Chapter IV: "reformism" in the United States (1)

Because of our greater European immigration and more advanced economic development, the Socialist movement in this country, as has been remarked by many of those who have studied it, is more closely affiliated with that of the continent of Europe than with that of Great Britain.

The American public has been grievously misinformed as to the development of revolutionary Socialism in this country. A typical example is the widely noticed article by Prof. Robert F. Hoxie, entitled, "The Rising Tide of Socialism."

After analyzing the Socialist vote into several contradictory elements, Professor Hoxie concludes:--

"There seems to be a definite law of the development of Socialism
which applies both to the individual and to the group. The law is
this: The creedalism and immoderateness of Socialism, other things
being equal, vary inversely with its age and responsibility. The
average Socialist recruit begins as a theoretical impossibilist and
develops gradually into a constructive opportunist. Add a taste of
real responsibility and he is hard to distinguish from a liberal
reformer."[144]

On the contrary, the "theoretical impossibilists," however obstructive, have never been more than a handful, and the revolutionists, in spite of the very considerable and steady influx of reformers into the movement, have increased still more rapidly. That is, revolutionary Socialism is growing in this country--as elsewhere--and a very large and increasing number of the Socialists are become more and more revolutionary. From the beginning the American movement has been radical and the "reformists" have been heavily outvoted in every Congress of the present Party--in 1901, 1904, 1908, and 1910, while the most prominent revolutionist, Eugene V. Debs, has been its nominee for President at each Presidential election, since its foundation (1900, 1904, and 1908).[145]

Aside from a brief experience with the so-called municipal Socialism in Massachusetts in 1900 and 1902, the national movement gave little attention to the effort to secure the actual enactment of immediate reforms until the success of the Milwaukee Socialists (in 1910) in capturing the city government and electing one of its two Congressmen. There had always been a program of reforms indorsed by the Socialists. But this program had been misnamed "Immediate Demands," as the Party had concentrated its attention _almost exclusively_ on its one great demand, the overthrow of capitalist government.

In the fall elections of 1910 it was observed for the first time that certain Socialist candidates in various parts of the country ran far ahead of the rest of the Socialist ticket, and that some of those elected to legislatures and local offices owed their election to this fact. This appeared to indicate that these candidates had bid for and obtained a large share of the non-Socialist vote. A cry of alarm was thereupon raised by many American Socialists. The statement issued by Mr. Eugene V. Debs on this occasion, entitled "Danger Ahead," was undoubtedly representative of the views of the majority. As Mr. Debs has been, on three occasions, the unanimous choice of the Socialist Party of the United States as its candidate for the Presidency, he remains unquestionably the most influential member of the Party. I, therefore, quote his statement at length, as the most competent estimate obtainable of the present situation as regards reformism in the American Socialist movement:--

"The danger I see ahead," wrote Mr. Debs, "is that the Socialist
Party at this stage, and under existing conditions, is apt to
attract elements which it cannot assimilate, and that it may be
either weighted down, or torn asunder with internal strife, or that
it may become permeated and corrupted with the spirit of bourgeois
reform to an extent that will practically destroy its virility and
efficiency as a revolutionary organization.

"To my mind the working-class character and the revolutionary
integrity of the Socialist Party are of the first importance. _All
the votes of the people would do us no good if our party ceased to
be a revolutionary party or became only incidentally so, while
yielding_ more and more to the pressure to modify the principles
and program of the Party for the sake of swelling the vote and
hastening the day of its expected triumph.... The truth is that we
have not a few members who regard vote getting as of supreme
importance, no matter by what method the votes may be secured, and
this leads them to hold out inducements and make representations
which are not at all compatible with the stern and uncompromising
principles of a revolutionary party. They seek to make the
Socialist propaganda so attractive--eliminating whatever may give
offense to bourgeois sensibilities--that it serves as a bait for
votes rather than as a means of education, and _votes thus secured
do not properly belong to us and do injustice to our Party as well
as those who cast them_.... The election of legislative and
administrative officers, here and there where the Party is still in
a crude state and the members economically unprepared and
politically unfit to assume the responsibilities thrust upon them
as the result of popular discontent, will inevitably bring trouble
and set the Party back, instead of advancing it, and while this is
to be expected and is to an extent unavoidable, we should court no
more of that kind of experience than is necessary to avoid a
repetition of it. The Socialist Party has already achieved some
victories of this kind which proved to be defeats, crushing and
humiliating, and from which the party has not even now, after many
years, entirely recovered [referring, doubtless, to Haverhill and
Brockton.--W. E. W.].

"Voting for Socialism is not Socialism any more than a menu is a
meal....

"The votes will come rapidly enough from now on without seeking
them, and we should make it clear that the Socialist Party wants
the votes only of those who want Socialism, and that, above all, as
a revolutionary party of the working class, it discountenances vote
seeking for the sake of votes and holds in contempt office seeking
for the sake of office. These belong entirely to capitalist parties
with their bosses and their boodle and have no place in a party
whose shibboleth is emancipation."[146] (My italics.)

