights of the child is the right to be protected from influences whichbias the mind and destroy the possibilities of independent thought inlater life, or make it attainable only as a result of bitter, needless, tragic experience. This is one view. On the other hand, there areprobably quite as many Socialists who believe that the state would notattempt to prevent the religious education of children of any age, inschools voluntarily maintained for that purpose, independent of thepublic schools. They believe that the state would content itself withinsisting that these religious schools must be so built and equipped asnot to imperil the lives or the health of the children attending them, and so conducted as not to interfere with the public schools, --all ofwhich means simply that, like vaccination, and the form of marriagecontract, the question will be settled by the future in its own way. There is nothing in the fundamental principles of Socialism, nor anybody of facts in our present experience, from which we can judge themanner of that settlement. 

In this brief outline of the Socialist state as the writer, in commonwith many of his associates, conceives it, there are many gaps. Thetemptation to fill in the outline somewhat more in detail is strong, butthat is beyond the borderland which divides scientific and Utopianmethods. The purpose of the outline is mainly to show that the ideal ofthe Socialism of to-day is something far removed from the network oflaws and the oppressive bureaucracy commonly imagined; something whollydifferent in spirit and substance from the mechanical arrangement ofhuman relations imagined by Utopian romancers. If the Socialistpropaganda of to-day largely consists of the advocacy of laws for theprotection of labor and dealing with all kinds of evils, it must beremembered that these are to _ameliorate conditions in the existingsocial order_. Many of the laws for which Socialists have moststrenuously fought have their _raison d'être_ in the conditions ofcapitalist society, and would be quite unnecessary under Socialism. If areference to one's personal work may be pardoned, I will cite the matterof the feeding of school children, in the public schools, at the publicexpense. I have, for many years, advocated this measure, which is to befound in most Socialist programmes, and which the Socialists of othercountries have to a considerable extent carried into practical effect. Yet, I am free to say that the plan is not my ideal of the manner inwhich children should be fed. It is, at best, a palliative, a necessaryevil, rendered necessary by the conditions of capitalist society. Onehopes that in the Socialist régime, home life would be so far developedas to make possible the proper feeding and care of all children in theirhomes. This is but an illustration. The Socialist ideal of the state ofthe future, when private property is no longer an instrument ofoppression used by the few against the many, is not a life completelyenmeshed in a network of government, but a life controlled by governmentas little as possible; not a life ruled and driven by a powerful engineof laws, but a life as spontaneous and free as possible--a maximum ofpersonal freedom with a minimum of restraint. 

 "These things shall be! A loftier race Than e'er the world hath known shall rise With flower of freedom in their souls And light of science in their eyes. "[196]

FOOTNOTES:

[180] Cf. _Das Erfurter Program_, by Karl Kautsky. 

[181] Cf. Ensor's _Modern Socialism_, page 351. 

[182] _Labour and Capital: a Letter to a Labour Friend_, by GoldwinSmith, D. C. L. (Macmillan, 1907). 

The reader of Professor Smith's little book is referred, for theSocialist answer to his criticisms, to a small volume by the author ofthis book: _Capitalist and Laborer: an Open Letter to Professor GoldwinSmith_, D. C. L. (Kerr, _Standard Socialist Series_), 1907. 

[183] _La Conquête du pain_, Pierre Kropotkin, 5th edition, Paris, 1895, page 202. 

[184] _The Principles of Sociology_, by Herbert Spencer, Vol. III, page534. 

[185] Cf. _The Spirit of American Government_, by J. Allen Smith, LL. B. Ph. D. , for a discussion of this subject. 

[186] This statement must not be interpreted too narrowly, of course. While the nature of these things makes possible an infinitely widerrange of personal liberty than is possible in some other things, individual liberty must _ultimately_ be governed by the liberty ofothers. A fanatical religious sect practicing human sacrifice, forinstance, could not be tolerated by any civilized society. Obscenity inart is another example. 

[187] I use the word "state" throughout this discussion in its largest, most comprehensive sense, as meaning the whole political organization ofsociety. 

[188] This view is fully shared by Kautsky, _Agrarfrage_, pages 443-444, and by Paul Lafargue, _Revue Politique et Parliamentaire_, October, 1898, page 70. 

[189] Of course, this does not mean that there must not be private _use_of land. 

[190] The student who cares to pursue the subject will find that thisanalysis is, in the main, agreed to by the most eminent exponents ofMarxian Socialism to-day. Cf. , for instance, Kautsky's _Das ErfurterProgram_; the same writer's _The Social Revolution_, especially pages117, 159; Vandervelde, quoted by Ensor, _Modern Socialism_, page 205;also, Vandervelde's _Collectivism_, page 46. Jaurès, the brilliantFrench Socialist, may not perhaps be strictly included in the categoryof "eminent Marxists, " but he accepts the position of Kautsky, see_Studies in Socialism_, by Jean Jaurès, pages 36-40. See, also, Engels, _Die Bauernfrage in Frankreich und Deutschland_, published in _Die NeueZeit_, 1894-1895, No. 10; Kautsky, _Die Agrarfrage_; and Simons, _TheAmerican Farmer_. That most of these deal with petty agriculture ratherthan petty industry is true, but the principle holds in regard to both. 

[191] "Ethics of Social Progress, " by Professor Franklin H. Giddings in_Philanthropy and Social Progress_ (1893), page 226. 

[192] "The Economics of Factory Legislation, " in _The Case For theFactory Acts_, by Mrs. Sidney Webb, page 50. 

[193] See, for instance, Mr. Roosevelt's speech at Matinecock, L. I. , near Oyster Bay, July 11, 1908, as reported in the daily papers by theAssociated Press. Also, the Republican National Platform, 1908, whichstates that Socialism stands for "equality of possession, " while theRepublican Party stands for "equality of opportunity"--a completemisrepresentation, both of Socialism and the Republican Party!

[194] For condemning the wages system as a form of slavery, Socialistsare often vigorously condemned, but there are few sociologists of reputewho question the truth of the Socialist claim. Herbert Spencer, forexample, is as vigorous in asserting that wage-labor is a form ofslavery as any Socialist. See _The Principles of Sociology_, Vol. III, Chapter 18. 

[195] See Kautsky's _Das Erfurter Program_, and also _The SocialRevolution_, especially pages 128-135; Anton Menger, _L'ÉtatSocialiste_, page 35; and Vandervelde's _Collectivism_, pages 149-150. 

[196] J. Addington Symonds. 

CHAPTER X

THE MEANS OF REALIZATION[197]

I

You ask me how the goal I have described is to be attained: "Thepicture, " you say, "is attractive, but we would like to know how we areto reach the Promised Land which it pictures. Show us the way!" Thequestion is a fair one, and I shall try to answer it with candor, as itdeserves. But I cannot promise to tell how the change will be broughtabout, to describe the exact process by which social property willsupplant capitalist private property. The only conditions under whichany honest thinker could give such an answer would necessitate acombination of circumstances which has never existed, and which no oneseriously expects to develop. To answer in definite terms, saying, "Thisis the manner in which the change will be made, " one would have to knowthe exact time of the change; precisely what things would be socialized;the thought of the people, their temper, their courage. In a word, omniscience would be necessary to enable one to make such a reply. 

