Puslapio vaizdai

are the forces of capital thoroughly organized and disciplined, possessed of unlimited resources and power of mobility, having for centuries the prestige of victory, and having at their command a secret armed force of "Pinkerton men" larger than the army of the United States, and ready to move at a moment's notice. Opposed to these are the forces of labor as yet raw and undisciplined, having been but recently recruited, handicapped by habits of servility, lack of resources, personal poverty, laws in the interest of capital, and all dominant forces in society.

It is evident, however, to the least attentive observer of what is going on in the camps of the laborers, that their troops are being rapidly drilled, equipped, and disciplined; that thousands are daily flocking to their ranks, and it looks now as if in the near future the whole class of manual laborers would be organized under one central and absolute control, and move as one man at the edict of their chief. Even now the grievance, real or fancied, of a single laborer is taken up by his fellows, carried before the local union to which he belongs, then if need be referred to an investigating committee of the federated unions, and thus the grievance of a single individual becomes the personal concern of all the laborers in the country.

The rapid rise of labor organizations, and the change that has taken place in public opinion respecting them, are among the most significant facts of our time. Within the memory of many now living it was a punishable offence both in Europe and America for laborers to unite for mutual protection. In 1831 Stephen Simpson of Philadelphia writes, "If mechanics combine to raise their wages, the laws punish them as conspirators against the good of society, and the dungeon awaits them as it does the robber. But the laws have made it a just and meritorious act that capitalists shall combine to strip the man of labor of his earnings, and reduce him to a dry crust and a gourd of water." 1

These cruel combination and conspiracy laws of England were regarded as a part of the common law in this country

1 As quoted in "The Labor Movement in America" (Ely), p. 46.

although the conditions of the new country were so favorable to laborers that an appeal to them was seldom made. Contrast this law and the public sentiment by which it was upheld with the state of things to-day. Labor organizations now exist embracing mechanics and nearly every class of working men except common laborers, and it is probable that these latter will soon be organized and receive recognition in the grand federation of all manual laborers throughout the country.

The Socialistic Labor party in this country had seventytwo distinct sections in 1886, and some of these sections have several branches.

The distinctively Socialistic labor organizations are of course working directly for Socialism. At a convention of the Farmers' Alliance in North Dakota in 1889 it was resolved that "all public necessities, so far as practicable, should be owned and controlled by the government and managed in such a way that no class should be allowed to exact unjust rates for the use thereof." Though aimed primarily at the railroads, the principle here laid down covers the wide field of "public necessities," and would find supporters in all the labor organizations of the country.

It it easy for capital to resist strikes and defeat groups of laborers scattered and disunited, but when this united army of workmen shall move as one solid phalanx under experienced and skilful leaders there can be but one issue to the conflict. Popular liberty and education have made it certain that the majority in an open field and fair fight will win, especially when backed by God and humanity, as the cause. of the laborers assuredly is.

The growth of public sentiment in favor of organized labor has been greater the past five years than during the preceding eighty-five years of the century. It is indicative of the approach of an industrial and social crisis, when manual, mental, and moral labor, the only original and essential factor in production, the only real source of value, and the one God-ordained heritage common to all men, shall be crowned king. Toward this result we believe all associations of both capital and labor, whether consciously

or unconsciously, are inevitably tending. The association of capital is simply the socializing of capital. The association of laborers is the socializing of labor. The association of capital and labor, now admitted by all parties to be necessary, is the socializing of industry, and this transferred from private to public control for the benefit of all the people is State Socialism.

IV. - Educational Forces set in the Direction of Socialism.

"When the editors of the Encyclopædia Britannica needed for their ninth edition an article setting forth the development and position of political economy, it was to a Socialistic Positivist that they addressed themselves, and the article took the form of a lengthy survey of the steady convergence of all the tendencies toward a Socialistic state."


