Reporter and Socialist
PRICE, 10 CENTS.
REPORTER
AND
SOCIALIST.
An Interview explaining the Aims
and Objects of Socialism.
— BY —
ALEXANDER JONAS.
NEW YORK, 1885.
ALEXANDER JONAS, 184 William Street.
P.O. Box 2560.
(COPYRIGHT SECURED.)
REPORTER and SOCIALIST.
An Interview Explaining the Aims and
Objects of Socialism.
BY ALEXANDER JONAS.
The subjoined interview is not a mere fiction; it has really taken place, a Socialist having been interviewed by a Reporter. And, the reader will see that the Reporter when he, obeying the orders of his editor, went to this interview, had not the least idea of what the socialists want; but he was filled to the brim with all the current prejudices against Socialism and its demands held by a large part of the public, and principally of that part which is commonly called the "educated class." For this reason the Socialist was compelled, so to speak, to commence with the "ABC" in order to adapt his explanations to the intellectual capabilities of comprehension of the Reporter. And this is also the reason why this interview is best adapted for circulation among those who know little, or nothing, about Socialism, and whom to enlighten and to instruct it is necessary to use plain and simple language.
The interview proceeded as follows:
Reporter: I have come to ask you, for the enlightenment of the readers of our paper, what are the aims and objects of your party, the Socialistic, or Communistic party, and by what means they intend to accomplish these aims and objects. Would you please to first tell me, in as few words as possible, what the socialists want?
Socialist: To be brief: The Abolition of the capitalistic mode of production and introduction of a social system of production.
Reporter: I don't understand you.
Socialist: I don't doubt, for it is a matter to which the Press very seldom devotes either space or time, and if it really does, it shows an enormous amount of ignorance in treating the subject in question. Therefore, if you really intend to instruct yourself for the benefit of your paper — do you have that intention? — —
Reporter: Most assuredly.
Socialist: Now then, if you really have this intention, and if you are not merely bent upon writing up a sensation it will be necessary to proceed systematically—to commence with the letter A and to go through until the letter Z be reached. For this purpose allow me, for a moment, to change places, and let me ask some questions of you.
Reporter: I have not the least objection.
Socialist: Do you know how at the present day the things man needs to satisfy his wants, to wit: bread, meat, and other victuals, houses, clothes, shoes, arms, tools, sewing-, threshing- and all other machines, fancy goods, and commodities of every kind are produced?
Reporter: They are produced by labor, as they were always.
Socialist: Please be not too rash, youg man, "by labor"—is right; but "as always" is wrong.
Reporter: May I ask why?
Socialist: To be brief: The kind of labor is not the same "as always." Take any article you like, for instance boots and shoes, don't you know that they are produced differently from what they were formerly?
Reporter: You mean to say more at wholesale, with the assistance of machinery?
Socialist: That's it. And of the immense quantities so produced but very few people have an idea. There, look at the figures of the census in regard to the manufacture of boots and shoes. The aggregate value of merchandise produced a wholesale, in factories etc. in this branch of industry during 1880 amounted to $166,050,354, but the production in small shops, so to speak, at retail, for customers etc., amounted to not more than $30,870,172 (which probably even included all repairs etc.); the production at wholesale employed 111,152, while the small fry production employed but 22,667 masters and journeymen in 16,613 shops.
Reporter: This is surprising indeed.
Socialist: And if you take any other branch of industry, be it simple or difficult, complicated work, you will find the same proportion everywhere. Moreover, if you take the statistics of less recent times, for instance the U.S. census of 1870, or even the official statistics of European countries, which are more complete and elaborate, you will be astonished to see how rapidly the number of articles is growing that are being produced at wholesale, and how small is the amount of commodities produced by the old method of handiwork. And this process, going on now upon the vast field of industry, is extending to that of agriculture and commerce also. More and more with every year it becomes more profitable to cultivate the soil by means of machinery, and the better the latter the larger is the yield of the soil. Therefore, we see, as for instance in the United States, gigantic farms developing themselves of whose dimensions those living in the cities have almost no conception, and whose owners in consequence of an advantageous division of labor and of smaller expenses in comparison to the farmer who has no machines, and finally by their being favored by reduced railway freight-rates, can throw their products upon the market at lower prices than the smaller farmer; and, it is but natural that the latter cannot stand such competition; he first mortgages his farm and then ends in ruin. I think it is needless to tell you, who lives in a large city, that the same process is going on upon the exciting field of commercial enterprise.
Reporter: But is not this an advantage to the people at large? Are not all things becoming better, cheaper and more plentiful than they were formerly?
Socialist: We shall consider this question further on. At present you will please tell me whether or not at the time when everything was produced by hand, with cheap tools, and upon a small scale, the individual worker upon every field of industry could not make himself independent more easily than to-day ?
Reporter: I admit that.
Socialist: Does not production, at the present time, if it is expected to be successful, need large amounts of capital?
Reporter: It does.
Socialist: Then you admit that comparatively few people can become independent while the rest, the overwhelming majority of all men, must necessarily remain wage-workers, dependent upon somebody, for all their lifetime. Now then listen: this method of capitalistic production—I hope you now understand the term—we propose to abolish.
Reporter: For pity's sake! So it is true then what they say about the socialists, that they want to destroy all machinery?
Socialist: Don’t be too hasty in your conclusions, but do as Shakespeare says, and "Wipe away from the table of your memory all trivial fond records" of destroying machinery, dividing of wealth, etc., written upon it by the ignorant press and by our designing enemies with the evil intention of misrepresenting us. If I say that we propose to abolish the capitalistic mode of production, it does not follow that the machines must be destroyed.
Reporter: But the invention of the steam-engine and all other machines have caused this "capitalistic" mode of production to develop itself, as you have stated quite correctly. How are you going to remove it without putting the machines out of the way?
Socialist: The characteristics of capitalistic production are twofold. It is a production deserving of its name only when it employs large amounts of machinery, and factories, which to build requires a large amount of capital—as we have stated already. We desire not only to preserve this phase of capitalistic production because it saves human labor and produces hundred-fold what had formerly to be made by the muscular exertion of the worker, and it does it better and quicker than the hands of the workman, but we would even strive to extend and improve upon it.
Reporter: And what about the other phase of capitalism?
Socialist: It is the one we desire to abolish. It represents the "true inwardness," the sum and substance of capitalism, and in carrying on production at wholesale (and not, as it used to be in the past, when production was carried on by individuals on a small scale, and in the special interest of these very individual producers) i. e., that a certain quantity of commodities of one kind is being produced by dozens, hundreds, thousands of workmen co-operating in the process of production, but exclusively for the advantage of one, or several individuals—for the advantage of the boss, or bosses.
Reporter: And pray, why is it that the socialists want to abolish this phase of "capitalistic production?"
Socialist: Because it is unjust in its very essence, and its consequences are detrimental to human society. Because it is the main cause of the misery prevailing in the so-called civilized countries to-day. It causes that part of the people who are condemned to a life of hard and poorly paid wage-labor without any hope to extricate themselves and their descendants from such a miserable lot to daily increase and to continually sink to a lower depth of degradation. It causes the so-called middleclass to disappear slowly while, on the other hand, it amasses enormous, astonishing wealth in the hands of a few—the result of hundreds of thousands being robbed of the fruit of their toil. It causes immense fortunes, the possession of which enables a small number of individuals to not only increase their power by which they appropriate the labor of others to their own use, but also to arrogate to themselves all political and social power that they may "fix" Legislatures, Judges, Newspapers, Boards of Aldermen, Police, etc., to serve the interest of their own class exclusively. It will hardly be necessary to explicitly prove this assertion to you, as every one who reads the daily papers knows it to be true; and every paper, also the one you represent, furnishes the facts to prove it almost every day in the year.
Reporter: Then you are of the opinion that in this respect there is no difference in the condition of the laboring people of despot-ridden old Europe and of our republican America, where there is room enough for many more millions. Don't you think that your ideas emanate merely from the condition of affairs in Europe, and that your conclusions have no bearing upon America?
Socialist: This is one of the inferences made by the ignorant press quite frequently, because editors in general know nothing of the reality of things; for, if they did, they would soon find out that just this very inference proves the fallacy of their reasoning from what I have said before this. What is the alleged difference in the conditions of Europe and America? That Europe is governed by monarchical rulers and their heelers; that it is in continuous readiness for war; that every square foot of soil is taken, i. e. that the country is overpopulated; while America is a Republic, and has room for many more millions of settlers, who, also—as it is alleged—have easy access to the soil free of cost (and this is the vital point in the question before us.) And now, I will not even proceed to investigate whether under our present republican institutions as they were shaped by the prevailing system of corruption, the people do not pay more in the form of indirect taxes and all sorts of fees etc. to their National, State and Municipal Governments, than is exacted from European nations for the support of their rulers and their standing armies; I think this could be proven by statistics. Neither do I desire to discuss the fact that the Monarchies and Republics of Europe (for there are such also) have laws and institutions by which it is attempted, if not to remove the root of the evil, to at least prove that European governments have the desire to further the interests of the working people by giving them factory inspection, by partly or entirely forbidding child-labor, etc.; by governmental life insurance, sick and accident benefit funds; by reducing the hours of labor, by establishing bureaus for Labor Statistics etc., institutions that either do not exist in the United States or are in an undeveloped state as yet. We shall not consider these points though, I think, we would find that the working people of the United States are not so well taken care of in regard to their safety from accident in factories, etc., than those of Europe; but we shall proceed to the principal point directly, to the alleged fact that Europe is over-populated, and that therefore the European nations must become miserable, while in America there is room for uncounted millions who could live in ease and superabundance.