All that is possible in this connection for the candid Socialist is topoint out those tendencies which he believes to be making for theSocialist ideal, those tendencies in society, whether political oreconomic, which are making for industrial democracy; to consider franklythe difficulties which must be overcome before the transition fromcapitalism can be effected, and to suggest such means of overcomingthese as present themselves to the mind, always remembering that othermeans may be developed which we cannot now see, and that great storms ofelemental human passion may sweep the current into channels unsuspected. 

Those who are familiar with the writings of Marx know that, in strangecontrast with the fundamental principles of that theory of socialevolution which he so well developed, he lapsed at times into theUtopian habit of predicting the sudden transformation of society. Capitalism was to end in a great final "catastrophe" and the new orderbe born in the travail of a "social revolution. " I remember that when Ijoined the Socialist movement, many years ago, the Social Revolution wasa very real event, inevitable and nigh at hand, to most of us. The moreenthusiastic of us dreamed of it; we sang songs in the spirit of the_Chansons Revolutionaires_, one of which, as I recall, told plainlyenough what we would do--

 "When the Revolution comes. "

Some comrades actually wanted to have military drill at our businessmeetings, merely that we might be ready for the Revolution, which mightoccur any Monday morning or Friday afternoon. If this seems strange andcomic as I relate it to-day, please remember that we were very few andvery young, and, therefore, very sure that we were to redeem the world. We lived in a state of revolutionary ecstasy. Some of us, I think, musthave gone regularly to sleep in the mental state of Tennyson's MayQueen, with words equivalent to her childish admonition--

 "If you're waking call me early, "

so fearful were we that the Revolution might start without us!

There can be no harm in these confessions to-day, for we have grown farenough beyond that period to laugh at it in retrospect. True, there isstill a good deal of talk about the Social Revolution, and there may bea few Socialists here and there who use the term in the sense I havedescribed; who believe that capitalism will come to a great crisis, thatthere will be a rising of millions in wrath, a night of fury and agony, and then the sunrise of Brotherhood above the blood-stained valley andthe corpse-strewn plain. But most of us, when we use the old term, bysheer force of habit, or as an inherited tradition, think of the SocialRevolution in no such spirit. We think only of the change that mustcome over society, transferring the control of its life from the few tothe many, the change that is now going on all around us. When the timecomes that men and women speak of the state in which they live asSocialism, and look back upon the life we live to-day with wonder andpity, they will speak of the period of revolution as including this veryyear, and, possibly, all the years included in the lives of the youngestpersons present. At all events, no considerable body of Socialistsanywhere in the world to-day, and no Socialist whose words have anyinfluence in the movement, believe that there will be a sudden, violentchange from capitalism to Socialism. 

If it seemed necessary, abundant testimony to the truthfulness of thisclaim could be produced. But I shall content myself with twowitnesses--chosen from the multitude of available witnesses for reasonswhich will unfold themselves. The first witness is Marx himself. Ichoose his testimony, mainly, because there is no other name so great ashis, and, secondly, to show that his profoundest thought rejected theidea of sudden social transformations which at times he seemed to favor. It is 1850. Marx is in London, actively engaged in a German Communistmovement with its Central Committee in that great metropolis. Themajority are impatient, feverishly urging revolt; they are under theillusion that they can make the Social Revolution at once. Marx tellsthem, on the contrary, that it will take fifty years "not only to changeexisting conditions but to change yourselves and make yourselves worthyof political power. " They, the majority, say on the other hand, "Weought to get power at once, or else give up the fight. " Marx triesvainly to make them see this, and resigns when he fails, scornfullytelling them that they "substitute revolutionary phrases for_revolutionary evolution_. "[198] Mark well that term, "revolutionaryevolution, " for it bears out the description I have attempted of thesense in which we speak of revolution in the Socialist propaganda ofto-day. And mark well, also, that Marx gave them fifty years simply tomake themselves worthy of political power. 

As the second witness, I choose Liebknecht, whose name must always beassociated with those of Marx, Engels, and Lassalle, in Socialisthistory. Not alone because of the fact that Liebknecht, more than almostany other man, has influenced the tactics of the international Socialistmovement, but for the additional reason that detached phrases of his aresometimes quoted in support of the opposite view. Words spoken inoratorical and forensic passion, or in the bravado of irresponsibleyouthfulness, and texts torn from their contexts, are used to show thatLiebknecht anticipated the violent transformation of society. But heedthis, one of many similar statements of his maturest and profoundestthought: "_But we are not going to attain Socialism at one bound. Thetransition is going on all the time_, and the important thing for us ... Is not to paint a picture of the future--which in any case would beuseless labor--_but to forecast a practical programme for theintermediate period, to formulate and justify measures that shall beapplicable at once, and that will serve as aids to the new Socialistbirth_. "[199]

So much, then, for quotations from the mightiest of all our hosts. WhatI would make clear is not merely that the greatest of Socialisttheorists and tacticians agree that the change will be brought aboutgradually, and not by one stroke of revolutionary action, but that, moreimportant still, the Socialist Party of this country, and all theSocialist parties of the world, are based upon that idea. That is whythey have their political programmes, aiming to make the conditions oflife better now, in the transition period, and also to aid in the happy, peaceful birth of the new order. 

II

Having disposed of the notion that Socialists expect to realize theirideals by a single stroke, and thus swept away some of the greatestobstacles which rise before the imagination of the student ofSocialism, we obtain a clearer vision of the problem. And that is nosmall advance toward its solution. 

Concerning the political organization of the Socialist state, so far asthe extension of political democracy is concerned, not much need besaid. You can very readily comprehend that this may be done by legal, constitutional means. Step by step, just as we attain power enough to doso, we shall extend the power of the people until we have a completepolitical democracy. Where, as in some of the Southern States, there isvirtually a property qualification for the franchise, where that remnantof feudalism, the poll tax, remains, Socialists, whenever they come intopower in those states, or whenever they are strong enough to force theissue, will insist upon making the franchise free. And where, as in thisstate, there is a sex qualification for the franchise, women beingdenied the suffrage, they will work unceasingly to do away with thatrelic of barbarism. By means of such measures as the Initiative andReferendum, and election of judges by the people, the sovereignty of thepeople will be established. It may be that without some constitutionalamendments it will be found impossible to make political democracycomplete. In that case, moving along the line of least resistance, theywill do all that they can within the limits of the Constitution as itis, changing it whenever by reason of their power they deem thatpracticable. 

As to the organization of the industrial life of the Socialist state, bringing industry from private to public control, here, too, Socialistswill work along the line of least resistance. First of all, it must beremembered that there are tendencies to that end within society atpresent. Every development of industry and commerce, from competition tomonopoly, so far as it centers the control in few hands and organizesthe industry or business, makes it possible to take it over withoutdislocation, and, at the same time, makes it the interest of a largernumber to help in bringing about that transfer. In like manner everyvoluntary coöperative organization of producers makes for the Socialistideal. This is a far less important matter in the United States than inEngland and other European countries. Finally, we have the enormousextension of public functions developed already in capitalist society, and being constantly extended. Our postal system, public schools, stateuniversities, libraries, museums, art galleries, parks, bureaus ofresearch and information, hospitals, sanatoria, municipal ferries, watersupply, fire departments, health boards, lighting systems, these, and athousand other activities of our municipalities and states, and thenation, are so many forms created by capitalism to meet its own needswhich belong, however, to Socialism and require only to be infused withthe Socialist spirit. This will be done as they come under theinfluence of Socialists elected to various legislative andadministrative bodies in ever increasing number as the movement grows. 