Among these educational forces we include the latest teachings of political economy, the influence of schools and colleges, Socialist publications, and the attitude of the press and current literature. A brief survey of these several sources of popular education will disclose in each of them a growing sympathy with and frequently an advocacy of the principles of Socialism.

1. Political economy.

Political economy has changed front within the past three or four decades. This is especially true in England where the science has received most attention.

Laissez-faire, Malthusianism, the wages fund theory, the absolute right of private property, the economic harmonies, the conception of the State as atomistic, have all been abandoned by most political economists, and the doctrine of individualism that rested on these assumptions has been greatly modified and in many quarters altogether rejected. A single example will illustrate the completeness of the change that has taken place in political economy. Prior to 1850 every Factory Act passed during half a century was stubbornly opposed by all economists. Since that date no economist of note has denied their utility, and all now agree that these and other similar acts in behalf of labor have proved an economic and social blessing.

The dictum of Mr. Jevons, that "No laws, no customs, no rights of property, are so sacred that they may not be made way with if it can be clearly shown that they stand in the way of the greatest happiness," has become the accepted theory of English political economists. This is the fundamental principle of Socialism. What becomes of the idea set forth by Adam Smith and that dominated all economic thought for the first half of this century, that the sole object of the science of political economy was to "enrich the people and the government"? Economists now admit that to "enrich the people at the expense of their morals and manhood is supreme folly.


Thorold Rogers in his comments on Smith says, "Modern economists limit their inquiries to the causes which increase or waste wealth." Most economists, however, go farther. The truth is, there is hardly a human act or thought that does not tend to "increase or waste wealth," and that in the economic sense.

When economic science proposes merely to increase wealth, and moral science and history assure us that this increase of wealth imperils the general health, happiness, and stability of the nation, it is evident that such economic science conflicts with ethical science.

In other words, it is not science in the proper sense of the word; for all true science is not only consistent with itself but with all other established truth. "Truth is catholic and nature one."

Political economy has heretofore labored under a burden of conflicting opinions, false theories, self-contradictions, and antagonism to the accepted truths of other sciences that caused Carlyle to characterize it as "the dismal science" and brought it to the verge of "innocuous desuetude." It is a fact of great significance that the revival of interest in this science has been in exact proportion to its practical recognition and adoption of the tenets of Socialism.

Economists who still oppose Socialism are found to 1 "The State in Relation to Labor," p. 11.

2 Smith's "Wealth of Nations" (Rogers' Edition), Vol. II. p. 1, note.

approve nearly all its principles. Their contention is invariably with some non-essential detail or method of application that in no way invalidates the broad principles of the system. Mr. Webb says, "The scientific difference between the 'orthodox' economist and the economic Socialist has now become mainly one of terminology and relative stress, with the result that one competent economist not himself a Socialist publishes regretfully to the world that "all the younger men are now Socialists, with many of the professors." The same gentleman tells us that in December, 1887, it was computed that of the fourteen courses of lectures on economics then being delivered in London eight or more were given by professed Socialists. Other facts of equal weight are adduced showing the trend of modern economic thought toward Socialism, and making it well-nigh certain that the political economy of the future, the only one that is worthy the name of science, must be that of the Socialist.


Political economists in America are far behind their English cousins. In mental, moral, and most physical sciences we are not leaders but followers of the mother country. Our economists have, however, done much original and independent thinking, and have reduced to absurdities many of the old positions once regarded as impregnable; but they have not had encouragement to come out flat-footed as have English economists in favor of Socialistic principles, and against the defunct and morally rotten tenets of the old capitalistic political economy. Their social environment is against them. The rapidity with which riches are accumulated, the worship of the almighty dollar, and the greater equality of conditions among us, have produced an individualism more intense than in any other part of the world. Individualism is therefore popular in America. Many economists feel that they could be Socialists only at a sacrifice of reputation and possibly of place.

A professor of political economy in one of our colleges

1 "Socialism in England: " Publications of the American Economic Association, April, 1889, p. 46.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »