The Red Conspiracy Part 10

This great leader of the French Socialists, who was a.s.sa.s.sinated at the beginning of the World War, and in whose honor there was a tremendous demonstration in Paris on April 6, 1919, prophesied that "the time is not far off when no one will be able to speak to the public about the preservation of private property without covering himself with ridicule and putting himself voluntarily into an inferior rank. That which reigns to-day under the name of private property is really cla.s.s property, and those who wish for the establishment of democracy in the economic as well as the political world should give their best effort to the abolition and not to the maintenance of this cla.s.s property."

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

"What is Socialism? It is the public ownership of all the wealth, the mills, the mines, the factories, the railroads and land. Things that are used in common, must be owned in common, by the people and for the people under democratic management by the people, instead of the present system of private ownership for profits."

According to Morris Hillquit in "Everybody's," October, 1913, page 487:

"The Socialist program advocates a reorganization of the existing industrial system on the basis of collective or national ownership of the social tools. It demands that the control of the machinery of wealth creation be taken from the individual capitalists and placed in the hands of the nation, to be organized and operated for the benefit of the whole people."

Hillquit, in his various articles, has, of course, like many other Socialists, given his explanation of the detailed method of organization and operation of industries under a Socialist form of government. It reads very nicely and appears attractive, as his statements do till truth's searchlight falls on them, but it does not seem worth while to present his views, for very many of the leading Socialists of the world not only differ with each other as regards the method of organization and operation that they advocate for the Marxian state, but they are also very much at variance with the plan of organization and operation that Hillquit describes.

Eugene V. Debs, in his "Daily Message from Moundsville Prison,"

published in "The Call," New York, April 21, 1919, tells us what Socialism is:

"The earth for all the people! That is the demand.

"The machinery of production and distribution for all the people!

That is the demand.

"The collective ownership and control of industry and its democratic management in the interest of all the people! That is the demand.

"The elimination of rent, interest and profit and the production of wealth to satisfy the wants of all the people! That is the demand.

"Co-operative industry in which we all shall work together in harmony as the basis of a new social order, a higher civilization, a real republic! That is the demand.

"The end of cla.s.s struggles and cla.s.s rule, of master and slave, of ignorance and vice, of poverty and shame, of cruelty and crime--the birth of freedom, the dawn of brotherhood, the beginning of MAN!

That is the demand.

"This is Socialism!"

In the Preamble to the American Socialist Party Platform, adopted by national referendum, July 24, 1917, we are told:

"The theory of a democratic government is the greatest good to the greatest number. The working cla.s.s far out-numbers the capitalist cla.s.s. Here is the natural advantage of the working cla.s.s. By uniting solidly in a political party of its own, it can capture the government and all its powers and use them in its own interests.

"The Socialist Party aims to abolish this cla.s.s war with all its evils and to subst.i.tute for capitalism a new order of co-operation, wherein the workers shall own and control all the economic factors of life. It calls upon all workers to unite, to strike as they vote and to vote as they strike, all against the master cla.s.s.

"Only through this combination of our powers can we establish the co-operative commonwealth, wherein the workers shall own their jobs and receive the full social value of their product. The necessities of life will then be produced, not for the profits of the few, but for the comfort and happiness of all who labor. Instead of privately owned industries with masters and slaves, there will be the common ownership of the means of life, and all the opportunities and resources of the world will be equal and free to all."

The fundamental principle of Socialism, namely, a government, democratic in form, in which all the citizens would collectively own and manage the princ.i.p.al means of production, transportation and communication, will be more clearly understood if the several component parts of the basic principle are explained.

A government, _democratic in form_, would, of course, require the overthrow of all limited monarchies as well as the annihilation of those that are despotic. Even a republican form of government, like that of the United States, is very far from being satisfactory to the Revolutionists, for they demand that the citizens have as direct a voice as possible, first in the election of all public officers, secondly in the framing of the laws, and thirdly in the management of the many industrial departments of the proposed government.

By the citizens' _collective owning_ of the different things enumerated is meant that they would own them just as the citizens of the United States, as a body, to-day own the post-offices, a.r.s.enals, navy and public lands. Of course, collective ownership does not imply that, after the state should have taken over the things referred to, each citizen would be ent.i.tled to an equal share of them as his own private property, to be used by him according to his desires.

_The management of the property_ of the Socialist state and the remuneration[8] for labor would not be in the hands of private individuals acting independently, but would be subject to the will of the majority of the citizens.

By the _princ.i.p.al_ means of production, transportation and communication is meant any instrument of production, transportation or communication that would be used for purposes of exploitation, in other words, for making profit through the employment of hired labor. To ill.u.s.trate this, several examples will be given. Mines, factories and mills of all kinds, large business houses and stores, together with those farms whose owners would employ hired labor for the production of goods to be sold at profit, would all be looked upon as being among the _princ.i.p.al means of production_. On the other hand, a sewing-machine used for family needs would not be included in the list.

There are many Socialists who have held that their intended state would allow the private ownership of very small farms, provided that the products were raised without the employment of farm hands. But it seems likely that such a plan of private ownership would not be tolerated under a Socialist government, for, first of all, a very large number of Socialists are opposed to such a plan, and, secondly, the political actionists who have favored it either have sacrificed thereby the principles of their party, or else by advocating the private ownership of small farms, have done so with the intention of deceiving farmers and small land owners in order to win their votes. More will be said about this further on.

Railroads, street car lines, express and steamship service would be among the _princ.i.p.al means of transportation_; while included in the list of _princ.i.p.al means of communication_ there would be the public telephone and telegraph systems. Automobiles, horses and carriages, if used without the a.s.sistance of hired labor, would not be considered as being princ.i.p.al means of transportation. So, too, under similar conditions, a private telephone or telegraph line running to the house of a friend would be excluded from the princ.i.p.al means of communication.