All this is not difficult to comprehend. What is more likely to perplexthe average man is the method by which Socialists propose to effect thetransfer of individual or corporate property to the collectivity. Willit be confiscated, taken without recompense; and if so, will it not benecessary to take the bank savings of the poor widow as well as themillions of the millionaire? On the other hand, if compensation isgiven, will there not be still a privileged class, a wealthy class, thatis, and a poorer class? These are the questions I see written upon yourfaces as I look down upon them and read the language of their strainedinterest. Every face seems a challenge to answer these questions. Ishall try to answer them with perfect candor, as far as that is possiblewithin the limits of our time. May I not ask you, then, to followcarefully a brief series of propositions, or postulates, which I shall, with your permission, lay before you?

_First:_ The act of transfer, whether it take the form of confiscationor otherwise, must be the will of a legal majority of the people. If theunit is the city, a legal majority of the citizens there; if the unit isthe state, then a legal majority of the citizens of the state; if theunit is the nation, then a legal majority in the nation. I use the term"legal majority" to indicate my profound conviction that the processitself must be a legal, constitutional process. Of course, in the eventof some great upheaval occurring, such as, for example, the rising of asuffering and desperate people in consequence of some terrific panic orperiod of depression, brought on by capitalist misrule, or by war, thismight be swept away. Throughout the world's history such upheavals haveoccurred, when the people's wrath, or their desperation, has assumed theform of a cyclone, and in such times laws have been of no moreresistance than straws in the pathway of the cyclone sweeping across theplain. Omitting such dire happenings from our calculations--for so wemust wish to do--we may lay down this principle of the imperativenecessity for a legal majority, acting in legal manner. 

_Second:_ The process must be gradual. There will be no _coup de force_. No effort will be made to socialize those industries which have not beenmade ready by a degree of monopolization. This we can say withconfidence, if for no other reason than that we cannot conceive a legalmajority being stirred sufficiently to take action in the absence ofsome degree of oppression or danger, such as monopoly alone contains. Further, as a matter of hard, practical sense, it is not conceivablethat any government will ever be able to deal with all the industriesat one time. The railroads may be first to be taken, or it may be themines in one state and the oil wells in another. The important point isto see that the process of socialization _must_ be piecemeal andgradual. This does not mean that it must be a _slow_ process, suggestingthe slowness of geologic formations, but that it must be gradual, progressive, advancing from step to step, and giving opportunities foradjusting things. Otherwise there would be chaos and anarchy. 

_Third:_ The manner of the acquisition must be determined by the peopleat the time, and not fixed by us in advance, according to some abstractprinciple. If the people decide to take any particular individual orcorporate property without compensation, that will be done. And theywill have great historic precedents for their action. The Socialists ofEurope could point to the manner in which many of the feudal estates andrights were confiscated, while American Socialists could point to themanner in which, without indemnity or compensation, chattel slavery wasabolished. 

So much is said merely by way of explanation, first, that the manner ofacquiring private and corporate property and making it social propertyis not to be decided in advance, and secondly, that there are historicprecedents for confiscation. On the other hand, there is no good reasonwhy compensation should not be paid for such properties. You start! Youhave been more shocked than if I had said we should seize the propertiesand cut the throats of the proprietors! Be assured: I am not forgettingmy promise to be frank with you, nor am I expressing my personal opinionmerely when I say that there is nothing in the theory of modernSocialism which precludes the possibility of compensation. There is noSocialist of repute and authority in the world, so far as my knowledgegoes, who makes a contrary claim. I should regard it as unworthy to laydown as the Socialist position views which were my own, and which werenot shared by the great body of Socialist thinkers throughout the world. It is not less nor more than the truth that all the leading Socialistsof the world agree that compensation could be paid without doingviolence to a single Socialist principle, and most of them favorit. [200]

Once more I shall appeal to the authority of Marx. Engels wrote in 1894:"We do not at all consider the indemnification of the proprietors as animpossibility, whatever may be the circumstances. How many times has notKarl Marx expressed to me the opinion that if we could buy up the wholecrowd it would really be the cheapest way of relieving ourselves ofthem. "[201] Not only Marx, then, in the most intimate of his discussionswith Engels, his bosom friend, but Engels himself, in almost his lastdays, refused to admit the impossibility of paying indemnity forproperties socialized, "_whatever may be the circumstances_. "

Now, as to the difficulties--especially as to the widow's savings. Thesocialization of non-productive wealth is not contemplated by anySocialist, no matter whether it consist of the widow's savings in astocking or the treasures in the safe deposit vaults of the rich. Merewealth, whether in money or precious gems and jewels, need not troubleus. Non-productive wealth is outside of our calculation. In the nextplace, as I have attempted to make clear, the petty business, theindividual store, the small workshop, and the farm operated by itsowner, would not, necessarily, nor probably, be disturbed. We have toconsider only the great agencies of exploitation, industries operated bymany producers of surplus-value for the benefit of the few. Let us, forexample, take a conspicuous industrial organization, the so-called SteelTrust. Suppose the Socialists to be in power: there is a popular demandfor the socialization of the steel industry. The government decides totake over the plant of the Steel Trust and all its affairs, and thesupport of the vast majority of the people is assured. First avaluation takes place, and then bonds, government bonds, are issued. Unlike what happens too often at the present time, the price fixed isnot greatly in excess of the value the people acquire--one of the meansby which the capitalists fasten their clutches on the popular throat. The Socialist _spirit_ enters into the business. Bonds are issued to allthe shareholders in strict proportion to their holdings, and so the poorwidow, concerning whose interests critics of Socialism are sosolicitous, gets bonds for her share. She is therefore even more securethan before, since it is no longer possible for unscrupulous individualsto plunder her by nefarious stock transactions. 

So far, good and well. But, you may rightly say, this will not eliminatethe unearned incomes. The heavy stockholders will simply become richbondholders. Temporarily, that is true. But when that has beenaccomplished in a few of the more important industries, they will findit difficult to invest their surplus incomes profitably. There will alsobe a surplus to the state over and above the amounts annually paid inredemption of the bonds. Finally, it will be possible to adopt measuresfor eliminating the unearned incomes entirely by means of taxation, suchas the progressive income tax, property and inheritance taxes. Taxationis, of course, a form of confiscation, but it is a form which hasbecome familiar, which is perfectly legal, and which enables theconfiscatory process to be stretched out over a long enough period tomake it comparatively easy, to reduce the hardship to a minimum. Bymeans of a progressive income tax, a bond tax, and an inheritance tax, it would be possible to eliminate the unearned incomes of a class ofbondholders from society within a reasonable period, without inflictinginjury or hardship upon any human being. 

I do not, let me again warn you, set this plan before you as one whichSocialism depends upon, which must be adopted. I do not say that theSocialist parties of the world are pledged to this method, for they arenot. The subject is not mentioned in any of our programmes, so far as Irecall them at this moment. We are silent upon the subject, not becausewe fear to discuss it, but because we realize that the matter will bedecided when the question is reached, and that each case will be decidedupon its merits. Still, it is but fair to express my belief that it isto the interest of the workers, no less than of the rest of society, that the change to a Socialist state be made as easy and peaceable aspossible. Socialists, being human beings and not monsters, naturallydesire that the transition to Socialism shall be made with as littlefriction and pain as possible. Left to their own choice, I am confidentthat those upon whom the task of effecting the change falls will notchoose the way of violence, if the way of peace is left open to them. 

Within the limits of this opportunity, I have tried to be as frank as Iam to myself in those constant self-questionings which are inseparablefrom the work of the serious propagandist and honest teacher. Further Icannot go. If I have not been able to tell definitely how the change_will_ be wrought, I have at least been able, I hope, to show that it_may_ be brought about peaceably and without bloodshed. If this hasgiven any one a new view of Socialism--opened, as it were, a doorwaythrough which you can get a glimpse of the City Beautiful, and the wayleading to its gates--then my reward is infinitely precious. 

FOOTNOTES:

[197] From the stenographic report of an address given to some studentsof Socialism in New York, October, 1907. 

[198] Cf. Jaurès, _Studies in Socialism_, page 44. 

[199] Quoted by Jaurès, _Studies in Socialism_, page 93. 

[200] The reader is referred to Kautsky's books, _Das Erfurter Program_and _The Social Revolution_, and to Vandervelde's admirable work, _Collectivism_, for confirmation of this statement. 

[201] Quoted by Vandervelde, _Collectivism_, page 155. 

INDEX

(Titles in Italics)

A

Abbé Lancellotti, quoted, 27-28. 

_Abuses of Injunctions, The_, 196 n. 

_A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_, 93, 202, 206, 212, 245 n. 

Adams, Mr. Brooks, 156. 

Adler, G. , 64 n. 

AFRICA: American investments in, 118; cannibalism in, 78; Moors in, 95; slavery in, 26. 

Agriculture, concentration in, 121, 131-137. 

Aix-la-Chapelle, conference of sovereigns at, 49. 

_A Lecture on Human Happiness_, 206. 

_A Letter to Lord John Russell_, 206. 

"Alfred" (Samuel Kydd), quoted, 23. 

Alliance de la Democratie Socialiste, the, 69 n. 

Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers, the, 195. 

Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, the, 197. 

AMERICA: class divisions and struggles in, 163-169, 176-178, 182-184, 192-197; concentration of wealth in, 124-150; discovery of, 94-97; first cotton from, used in England, 30-31; foreign capital invested in, 118; Socialism in, 4, 167. _See also_ UNITED STATES. 

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 146. 

_American Farmer, The_, 136 n. , 168 n. , 306 n. 

_American Federationist, The_, 13 n. 

American Federation of Labor, 183. 

American Railway Union, the, 194. 

American Revolution, the, 79. 

_A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency_, 245. 

ANARCHISM: Socialism and, 2; weak where Socialism is strong, 181. 

Anaximander, 232. 

_Ancient Society, or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress_, 97 n. , 102 n. 

_An Inquiry concerning Political Justice_, 204. 

_An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth_, 204. 

Anstey, Mr. , satire on Socialist régime, 281. 

Anthracite coal strike, 1903, 174. 

_Arena, The_, 196 n. 

_A Report on Labor Disturbances in the State of Colorado_, etc. , 174 n. 

Argyles, relation of Mrs. Marx to the, 66. 

Aristotle, 81. 

Arkwright, English inventor, 19. 

ASIA: American capital invested in, 118; savages in Central, 95; supposed origin of feudalism in, 106. 

Atheism, Marx and, 69, 70 n. 

Athens, 104. 

_A Treatise on Taxes and Constitutions_, 244 n. 

_Aus dem literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx, Friederich Engels, und Ferdinand Lassalle_, 64 n. 

Australia, American capital invested in, 118. 

_Austrian Labor Almanac, The_, 66 n. 

"Austrian" school of economists, the, 257. 

Aveling, Edward, 93 n. , 210 n. ; Eleanor Marx, 210 n. , 212. 

B

Bachofen, 101. 

Baden, concentration of wealth in, 140-142. 

Bakeshops, concentration of ownership of, 124. 

Bakunin, Michael, 66, 69 n. , 88. 

Bantu tribes of Africa, 102. 

Bax, E. Belfort, 61 n. , 67 n. , 93 n. 

Beaulieu, Leroy, 141. 

Beer, M. , 87 n. 

Bellamy, Edward, 9. 

Bernstein, Edward, 139, 203, 204 n. 

Bigelow, Melville, 156 n. 

Bismarck, Marx and, 92. 

"Blacklisting, " 173. 

Blanc, Louis, 12. 

Bolte, letter from Marx to, 88 n. 

Bookstaver, Justice, 196. 

Bootblacks, 127. 

Bray, John Francis, 203, 207. 

_Briefe und Auszüge aus Briefen von Joh. Phil. Becker_, etc. , 120. 

Brisbane, Albert, 55. 

British Museum, Marx and the, 209, 210, 213. 

Brook Farm, 53. 

Brooks, George, 69 n. 

Buffalo _Express_ strike, 196. 

C

Cabet, Étienne, 54, 57-60, 231. 

California, cost of growing wheat in, 131. 

Call, Henry Laurens, 146. 

Campanella, 9. 

Cannibalism, 78, 102, 103. 

_Capital_: dedication of, 208; English character of, 213-214; Liebknecht on, 209; quoted, 28, 29, 87, 93 n. , 115, 206, 228 n. , 239, 274, 275; relation of to Socialism, 119. 

CAPITAL: nature of, 236; Socialists advocate abolition of, 237. 

_Capitalist and Laborer_ (Spargo), 259 n. , 284 n. 

Capitalist income, the source of, 266 _et seq. _

Carlyle, Thomas, quoted, 217, 302. 

Cartwright, English inventor, 20. 

Casalis, African missionary, quoted, 77. 

_Case for the Factory Acts, The_, 310. 

_Centralization and the Law: Scientific Legal Education_, 156 n. 

_Chansons Revolutionaire_, 325. 

_Charles Darwin and Karl Marx, A Comparison_, 93 n. 

Chartism and Chartists, 53, 67, 203. 

Chase, Salmon P. , 45. 

Chicago, trial of E. V. Debs at, 194. 

Child Labor, 21-26, 31, 39. 

Children, feeding of school, 321. 

China, Socialism in, 71. 

CHRISTIANITY: embraced by Heinrich Marx, 63-65; Marx and, 68-70; Roman Empire and, 89; Robert Owen and, 51. 

_Christianity and the Social Crisis_, 86 n. 

Cigar stores, concentration of ownership of, 124. 

Civil War, the, 85. 

_Claims of Labour and Capital Conciliated, The_, 204. 

_Clansmen, The_, 158. 

_Clarion, The_, 7 n. 

Class consciousness, 151, 165; President Roosevelt on, 151, 180; Robert Owen and, 48-49; Weitling and, 56. 

CLASS DIVISIONS: of capitalism, 157 _et seq. _; of feudalism, 156; of slavery, 155; of the United States, 163 _et seq. _; ultimate end of, by Socialism, 200. 

Class environment, influence of, on beliefs, etc. , 171-175. 

Class struggle theory, the, 155 _et seq. _

Cleveland, President, 194. 

Clodd, Edward, quoted, 76, 82 n. 

_Coal Mine Workers, The_, 160 n. 

Coeur d'Alene, 183, 192. 

Coleridge, Robert Owen and, 31. 

_Collectivism_, 306 n. 

Cologne assizes, Marx tried at, 208. 

Colorado, labor troubles in, 174, 192. 

Columbus and the discovery of America, 94-97. 

_Coming Slavery, The_, 6, 282. 

Commercial crisis in England, 1815, 39-41. 

COMMODITY: definition of a, 236, 239-241; labor power as a, 263 _et seq. _; money as a, 255-256; sunshine called a, 241 n. ; value of a, determined by labor, 243-254. 

_Common Sense of Socialism, The_, (Spargo), 168. 

Communism, political, 13, 14, 15, 54, 55; primitive, 97, 101-102. 

Communist League, the, 60, 61. 

_Communist Manifesto, The_: birth-cry of modern Socialism, 53; joint authorship of, 62, 73-74; publication of, 62; quoted, 71, 72, 73, 153-154; summary of, by Engels, 72; taxation of land values advocated in, 268 n. 

Compensation, Socialism and, _see_ CONFISCATION. 

Competition, 98-101, 114, 115, 148, 149. 

_Comrade, The_, 10 n. , 68 n. 

Concentration of capital and wealth, the, 115 _et seq. _

_Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, The_, 67, 74. 

Confiscation of property, Socialism and, 331, 333-337. 

Constitution, the, and Socialism, 329-330. 

Consumer, exploitation of the, 189. 

Cooke-Taylor, R. W. , 23 n. , 24. 

Coöperation, among animals, 98, 99; Owen and, 45; under Socialism, 299, 300, 305. 

_Corn-Law Rhymes, The_, 1. 

Cossa, Luigi, quoted, 215. 

Cotton manufacture in England, 29 _et seq. _; Engels and, 67. 

Credit functions in Socialist régime, 300-302. 

Crimean War, the, 36-38, 232. 

Cripple Creek, 174 n. , 183. 

_Criticism of the Gotha Programme_, 205, 224. 

Crompton, English inventor, 19. 

Cromwellian Commonwealth, the, 114. 

D

Dale, David, 24. 

Dante, Marx and, 68. 

DARWIN, CHARLES: appreciation of his work by Marx, 93; compared to Marx, 73, 93; letter from, to Marx, 93; on the struggle for existence, 98; quoted, 98. 

_Das Erfurter Program_, 279 n. , 305 n. , 315 n. 

_Das junge Deutschland in der Schweiz_, 70 n. 

Davenay, M. , letter from Herbert Spencer to, 6. 

Debs, E. V. , 193, 194. 

DEMOCRACY: application of principles of, to industry in Socialist régime, 287, 302-305; only approximately attainable, 288-289; Socialism and, 287-290, 302-305, 329-330. 

_Descent of Man, The_, 98. 

Deville, Gabriel, quoted, 237. 

Diary of Mrs. Marx quoted, 211-212. 

_Die Agrarfrage_, 168 n. , 297 n. , 306 n. 

_Die Bauernfrage in Frankreich und Deutschland_, 306. 

_Die Grundlagen der Karl Marx'schen Kritik der bestehenden Volkswirthschaft_, 64. 

_Die Neue Zeit_, 64 n. 

_Die Voraussetzungen des Socializmus_, 139. 

Directive ability, 228 n. , 273-275. 

Direct legislation, 289, 329-330. 

_Directory of Directors, The_, 117. 

_Disclosures about the Communists' Process_, 61. 

Drinkwater, partner of Robert Owen, 29-31. 

E

_Eastern Question, The_, 210 n. , 212 n. 

_Economic Foundations of Society, The_, 87 n. 

_Economic Interpretation of History, The_ (Rogers), 94 n. , 95 n. 

_Economic Interpretation of History, The_ (Seligman), 81 n. , 82 n. , 83 n. , 85 n. , 91 n. 

_Economic Journal, The_, 198 n. 

_Economics of Socialism, The_, 38 n. , 257 n. 

_Economic Writings of Sir William Petty, The_, 215 n. 

Edison, 227. 

_Effects of Civilization on the People of the European States, The_, 203. 

_Eighteenth Brumaire, The_, 90. 

_Elements of Political Economy_ (Nicholson), 241 n. 

Elliott, Ebenezer, quoted, 1. 

Ely, Professor R. T. , 46, 115, 132, 140; quoted, 79, 138, 148. 

Emerson, R. W. , on Robert Owen, 50-52. 

ENGELS, FRIEDERICH: birth and early training, 66-67; collaboration with Marx in authorship of _Manifesto_, 62; first meeting with Marx, 67; friendship with O'Connor and Owen, 67; his _Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844_, 67; joins International Alliance with Marx, 61; life in England, 67; linguistic abilities, 67; journalistic work, 67; poem on, 74; quoted, 17, 54, 73-74, 91, 105, 120, 153-154, 186, 306 n. , 334-335; share in authorship of _Manifesto_, 73; views upon confiscation of capitalist property, 335. 

England, industrial revolution in, 19 _et seq. _; Social Democratic Federation of, 283-284; trade unions in, 45, 197-199. 

Ensor, R. C. K. , 283, 306 n. 

Equality, Socialists and, 2, 312, 316. 

Eskimos, the, 102. 

_Essai sur la repartition des richesses et sur la tendance à une moindre inégalité des conditions_, 141 n. 

_Essay on Robert Owen_, 50 n. 

_Essays on the Formation of Human Character_, 34. 

_Ethics and the Materialistic Conception of History_, 171 n. 

Europe, growth of Socialism in, 4. 

Everet's wool-dressing machine, 27. 

F

_Fabian Tracts, The_, 124 n. , 144 n. 

_Factory System and the Factory Acts, The_, 24. 

Family, _see_ Marriage. 

Farmers, class interests of, 164, 166-169. 

Farms, mortgages and ownership of, 133-134; number of, in United States, 133; permanence of small, 134; under Socialism, 128 n. 

Ferdinand and Isabella, 95. 

_Ferdinand Lassalle as a Social Reformer_, 204 n. 

Ferri, Enrico, 78, 93 n. 

Feudalism, duration of, 107; nature of, 108-110; origin of, 106-107; theory of, 108. 

Feuerbach, Ludwig, 89. 

_Feuerbach, the Roots of the Socialist Philosophy_, 86 n. , 89 n. 

_Figaro, The_, 6. 

"Final Utility" theory of value, the, 257. 

Fourier, Charles, 32, 46, 48, 50, 54, 231. 

Foxwell, Professor, 206, 207 n. ; quoted, 206. 

France, concentration of wealth in, 141. 

Franklin, Benjamin, 244, 245, 307; estimate of, by Marx, 245 n. ; his views upon value, 245; quoted, 245. 