After Mr. Debs, Mr. Charles Edward Russell is now, perhaps, the most trusted of American Socialists. His statement, made a few months later (see the _International Socialist Review_ for March, 1912), reaches identical conclusions. As it is made from the entirely independent standpoint of the observations of a practical journalist as to political methods, it strongly reënforces and supplements Mr. Debs's conclusions, drawn chiefly from labor union experience. As I have already quoted Mr. Russell at length in the previous chapter, a few paragraphs will give a sufficient idea of this important declaration:--

"Let us suppose in this country," writes Mr. Russell, "a political
party with a program that proposes a great and radical
transformation of the existing system of society, and proposes it
upon lofty grounds of the highest welfare of mankind. Let us
suppose that it is based upon vital and enduring truth, and that
the success of its ideals would mean the emancipation of the race.

"If such a party should go into the dirty game of practical
politics, seeking success by compromise and bargain, striving to
put men into office, dealing for place and recognition, concerned
about the good opinion of its enemies, elated when men spoke well
of it, depressed by evil report, tacking and shifting, taking
advantage of a local issue here and of a temporary unrest there,
intent upon the goal of this office or that, it would inevitably
fall into the pit that has engulfed all other parties. Nothing on
earth could save it.

"But suppose a party that kept forever in full sight the ultimate
goal, and never once varied from it. Suppose that it strove to
increase its vote for this object and for none other.... Suppose it
regarded its vote as the index of its converts, and sought for such
votes and for none others. Suppose the entire body was convinced of
the party's full program, aims, and philosophy. Suppose that all
other men knew that this growing party was thus convinced and thus
determined, and that its growth menaced every day more and more the
existing structure of society, menaced it with overthrow and a new
structure. What then?

"Such a party would be the greatest political power that ever
existed in this or any other country. It would drive the other
parties before it like sand before a wind. They would be compelled
to adopt one after another the expedients of reform to head off the
increasing threat of this one party's progress towards the
revolutionary ideal. But this one party would have no more need to
waste its time upon palliative measures than it would have to soil
itself with the dirt of practical politics and the bargain counter.
The other parties would do all that and do it well. The one party
would be concerned with nothing but making converts to its
philosophy and preparing for the revolution that its steadfast
course would render inevitable. Such a party would represent the
highest possible efficiency in politics, the greatest force in the
State, and the ultimate triumph of its full philosophy would be
beyond question."

Thus we see that in America reformism is regarded as a dangerous innovation, and that, before it had finished its second prosperous year, it had been abjured by those who have the best claim to speak for the American Party. Nevertheless it still persists and, indeed, continues to develop rapidly--if less rapidly than the opposite, or revolutionary, policy--and deserves the most careful consideration.

While "reformism" only became a practical issue in the American Party in _1910_, it had its beginnings much earlier. The Milwaukee Socialists had set on the "reformist" course even before the formation of the present national party (in 1900). Even at this early time they had developed what the other Socialists had sought to avoid, a "leader"--in the person of Mr. Victor Berger. At first editor of the local German Socialist organ, the _Vorwaerts_, then of the _Social-Democratic Herald_, acknowledged leader at the time of the municipal victory in the spring of 1910, and now the American Party's first member of Congress, Mr. Berger has not merely been the Milwaukee organization's chief spokesman, organizer, and candidate throughout this period, but he has come to be the chief spokesman of the present reformist wing of the American Party. His editorials and speeches as Congressman, and the policies of the Milwaukee municipal administration, now so much in the public eye, will afford a fairly correct idea of the main features both of the Socialism that has so far prevailed in Milwaukee, and of American "reformism" in general.

"Socialism is an epoch of human history which will no doubt last many hundred years, possibly a thousand years," wrote Mr. Berger, editorially, in 1910. "Certainly a movement whose aims are spread out over a period like that need have no terrors for the most conservative," commented Senator La Follette, with perhaps justifiable humor.

If Socialism is to become positive, said Mr. Berger again, it must "conduct the everyday fight for the practical revolution of every day." Like the word "Socialism," Mr. Berger retains the word "revolution," but practically it comes to mean much the same as its antithesis, everyday reform.

It has been Mr. Berger's declared purpose from the beginning to turn the Milwaukee Party aside from the tactics of the International movement to those of the "revisionist" minority that has been so thoroughly crushed at the German and International Congresses. (See Chapter VII.) "The tactics of the American Socialist Party," he wrote editorially in 1901, "if that party is to live and succeed--can only be the much abused and much misunderstood Bernstein doctrine."

"In America for the first time in history," he added, "we find an oppressed class with the same fundamental rights as the ruling class--the right of universal suffrage...."[147]

It was the impression of many of the earlier German Socialists in this country that political democracy already existed in America and that it was only necessary to make use of it to establish a new social order. The devices the framers of our Constitution employed to prevent such an outcome, the widespread distribution of property, especially of farms, disfranchisement in the South and elsewhere, etc., were all considered as small matters compared to the difficulties Socialists faced in Germany and other countries. Many have come more recently to recognize, with Mr. Louis Boudin, that the movement "will have to learn that in this country, as in Germany or other alien lands, the fight is on not only for the use of its power by the working class, but for the possession of real political power by the masses of the people." Neither in this country nor in any other does the oppressed class have "the same fundamental rights as the ruling class." In America the working class have not even an approximately equal right to the ballot, because of local property, literacy, residence, and other qualifications, as alluded to in an earlier chapter, and it is at least doubtful whether the workers are in a more favorable position here than elsewhere to gain final and effective control of the government without physical revolution (as Mr. Berger himself has admitted; see Chapter VI).