The state would, of course, own all the goods produced in its mines, factories, shops, etc., until they were purchased with money or labor certificates. The people would then retain these goods as their own private property, and would not, according to the leading American Socialists, be compelled to divide them up with their fellow countrymen.

The Socialist plan looks very nice on paper, allures many impoverished workingmen of the present day, appeals strongly to the uneducated, and offers great inducements to the "downs and outs" of society. It is, however, a deadly poison, and this will be proven conclusively in the chapter on "Socialism a Peril to Workingmen." There it will be shown not only that a Socialist state cannot possibly be a success, but that it would be a source of continued civil strife and discord, thoroughly unsatisfactory to workingmen, whom it would overwhelm with all the evils attendant on crime, strife, rebellion and chaos. In the Marxian state the industrial establishments, land, and business enterprises would be confiscated; neither interest, rent nor profit would be tolerated; the wage system would be abolished; no satisfactory plan could be devised for a.s.signing so many millions of workingmen to the different positions, while at the same time satisfying them with remuneration for their daily toil; religions of all kinds would be the object of persecution; free-love would be legalized; and political corruption would be much more widespread than today. These are but several of the factors that would make a successful Socialist state an impossibility.

It may interest the reader to know that Socialists of the highest authority inform us that in the new state women would be called upon to work. The late August Bebel, one of the foremost of German Socialists, says that as soon as society is in possession of all the means of production, "the duty to work, on the part of all able to work, without distinction of s.e.x, becomes the organic law of socialized society."

["Woman Under Socialism," by Bebel, page 275 of the 1904 edition in English.] Frederick Engels, in his book, "Origin of the Family," teaches that the emanc.i.p.ation of women is primarily dependent on the reintroduction of the whole female s.e.x into the public industries.

["Origin of the Family," by Engels, page 90 of Untermann's 1907 translation into English.] In "The Call," New York, February 27, 1910, it is stated that "the man who professes himself to be a Socialist, and then says that under Socialism men will provide for women, is wide of the mark."

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

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

We are told by Hillquit in "Everybody's," October, 1913, page 486, that "like all social theories and practical ma.s.s movements, Socialism produces certain divergent schools, b.a.s.t.a.r.d offshoots cl.u.s.tering around the main trunk of the tree, large in number and variety, but insignificant in size and strength. Thus we hear of State Socialism, Socialism of the Chair, Christian Socialism and even Catholic Socialism."

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

But unless those who are Socialists merely in name sever their connection with the party of Karl Marx, it will not be long before many of them will lose all sense of honor, decency and morality. Indeed they often sink lower than the base character who composed the "poem" that takes up half a page of "The Call" of May 10, 1914. Though "The Call"

seems to consider the "poem" an excellent specimen of literature, or else uses the large type that it does in order to attract the attention of its readers to the sublime virtues of the author, the quotation of but a small part of the production will suffice to bring out its real worth and at the same time show us the benign effects of Socialist teachings:

"You who are exalted by pictures but not by people: you who worship a book and a G.o.d rather than hearts and men and women: I'd rather have my world and its flesh and its devil than your heaven and its spirit and its G.o.d:....

And while I don't blame man for being base or praise man for being n.o.ble, I embrace man as my brother for being man: And there you have the whole story, my man intoxication: I am drunk with man: you see how it is: You can have your bibles: I don't need your christs: your creeds would be an insult to me: I have man: I am drunk with man: That's the secret of secrets: that's the confession of confessions: that's the inside of the inside of me: I don't expect you to take it in: drunk with man: no: that's too much like mockery to you: you shudder at it: To you man always comes last: man never comes first: G.o.ds, mountains, laws--they come first: man can take his chances: That's the rule of precedence as you have fixed it: that's the up and down and around of your cosmos: But I say no: I who am drunk with man can't give up my faith for your blasphemy: you who are sober with G.o.d."

The attention of the reader must now be drawn to something of vital importance. There is no doubt that "Knights of the Red Flag" have advocated many excellent social reforms, such as higher wages, shorter working hours and greater safety for laborers, legislation against trusts, and the prevention of child labor and political corruption.

Great credit would they deserve if their real object were not to gain votes to secure the establishment of a Socialist form of government. It is probable that before long, voting with true social reformers, they will see the materialization of many of the immediate demands enumerated in their platform. But it is to be remembered that no matter how many beneficial reforms Socialists may help to procure under our present const.i.tutional system, they thus in no way prove the superiority of a Socialistic government, democratic in form, in which the citizens would collectively own and manage the princ.i.p.al means of production, transportation, and communication. The reason is that our const.i.tutional government would still be in vogue, and the contradictory fundamental principle of Socialism could not be applied by the ruling Marxians.

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

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

These same immediate demands also give the voter a chance to find fault with our present system of government and to criticise it, thereby rendering it less able to withstand successive Socialist a.s.saults. The immediate demands are, of course, meant for the present day and even if they should materialize, under our present system, they could not be continued in a Socialist state, that would be necessarily weak, poverty-stricken, strife-ridden, politically corrupt and chaotic. It is one thing to make demands, quite another thing to be able to grant them.

A highway robber can demand a million dollars from the person whom he attacks, but that doesn't make the one a.s.saulted able to surrender the sum; nor would it prove that the robber himself could afford to pay a like amount if he should afterwards be held up for a million.

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

A--International Reconstruction.

Peace Aims.

Federation of Peoples.

B--Internal Reconstruction.

Industrial Control.

Railroads and Express Service.

Steamships and Steamship Lines.

Telegraph and Telephone.

Large Power Scale Industry.

Democratic Management.

Demobilization.

The Structure of Government (i.e., of the present system of government).

Civil Liberties.