Freeman, Justice, 195. 

"Free Soil" movement, the, 57. 

Freiligrath, F. , 208. 

_French and German Socialism_, 46 n. 

G

Garrison, W. Lloyd, 85. 

Garwood, John, poem by, quoted, 35. 

Gentz, M. , 49. 

George, Henry, 268 n. 

German Socialists in America, F. Engels on, 120. 

GERMANY: Anarchism weak in, 181; ribbon loom invented in, 27; Socialism in, 167; use of loom in, forbidden, 28. 

_Geschichte der deutschen Sozialdemokratie_, 64 n. 

Ghent, W. J. , 32, 83, 124, 171 n. , 178; quoted, 175. 

Gibbins, H. De B. , quoted, 21, 22, 26. 

Giddings, Professor F. H. , quoted, 310. 

Giffen, Sir Robert, 143. 

Gildersleeve, Justice, 196. 

Glasgow, conference of manufacturers in, 39. 

_God's England or the Devil's?_ 69 n. 

Godwin, William, 203, 204. 

Gompers, Samuel, quoted, 13 n. 

Gossen, 257 n. 

Gotha Programme of German Socialist Party, 205, 224, 229. 

Gray, John, 203, 206. 

Green, J. Richard, 79. 

_Growth of Monopoly in English Industry, The_, 124 n. 

_Guaranties of Harmony and Freedom, The_, 55. 

_Guide to the Study of Political Economy_, 215. 

H

Hall, Charles, 203. 

Hall, Professor Thomas C. , 89 n. 

Hamburg, loom publicly burned in, 28. 

Hanna, Marcus A. , 183. 

Hargreaves, English inventor, 19. 

Harrington, 82. 

Hazelton and Homestead, 183. 

Heath, Frederic, 55 n. 

Hebrews, religious conceptions of the, 86. 

Heine, Heinrich, 66. 

_Herr Vogt_, 61. 

Hillquit, Morris, 46 n. , 228 n. ; quoted, 55-57. 

_History and Criticism of the Labor Theory of Value_, 205 n. 

_History of Socialism_, 46 n. 

_History of Socialism in the United States_, 46 n. , 55 n. 

_History of the Factory System_, 23. 

Hobbes, 261. 

Hodgskin, Thomas, 203, 207. 

Hull, Henry, 215 n. 

Huxley, Professor, 77, 98. 

Hyndman, H. M. , 38 n. , 257 n. 

I

Ibsen, 15. 

Icaria, 59. 

Idaho, class struggle in, 183, 192. 

Immigration, 127 n. 

Individualism, Socialism and, 280. 

_Industrial History of England, The_, 21 n. , 22 n. , 26 n. 

Industrial revolution in England, the, 19 _et seq. _

Ingalls, Senator John J. , 148. 

Initiative and Referendum, the, 289, 329-330. 

Injunctions in labor disputes, 193 _et seq. _

International Alliance, the, 61. 

International Cigarmakers' Union, 195. 

_International Socialist Review, The_, 11, 88 n. , 224 n. 

International Typographical Union, 196. 

Iron Law of Wages, the, 262-265. 

Isaiah, quoted, 9. 

J

Jaurès, Jean, 306 n. , 327 n. , 328 n. 

_Jesus Christ and the Social Question_, 69 n. 

Jevons, Professor W. S. , 257 n. 

Jones, Lloyd, biographer of Owen, 19. 

Jones, Owen's first partner, 29. 

_Justice_ (London), 61 n. , 67 n. 

K

_Karl Marx: Biographical Memoirs_, 17 n. , 64 n. , 66 n. , 93 n. , 209 n. , 212 n. 

_Karl Marx's Nationaloekonomische Irrlehren_, 92 n. 

Karl Marx on Sectarianism and Dogmatism, 88 n. 

Kautsky, Karl, 66 n. , 171 n. , 297 n. , 305 n. , 306 n. , 324 n. ; quoted, 128, 168. 

Kipling, Rudyard, quoted, 96. 

Kirkup, Thomas, 46 n. 

Kropotkin, Peter, 99, 100, 285, 286 n. 

Kydd, Samuel ("Alfred"), 23 n. 

L

Labor, defined by Mallock, 228-229; by Marx, 228. 

_Labor Defended against the Claims of Capital_, 206. 

_Labor History of the Cripple Creek District_, 174 n. 

Labor Notes, 314. 

Labor-power, a commodity, 263 _et seq. _; determines value, 243-254. 

_Labour and Capital; a Letter to a Labour Friend_, 284 n. 

_Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy_, 207. 

_La Conquête du pain_, 286 n. 

Lafargue, Paul, 128 n. , 297 n. 

Lamarck, 72. 

_La Misère de la Philosophie_, 201, 203 n. 

Land, ownership of, under Socialism, 297; under tribal communism, 72, 97. 

_La Philosophie de la Misère_, 201. 

Lassalle, Ferdinand, 64 n. , 204 n. , 225, 262-263, 264, 265. 

Lauderdale, Lord, 49, 257. 

_Lectures on the Nature and Use of Money_, 206. 

Lee, Algernon, quoted, 172, 275. 

Leibnitz, 64, 77; quoted, 76. 

Leslie, John ("J. L. "), quoted, 74 n. 

_L'État Socialiste_, 315. 

Liebknecht, W. , 64 n. , 66 n. , 212 n. ; quoted, 17, 93, 209, 327-328. 

_Life of Francis Place_, 207 n. 

_Life of Robert Owen_ (anonymous), 30 n. 

Lincoln, Abraham, 43-44. 

Lloyd, W. F. , 257 n. 

Locke, 64. 

Lockwood, George Browning, 39 n. , 41 n. 

London, Jack, 182 n. 

Lothrop, Harriet E. , 224 n. 

Lovejoy, 85. 

Lubbock, Sir John, 101. 

Luddites, the, 26, 36. 

Luther, Martin, 80, 88. 

Lyell, 77. 

M

Macdonald, J. R. , 225. 

Machinery, introduction of, 19, 20, 26-29. 

Machinists' Union sued, 198. 

McMaster, 79. 

Macrosty, H. W. , 124. 

Maine, Sir Henry, 101. 

Mallock, W. H. , 119, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 230, 274, 275. 

Malthus, 98. 

Marr, Wilhelm, 70 n. 

Marriage, Socialism and, 292-293. 

MARX, KARL: birth and early life, 63-65; _Capital_ written in London, 209; collaborates with Engels, 62, 73; conversion to Socialism, 68-70; correspondent for New York _Tribune_, 210; death, 213; domestic felicity, 212-213; edits _Rhenish Gazette_, 65, 67; expelled from different countries, 209; finds refuge in England, 209; first meeting with F. Engels, 67; his attacks upon Proudhon, 201-202; his obligations to the Ricardians, 203; his surplus value theory, 203, 205, 206, 266-270; in German revolution of 1848, 208; Jewish ancestry, 63-64; marriage, 65-66; mastery of art of definition, 217; misrepresentation by Mallock of his views, 221-230; opposes Bakunin, 69-70; parents' religious beliefs, 64-65; poverty, 210-212; quoted, 27, 28, 29, 61, 86, 87, 89, 90, 93, 115, 191, 202, 217, 236, 239, 245 n. , 263, 274, 275, 327, 334-335; related to Argyles through marriage, 66; scientific methods of, 231-234; spiritual nature of, 68-70; starts _New Rhenish Gazette_, 208; views on confiscation of capitalist property, 334-335; views on Social Revolution, 326-327. 