Reporter: But, you won't deny that Europe is overpopulated?
Socialist: Of course, I will. Not to speak of countries like Russia, Turkey, etc., where overpopulation is out of the question, I shall but mention what Justus von Liebig, the celebrated chemist, who made agricultural chemistry a special study, said more than thirty years ago, that Germany, if it were cultivatad systematically after a certain scientific plan, could support seventy million people comfortably, while to-day there are but forty-five millions in Germany, and they don’t live very comfortably indeed! But, let us talk about America.
Reporter: Indeed, that would be more important.
Socialist: And now I ask you: Is it not a fact that in the United States are tens of thousands of workmen in all branches of industry daily clamoring for work without being able to procure employment? Is it not a fact that the number of unemployed workmen during the different periods of every year, when business is dull for the respective branches, increases tenfold? Is it not a fact that the workers of all branches in general receive miserable wages, as is shown by the figures given by the U. S. Census according to which the average amount of wages in the North Atlantic States is $1.19½ per day, in the Western States $1.61, in the Northern Middle States $1.18, in the Southern Atlantic States $0.76, in the Southern Middle States $0.93, and that the average amount in the entire United States—as far as industrial establishments are concerned—is $1.15½ per day? Is it not a fact that, from time to time, we have terrible economic crises, like the last one that lasted from 1873 to 1878, and by which perhaps half a million of honest, industrious, saving workmen were reduced to the condition of tramps who went down in misery, degradation and starvation, while hundreds of thousands of those belonging to the middle class became proletarians? Is it not a fact that our factories are filling up with female and child workers at a shockingly rapid rate? Are not these all facts that can, at any time, be proven by figures not to be denied by anybody who would blush to tell an untruth? And all this in spite of our boasted republican institutions; in spite of the uncounted millions of alleged free and fertile acres of land; and in spite of the fact that our country is not by any means inhabited by idiots but by a conglomeration of energetic and intelligent races!
Reporter: This picture of yours seems . . . .
Socialist (interrupting): Look at the facts, young man! If you think my picture is overdrawn you forget that I have cited nothing but hard, cold facts. But, what am I to say? Words are too mild, indeed, to describe the real state of affairs. We have been speaking of people working in factories almost exclusively. But how about the miners and others who are in a much worse condition than the factory hands; and how about the agricultural laborers who are employed but part of the year, and must be contented with the most miserable of living. And here we have the laborers employed at the building trades, the bricklayers, carpenters, all of whom on an average are in no way situated better than the factory workers; also the small farmers who are in debt up to their very teeth, and engaged in a hopeless struggle against the gigantic farms of capitalists and stock-raising monopolists, besides being almost strangled by railroad corporations — — —
Reporter: But are not those employed in stores and offices to be counted among the working people?
Socialist: Of course, everyone who is engaged at some useful labor of any kind is a worker, and he who receives wages for his work is a wage worker. And among these you find the same misery; there are tens of thousands of miserably paid, hard working telegraphers and railroad employees, car-drivers and conductors, hundreds of thousands of male and female clerks and salespeople who, if that be possible, are situated almost worse than common laborers,—not to speak of the misery among the proletarians of the pen and other wage workers—doing brain work. And these comprise, excepting the well-to-do and wealthy classes which in number amount to hardly ten per cent. of the entire population, about the whole nation. Now then, what is the reason that such a condition of affairs is little different from what it is in Europe? I admit that the people in this country are a little better off than European workmen; but, what is the reason that such a condition was possible at all, in spite of the immense advantages we have in the unbounded natural resources of this country?
Reporter: I have an idea of what may be the cause; but, being so little acquainted with all these things, that are explained to me for the first time in such a comprehensive manner, I hardly dare express my opinion in regard to the matter.
Socialist: But it is very simple; for, equal causes produce equal results everywhere. The present mode of wholesale capitalistic production in this country is, in all its aspects, entirely equal to that in Europe; in Ohio as well as in Germany, in Pennsylvania as well as in England. Or, what is the difference in the condition of the workmen of a machine shop in Sheffield or Berlin or of those in New York and Philadelphia? What is their situation in life, what are their prospects for the future, what are their wages, and how are they treated by their employers? Is there really any difference perceptible? How do the coal miners of Illinois and Pennsylvania compare with those of Belgium and England? Is there any difference between the agricultural laborers of Great Britain, who are driven like so many sheep by their overseers from estate to estate, and the American farm-hands who are subject to the same process of being herded together like criminals upon the gigantic farms of our celebrated Northwest and of California? What difference is there between the women, girls, children and clerks who are working for starvation wages at the immense salesrooms of the Bonmarché, and other stores in Paris, in London, St. Petersburg and Berlin, and the same kind of poor creatures you see in the stores of New York, Philadelphia and other American cities, where you can buy anything from a pin to a piano? Everywhere the same causes, and consequently the same results, The world over these wage slaves—that's the word—receive for their hard day's work an amount hardly sufficient to enable them to live, and they do live a life the like of it in the respective countries is considered one of utter want and misery. And everywhere to these millions of workers, to be sick or out of employment even for a very short while means desolation and despair. They are all without any hopes for the better in future times; they have no prospects to extricate themselves from this quagmire of misery, and to become independent that they may live in comfort and ease as human beings ought to; and this condition prevails in New York as well as in Paris, in San Francisco as well as in Manchester. Such is the inexorable economic law for all countries of the globe, and there is a difference only in the condition of nations so far, as opinions differ in regard to what is to be considered a "low standard of life." But even supposed—for I do not admit it yet—that the "low standard of life" for the United States be comparatively the highest of all countries, it would not change the fact that the standard of life in general for all working people is falling off to a lower level continually, and that larger numbers of people are being reduced to a lower standard with every day in the year.
Reporter: You would then, if I understand you right, attribute the fact that the working people of America have a comparatively better standard of life—be it ever as low as you describe it—for all that to the more favorable, natural resources of this country?
Socialist: Not only do I attribute it to them, but also to the former and higher standard of life to which the entire American people was accustomed before capitalism introduced its detrimental mode of production. Resistance against lowering the standard of life retards the social upheaval which the force of circumstances must finally bring about irresistibly. And as to our "uncounted millions" of acres of fertile lands open to all who desire to settle down upon them, you know well enough that this is hardly more than a ridiculous phrase. I want to see the man who is going to show me a plot of even 100,000 acres of homestead land of any value whatsoever! All the really valuable land has been taken up already. Under the fearful corruption of our Congress, the people have been robbed of millions of acres of the most fertile land by the devouring railroad monopolies. But, beside all this, the phrase "Go west, young man!" has no meaning whatever nowadays. Suppose that to-day out of 10,000 cigarmakers in any of the Eastern States 2,000 should become superfluous. Of course, they could not have saved anything out of their miserable starvation wages; how could they "go west" several thousands of miles, together with their wives and children? What would be the amount of the capital necessary to enable them to do so? It would probably amount to more than was needed to bring them to New York from Liverpool or Hamburg. And is there anyone to believe that a cigarmaker, who has made cigars all his lifetime, would make a successful farmer all of a sudden? Let him be placed, with a plough and an axe and other tools, he has to buy first, upon a piece of untilled soil, and the result will be that he starves to death!
And all this goes to prove that, whatever advantages America may possess, or have possessed, on account of the immense wealth of her natural resources, or in consequence of her political institutions, they are decreasing from the causes I have mentioned from day to day, and their beneficiary effect as well, while the consequences of the capitalistic mode of production which must naturally be the same everywhere, will make themselves to be felt more or less, according to the more or less favorable conditions in the different countries, with terrible force also in the United States in the same way as they are felt in Europe. Therefore, whosoever, like many of our capitalistic and journalistic snobs are doing, asserts that the effects of the capitalistic mode of production may appear in Europe but not in America; and whosoever denies that the same comparative amount of social misery exists in this country, and that it was caused by the same agencies by which it was produced in Europe, belongs to the party of those who are what their name implies—"Knownothings."
Reporter: I must admit that things are worse than myself and a great many other people may have thought before this, though I commence to understand that the reason of all this trouble is different from what most men think; yet, I should say that even under present circumstances the large mass of workmen are enabled to economize and save that they may take it easy when old age has arrived, and that many of them may become even wealthy and owners of real estate.
Socialist: Are you joking, young man? Nobody ever got rich by economizing and saving, but solely by making others work for himself, and by depriving working people of part of what belongs to them; in short, no one can become wealthy except by robbing his fellow-men. May I ask you, Mr. Reporter, the amount of your weekly income?
Reporter: Well, about twenty dollars.
Socialist: And how many years have you been in the business at the same rate of wages?
Reporter: About fourteen years.
Socialist: Then you have a good, snug sum of money at the bank! If you have saved only $10.00 every week, you would have, at $500 per year with interest for fourteen years . . . .
Reporter (interrupting excitedly): Hold on, Sir—remember that I have a family of four. How could I save ten or even two dollars per week? It is impossible—impossible!
Socialist: Why, what, indeed? A man like you, earning $20.00 per week could not save ten, nor even two dollars? How, then, do you expect a workman earning but ten dollars and less wherewith to support his family to save, in order, as you point it, to "become wealthy by economizing and saving?" Haven't I shown you from the figures of the census that the wages of workmen in this country are far from ten dollars per week on an average? Even if you consider, that sometimes the wife and children are helping to earn a living for the whole family.
Reporter: Indeed, I forgot that.
Socialist: Then let me assist your memory a little further. Here I hold in my hand the industrial statistics of the City of New York in 1880. They are rather incomplete, as some of the most poorly paid trades have been left out, for instance brewing, weaving, etc.; but there are 163 branches mentioned in the report of the Statistician, The largest number of people working at these trades on one day in 1880 was 262,459; regularly employed were 133,998 men, 63,482 women, 2373 children under 16 years of age, or, on an average, about 225,000 persons throughout the year. The aggregate amount of wages paid them was $89,513,934, or per week not quite eight dollars to every person, (these are wages actually paid, deducting the time of enforced idleness). Of course, these people were working in factories and at regular trades. If you add to their number the common laborers, street sweepers, etc., and then figure up the average amount of wages, you will be astounded at seeing with how little the hard working inhabitants of New York are compelled to live. And, consider, that these figures were taken in the good times of 1880, and in the city of New York where, owing to a healthy and powerful labor movement and an influential labor press, wages were comparatively high. To-day the condition has grown worse, and, in the face of these facts and figures, dare anyone say that even five per cent. of the working population of this country can have the faintest hope of ever improving their present miserable standard of life? According to the same statistics during the year of 1880 there were on an average about 50,000 persons engaged in producing men's clothing (64,256 being the largest number of persons working on one day; regularly employed 28,444 men, 16,972 women, and 231 children—an average of about 50,000) who received a little over 14 millions of dollars in wages, or $280 for every person per annum. Or, take—according to the same statistical report—the 15,000 persons engaged in making cigars (17,183 being the largest number working on one day, regularly engaged men 9,323, women 4,575, and children 478—an average of 15,000) who received an aggregate of six millions of dollars, or about $400 annually for every individual worker. How many of these people who are working from ten to fourteen hours per day are enabled to gradually become wealthy and independent by saving any part of their income? And those who say that this be possible are capitalistic demagogues. As Napoleon I. assured his soldiers that every one of them carried the staff of a marshal in his knapsack, while in fact there could be only a few dozens marshals in France, so the capitalists and their organs assure the workers that every one of them could become wealthy by working industriously and saving part of their wages! The result is the same in both cases. While hundreds of thousands of Napoleon's soldiers sacrifized their lives and limbs for the sake of his ambition, the millions of workers of to-day sacrifice their lives, their health, their happiness, and their families for the sake of a comparatively small number of robbers, and many of them in the vain hope of being able to become robbers themselves at some far distant period. Therefore, you see that it is the system that produces the present condition of affairs, not single persons, and that consequently a permanent improvement could be expected only from the thorough annihilation of the system.
Reporter: Will you please allow me to repeat to you the notes I have taken so far, in order to see whether I understood you right-in all things you have said. Now then:
You first told me that the Socialist's aim at abolishing "capitalistic production;"
You also said that such production consists in creating commodities by applying immense amounts of capital for the exclusive benefit of a few individuals, or bosses, into whose pockets the entire profit is going;
You further proved to me that the effects of "capitalistic production" are the same the world over; that in all civilized countries, be they republics or monarchies, with a system of either protection or free trade, these effects are equal in all of them;
And you have also shown me to my great surprise from the figures of the census of 1880, that even the United States are not an exception from this rule, the American people seems to be more and more in danger of becoming pauperized and degraded, to being but a mass of wage-slaves—a condition of affairs from which they, according to the nature of things, could not possibly extricate themselves, save very few exceptions.
Am I correct in thus stating your views?
Socialist: Quite correct.
Reporter: Well, then, let me ask some other questions: Has not this state of things prevailed at all times of history? Could it possibly be otherwise? Is it not but natural that it should be so?
Socialist: Not at all, if you mean to imply by the term "natural" that these conditions are invariable, immovably prescribed like the course of the stars and the revolutions of the earth, recurring eternally like ebb, tide and flood, and in no way subject to the desire and dictates of man. It is a condition of things that could exist and develop itself only under certain institutions and laws, created by man himself and changeable by other institutions and laws made by other men. You ask me whether this state of affairs has not always prevailed? I say it has not, but similar conditions have been prevailing; that is to say, there have always been the rich and the poor, the robber and his victim. But, while formerly poverty was decreed politically, so to speak, i.e. while the slaves of America, and the serfs and feudal dependents of Europe were compelled by law to give their labor to their masters and lords. at the present day prevails the altogether unlimited "freedom" of robbing and being robbed, i. e. employer and worker are "free" to make their bargain for the remuneration to be accorded to the latter for his labor. But, in most cases the employer has not only an advantage over the worker, but he absolutely dictates the terms of the bargain: for, the worker is always compelled to sell his labor, he cannot wait for the price to go up. He must be satisfied with what he is offered; he cannot, as he could formerly hope, to become independent, except in a very few extraordinarily fortunate cases, as he does not possess any capital in order to produce at wholesale by machinery, as the prevailing condition of things requires at present. But the boss has, as a rule, the choice of the workers, as there are plenty of them in the market, who were made superfluous by many new inventions and improved machinery. Almost all branches of industry are overcrowded by unemployed workers, and in addition thereto in this country the immense number of immigrants landing at our shores every day serve to accustom the workers to accept any amount of wages offered to them, and consequently with the increase of the number of the unemployed, the standard of life of those who are employed must needs decrease in proportion. Owing to this process, the effects of which are precipitated upon the American workmen by their employers, favoring the importation of European cheap labor, the standard of life of the American workmen has been reduced to nearly that of his European fellow-sufferer.
Reporter: But now I am going to ask you a question of vital importance: Is it at all possible for mankind to produce as much as is necessary to give comfort and ease, and sufficient of food and the luxuries of life to every human being? Is it possible to produce a sufficient quantity of the means of life in order to guarantee an existence worthy of the dignity of man to every individual? There was a time in history when this was not possible; but, whether it be possible ought to be seen by comparing the figures representing the increase of the national wealth of the different countries of the earth.
Socialist: There you have hit the nail on the head almost directly. You know from the study of history that in ages gone by political oppression—not to speak of wars and other slaughter of human beings by which unimaginable wealth was destroyed—was one of the principal causes of the misery of nations; and that even in those ages the masses of the people might have lived better and more comfortably, if they had not been compelled to give up too large an amount of the products of their toil for the support of all sorts of idlers and parasites. But, it may be admitted that formerly, owing to the simplicity and insufficiency of the tools and other means of production used upon the different fields of industry, agriculture etc., and to the slowness of commerce and transportation, the necessary aggregate of commodities could not be produced and distributed in order to make life easy and agreeable to every one. But, since the steam engine has been invented and since the development of modern machinery, there is not the least shadow of a doubt but that a superabundance of the means of life could be produced for the whole of humanity. You mention the phrase "National Wealth." It is a stupid phrase, for, at present all wealth is owned by private individuals, and not by "Nations." Yet, let us assume that in reality nations did possess wealth; and let us assume that it was true what Mr. "Jim" Blaine said in the letter by which he accepted the nomination for the Presidency, that the "National wealth" of the United States had increased from 1860 to 1880 about 30,000 millions of dollars. If that sum had been distributed in a manner at least of some degree of equity and justice to all, every American would have received $600 of this increase, and every family would have got about $2,400. Mr. Blaine has also mentioned Illinois and Iowa as special examples of thrift and welfare. In regard to Illinois we have official statistics, and one of our Party's journals, in commenting upon Mr. Blaine's letter, says:
"During the last twenty-four years the aggregate wealth of the inhabitants of the State of Illinois has increased from 900 millions to about 3200 million dollars. The State has about 2,750,000 inhabitants. If this wealth had been equally divided every inhabitant would have received $1,163.00, or every family of four not less than $4,654.00. There would be no paupers, nor any starvelings in the State. But how has that wealth been distributed in reality? The ones, and especially those who did little or no work at all, possess hundreds of thousands, yea millions of dollars, while the industrious and saving people who worked hardest and enjoyed least are poor, miserable starvelings."
Reporter: This is a convincing argument, indeed.
Socialist: But is it not natural? Only imagine a hundred thousand people living on a certain area of land, or better upon an island. The island is very large, but its entire soil cannot be cultivated, as the inhabitants have but very imperfect implements; they are likewise limited in regard to providing themselves with the necessary amount of clothing, houses, furniture, etc. These hundred thousand people are working hard from early morn till late at night, and yet they do not produce more than hardly enough to keep themselves from starving and all sorts of sufferings. All of a sudden some one of these islanders makes an invention by which every one of his fellow-workers is enabled to produce in less hours twenty times more than he had been producing heretofore. Consequently these hundred thousand people were able to cultivate, say four times the area of land than formerly; and of the different necessaries of life they. could produce ten, twenty thirty, even one hundred times the amount produced by them before that invention had been made. One should think that after a change as favorable as this these hundred thousand people would henceforth live in luxury, comfort, and super-abundance; that misery and starvation would no longer be known among them? But, if this be not the case; if, to the contrary, the immense wealth thus created be used only by 5,000 to keep themselves in luxury and idleness, while the remaining 95,000 continue to live a life of deprivation and suffering, it will be clear to even the simplest minded, that it is not the lack of means and the scarceness of products, but the faulty and unjust distribution of the goods produced by the people that causes a condition of affairs as I have just described it to you.
The picture I have unfolded before your mind's eye—the political influences left aside altogether—gives you an idea of the economic condition of nations before the invention of steam machinery, and of the development of the present state of affairs, after the application of steam, to the present process of producing wealth.
Reporter: But I do not quite understand how those few became possessed of the tremendous power of compelling the masses to work so hard and to give up all the wealth they produce?
Socialist: There we come to the pivotal point about which the whole question revolves. If a workman in a machine shop is sick and tired of the long hours he has to work, and of the small pay he gets, what can he do?
Reporter: He can go, and get some other place to work in; sometimes he finds one, sometimes he does not.
Socialist: Quite correct. But suppose he finds other employment: do you believe that his wages will be higher and that he will have to work less hours?
Reporter: I think that the wages and eye of labor in the different branches of industry are about the same everywhere in this country.
Socialist: Indeed they are. Therefore, what could the workman do in order to improve his condition?
Reporter (hesitatingly): I really don't know — — —
Socialist: Of course you don't. For, nobody else knows. Could he begin to manufacture on his own account in competition with the large manufacturers?
Reporter (smilingly): You make me smile—the workman has no means to compete with the capitalist. How could he build factories, set up steam-engines and other machinery; who would give him the raw material, and how could he furnish all the other necessaries for production on a large scale?
Socialist: Of course he can't. But to whom do all these necessaries, these means of labor, belong?
Reporter: To the manufacturer.
Socialist: Correct. And so it is in all other branches of industry. The weaver in the cotton-mills, the miners in the coal and other mines, the laborer upon the gigantic farms of Dacota and elsewhere, the clerks in the large cities and in the offices of the railroad and telegraph companies throughout the country, they all are in about the same helpless condition. For, they are dependent upon the possessors of the means of labor: i. e. the factories, the machines, the soil, the mines, the railroads and the telegraphs. And, because the capitalists, manufacturers and monopolists are in the possession of the means of life, because these means of life are inaccessible to the laboring masses, and because they will remain to be so under the present social system, therefore the so-called employers have all the social and political power concentrated in their hands, and therefore they can compel the workers to work hard for miserable wages, and to hand over to their despoilers the larger part of the wealth produced by the labor of their hands.
Therefore, the possession by the few of the complicated and gigantic means of production is the cause of the power of the few, and of the misery of the millions.
Reporter: But, are not these few entitled to possess the factories, mines etc.? Did not they become their rightful owners, and this by honest means, too?
Socialist: Yes, according to present laws. But who ever told you, that these laws are not protecting a great wrong, and why they should not be abolished? There are laws against the crime of usury in the different States of the Union. According to one of these laws, in one of the States it is a misdemeanor for anybody to take advantage of the trouble and difficulties in which somebody else may find himself by charging him more than six per cent. for any amount of capital loaned; the law would consider it to be robbery. In another State, the law makes ten per cent. the limit of interest. While the one State considers it robbery to charge ten per cent., the other State allows it; in other words, the latter State legalizes robbery to the extent of four per cent. And thus the Socialists declare that, to amass wealth under the protection of the present laws and institutions to the detriment of those who produced it, is legalized robbery. But I shall ask you another question: To whom did, according to law and right, belong the slaves in the United States a quarter of a century ago?
Reporter: To the slaveholders, of course.
Socialist: Just as to-day to the manufacturers, capitalists and monopolists of the present day belong the means of labor, i. e. the factories, the soil, the mines, railroads, telegraphs etc.?
Reporter: Just so! According to the same "right and laws!"
Socialist: Exactly. And how was it that long before the civil war many thousands of the noblest minds, men as well as women, who were then cruelly persecuted, but who to-day are highly honored and whose names will be handed down by history to all generations to come, were striving for the legal abolition of slavery? How was it that after a bloody civil war that "divine institution" was abolished, that the "sacred property" of the slave barons was simply confiscated?
Reporter: Well, to be honest: Because it was a shame and a disgrace to mankind.
Socialist: And, because it is a shame and the very cause of the intellectual and physical deterioration of mankind, the laws and institutions under which it was possible that the few could despoil the masses of the people by monopolizing all the means of life and labor, should just as well be abolished as the laws sanctioning and tolerating slavery! You see this demand of ours is nothing extraordinary, as the same demands have been made at times gone by. But, I am going a little farther. You ask me whether or not the manufacturers etc. are entitled to the possession of the factories, mines, soil, roads etc.? Did they acquire them by honest means? I say no; for, if you acknowledge that only honest labor entitles any one to the possession of labor's products, you must admit that the soil, the factories, mines etc., are not the products of the labors of their present possessors.
Reporter: I acknowledge the soundness of that principle.
Socialist: Well, then, we’ll soon come to an understanding. We already agree that all means of life, all merchandise, all things of any value, have been created by labor.
Reporter: And not by capital too?
Socialist: Capital alone cannot produce anything. But, what do you call capital anyway?
Reporter: Well, money for instance — — —
Socialist: Ah, you do? Money, you mean, is capital? Well, do take, for instance, a million greenbacks, or goldpieces, and put them upon a very big heap of leather. Do you think that that heap of leather will ever be transformed into boots and shoes by those greenbacks or gold pieces?
Reporter: I forgot that money is really nothing but a means of exchange. But machinery, factories, mines etc., that can be bought for money, are capital ?
Socialist: Very well; and do you believe that machines, factories and mines could produce anything without labor?
Reporter: Of course not; but labor could not do so either. The workmen can't do anything without these factories, machines etc., that represent capital.
Socialist: And will you tell me, please, who made the factories, machines, etc. Did the workmen, or did the capitalists do it?
Reporter: The workmen did, but — — —
Socialist: Let me enlighten you a little further: Suppose that all owners of factories, machines, mines, all landlords and capitalists in general should take it into their heads to emigrate to Europe, or say—to the moon. Let them carry with them all money, all stocks, mortgages etc.; let them destroy all factories and houses; let them fill up the mines; let them take everything they may claim as their "property," there is one thing they cannot take away—the land; they will have to leave that behind. And the laboring people would remain where the land is, but they would be without any money, they would have no factories, houses, machines, mines etc. How long, do you think, it would take them to replace what was taken away, or destroyed, by the capitalists? Well, it would be ridiculous to state the exact time; but you will admit that here the phrase "in less than no time" would be the most appropriate answer. Consequently you will now be convinced that all merchandize, all machinery, the means of labor, the tools by which all commodities are produced, are created by labor, and by nothing else but labor. And now, let us see whether labor to-day receives the well-merited reward for its exertions, or who takes it away from labor.
Reporter: The investigation will be quite complicated, I suppose.
Socialist: Not at all. It is as simple as it can be. Take any industry you like; take the manufacture of "agricultural implements," the first item mentioned by the U.S. Census. Suppose there are 100 workmen, foremen etc., employed in one factory at an average amount of wages of $10 per week. After the wages have been paid from the aggregate values produced by these 100 men, there remains a large amount, a small part of which is needed to replace and repair the capital used up by the process of production; and yet there is more left—more than the workmen received in wages — —
Reporter: You forget the manufacturer, the Boss!
Socialist: Did I, eh? Of course, this is very wicked. Well, he pays his best workman, the superintendent, who is conducting the whole business, $30.00 per week, and he thinks that to be quite a good salary for the services rendered. Now, how much do you think the boss should get for his "services?"
Reporter: Well, he gets the remainder for his profit, of course.
Socialist: He "gets" it according to our present nonsensical institutions, undoubtedly. But, that isn't the question. The question is: To how much is he entitled for his labor,—if he really works—in view of the fact that he has already received the amount of interest allotted him for his capital invested in the factory, and that he pays not more than $30 per week to his superintendent who is working from morning till evening, and who not only works with his hands, but also is doing difficult brainwork? What, in consideration of all these circumstances, is his labor really worth?
Reporter: Well, according to its quality—may be about $30, the same as the superintendent's?
Socialist: Be it so; but, let us be magnanimous and let us give him $60.00 per week; I think that will suffice. But now from the values (commodities) produced by the workmen there remains, after the wages having been paid, capital having received its interest, and the boss being munificently rewarded for his looking on, when the superintendent and his men were working, the snug sum of $50,000, which the boss takes to himself to invest it in building a big double-tenement for forty families who have to pay him $5,000 annually in rent; or, he buys a big piece of land in the far west which, after a few years, a lot of poor immigrants will buy from him for ten times the amount he paid for it. I now ask you, who has produced the values represented by that $50,000 with which the boss who takes them for his own use, manages to increase the luxuries and comforts of his own sweet existence?
Reporter: The workmen produced it.
Socialist: The workmen, and nobody else—is that it?
Reporter: So it is.
Socialist: And now, don’t you think that, according to common sense and justice, the values represented by that $50,000 should be used for the benefit of those who produced them? Isn't that your opinion also?
Reporter: I see, at least, that after the capital invested having been rewarded and the boss having been taken care of, there is nobody else but the workman who has any just claims upon them.
Socialist: And yet, they don't "get" anything except their scanty wages; and you see that all the capital held by capitalists, manufacturers, monopolists etc., in whatever form it may be (factories, mines, land, railroads etc.) represents the aggregate amount of wages earned by the workmen, but kept by the capitalists, who did not participate in its production.
Reporter: I am really astonished at the conclusion we have come to, and I would not object to carrying out your proposition to reward the workmen accordingly if you had not forgotten to mention one very important factor: I mean the risk the employer takes when he invests his capital in any enterprise whatsoever. We have taken as an example a factory where the annual profit amounts to $50,000. But, there are plenty of cases where $50,000 are sunk and no profit is made at all. What is an employer to do, who loses his money instead of making any? Should not the $50,000 be considered as a premium for the risk the capitalist takes in investing his property, and should it not be used for the purpose of insuring him against the losses of future years, or years past by?
Socialist: I shall answer that question later, when we shall consider the question of capitalistic risk, and, therefore, I wish you would ask some other questions now.