In explanation of what he meant by the Bernstein doctrine, Mr. Berger wrote in 1902: "Others condemn every reform which is to precede the 'Great Revolution.' ... Nothing can be more absurd.... Progress is not attained by simply waiting for a majority of people, for the general reconstruction, for the promised hour of deliverance.... We wicked 'opportunists' want action.... We want to reconstruct society, and we must go to work without delay, and work ceaselessly for the coöperative Commonwealth, the ideal of the future. But we want to change conditions now. We stand for scientific Socialism."[148]

It is quite true that there was a Socialist Party in this country before 1900, a large part of which ridiculed every reform that can come before the expected revolution, but these "Impossibilists" are now a dwindling handful. Nearly every Socialist now advocates all progressive reforms, but different views obtain as to which of these reforms do, and which of them do not, properly come within the Socialists' sphere of action.

Mr. Berger's opinion is that the Socialists should take the lead in practically all immediate reform activities, and belittles all other reformers. No sooner had Senator La Follette appeared on the political horizon in 1904 than Mr. Berger classed him with Mr. Bryan, as "visionary."[149] And after Senator La Follette had become recognized as perhaps the most effective radical the country has produced, Mr. Berger still persisted in referring to him as "personally honest, but politically dishonest," and was quoted as saying, with particular reference to the Senator and his ideas of reform, and to the great satisfaction of the reactionary press: "An insurgent is 60 per cent of old disgruntled politician, 30 per cent clear hypocrisy, 9 per cent nothing, and 1 per cent Socialism. Put in a bottle and shake well before using and you will have a so-called 'progressive.'"[150]

Let us see how the Socialist platform in Wisconsin differs from that of the insurgent Republicans and Democrats. It begins with the statement that the movement aims at "better food, better houses, sufficient sleep, more leisure, more education, and more culture." All progressive and honest reform movements stand for all these things and, as I have shown, promise gradually to get them. Under capitalism per capita wealth and income are increased rapidly and the capitalists can well afford to grant to the workers more and more of all the things mentioned, not out of fear of Socialism, but to provide in the future for that steady increase of industrial efficiency which is destined to be the greatest source of future profits.

The platform goes on to state that "the final aim of the Social-Democratic Party is the emancipation of the producers and the abolition of the capitalist system" and describes the list of reforms it proposes as "mere palliatives, capable of being carried out even under present conditions." But it also suggests that these measures are in part, though not all, Socialistic, whereas a careful comparison with the Democratic and Republican platforms, especially the latter, shows that they are practically all adopted by the capitalist parties (not only in Wisconsin, but in States where the Socialists have no representation whatever). If the Social-Democrats of Wisconsin demand more government ownership and labor legislation, the Republicans are somewhat more insistent on certain extensions of political democracy--as in the demand for less partisan primaries.

The New York Socialist platform makes very similar demands to that of Wisconsin, but precedes them by the long explanation (see Chapter VI) of the Socialist view of the class struggle, which the Wisconsin platform barely mentions, while containing declarations that might be interpreted as contradicting it. _The Wisconsin idea is that a Socialist minority in the nation has actual power to obtain reforms that will advance us towards Socialism and that would not otherwise be obtained. The New York idea is that a Socialist minority can have no other reforming power than any honest reform minority, unless Socialism has actually won or is about to win a majority._

The legislature of Wisconsin has doubtless gone somewhat faster than those of other "progressive" States, on account of the presence of the "Social-Democrats." It has passed the latters' resolutions, for example, calling for the government ownership of coal mines and of such railroad, telegraph, telephone, and express companies as pass into the hands of receivers, and also to apply incomes from natural resources to old-age pensions as well as other resolutions already mentioned. But an inspection of the resolutions of the legislatures of other States where there are no Socialist legislators and only a relatively small per cent of Socialists shows action almost if not quite as radical. This and the fact that a very radical tendency appeared in Wisconsin when Mr. La Follette was governor and before Socialism had any apparent power in that State, suggests that the influence of the latter has been entirely secondary.

The _Social-Democratic Herald_ complains significantly, at a later date, of "the cowardly and hypocritical Socialistic platforms of the two older parties," while Mr. Berger was lately predicting that Senator La Follette would be "told to get out" of the Republican Party. The reformer who was so recently "retrogressive" had now become a rival in reform. Mr. Berger, however, claims that he does not object when reformers "steal the Socialist thunder." If both are striving after the "immediately attainable," how indeed could there be any lasting conflict, or serious difference of opinion? Or if there is to be any difference at all between Socialists and "Insurgents," is it not clear that the Socialists must reject, absolutely, Berger's principles, and follow Bebel's advice (quoted below), _i.e. concentrate their attention exclusively on "thunder" which the enemy will not and cannot steal_?