_Mass and Class_, 83 n. , 171 n. , 175 n. , 178 n. 

Massey, Gerald, quoted, 52 n. 

Mayo-Smith, Richmond, 142, 143. 

Mazzini, G. , 60. 

Mehring, Franz, 64 n. , 224 n. 

Menger, Dr. Anton, 203, 205, 206 n. , 207 n. 

_Message to Congress_, 177. 

Methodism, 89. 

Middle Ages, the, 107. 

Mill, John Stuart, 216, 217, 227, 242. 

Mitchell, John, 183; quoted, 193. 

_Modern Socialism_ (Ensor), 306 n. 

_Modern Socialism_ (Spargo), 259 n. 

Money, as a commodity, 255-256; various articles used as, 255. 

Money, Chiozza, M. P. , 144. 

Monopoly, 115, 116, 149, 258, 259. 

More, Sir Thomas, 9, 58, 59. 

Morgan, J. P. , 179. 

Morgan, Lewis H. , 97, 101, 102 n. 

Morris, William, quoted, 2, 20. 

_Mutual Aid a Factor of Evolution_, 99 n. , 100 n. 

N

Napoleon, 114, 250. 

National Association of Manufacturers, the, 183. 

National Civic Federation, the, 183, 222 n. 

_Natural and Artificial Right of Property Contrasted, The_, 206-207. 

"New Christianity" of Saint-Simon, the, 68. 

New Harmony, 43, 44, 45, 51. 

_New Harmony Communities, The_, 39 n. , 41 n. 

New Lanark, 31-34, 41, 50. 

_New Moral World, The_, 11. 

Newton, Sir Isaac, 152. 

Newton, Wales, 45. 

New York _Sun_, the, 196. 

Nicholson, Professor J. S. , 241 n. 

_Northern Star, The_, 67. 

Norway, 2. 

_Notes on Feuerbach_, 86 n. 

O

_Oceana_, 82. 

_Organized Labor_, 183 n. 

_Origin of Species, The_, 72. 

_Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, The_, 105. 

_Our Benevolent Feudalism_, 124. 

OWEN, ROBERT: advises Cabet, 60; as cotton manufacturer, 29-34; at Aix-la-Chapelle, 49; Autobiography of, 24 n. ; becomes Socialist, 41; begins agitation for factory legislation, 31; biography of, 19; dying words of, 50; Emerson's view of, 50-52; Engels' estimate of, 17; establishes infant schools, 32; first to use word "Socialism, " 11; founder of coöperative movement, 45; his failure, 45; improves spinning machinery, 30; Liebknecht on, 17; Lincoln and, 43-44; New Harmony, 43-45; New Lanark, 31-34; presides over first Trade Union Congress, 45; proposes establishment of communistic villages, 41; quoted, 24, 25, 34, 35, 37-38, 39-41; scepticism of, 18; speech to manufacturers, 39-41; views on crisis of 1815, 37; views of Fourier's ideas, 50. 

Owen, Robert Dale, letter of, to Lincoln, 44. 

Owenism, synonymous with Socialism, 11. 

P

Peabody, Professor, 69 n. 

Peel, Sir Robert, 31. 

Petty, Sir William, 214, 215, 242, 244; quoted, 215, 216, 243-244. 

_Pioneers of Evolution from Thales to Huxley_, 76 n. , 82 n. 

Place, Francis, 207. 

Plato, 9. 

Podmore, Frank, 19 n. 

_Political Economy_ (Senior), 214 n. 

_Poverty of Philosophy, The_, 201 n. 

_Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States, The_, 144 n. 

Price, an approximation of value, 254 _et seq. _

Prices and Wages, 189. 

_Principles of Economics_ (Seligman), 259 n. 

_Principles of Political Economy and Taxation_, 246 n. , 249 n. , 262 n. 

_Principles of Sociology, The_, 286 n. , 313-314 n. 

Private property, origin of, 97, 102-103; transformation to social, 331-337; under the Socialist régime, 128, 296-300, 316-317. 

Protestant Reformation, the, 80, 114. 

Proudhon, P. J. , 66, 201, 202. 

Pullman Strike, the, 193-194. 

Q

_Quarterly Journal of Economics, The_, 15. 

Quelch, II. , 201 n. 

R

Rappites, the, 45. 

Rastall, Benjamin McKie, 174 n. 

Rauschenbusch, Professor, 86. 

Referendum, the, 289, 329-330. 

_Reformateurs Modernes_, 11. 

_Remarks and Facts relative to the American Paper Currency_, 245 n. 

_Reminiscences of Karl Marx_, 68 n. 

Rent of Ability, the, 273-275. 

_Report of the Royal Commission on Labour_, 70 n. 

_Republic, The_, 12. 

Republican Party, the, 2, 312 n. 

Revisionism, 132. 

_Revolution and Counter-Revolution_, 210, 212 n. 

_Revolution in Mind and Practice, The_, 49 n. 

Revolution of 1848, 208. 

_Revue Politique et Parliamentaire_, 128, 297 n. 

Reybaud, L. , 11. 

Ricardians, the, 202-208, 229, 242. 

Ricardo, David, 205, 214, 215, 216, 217, 227, 242, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250; quoted, 245-246, 262. 

_Riches and Poverty_, 144. 

_Right to the Whole Produce of Labour, The_, 205 n. , 206 n. , 207 n. 

Riley, W. Harrison, 68 n. 

Rockefeller, John D. , 179. 

Rogers, Thorold, 83, 84, 94 n. , 95 n. 

Roosevelt, President, 151, 180, 312 n. ; quoted, 177. 

Ruge, Arnold, 66. 

Russell, Lord John, 206. 

S

Sadler, Michael, 26 n. 

Saint-Simon, 7, 9, 12, 46, 48, 231, 232. 

Salt, H. S. , 26 n. 

San Francisco, disaster in, 158-159. 

Sanial, Lucien, 129, 145. 

Saxony, concentration of wealth in, 143. 

Scarcity values, 249-250. 

Schiller, quoted, 85. 

Seabury, Judge, 196 n. 

Seligman, Professor E. R. A. , 81 n. , 82, 83, 84, 85 n. , 91, 259. 

Senior, Nassau, 214. 

_Shall the Unions go into Politics?_ 184 n. 

Simons, A. M. , 136, 168 n. , 306 n. 

Slonimski, Ludwig, 92 n. 

Smith, Adam, 160, 206, 214, 215, 227, 242, 247; quoted, 161-162, 244. 

Smith, Professor J. Allen, 289 n. 

Smith, Professor Goldwin, 284. 

_Social Democracy Red Book_, 55 n. 

_Social Meaning of Modern Religious Movements in England, The_, 89 n. 