Reporter: You have shown to me what is the cause of the miserable condition of workmen the world over, I admit, but I cannot see the remedy. I also concede to the Socialists, what all other fair-minded men will concede, that their manner of criticism in regard to economic conditions and their causes is powerfully convincing. But, I would be glad if you were able to show me that beside their critique the Socialists possess the prescription for the remedy of the evil; I would be glad to hear what the Socialists propose to put in the place of the present faulty system. Therefore, will you please tell me what the Socialists propose to do? You have told me already that they would not abolish the present system of production at wholesale by means of steam, machinery etc., but that they would even extend that system, and that only the manner of distributing the values so produced is to be changed, so that all who work shall participate in enjoying what has been produced, and that the larger part of the product shall no longer remain in the hands of a few individuals. Can you briefly explain to me how the Socialists would distribute the product of labor in a manner that would do justice to everyone?
Socialist: I think I can do that easily, and if you will listen attentively, you will soon find out what we want; and I hope that you will then likewise admit that ‘"what we want," will be beneficial to mankind if it be carried out, and that it is rational, just, practical and feasible.
Reporter: Proceed, I am ready to listen.
Socialist: For facts and figures I must recur to the United States Census of 1880, and, as I did before, I take the very first item mentioned: "agricultural implements.’" According to the Census there were 1943 establishments in which such implements were manufactured, and the capital invested amounted to 62 millions of dollars. The number of workers employed in these establishments was 38,313 men, 73 women, and 1194 children under 16 years of age. The amount of wages paid during the year was $15,359,160, and the cost of the raw matterial is given at $31,531,170, while the aggregate value of the implements produced is figured at $63,640,486. From these figures we see—and every schoolboy can make the example—that every one of the workers employed in this branch of industry received during that year $388.25 in wages, while the bosses, after paying the workmen, and after deducting the cost of the material and five per Cent. interest for the capital invested, put just $18,640,706 of the values produced into their pockets. In other words,—out of the labor of every worker whose wages in the average amount to $388.25 per year, they make $470.00. This is a proportion somewhat more unfavorable than that mentioned by the Census as the average proportion prevailing upon the field of our industrial manufactures; for, on an average the Census shows that the capitalists "make" $1.08 for every $1.00 they pay out in the form of wages.
Reporter: And do you believe these figures to be correct?
Socialist: They appear to agree with the statistics gathered by the different States and municipalities. But, if they are incorrect, they favor the capitalistic side; for, when they were gathered the capitalists, and not the workmen, were called upon to give them, and it is but natural that the capitalists should make themselves appear in the best light possible. You probably know that in all cases when capitalists are asked to give the exact amount of wages and profits, they prefer to give big figures in regard to the former, and low figures in regard to the latter. Therefore, we may safely assume that the Census shows the condition of workmen to be better than it really is, and it makes the capitalists appear to pocket less profits than they actually do.
Reporter: I agree with you in regard to the inaccuracy of statements of capitalists in regard to their property, a fact that everybody will admit who, in times gone by when the law relating to income tax was in force, has studied the statements of rich men when the assessors of the tax department made their annual visits for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the personal property of these men.
Socialist: Exactly. Yet, let us consider the figures of the Census to be correct, and make them the basis for our investigation. But, before we proceed any further, we shall consider the question of the risk the capitalist takes when he invests his capital in any enterprise. You made the remark that the capitalist's big profit should be accorded to him to insure him against any possible losses. This seems to be the correct thing if you consider one individual manufacturer, but not the entire branch of industry to which his factory belongs. For, while of the 2,000 manufacturers of agricultural implements several hundreds went into bankruptcy, the aggregate profit of the entire branch amounted to immensely more than the aggregate of the losses would figure up; and that profit was created solely by the labor of the wage-workers employed in that branch. Consequently, if under the present system of capitalistic, and for the masses of the people, detrimental system of production, the individual speculator pockets the profit accruing from the production of his individual concern under the pretense that he must secure himself against possible losses, such claim may be allowed as long as that system prevails. But we desire to abolish it and to replace it by a system of national, co-operative, or better social production, where the profits will be used not for the benefit of a few individuals but for the good of the whole commonwealth. And under such a system no bankruptcies would be possible. Even under the present system where entire branches of industry sometimes fail and go under, the so-called National wealth is increasing faster than the population increases, which goes to prove that the laboring people, in spite of the reckless squandering of human labor on the part of the employing and speculating class, is continually producing more values which, if they were used for the benefit of the creators, would do away with all misery and distress as far as they are caused by poverty.
Reporter: Then you mean to say that under a more rational system of production—as also the figures of the Census show—there would be no risk for the whole, as there is a risk for the single individual, under the prevailing capitalistic system of production?
Socialist: There you hit it! and we are fighting the whole system. But now, let us proceed a little further.
Reporter: All right.
Socialist: In a country like this where the concentration of capital and wealth in the hands of a few is progressing so stupendously, it is easy to imagine that one of the 1943 manufacturers of agricultural implements should succeed in becoming the possessor of all the other establishments; some of them he would purchase, others would be crushed in consequence of his ruinous competition, in short, that, after a certain length of time he would be the only man who manufactures agricultural implements; and, his branch of industry being protected, by a high tariff, from foreign competition, would he not have an immense advantage over the 1943 manufacturers now existing in the United States?
Reporter: Of course, he would.
Socialist: And this would be but natural. As he has no competitors, he can produce just according to the demand. As all orders for goods used in the whole United States are coming to his office, he knows exactly how much is needed for the market. There will be no overproduction, consequently, as it must occur under the present system, when the 1943 manufacturers every one of whom only knows the demand of the limited number of his customers, but is ignorant of the demand of the whole market, are competing with each other and every one of them is hoping to sell more of his goods than the man he directly competes with. Neither will there be any more bankruptcies; for, the one man who supplies the whole country, cannot fail under any circumstances; bankruptcies are only the consequence of competition. There are other advantages for the one big monopolist who has swallowed all the rest of his competitors. He can place his factories where the raw material is handy, so that he loses nothing by costly transportation; and he can also introduce a system of the most rational division of labor, by which he saves an immense amount of wages; furthermore, he can buy all the necessaries of his process of production at wholesale, or cheaper than his former competitors could. So you see, that the cost of such a system of production being considerably reduced, there would be no expenses for advertising the goods, and other advantages would contribute to make the position of that single manufacturer exceedingly agreeable.
Reporter: No one would doubt that, but I do not understand what you are driving at.
Socialist: Have some patience. You'll soon see it, and you will then perfectly understand it. The result of all these advantages on the part of this one manufacturer of agricultural implements would be that he could, with a smaller number of workers and with less capital than his former competitors needed, produce as much as was produced formerly; or, with the same number of workers and the same amount of capital he could produce more than the 1943 manufacturers produced in 1880.
Reporter: Take, for instance, for simplicity's sake, the latter proposition; and, suppose that there was a demand also for such a larger quantity of products, as the manufacturer, who exactly knows the general demand, would not otherwise produce it.
Socialist: Very well; and it would be no exaggeration if we suppose the aggregate value of all products (of the agricultural implements) produced at such extraordinary advantages would be 100 millions instead of 69 millions, as it is to-day.
Reporter: All right.
Socialist: We again take the figures presented by the census. This one manufacturer and monopolist employs in his finely and utterly practical equipped factories some 40,000 workers—to take a round number—who were working in the 1943 establishments of 1880. They comprise the hard working laborer, the skilled workmen, foremen, superintendents, engineers, draughtsmen, inventors, clerks, book-keepers, cashiers etc., in short the entire apparatus of "hands" and brains necessary to conduct the business of the gigantic concern. To these 40,000 the monopolist pays, as the census shows, $388 each per annum. Some receive more, others less, but the average is $388, or in all about $15,500,000 per year. The cost of the material would be increased, as instead of 69 millions the aggregate value of the product amounts to 100 millions. But, as this single manufacturer can produce everything much cheaper than his former competitors, we may consider our estimate of the increase in the cost of the material to be very high. if we raise it from $31,500,000 to $40,000,000. Taking these figures to be fair and correct, we would have the following tables I herewith write down for you to furnish a striking comparison:
Under the Present System.
(According to Census.)
| Number of factories and shops for the manufacture of agricultural implements | 1,943 |
| Number of workers employed | 39,560 |
| Capital invested | $62,000,000.00 |
| Cost of material etc. | 31,531,170.00 |
| Amount of wages paid in one year | 15,359,610.00 |
| Value of implements produced | 68,640,486.00 |
| Average amount of wages paid annually to each of the workers employed | $388.25 |
| Annual profit of every one of the 1,943 manufacturers after $3,100,000 haying been deducted for interest and wear and tear of capital invested | $9,598.00 |
Under one boss monopolizing the entire branch of
industry.
| Number of establishments of immense proportions | 10 |
| Number of workers | 39,560 |
| Capital invested | $62,000,000.00 |
| Cost of material | 40,000,000.00 |
| Aggregate amount of wages | 15,359,610.00 |
| Value of implements produced | 100,000,000.00 |
| Annual average of wages for each worker calculated as above | $388.25 |
| Profit of boss | $41,440,390.00 |
You may now interpose any objections you like to the fairness or correctness of these figures, but you will be unable to show the result to be very different from that arrived at by this simple example in arithmetics, always supposed that you do not go outside of the figures of the census.
Reporter: I will admit that, but your example only shows the results of monopolism, and it is not the picture you promised of your imagined system of social production in the future.
Socialist: In order to do that, we only need making an insignificant change in our pictorial example. Look here, Mr. Reporter: Is the monopolistic picture before your mind's eye in all its details?
Reporter: It is.
Socialist: Very well, then, one single move and you will see the whole picture of social production as proposed by the Socialists.
Reporter: I am anxious to see it, indeed.
Socialist: Take away that one man off the head of that big concern and there is the entire system by which society will be made happy and comfortable for all times to come.
Reporter: How so?
Socialist: Don't you see the point? The concern goes on with its work undisturbed, for nothing has been changed in its organic composition. The workmen are there, so are the foremen, inventors, engineers, book-keepers, cashiers and financiers; even the boss may remain if he be a thorough business man and a good organizer; he would be given a good salary (only think that the manager of the Interior Department of the whole United States gets not more than $8000 annually)—in short all the elements have remained to make the business of the concern to be successful; there is but this difference that the 41 millions of dollars of profits hitherto pocketed according to present "right and custom," by the boss, would be used for the benefit of the workmen by whom the values represented by that sum had been created. And what would the aspect then be? Every one of the workers would receive, on an average, a little over $1,047 out of that 41 millions; consequently, together with the wages he formerly received, he would have an annual income of about $1,435. Of course, that. wouldn’t be according to present "Law and Right," but it would be honest and fair, according to the principles of Reason and Justice.
Reporter: Yes, but — — —
Socialist: I know there would come plenty of "buts" and "ifs." But, Mr. Reporter, I am ready to answer every one of them.
Reporter: Well, then: Are all branches of industry to be organized that way, or similarly?
Socialist: All branches without exception: manufacturing industries, agriculture, mines, commerce and transportation. In regard to the manufacturing industries, the advantages accruing from such a system are too apparent to need further discussion. But also in regard to applying that system to agriculture, it is easy to see that thereby mankind would immensely be benefitted. I have already mentioned to you what Liebig, the scientist, said in regard to rationally organizing agriculture in Germany, and that thereby over 70 millions of human beings would be supported in comfort and abundance; and Mr. Liebig said so about forty years ago. In the meantime all sorts of machinery and implements have been improved and invented, and thereby agriculture would be improved and perfected to such an extent, that many more millions than Liebig thought could be supported. But this system could only be applied if the soil belonged, not to a few private individuals, but to the entire people. Only imagine if all the agricultural soil of the United States would be tilled and worked according to an uniform, scientifically prepared plan? There would be no wasting, as it prevails to-day; the soil would not be "robbed" irrationally of its propagating powers as it is done to-day by people who do not care whether or not the generations to come will find good, fertile soil, or a barren desert from which everything valuable has been extracted by the irrational, reckless system called Raubwirthschaft by German economists, or the system of cultivating by robbing the soil of its fertility. A uniform, rational system applied to agriculture in the United States would prevent that immense quantities of grain and other products would go to waste and destruction, while of other products not enough has been raised for the demand of the market. And, if the same system were to be applied to our forests and timber lands which to-day are recklessly destroyed, we would not be in danger to see our rivers dry up and to have our grain-growing lands become sandy deserts. The application of such a system to our land and our forests would yield from three to four times the present quantities of grain, wood, and all other necessaries of life with the same amount of labor performed at the present day, and you ought to know that the success of the agricultural labors of every nation in the world is the basis for its wealth and economic welfare.
Reporter: There are some objections I would like to make, but I shall wait until you will have detailed to me the effect of your system upon the commerce of a large country like ours.
Socialist: Commerce, as it is organized to-day, is equal to fraud and swindling to a large extent. And this for two reasons: First, it consists to a great deal in speculating, or betting, without any actual exchange of merchandize, and second, it throws immense quantities of adulterated goods and victuals upon the market. These evils would disappear immediately under a socialistic system of commerce, and with its disappearance a large number of people now engaged in swindling and obstructing the well-being of mankind would become available for honest and useful labor; it would be an enormous blessing for society.
Reporter: I believe it would. There could be no Stock and Produce Exchanges then, under such a system?
Socialist: Of course not; for, there wouldn't be any paper values—the means by which speculating nowadays is made possible.
Reporter: Would that be all the advantage of the system?
Socialist: Oh, no. The principal advantage would consist in doing away with the immense number of middlemen now hampering trade and commerce, and raising prices to an unreasonable extent. From the great centres of social production the merchandise would be sent directly to the great stores and emporiums where the public could buy them without paying tribute to the little profit-monger through whose hands everything goes nowadays until the consumer finally gets it. And nobody would be cheated, no difference in prices would exist, and no one would get any adulterated food of any kind. There would be no miserable dirty little stores, with miserable, dirty, poor people in them, who have to make a living upon the wretches that come to them with their pennies to buy dearer than the richest pay for the best the market affords.
Reporter: But who fixes the price of all commodities?
Socialist: We shall talk about that later.
Reporter: Well then, as to railroads and telegraphs, the system of transportation and communication, I can easily see that it would be of advantage to society, to apply your system to these departments of the. public service; but to do it, the public and the administration ought to be one, and not, as it is to-day, antagonistic to each other, and the former only a means for the latter to fatten upon.
Though I understand what you mean, and being able to imagine what the future organization based upon your principles would be, I would like to ask a few more questions. I suppose—and it could not be otherwise according to what you have laid before me—that the land, houses, factories, machinery, mines, etc., the means of labor would under all circumstances have to belong to the whole people, to the commonwealth, and not to any individual, or corporation of individuals?
Socialist: They would belong to the people.
Reporter: I can also imagine how everything might be produced according to a rationally prepared plan. I can also see how a number of experts, elected for that purpose in an honest manner by the people, might agree, after having gathered the necessary statistics, upon the amount of commodities to be produced for the use of the whole people; and I also think that honest experts, in whom the people can trust, would manage things better than the present politicians, who are not experts and who have to be dishonest under the present system, while the experts of the future could be easily controlled by the people who know what they want and how things must be done, and who will neither have an opportunity, nor any desire to be dishonest, because dishonesty lacks its motive when property is held in common . . . . But why is it, that you are smiling Mr. Socialist?
Socialist: I am smiling, Sir, because I am glad to see that you have made good progress in reasoning during the time of our conversation. From being a man who believed that the Socialists wanted to smash all machinery, you have become a zealous and able defender of our ideas.
Reporter: Not yet. I have yet some grave objections in store for you. But, indeed, I admit that I think the question is well worth discussing. As I say, I can imagine how production might be remodeled according to your plan, and that thus great advantages would be gained for society; but, I don't believe that such a mode of production would result beneficially to the individual worker. I think that there would be a lack of discipline, and that laziness would prevail to a great extent among people who are not under the orders of a boss in whose interest it is to make the workers exert themselves to their utmost capacity.
Socialist: You misjudge humanity. To the contrary, people would be more industrious and more willing to work than they are to-day. As long as the present system prevails, the workman has no other interest than to give as little labor as possible for the scanty wages he receives, and he does not care whether his co-worker is lazy or industrious, whether material and tools are wasted or not; for, to look out for all this does not increase his weekly wages a cent over what the competition upon the labor market puts in his pockets. But, under a system of co-operative, social production, as we desire to introduce it, the contrary would be the case. For, under such a system every worker is a partner in the business, and he knows that any neglect on his own part and that of his fellow-workers would be detrimental to the whole. Therefore, everyone is interested in the doings of everyone else, and the impulse of doing what is right and advantageous is much greater than under the rulings of an arbitrary self-interested boss. And it is but natural that the quality of labor should be improved under such a co-operative system, not to speak-of the moral advantages it would offer, as it would raise the standard of morality; and the sense of right and justice would be more highly developed than among the oppressed and suffering wage-slaves of the present day. Therefore, you see that it is but natural, that not only the whole people, but also the individual worker would profit if the socialistic plan had been carried out.
Reporter: And how are the prices for labor and its products to be fixed? To-day these things are regulated by supply and demand.
Socialist: "Regulated!" Indeed, you call that "regulating?" Where the man who is laboring hardest gets the least, and the fellow who hardly does anything swallows the biggest and best pieces; where part of the products is depreciated by an insane system of overproduction, and the rest is made scarce and dear by being bought up, "cornered," by speculators, and kept away from the market until prices are so high that but few can pay them, and those who can't must suffer from want and starvation! No, Sir; there will be no "regulating" like that in a society organized according to our ideas. Of course, we will not be able to figure as closely as to avoid that even one pair of boots remain unsold, or that not even a dozen of apples will go to waste—and I mention this for the purpose of avoiding the ridiculous objections that are sometimes made in this respect—but I am convinced that supply and demand will be made to correspond with each other, and that the possible waste of material and labor will be reduced to almost nothing. Speculation by which prices are unnecessarily raised would be done away with altogether. Prices would be simply limited by the cost of production.
Reporter: And what is the cost of production? What elements compose it?
Socialist: It is composed by the cost of the raw material, of the aggregate wages paid to the producer, of transportation and sale, and finally of the amount to be charged for the repair and renewal of the means of labor, tools, machinery, houses, factories etc.
Reporter: And the question, whether anything be scarce or plentiful has nothing to do with prices?
Socialist: Only as far as the natural limits are concerned, i. e. as far as the raw material is produced by nature in larger or smaller quantities; also the greater or lesser skill necessary to produce a certain commodity is a factor in fixing the price of anything.
Reporter: Then the amount of wages is the principal basis for fixing prices? For, the raw material is produced by nature gratuitously. For, according to your plan, a ton of iron taken from a mine and carried to some iron works, would cost not more than the wages of those who raise it from the earth and carry it to the place of its destination, to which would be added the amount necessary for repairing and renewing the machinery of the mine and of the carrying road; the iron would cost nothing as it belongs to society at large.
Socialist: You are perfectly right.
Reporter: And how are the wages to be fixed?
Socialist: The mode of determining the amount of wages will be different in different periods. If we take the period to immediately follow our present state of affairs, all labor would be divided into four classes according to its quality, or the skill and time necessary to produce and to learn it. Of course, this is only to illustrate to you how the principle might be carried out practically; to arrange the details would be for the experts of the future. These four classes of prices would be:
A. For common labor, that anybody can perform without any preparatory apprenticeship.
B. For skilled labor, like handling merchandise and machinery, plowing, etc.
C. For skilled labor of a higher degree, like cabinet-making, carpentry, weaving, and similar mechanical labor.
D. For professional labor, engineering, drawing, calculating, superintending, organizing, etc.
All productive labor might be divided into four classes like these, and the price at a given duration of performance might be for
| Class | A | $ | 1.00 |
| Class„ | B | 1.50 | |
| Class„ | C | 2.00 | |
| Class„ | D | 2.50 |
Besides, a lowest limit would have to be fixed for wages, or better, a lowest limit for the income of anyone to be guaranteed even to the most unskilled laborer. Let us say, that, for instance, at seven hours of daily toil the lowest amount of wages should be $20 per week; then the wages would be for
| Class | A | $ | 120.00 |
| Class„ | B | 30.0 | |
| Class„ | C | 40.00 | |
| Class„ | D | 50.50 |
But I must insist that this is only an illustration, selected to give you an idea of the system; for, I am sure that in the future there will be a scale of wages much more elaborate and fitted to existing conditions and circumstances. Yet, I maintain this: That for the time to immediately follow the present system the difference between the highest and lowest income must not be too large, and that the lowest income must afford a comfortable, happy existence.
Reporter: This seems to be plain enough, but nevertheless I must object. You make the lowest limit $20.00—you might have just as well said $50.00. But the question is: will society, even if organized as you propose, be able to pay as much as that?
Socialist: You mean to ask whether society would be able to produce as much as is necessary to make everybody comfortable and happy? We have answered that question already in the affirmative, basing our assertions upon the figures of the census. Of course the amount of wages, i. e. the money under the new state of society, would be nothing but an order for goods produced, and it is perfectly immaterial whether such order bears upon its face as many cents as we have figured in dollars, if only the cents buy as much of the products as the dollars would. The wages we have assumed in our table above are only to designate the proportionate share of the goods produced to which all human beings, according to their ability and the time they spent in assisting in the production are entitled. From this you see that by the introduction of such a system of wages the injustice of all accidents and incidents of fortune and misfortune would be obviated for one or the other branch of industry. Suppose, for instance, that during a certain length of time the mines would yield too little to afford the payment of the wages for the workers engaged in mining, the consequence would be that all other branches would have to bear that loss, and by redistributing it upon the whole, nobody would feel it as a burden. Is that plain enough for you?
Reporter: I understand it now. But there are many other objections I have yet to make. For instance, I would like to know how dangerous and disagreeable labor is to be classified? It may be simple and easy enough to place a knob upon a tower four hundred feet high, or to sweep a dirty, unwholesome sewer, but I don't think that anybody could be induced to perform such work if the pay for it were not more than other similar unskilled labor.
Socialist: You are right. The present injustice of paying the lowest wages to those who perform the most dangerous and disagreeable labor will not be repeated by the new society, nor will it pay the highest wages to those whose task is the easiest and most agreeable. But, I would also like to point out to you that even under present circumstances the dangers and discomforts of most occupations might be prevented, or reduced to almost nothing by appropriate measures and an improved working apparatus. But that doesn't pay at present, and the bosses care not how many workers are crippled, or how many lives are destroyed; and for that reason they neglect to introduce measures of safety and comfort for the protection of their "hands." But in the future, when every worker is interested in his own and his fellow-workers' safety and happiness, such measures will be applied; and besides, for disagreeable and dangerous work the pay will not be only highest, but the time devoted to such work will be reduced considerably; I know very well that such a proposition will be ridiculed and laughed at. But that is immaterial. It is simply a just demand that the miner, who exposes his life when working thousands of feet below the surface of the earth, or of the carpenter and mason laboring hundreds of feet above, will be as well paid for a three or four hours' workday as the writer, the clerk, and book-keeper will for his pleasant and easy work in a comfortable and agreeable room for seven or eight hours' labor. The regulating of such and other exceptions upon the great field of social production will be done entirely according to the demand for these labors, and no one will have to complain of injustice in this respect.
Reporter: Very well. But don't you think that under such circumstances in a society where no one can become what is to-day called "rich" a state of general indifference will take place, when no one will have a special inducement to excel others? Will not ambition cease, and will not that be detrimental to society at large? Will there be anybody striving to make new discoveries and inventions, if it is not accompanied by personal gain and advancement?
Socialist: Your supposition is based upon the fallacious and barbarous view that it is "human nature" to seek nothing but to "make money." I say that such is not the case, It is human nature to strive for improvement, to excel others. But at all events the prevailing social condition shapes the nature of the object mankind is endeavoring to accomplish. The present condition of things, of course, makes men to consider wealth the most desirable object to obtain, and for this reason all teachings and admonitions, in that respect, to the child, be it at home or at school, are fruitless. The teachings of morality, or of so-called religion, go for naught if the young man or woman, when entering practical life, finds everything going contrary to what has been talked or preached into him or her in the days of youth by impractical and deluded teachers and parents. Go to the Indians to-day and tell them that. it is barbarous to take the scalps of the enemy killed in battle. They will tell you that the young warrior will find life not worth living if he be no longer allowed to attain the highest honors his forefathers had been attaining for ages gone by. What to the young warrior is the scalp of his enemy is to our youth the possession of wealth. You know the old saying: "Make money, my son; honestly, if you can—but make money." Do you really think that such a shameful motto should be the watchword of human society? No, Sir. If a new generation will have grown up under institutions which allow of no robbery of the masses by a privileged few but whose principal aim and object is the welfare of all, you will see that mankind will quite naturally change its striving for self-interest into a general endeavor for mutuality and co-operative labor for the benefit of all. And as to new discoveries and inventions, it is fortunately the case already in these our times that they are not made exclusively for personal gain. The greatest scientific discoveries and inventions originate from entirely different, much nobler causes. But, who told you that the Socialists refuse to recompensate discoverers and inventers for their labor? To the contrary. While to-day, for instance, most of the inventors do not enjoy the fruits of their inventions, or get very little for them—as can be proven by thousands of cases—and the lion share of the result of their labors goes to some capitalist who possesses the means of making an invention pay, society organized according to our plan, would guarantee to discoverers and inventors the full fruit of their work. Specially all inventions tending to improve mechanical appliances—and to these you are referring, I think—are already made to order, so to speak at the present time. In the future the Public Department of Inventions will undoubtedly organize a branch of service whose exclusive object it will be to invent mechanical improvements of all kinds. It is evident that these professional inventors will receive the highest wages, like the best workers in any other branch. And special rewards will be paid for every new invention of great importance. An invention, for instance, by which the hours of labor of all workers would be reduced considerably might be rewarded by paying to the inventor a pension for the rest of his life; and all other inventions might be rewarded in proportion. You will admit that to arrange such matters would meet with little difficulty under a system of social co-operation. And, before all other things, the future system will have the advantage that the individual discoverer and inventor will get the reward, and not some idle, good-for-nothing parasite.
Reporter: I am satisfied that such an arrangement would solve this problem. And yet, the question of improving machinery reminds me of another objection. You have already stated that in consequence of the introduction of machinery a large number of workers becomes superfluous, and that under the new system more "hands" would be made idle than even to-day. How would you overcome that obstacle?
Socialist: That difficulty exists within our present social state of affairs only; it could not exist under the system proposed by the socialists. To-day, of course, every new and improved machine becomes a curse to so many workers whom it throws out of work. In the new society, the people who become superfluous in one branch are employed to produce other commodities and luxuries, or their becoming superfluous causes a reduction of the hours of labor for all other workers.
Reporter: I don't quite understand what you mean.
Socialist: Let us suppose the United States and Canada to be united into one communistic commonwealth. It would form a world by itself and its inhabitants would be able to raise and produce whatever human beings may need and desire for their comfort and happiness. And then let us suppose all the different branches of production to be organized into trades unions, or whatever you may call it, for the purpose of producing all the necessaries and luxuries of life according to the best, most rational process conducted by the directions of the scientists of the age. Let us furthermore suppose the people who are the mediaries between the producer and the consumer to be organized like the producers, also the people who carry on the business of transportation and communication, and supposed their income to be regulated according to what the producers receive for their labor; and let it be supposed that seven hours be sufficient for everybody to work in order to produce whatever is needed, and to do all other business for the whole commonwealth. Let us finally suppose that by some great invention the entire department of machinery and mechanism would have to be revolutionized, as it may be any day at the present period, by the steam engine being supplanted by the electro-dynamic motor. By such a sudden change one-fourth of all the workers hitherto employed in that department might become superfluous, as the quantity of products to be brought forth by that department could be created by applying the new invention in three quarters of the time formerly necessary for the process of production. Under the new social system the introduction of such an invention would be a blessing at once for all mankind; for, the one-fourth of workers having become superfluous could be employed to produce luxuries, that formerly could not be produced for the lack of laboring force and time. So, you see, that every new invention, even if it makes ever so many workers superfluous in one branch, will result in an advantageous improvement of the condition of the whole. But, the time will certainly come when all desires of mankind for comfort and enjoyment will be fully satisfied, and if then a new invention should be made, it will be applied for the purpose of reducing the hours of labor of all workers; and so, I think, I have proved to you that our society with its easily manageable organization has in its hands the means of using all new improvements, discoveries or inventions, yea, even every unexpected favor from nature's bountiful treasury for the benefit of every individual, consequently for the benefit of the whole.