But perhaps an even more striking indication of the nature of Milwaukee Socialism is shown by the very general welcome it has received among capitalist organs of all parties, from the _Outlook, Collier's Weekly_, the _Saturday Evening Post_, and the _American Magazine_, to the _New York Journal_, the _New York World_, the _Chicago Tribune_, the _Milwaukee Journal_, and other capitalist papers all over the country. The _New York Journal_ stated editorially after the municipal election of 1910, that won Milwaukee for the Socialists of the Berger School, that the men of Milwaukee who have accumulated millions show no signs of fear and that "before the election many of the biggest Milwaukee business men (including at least two of the brewers) had expressed themselves privately in admiration of Mr. Berger and his character _and his purposes_." (My italics.)[151]

_La Follette's Weekly_ on this occasion quoted from an editorial of Mr. Berger in which he had written: "We must show the people of Milwaukee that the philosophy of international Socialism can be applied and will be applied to the local situation, and that it can be applied with advantage to any American city of the present day.... It is our duty to give this city the best kind of an administration that _a modern city can get under the present system, and the present laws_." (My italics.) La Follette's repeats the phrase in italics and adds that this policy contains "nothing to arouse fear on the part of the business interests that is tangible enough to be felt or genuine enough to be contagious," that the people want "new blood in the city offices," "had confidence in the Socialist candidates," and "are not afraid of a name."

I have mentioned Liebknecht's remark that the enemy's praise is a sign of failure. Debs in this country is reported as saying, "When the political or economic leaders of the wage worker are recommended for their good sense and wise action by capitalists, it is proof that they have become misleaders and cannot be trusted."

It may be imagined that the revolutionary Socialists have never approved these tactics of Mr. Berger's and do so less to-day than ever. His anti-immigration proposals were defeated by a large majority at the last Socialist congress and some of the best-known Socialists and organs of Socialist opinion have definitely repudiated his policy. Mr. J. G. Phelps Stokes, formerly a member of the National Executive Committee, declared publicly, after the Milwaukee victory of 1910, that the Milwaukee Socialists "had compromised with capitalism" by their campaign utterances, and in certain instances had acted as "mere reformers, not as Socialists at all." It is not surprising that the anti-Socialist reform press thereupon took up the cudgels in behalf of Mr. Berger, including the _New York World_, the _Chicago Tribune_, and _Milwaukee Journal_. The last-named paper very curiously claimed that, wherever Socialists "have been intrusted with the powers of the government," they have taken a similar course to that of Mr. Berger. This is that very obvious truth of which I have spoken in preceding chapters, namely, that when Socialists have allowed themselves to be saddled with the responsibilities of some department or local branch of government, _without having the sovereign power_ needed to apply _Socialist principles_, they have frequently found themselves in an untenable situation. The Socialists have been the first to recognize this, and for this reason oppose any entrance of Socialists into capitalist governments, _i.e._ their acceptance of minority positions in national cabinets or councils of State. (See Chapters II, VI, and VII.)

Expressing the belief of the overwhelming majority of those who are watching the progress of affairs in Milwaukee, the _Journal_ of that city stated, "What they [the Socialists] are doing [in Milwaukee] is not essentially Socialistic, though some of the reforms they propose are Socialistic in tendency." This need not be taken to mean that the Milwaukee reforms are supposed to tend to Socialism as Socialists in general understand it, but rather to that capitalistic collectivism to which Mr. Taft refers when he says that in the present regulation of the railroads "we have gone a long way in the direction of State Socialism."

Mr. Stokes's comment upon many widely published defenses of the Milwaukee Socialists by anti-Socialists was published in a letter to the _New York World_ which sums up admirably the International standpoint: "It is surely public opinion out of office and not the party in office," wrote Mr. Stokes, "that does the most for progress in this country, and it seems to me exceedingly doubtful whether any party in power has ever led public opinion effectively at any time. I share with very many Socialists the view that it is entirely fallacious to suppose that more can be done at this stage of the world's progress through politics, than through 'education, agitation, and perpetual criticism.'"

I have referred to Mr. Berger as a "reformist" to distinguish his policies from the professed opportunism of some of the British Socialists. But I have also noted that his tactics and philosophy, as both he and they have publicly acknowledged, are alike at many points. For example, his views, like theirs, often seem less democratic than those of many non-Socialist radicals, or even of the average American. Years after the labor unions and the farmers of most of the States had indorsed direct legislation, and in a year when it was already becoming the law of several States, Mr. Berger, looking out for the interests of what he and his associates frankly call the "political machine" of the Wisconsin Party, damned it by faint praise, though it was an element of his own platform; and he had claimed credit for having first proposed it in Wisconsin. He acknowledged that the Initiative and Referendum _make towards_ Socialism and are the surest way in the end, but urged that they are "also the longest way," and wrote in the _Social-Democratic Herald_:--

"The real class conscious proletariat is still in a minority, and
liable to stay so for a time to come. It can only show results by
fighting as a well-organized, compact mass.

"But the initiative, the referendum, and the right to recall have a
tendency to destroy parties and loosen tightly knit political
organizations.

"Therefore, while the Socialist Party stands for direct legislation
as a democratic measure, we are well aware that the working class
will be helped very little by getting it. We are well aware that
the proletariat, before all things, must get more economic and
political, strength--more education and more wisdom. That, besides
teaching coöperation, we must build _political machines_."[152] (My
italics.)

On the question of Woman Suffrage, also, Mr. Berger long showed a similarly hesitating attitude, saying that intelligent women "have always exercised great political power" even without the ballot; doubting whether women's vote would help the advance of humanity "in the coming time of transition," saying this is a question of fact on which Socialists may honestly differ, and urging that "no one will deny that the great majority of the women of the present day--_and that is the only point we can view now_, are illiberal, unprogressive, and reactionary to a greater extent than the men of the same stratum of society." (The italics are mine.) Finally, Mr. Berger concluded as follows, twice throwing the balance of his opinion from one scale into another:--

"Now, if all this is correct, female suffrage, for generations to
come, will simply mean the deliberate doubting of the strength of a
certain church,--will mean a great addition to the forces of
ignorance and reaction....

