Of late we hear a great deal of “American Socialism.” This term has by certain people been used as if
Socialism in America was something different from Socialism in the old countries. And especially the founding of communistic or cooperative colonies was pointed out to us as being “American Socialism.” The discussion about the matter is by no means free from bitterness.
We intend to argue only with the honest Knownothings of Socialism. Such “knownothingness” is not
surprising, because Socialism has been misrepresented and maligned by press, pulpit, and politicians so long that even some so-called Socialists who did not study the subject have rather vague and misleading conceptions about it.
But the first requisite for the intelligent discussion of any theme is a clear and accurate knowledge of
the subject discussed.
The definition of Socialism, as generally accepted now, is “the collective ownership of all the means of production and distribution.” This definition is about the same in all countries. It has been accepted by the Socialists of Germany, as well as by those of England, Italy, Holland, Belgium, and by most all the socialist groups of France.
Socialism, therefore, means virtually the same thing in all civilized countries, and justly so. For in all
civilized countries, be they monarchies or republics, the action of capitalism and competition is nearly the same, and the position of the wage-workers is exactly the same: to wit, the latter depend upon the man with means for the opportunity to work and to live. In all civilized countries, and under whatever form of government, the present system of social production by individual ownership has produced two classes: the propertyless class and the capitalist class. The middle class is fast disappearing in the mill of competition everywhere, and the issue is now, or will be very soon, between the first two classes. These are the conditions in England, in France, in Germany, and, in no small degree, in our own country. Any attempt to obscure this issue between these two classes or to delay its settlement is futile, and all other issues will speedily be absorbed by it in all civilized countries.
The difference is only in the methods of the movement. And naturally the tactics employed by the
Socialists in France differ somewhat from the tactics in Germany or Belgium — but as far as they are Social Democrats, they all agree in the necessity of the rule of the people and in the use of the ballot.
It has been said that the founding of communistic colonies is the “American” idea. That is not true.
Outside of the colonies of the religious sects — the Anglo-Saxon mind of former days tending towards religion — not one of the innumerable communistic or cooperative colonies that have been founded and failed in America, even if made up of American membership, was of American origin. Not one. They were all founded upon the ideas of French or German Utopian Socialists — notably Fourier, Cabet, and Weitling ( 1888 Edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party Preface page 8). Of late we had some so-called “Bellamy Colonies,” but Bellamy had no original Socialist ideas. His famous Looking Backward simply gave the ideas of modern German scientific Socialists in a Utopian form. No colony scheme ever had Bellamy’s approval.
Practical efforts to realize communism are not new and they are not especially American. The dawn
of history shows a communistic period for all nations. Later Sparta and the monasteries of the Middle Ages give us examples of the communistic form of life. With the beginning of the Reformation and the appearance of capitalism in the history of humanity we also see Utopian hotspurs and dreamers who invented different kinds of communistic systems and occasionally tried to put them into practice.
All these attempts necessarily failed, because their promoters disregarded the natural development of human society.
As we mentioned before, history records some communistic organizations which did thrive. But under what conditions?
Since humanity has left its primitive condition all communistic communities that ever existed have
not lived by their own labor, but from the wealth of others. The Spartan commonwealth, for instance,
rested upon the most horrible slavery of the Helotes. The Spartans themselves did not produce, they only consumed. The case of the monasteries of the Middle Ages was similar. The monks or the nuns led a contemplative life — they prayed, begged, or taught — but they produced little or nothing, at any rate, never enough to keep the monasteries alive. The serf peasantry took care of the production.
And right here, let us define the difference between Socialism and Communism, and draw the line of demarcation.
Communism proposes the common ownership of the means of production, or, in some cases, the
means of production and consumption.
Socialism, on the contrary, asks only for the common ownership of the means of production, as made
necessary by the modern development of the tool into the machine. Socialism leaves consumption, i.e., the selection and the enjoyment of the means of life to the free will and the taste of the individuals.
Socialism is the child of civilization. Socialism was impossible in former centuries. The modern development of the means of production — manufacturing in the present large scale — has made Socialism possible and necessary. Socialism requires the modern industrial development, i.e., capitalism as a forerunner, which centralizes industry and trade. Socialism would even now be impossible in Turkey, Moroccan, Cuba, China, Persia, etc., and even in Russia. But Socialism is rapidly being made possible in Japan.
It is furthermore nonsensical to talk about the “Socialism” of Christ and the early Christians. The early Christians were communists in a similar sense as the monks of the Middle Ages, but they were not Socialists. The early Christians depended upon the contributions of the richer members of the community for a living, and upon the Lord for everything else.
Communism, as we have seen in history, implies a smack of barbarism, or of religious fanaticism. Socialism means a higher civilization by multiplying and making use of all the means of culture of capitalist society.
Communistic colonies, except such as were based upon religious fanaticism have, so far, never succeeded; most of them only carried on a mock existence paid for by the sympathizers outside. In Brook Farm, Nauvoo, Cheltenham, etc., the colonists, so to say, simply consumed the bread furnished from outside, to which they themselves hardly earned the salt.
The case is very similar in Ruskin. Although the admission to the colony requires the possession of quite a little capital — $500 is the price of a share, which naturally excludes almost half of the entire population of the United States, and the very half that needs the relief most — the colony is not self-sustaining. It depends largely upon the capitalist world for assistance and tries to reach it by printing a paper, by selling books, by manufacturing, etc. And although there are constant appeals to the solidarity of the sympathizers, the outlook is far from being promising.
That a general return to such communistic colonies would mean the return to the system of production of a very small scale with all its weakness, waste, and barbarism, our colony believers seem to overlook. And they even call this the “American economic movement,” while in reality it is the most uneconomic affair imaginable. If the successful foundation of many thousands of such communistic colonies would be possible in this or any other country, then socialism would be impossible.
We would no doubt do the capitalists a greatfavor if we would relieve them from the sometimes
burning care of the unemployed. The trouble is we cannot do it if we try. According to the Ruskin colony idea, it would take $50 million to take care of the 100,000 unemployed of Chicago alone. And New York has at least as many. And how about the other large cities? And the success of the colonies would not be assured even then.
Continued in Part Two
No comments:
Post a Comment