SOCIALISM: and assassination, 1, 3; coöperation under, 299, 300, 305; credit functions under, 300-302; definition of the word, 9; democracy essential to, 287-289; education under, 318-320; first use of the word, 10-11; freedom in religious, scientific, and philosophical matters under, 291-292; freedom of the individual under, 284-287; in Europe, 4; in Germany, 4, 167, 181; in United States, 4, 167; inheritance of wealth under, 316-317; justice under, 318; labor and its reward under, 311-316; monopolies and, 115, 128, 148-150, 332-333; not opposed to individualism, 280 _et seq. _; private property and industry under, 295-300, 335; realization of, 323 _et seq. _; relation of the sexes under, 293; religion and, 291-292, 319; religious training of children and, 319-320; scientific character of, 231-234; Utopian and scientific compared, 42; wages under, 313-315; wealth under, 316-317, 335; women's suffrage and, 288, 329. 

_Socialism_ (Macdonald), 225 n. 

_Socialism_ (Mallock), 221 n. 

_Socialism and Social Democracy_, 10 n. 

_Socialism Inevitable_, 130, 131. 

_Socialism Utopian and Scientific_, 35 n. , 47 n. , 48. 

Socialist Party organizations among farmers, 167. 

Social Revolution, the, 324-328. 

_Social Revolution, The_, 128 n. , 306 n. , 315 n. , 334 n. 

Sombart, Professor Werner, 132. 

_Some Neglected British Economists_, 257 n. 

_Songs of Freedom_, 26 n. 

Sorge, F. A. , 120. 

Spahr, Charles B. , 144. 

Spargo, John, 10, 168. 

Spencer, Herbert, 6, 8, 282, 313-314 n. ; quoted, 7, 286. 

_Spirit of American Government, The_, 289 n. 

Standard Oil group, the, 117. 

_Statistics and Economics_, 142-143. 

Stone, N. I. , 245 n. 

_Studies in Socialism_, 306 n. , 327 n. , 328 n. 

_Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society_, 79 n. , 115 n. , 138 n. , 140 n. , 148. 

_Sun_, New York, the, 196. 

SURPLUS VALUE: early uses of the term, 205, 206; the theory developed by Marx, 206, 266; the theory explained, 266-270; various theories of, 271-275. 

Symonds, J. Addington, 322 n. 

T

"Taff Vale law, " 197-199. 

Taxation as a means of achieving Socialism, 336-337. 

Taxation of land values, 268 n. 

Tendencies to socialization within existing state, 279, 330-331. 

Texas, Cabet advised to experiment in, 60. 

_The People's Marx_, 237 n. 

_The Social System, a Treatise on the Principles of Exchange_, 206. 

Thompson, William, 203, 204, 205. 

Tolstoy, 15, 222. 

TRUSTS, _see_ CONCENTRATION OF CAPITAL _and_ MONOPOLY. 

U

Unionism, principles of labor, 184 _et seq. _

United Mine Workers' Union, the, 159-160. 

UNITED STATES: classes in, 164-169, 176-179; concentration of wealth and capital in, 124-150; farms and farm mortgages in, 133-134; millionaires in, 146-148; Socialism in, 4, 167; strikes in, 182. 

United States Steel Corporation, 138. 

V

VALUE: and price, 254-259; early labor theory of, 242-252; Marxian theory of, 250-254; other theories of, 259. 

_Value, Price, and Profit_, 263 n. 

Vandervelde, Émile, 306 n. , 315 n. , 334 n. , 335 n. 

Vasco de Gama, 96. 

Veblen, Professor Thorstein, quoted, 15. 

_Volkstribun_, the, 57. 

W

Wallace, Alfred Russell, 77, 81. 

Wallas, G. , 207. 

_War of the Classes, The_, 182 n. 

Warne, Frank Julian, 160 n. 

Watt, James, 20, 227. 

Wealth, defined, 217-221; inheritance of, under Socialism, 316-317, 335. 

_Wealth of Nations, The_, 160, 162 n. , 206 n. , 213, 244 n. , 249 n. 

Webb, Mrs. Sidney, 310. 

Weitling, Wilhelm, 14, 54, 55, 56, 57. 

Whitaker, Dr. A. C. , 205 n. 

Wilshire, Gaylord, 130 n. , 131 n. 

Wolf, Wilhelm, 208. 

_Worker, The_, 172, 275. 

_World as it is, and as it might be, The_, 55. 

Wright, Carroll D. , 174 n. 

_Writings and Speeches of John J. Ingalls_, 148 n. 

Y

Youmans, Professor, 77. 

Z

Zola, Émile, 15. 

ADVERTISEMENTS

The Bitter Cry of the Children

By JOHN SPARGO

Introduction by Robert Hunter

_Illustrated, cloth, 12mo, $1. 50 net; by mail, $1. 62_

 "The book will live and will set hundreds of teachers and social workers and philanthropists to work in villages and cities throughout the country.... Whatever our feeling as to the remedy for starved and half-starved children, we are grateful for the vivid, scholarly way in which this book marshals the experience of two continents in awaking to the physical needs of the children who are compelled to be in school though unfit for schooling.... School teachers need this book, social workers, librarians, pastors, editors, all who want to understand the problem of poverty or education. "--WILLIAM H. ALLEN in _The Annals of the American Academy_. 

 * * * * *

The Common Sense of the Milk Question By JOHN SPARGO

_Cloth, $1. 50 net; by mail, $1. 62_

 * * * * *

New Worlds for Old

By H. G. WELLS _cloth, $1. 50; by mail, $1. 61_

 "H. G. Wells presents what is probably the most alluring statement of the claims of socialism that has ever been put forward. The book has all the charms of Mr. Wells's style. He suffuses with the subtle grace of poetry and humor statements which in the mouth of any one else would be commonplace and dry. He does not offend. He does not rant. He studies to be genial, sensible, and sympathetic; he succeeds in being all of these things. "--_New York Evening Mail. _

 * * * * *

The Social Unrest

Studies in Labor and Social Movements

By JOHN GRAHAM BROOKS _Cl. , $1. 50 net; by mail, $1. 61_

 * * * * *

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York

A History of Socialism

By THOMAS KIRKUP

Third edition revised

_Cloth, 8vo, 400 pages and index, $2. 25 net; by mail, $2. 37_

 "The chapter on the growth of Socialism has been completely rewritten in order to bring it up to date.... He is singularly free from the exaggerated statement and declamatory style which characterize the writing of so many socialists, and the concluding pages of the present volume show him at his best.... None have surpassed Mr. Kirkup in philosophical grasp of the essentials of Socialism or have presented the doctrine in more intelligible form. "--_The Nation. _

 * * * * *

Socialists at Work

By ROBERT HUNTER, author of "Poverty"

_Cloth, $1. 50 net; by mail, $1. 62_

 "It is a vivid, running characterization of the foremost personalities in the socialist movement throughout the world. Such a book does real service in presenting the truly significant facts in the modern spread of socialistic propaganda and in stating in definite terms the principles on which socialists are agreed and the immediate aims of their organizations. The world-sweep of the movement has never before been so clearly brought before the American reading public. "--_Review of Reviews. _

 * * * * *

Christianity and the Social Crisis

By the Rev. WALTER RAUSCHENBUSCH, Professor of Church History inRochester Theological Seminary

_Cloth, 12mo, $1. 50 net; by mail, $1. 62_

 * * * * *

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York