"However, we have woman suffrage in our platform, and we should
stand by it. Because in the end it will help to interest the other
half of humanity in social and political affairs, and it will be of
great educational value on both women and men....

"Nevertheless, it is asking a great deal of the proletariat when we
are requested to delay the efficiency of our movement _for
generations_ on that count. And we surely ought not to lay such
stress on this one point as to injure the progress of the general
political and economic movement--the success of which is bound to
help the women as much as the men."[153] (The italics are mine.)

It is no wonder, with such a lukewarm advocacy of its own platform by the Party's organ and its chief spokesman, that some of the lesser figures in the Milwaukee movement--such as certain Socialist aldermen--seem to have lost the road altogether until even Mr. Berger has been forced to call a halt. For the leader of a "political machine," to use Mr. Berger's own expression, may allow himself certain liberties; but when his followers do the same, disintegration is in sight. Witness Mr. Berger's words, written only a few weeks after the Socialist victory in Milwaukee; words which seem to indicate that the tendencies he complains of were the direct result, not of slow degeneration, but of the local Party's reformistic teachings and campaign methods:--

"The most dangerous part of the situation is that some of our
comrades seem to forget that we are a Socialist Party.

"They not only begin to imitate the ways and methods of the old
parties, but even their reasoning and their thoughts are getting to
be more bourgeois and less proletarian. To some of these men the
holding of the office--whatever the office may be--seems to be the
final aim of the Socialist Party. These poor sticks do not know
that there are many Socialists who deplore that the necessity of
electing and appointing officeholders will make it twice as hard to
keep the Socialist Party pure in this country, than in other
countries where the movement is relieved of this duty and danger.

"And even some of the aldermen seem to have lost their Socialist
class consciousness--if they ever had any."

It is difficult to see how Mr. Berger can expect to maintain respect for principles that he teaches and applies so loosely himself. It is, furthermore, difficult to understand how he expects submission to the decisions of his organization when he himself has been on the verge of revolt both against the national and international movement. He has always avowed his profound disagreement with the methods of the Socialists in practically every State but his own. He and his associates were at one moment so far from the national and international principle that they sought to support a non-Socialist candidate for judge--on the specious ground that no Socialist was nominated. But the National Congress condemned and forbade such action by an overwhelming majority. Mr. Berger's unwillingness to act with his organization even went so far at one point that he was punished by a temporary suspension from the National Executive Committee. And, finally, he even threatened in Socialist Berlin that if the American Party, which he claimed held his views on immigration, was not allowed to have its way, it would pay no attention to the decision of the International Congress; though at the very time he was threatening rebellion the decision of the recent Congress showed that two-thirds of the American Party stood, not with him, but with the International Movement. Should he be surprised if Milwaukee aldermen, like himself, interpret Socialism as they see fit, and forget that they are a part of a Socialist Party?

But while Mr. Berger and the present policies that are guiding American "reformist" Socialists differ profoundly from those of the International movement, and resemble in some ways the policies of the non-Socialist reformers of Wisconsin and other States, in other respects there is a difference. The labor policy of the collectivist reformers and of the "reformist" Socialists might be expected to differ somewhat--not in what is ordinarily called the labor legislation, _i.e._ factory reform, workingmen's compensation, old age pensions, etc., but in their attitude to labor organizations and the labor struggle: strikes, boycotts, and injunctions.

Senator La Follette's followers are in the overwhelming majority farmers; the Wisconsin "Social-Democrats," as they call themselves, have secured little more than one per cent of the vote of the State outside of Milwaukee and a few other towns, and even less in the country. On the other hand, the majority of the workingmen of Milwaukee and several other towns vote for the Socialists, while those who do not are usually not followers of Senator La Follette, but Catholics and Democrats. The Wisconsin "Insurgents" have as yet by no means taken the usual capitalist position in the struggle between employers and labor unions, but they have shown repeatedly that they are conscious that they represent primarily the small property holders and the business community generally, including the small shareholders of the "trusts."

_La Follette's Weekly_, in an important article defending direct legislation and the recall, says that the reason "we, the people," do not give enough attention to public measures is that "we are so busy with our private affairs," and continues: "Indeed, our success in our private enterprises, nay even equality of opportunity to engage in private enterprises, is coming more and more to depend upon the measure of protection which we may receive through our government from the unjust encroachments of the power of centralized Big Business." These "State Socialist" radicals represent primarily small business men and independent farmers, who are often employers, and their friendship to employees will necessarily have to be subordinated whenever the two interests come into conflict.

Mr. Berger and the Wisconsin Social-Democrats on the other hand represent primarily the workingmen of the cities, especially those who are so fortunate as to be members of labor unions. The "Social Democrats" appeal, however, for the votes of the farmers, of "the small business man," and of "the large business men who are decent employers"; they announce that the rights of corporations will be protected under their administrations, declare that they who "take the risks of business" are entitled "to a fair return"; and have convinced many that they are not for the present anti-capitalistic in their policy, though they have not as yet succeeded in getting very much capitalistic support.

For many years, indeed, the struggle between employers and unions has been less acute in Milwaukee than in many other large cities, while wages and conditions are on the whole no better. The Milwaukee Socialists have repeatedly called the attention of employers to this relative industrial peace and have attributed it to their influence, much to the disgust of the more militant Socialists, who claim that strikes are the only indication of a fighting spirit on the part of the workers. Mr. Berger, for example, has explained "the rare occurrence of strikes in Milwaukee" as being due largely to the Social-Democrats of that city who, he says, "have opposed almost every strike that has been declared here."[154]

Certainly the attitude of the Socialists towards the employers in one of the largest industries, brewing, has on the whole been exceptionally friendly, as evidenced among other things by the Socialists' appointment of one of a leading brewery manager (who was not even a Socialist) as debt commissioner of the city, and their active campaign for the brewing interests, including a denunciation of county option, though this measure has already been indorsed by both of the capitalistic parties even in the liquor-producing State of Kentucky, as well as elsewhere, and is favored by very many Socialists, not as a means of advancing prohibition, but as the fairest present way of settling the controversy.

But even relative peace between capital and labor is not lasting in our present society and it will scarcely last in Milwaukee. Already there are signs of what is likely to happen, and the business-men admirers of Milwaukee Socialism are beginning to drop away. A few more strikes, and Berger and his associates may be forced to abandon completely their claim that it is to the interest of employers, with some exceptions, to elect Socialists to office.

The situation after a recent strike in Milwaukee is thus summed up by the _New York Volkszeitung_, a great admirer, on the whole, of the Milwaukee movement:--

"The new measures which are taken for the betterment of the city
transportation system, for the preparation of better residence
conditions and parks for the poorer classes of the people," says
the _Volkszeitung_, "did not much disturb Milwaukee's 'Best
Society.' Rather the opposite. For all these things did not at the
bottom harm their interests, but were, on the contrary, quite to
their taste, in so far as they rather increased than injured the
pleasure of their own lives.

"But at last what had to happen, did happen. The moment a great
conflict between capital and labor broke out in the great community
of Milwaukee, the caliber of the city administration was bound to
show itself....

"The prohibition which Mayor Seidel issued to the police, not to
interfere for either side, his grounds and those of the city
council's presiding officer, Comrade Melms, their instructions to
the striking 'garment workers' how they should conduct the strike
in order to win a victory, the admonition that they might safely
call a scab a scab without official interference--all this is of
decisive importance, not only for its momentary effect on the
Milwaukee strike, but especially for the Socialist propaganda, for
the demonstration of the tremendous advantage the working people
can get even at the present moment by the election of Socialist
candidates....

"And now it is all over with the half well-disposed attitude that
had been assumed towards our comrades in the city administration.
With burning words the capitalistic and commercial authorities
protest against these official expressions, as being likely to
disturb 'law and order' and as having the object of stirring up the
class struggle and of undermining respect for the law.

"That came about which must come about, if our Milwaukee comrades
did their duty. And they have done it, at the right moment, and
without hesitation. And this must never be forgotten. But the real
battle between them and their capitalist opponent _begins now for
the first time_."

Here is the keynote of the situation. Only as more and more serious strikes occur will the Milwaukee movement be forced to emphasize its labor unionism rather than its reforms. It will then, in all probability, be forced to take up an aggressive labor-union attitude like that of the non-Socialist Labor Party in San Francisco. One action at least of Mayor McCarthy in the latter city was decidedly more threatening to the local employing interests than any taken in Milwaukee, which after all had met the approval of one of the capitalistic papers (_i.e._ the _Free Press_). The Bulletin of the United Garment Workers, though grateful for the attitude of the mayor in their Milwaukee strike, uses language just as laudatory concerning this action of the anti-Socialist Labor mayor of San Francisco.[155]

The "reformist" Socialists lay much stress upon their loyalty to existing labor unions. Some even favor the creation of a non-Socialist Labor Party, more or less like those of San Francisco or Australia or Great Britain. Indeed, the reformists have often acknowledged their close kinship with the semi-Socialist wing of the British Labour Party, and this relationship is recognized by the latter. All Socialists will agree that even the reformists, as a rule, represent the interests of the labor-union movement better than other parties; but the Socialist Party is vastly more than a mere reformist trade-union party, and most Socialists feel that to reduce it to this rôle would be to deprive it of the larger part of its power even to help the unions.

In the statement of Mr. Debs already quoted in part in this chapter, he also expresses the opposition of the Socialist majority to converting the organization into a mere trade-union Party:--

"There is a disposition on the part of some to join hands with
reactionary trade unionists in local emergencies and in certain
temporary situations to effect some specific purpose, which may or
may not be in harmony with our revolutionary program. No possible
good can come of any kind of a political alliance, expressed or
implied, with trade unions or the leaders of trade unions who are
opposed to Socialism and only turn to it for use in some extremity,
the fruit of their own reactionary policy.

"Of course we want the support of trade unionists, but only of
those who believe in Socialism and are ready to vote and work with
us for the overthrow of capitalism."

It would seem from the expressions of Milwaukee Socialists that they, in direct opposition to the policy of Mr. Debs, are working by opportunist methods towards a trade union party, and that form of collectivism advocated by the Labor Parties of Great Britain and Australia. But they have been in power now in Milwaukee for nearly two years and have had a strong contingent in the Wisconsin legislature, while their representative in Congress has had time to define his attitude in a series of bills and resolutions. We are in a position, then, to judge their policy not by their words alone, but also by their acts.

Let us first examine their municipal policy. This assumes special importance since the installation of Socialist officials in Berkeley (California), Butte (Montana), Flint (Michigan), several smaller towns in Kansas, Illinois, and other States, as a result of the elections of April, 1911. To these victories have recently been added others (in November, 1911) in Schenectady (New York), Lima and Lorain (Ohio), Newcastle (Pennsylvania), besides very large votes or the election of minor officials in many places in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Kansas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Utah, California, and other States.

While the officials elected received in nearly every case only a plurality (this is true also of most of those elected in Milwaukee), and local or temporary issues existed in many instances, which caused the Socialist Party to be used largely for purposes of protest, a part of the vote was undoubtedly cast for a type of municipal reform somewhat more radical than other parties have, as a rule, been ready to offer in this country; up to the present time, at least, a considerable part of the vote is undoubtedly to be accredited to convinced Socialists.

Milwaukee being as yet the only important example of an important American municipality that has rested in Socialist hands for any considerable period, I shall confine myself largely to the discussion of the movement in that city. Some of those already in office in other places have, moreover, taken the Milwaukee policy as their model and announced their intention to follow it. Mayor Seidel's statement after a year in office, and the explanations of the Rev. Carl Thompson (the city clerk) made about the same time, cover the essential points for the present discussion.

Both the statement of the mayor and that of the city clerk are concerned with matters that interest primarily the business man and taxpayer. Mr. Thompson disclaims that there is anything essentially new even in the Socialists' plans, to say nothing of their performances. He says of the most discussed municipal projects under consideration by the Socialist administration that all were advocated either by former administrations, by one or both of the older parties or by some of their leading members. He mentions the proposed river park, railway terminal station, and electric lighting plans, as well as home rule for Milwaukee, as being all strictly conservative projects (as they are). Other plans mentioned by Mayor Seidel--harbor improvements, playgrounds, a sterilization plant, and isolation hospital--are approved, if not by the conservatives of Milwaukee, at least by those of many other cities. Some minor and less expensive proposals, a child welfare commission, a board of recreation, and municipal dances are somewhat more novel. These are all the social reforms mentioned by the mayor, as planned or accomplished, with the exception of those that have to do primarily with efficiency or economy in municipal administration, such as improvement in street cleaning, sanitary inspection and inspection of weights and measures, which all conservative reform administration seek to bring about; many cities, especially abroad, having been eminently successful in this direction.

To secure the political support of taxpayers and business men, further evidence was required to show that the administration is neither doing nor likely to do anything unprecedented. They want a safe and sane business policy, and assurances that new sources of income will, if possible, be secured and applied to the reduction of taxation; or that, in case taxes are raised, municipal reforms will so improve business and rental values, as to bring into their pockets more than the increased taxation has cost them.

Mayor Seidel and City Clerk Thompson presented entirely satisfactory evidences on all these points. Business methods have been introduced, a "complete inventory" of the property of the city is being made, "blanket appropriations" are done away with, "a new system of voucher bills has been installed," all the departments are being brought on "a uniform accounting basis." Finally, taxable property is being listed that was formerly overlooked, and the city is more careful in settling financial claims against it. Mayor Seidel and City Clerk Thompson both promise that taxes will not be increased; the former points to the new resources from property that had escaped taxation and to the future rise in value of land the city intends to purchase, the latter refers to "revenue-producing enterprises which will relieve the burden of taxation rather than increase it." Neither goes so far as to suggest any plan, like the present law of Great Britain, introduced by a capitalist government, according to which not only are the taxes of the wealthy raised, but one fifth of the future increase of value of city lands, as being due to the community, accrues to the public treasury. It is true that such measures would have to be approved by the State of Wisconsin, but this would not prevent them being made the one prominent issue in the city campaign, and insistently demanded until they are obtained. The mayor's attitude on this tax question, which underlies all others, far from being Socialistic, is not even radical.

The tendency seems to have been widespread in the municipal
campaigns undertaken by the Socialists in the fall of 1911, to
abandon even radical, though capitalistic, municipal reformers'
policy of raising new taxes to pay for reforms that bring modest
benefits to the workers, but chiefly raise realty values and
promote the interests of "business," and to substitute for this the
conservative policy of reducing taxes. Thus the _Bridgeport
Socialist_ advised the voters:--

"Municipal ownership means cheaper water, cheaper light, cheaper
gas, cheaper electricity, and a steady revenue into the city
treasury _which would reduce taxes_." (Italics mine.)[156]

One might infer that the masses of Bridgeport were already
sufficiently supplied with schools, parks, and all the free
services a municipality can give.

Of course it is true that a considerable part of the wage earners
in our small cities own their own homes (subject often to heavy
mortgages) and, _other things remaining as they are_, would like to
have taxes reduced. But two facts are indisputable: the average
taxes paid by the wage earners are insignificant compared with
those of the wealthier classes, and the wage earner gets, at first
at least, an equal share in the benefits of most municipal
expenditures. The Socialists know that most of the economic
benefits are later absorbed by increasing rents; and that
capitalist judges and State governments will see to it that only
such expenditures are allowed as have this result, or such as have
the effect, through improving efficiency, of increasing profits
faster than wages. Socialists recognize, however, that at least
municipal collectivism is in the line of capitalist progress, with
some incidental benefits to labor, while the policy of decreasing
taxes on the unearned increment of land is nothing less than
reaction.

The only popular ground on which such a policy could be defended is
the fallacy that landlords transmit to tenants the fluctuations in
taxes, in the form of increased or diminished rents. Even if this
were true, the tenants would be as likely as not to profit by
enlarged municipal expenditures (_i.e._ in spite of paying for a
_minor_ part of their cost). But in the large cities, as a matter
of fact, 90 per cent of the wage earners, who are tenants, and not
home owners, do not feel these fluctuations at all. Increased land
taxes do not as a rule cause an increase in average rents.
Increased land taxes force unimproved land upon the market, and
compel its improvement, to escape loss in holding it unimproved and
idle. The resulting increased competition for tenants operates on
the average to _reduce_ rents, not to increase them. The taxes are
paid at the cost of _reduced profits_ for the landlord--until
population begins to increase more rapidly than taxes. The
capitalist leaders perceive the truth as regards this plainly
enough. Thus, in their anxiety to get both landlord and capitalist
support in the last municipal campaign in New York City, various
allied real estate interests claimed credit for their work in
keeping taxes down. Commenting upon the subject, the _New York
Times_ said: "Rents do not rise with taxes. If they did, the owner
would merely need to pass the taxes along to the renter and be rid
of the subject."[157] The next day Mayor Gaynor in a letter to the
_Times_ quoted a message he had sent to the city council in the
previous year in which he had said: "Every landlord knows that he
cannot add the taxes to rents. If he could, he would not care how
high taxes grew. He would simply throw them on his tenants."

It is difficult, therefore, to see why the tenants of New York City
or Bridgeport should favor lower taxes, so long as they and their
children are in need of further public advantages that increased
taxes would enable the municipalities to supply. To favor reduced
taxes, while private ownership of land prevails, is not Socialism,
or even progressive capitalism. It is, as I have said, _reaction_.

The _New York Volkszeitung_ expresses in a few words the correct Socialist attitude on municipal expenditures. After showing the need of more money for schools, hygienic measures, etc., it concludes:--

"These increased expenditures of municipalities are thus absolutely
necessary if a Socialist city government is to fulfill its tasks.
Since the municipal expenditures must be raised through taxation,
it is evident that a good Socialist city government must raise the
taxes if it is up to the level of its duties. Provided that--as
just remarked--the raising of the taxes is so managed that the
possessing classes are hit by it and not the poor and the
workingmen.

"Most of the Socialist municipal administrations have been
shattered hitherto by the tax question; that has been especially
evident in France, where the Socialists lost the towns captured by
them because their administration appeared to be more costly than
those of their capitalist predecessors. That has happened
especially wherever the small capitalist element played a rôle in
the Socialist movement.

"We shall undoubtedly have this experience in America, also, if we
do not make it clear to the masses of workingmen that good city
government for them means a more expensive city government, and
that they are interested in this increase of the cost of the city
administration."[158]

If the Socialists promise much and perform comparatively little, they have as a valid reason the fact that the city does not have the authority. But opponents can also say, as does the Milwaukee _Journal_, that "the administration would not dare to carry out its promises to engage in municipal Socialism if it had the authority." For while municipal "Socialism" or public ownership is perfectly good capitalism, it is not always good politics in a community where the small taxpayers dominate.

While the plans for municipal wood and coal yards and plumbing shops were doubtless abandoned in Milwaukee by reason of legal limitations, and not merely to please the small traders, as some have contended, no Socialist reason can be given for the practical abandonment years ago of the proposed plan for municipal ownership of street railways. If the charter prohibited such an important measure as this, all efforts should have been concentrated on changing the charter. Socialists do not usually allow their world-wide policy, or even their present demands to be shaped by a city charter.

If Mr. Berger had announced earlier and more clearly, and if he had repeated with sufficient frequency, his recent declaration that _Milwaukee is administered by Socialists but does not have a Socialist administration_, he would have avoided a world of misunderstanding. In fact, if he had enunciated this principle with sufficient emphasis before the municipal election of 1910, it is highly probable that the Socialists would not yet have won the city, and would never have felt obligated to claim, as they often do now, that Socialists, who must direct part of their energies towards future results, are more efficient as practical reformers than non-Socialists, who are ready to sacrifice every ultimate principle, if they have any, for immediate achievements.

The whole question between reformists and revolutionaries refers not so much to the policy of Socialists in control of municipalities, which is often beyond criticism, as to the value of municipal activity generally for Socialist purposes. None deny that it has value, but reformists and revolutionaries ascribe to it different rôles.

There are two reasons why Socialism _cannot_ yet be applied on a municipal scale--one economic and one political. I do not refer here, of course, to municipal ownership, often called "municipal Socialism," a typical manifestation of "State Socialism," but to a policy that attempts to make use of the municipality against the capitalist class.

Such a policy is economically impossible to-day because it would gradually drive capital to other cities and so indirectly injure the whole population including the non-capitalists. Indeed, Mayor Seidel especially denies that he will allow any "hardship on capital," and City Clerk Thompson gives nearly a newspaper column of statistics to show that "the business of Milwaukee has continued to expand" since the Socialists came into power, remarking that "there have been no serious strikes or labor troubles in Milwaukee for years"--surely a condition which employers will appreciate. Nothing could prove more finally than such statements, how municipal governments at present feel bound to serve the business interests.