Reporter: But, right here, I would like to make the very same objection you made only a short while ago. You said—and I think you were right—that it would be nonsensical to ask an unemployed cigarmaker to cultivate land out west. Even if you gave him all the implements necessary for successful cultivation, he would starve on the most fertile ground donated to him. Therefore, if we suppose that under the new social system an invention had been made by which 10,000 cigarmakers would become superfluous, what would you do with them? Would you have them till the soil, or what would they do?
Socialist: You forget two important points. While to-day these 10,000 workers would be left to shift for themselves, that's to say: while they would be altogether helpless, the new society, in which all inventions and improvements will immediately benefit everyone, will have the means to gradually employ these 10,000 workers in other branches, where they will be occupied with some labor similar to their former trade, and they will soon learn it; the cost of such changes will be easily paid out of the gain accruing from the introduction of the new invention for the whole society. The second point of importance you forget, is that the division of labor will continually go on, and all work will finally be reduced to a few simple movements of the workers' hands in turning on some piece of machinery, or changing its speed, or stopping it, etc., a task that will be easy to learn within a very short time; consequently the change from one occupation to another will not cause serious trouble neither to the whole people, nor to the individuals undergoing such change; and, what to-day causes disaster to hundreds and thousands, will, under the new system benefit every single individual of the whole commonwealth.
Reporter: I suppose, of course, that the organization as you pictured it to me as existing in the United States and Canada, should be extended all over the world?
Socialist: Communism and Socialism will only then be a blessing to all mankind when it shall extend over every land of the globe; and when this should be the case, it will result in a glorious condition of those of whose future happiness and wealth we have almost no conception in these days of misery and irrationality. But, how the development will go on and what countries will organize themselves into communistic republics first, can hardly be determined at present. Yet, it is probable that the present so-called civilized countries of Europe and America will, after almost simultaneous social revolutions, organize upon a communistic basis. And as soon as this is accomplished the different communistic countries will undoubtedly enter into an international compact by which the administration and organization of the whole will be materially improved and any possible difficulties removed. The laboring people of all countries, if no longer oppressed and robbed of the full fruit of their labor by monarchical or capitalistic oppressors, have -but this one common interest and desire to labor and enjoy life in common, and to lighten each others' burdens.
Reporter: It is hardly necessary for me to ask, whether those who are unable to work from old age or any other infirmity, will be cared for by society at large?
Socialist: Undoubtedly, and yet there will be a difference. Whenever and wherever the needy and the poor are taken care of, it is done by meting out to him alms, and almost invariably in a scanty, miserable, humiliating manner. The Socialists would never do that. We believe that everyone who became decrepit after having done his duty as a worker, or the unfortunate beings who were born into this world without the necessary strength and ability to work themselves, have a right to existence as well as all the able-bodied and healthy people, and that therefore it is the duty of society to support them and make them participate in the blessings of co-operative labor just as well as if they had done their share in producing the necessaries of life and comfort for society. But, here I would like to mention the probability that, while the children in the future state will be better educated, and while they will not be put to work as early in life as at present, the grown population will not contain as many invalids and disabled individuals as under present circumstances, because the inability to work, diseases and infirmities, are generally caused by the want of the means of life, and by overwork, as prevailing to-day. Even old people will be able to do a great many things when all are sufficiently nourished, and when none are continually worrying and craving for food and shelter. That this is possible you can observe when looking over the list of names of our old merchants and manufacturers, who in spite of having worked all their lives, are as ruddy and crafty as if they were young men; and this is only because they have been living a life of material welfare and free from need in any form whatever.
Reporter: And this organization of society at large into trades unions, as it might be called, is the final object communism is striving for?
Socialist: It is the first and not the last aim the Socialists desire to accomplish. To organize social production upon the broadest and most accomplished scale imaginable, and regulated according to the wants and desires of mankind at the time being, to make society the owner of the land and the means of communication and of the means as well as the products of labor, as far as the latter are not private property already, is the first object we are striving for, and it ts the economic basis upon which the new society bases tts organization and continues to develop into higher and nobler proportions. I want you to tell that to all who may ask you what the communists want to do, and whenever you find anyone who says that they want anything else, tell him that he is either a knownothing or a slanderer. Moreover, "Beware of spurious imitations!" Always bear in mind that production uniformly organized and conducted upon a rational, scientific plan, is the only proposition which if carried out, will guarantee the welfare of mankind. If any political humbug or quack proposes any other system which excludes production upon such a scale, and leaves out the communistic ownership of the soil and the tools and means of labor,—may they call it anarchism or anything else—tell them that such is not socialism nor communism, it is not what we want!
Reporter: You have been speaking so far, only about producing all sorts of things, and also about their distribution among those who produced them according to the part each worker took in the process of producing, but you did not mention anything about consumption, or how the products of labor are to be used. You just said that these products are the property of the commonwealth as far as they have not become private property. Then, there is to be private property in the society as proposed by you, or even private capital?
Socialist: The term private capital is, as we consider it, a self-contradiction. Capital means anything bearing interest, rent, or better it brings to its owner what others have made. No such thing will be known under the socialistic system of the future. But, there will be private property.. Everybody will be at liberty to do what he pleases with the orders for any kind of products or enjoyments—to-day such orders are called "money"—he may be entitled to for his labor. There will be those who-will spend their income for eating, drinking, clothing and other necessaries and comforts of life, while others will be saving in this respect and use part of their wages to buy books, pictures, etc.; and again others will use their sayings for the purpose of traveling, studying, etc. The organization of the communists will guarantee to everyone the possibility of an existence free from restraint as far as individual preferences do not injure the welfare of the whole.
Reporter: And you mean to say that under the communistic system there will be no one living upon the labor of others while being an idler himself?
Socialist: Under no circumstances; for, how could it be?
Reporter: Take, for instance, two families with an average income of $1,800 per annum, that is to say, they receive orders to the amount of that sum for the labor they have performed. One of these families lives quite economically and saving, and their expenses amount to not more than $800 per annum, while the other family spends every cent of their income. After five or six years the economical family has saved orders to the amount of $6,000. Could not they use that sum somehow for the purpose of depriving others of the fruit of their labor?
Socialist: If you would only explain how they would do it? What in the world should that saving family do with that $6000? In order to get at the fruit of the labor of other people they would have to buy land, build tenement houses, and extort rent from those who were to move into such houses. But there is no land for sale, and no one would live in the house of any private owner as the community owns all houses. Or, they would have to own a large quantity of tools, machinery, etc. But, while they might own one sewing machine, if they should think to thereby profit, they could not put up 50 sewing machines for 50 poor, helpless girls, to work for them; for, all tools, machinery, factories etc., belong to the people. Neither are there any railroad stocks and bonds to speculate in, as the railroads, telegraphs etc., belong to the people also, and there is no need of stocks and bonds. Consequently you see that the $6,000 would have to be spent for something if the members of that family want to enjoy what their earnings represent. And, because this is so, and as everybody knows it to be so, there is no inducement for anyone to "save" anything. Everybody knows that as long as he labors his existence in comfort and ease is guaranteed by the commonwealth, that he will be taken care of, if he should become unable to work, and that under no circumstances his children will be allowed to perish. Consequently, the impossibility for anyone to live upon the fruit of the labor of others will prevent people from saving up their earnings for the purpose of robbery and spoliation. Everyone will therefore spend what he can; and those who are delegated to administer public affairs, will see that there be no overproduction, nor that the commodities needed for all will be lacking at any time.
Reporter: You spoke of the different periods to be marked by the different stages of development of the socialistic organization, and the state of affairs, you just mentioned, you said would come directly after the overthrow of the present system. Will the later periods materially differ in regard to the organic basis and social features from the condition just described by you?
Socialist: Not to any considerable extent as far as the tendency of the socialistic movement is concerned, but somewhat in regard to the development to the ideal of perfection in communism. For, those differences in the income of individuals which, owing to the natural development of human beings will continue for some time, would more and more disappear under the future state of things. And for these reasons, in the beginning of the new era, the elements comprising the old society, with their characteristic differences in knowledge and abilities will prevail to a great extent; but, as the new society will immediately introduce its thorough and uniform process of education in all branches of knowledge and mechanical pursuits, these differences will soon be effaced. But, besides, it is to be remembered—and this is of great importance—that the rapid development of new inventions and improvements, and the scientific division of labor in all departments of industry, will simplify the task imposed upon the producers in all branches to such an extent that every young person, female as well as male, coming from the exceedingly well-managed institutions of social learning, will be enabled to immediately enter any vocation affording him, or her, a comfortable living; and thus the prevailing differences of ability causing the difference in the income of the individual workers will also more and more disappear. May be that two generations will suffice to accomplish this. The highest ideal, of course, would be to have the income not merely regulated by the accomplishments of the individual nor even by the time during which the individual assists in the process of producing, but that every one serve society according to his, or her, best ability, and that the reward for doing so be exactly what every individual needs and desires. But this ideal could only be realized if every spark of brutal egoism were extinguished in the hearts of mankind, and if altruism, the principle of mutuality, which first considers the welfare of the whole and then that of the individual proper, has become second nature to everyone. But, why should we trouble ourselves about the state of affairs of the far future which neither we, ourselves, nor our children and grandchildren will ever see? The road toward this noble ideal, if it can ever be reached, will undoubtedly lead through the socialistic organization as I have described it to you a short while ago.
Reporter: But is it not quite unnatural, and would it not be altogether void of results to root out that "brutal egoism," the disappearance of which seems to give you such great hopes for the future?
Socialist: Are you a Christian?
Reporter: I hope so.
Socalist: And what is the fundamental principle underlying your religion? Is it not to strive for the rooting out of that brutal egoism from the nature of man, to love "thy neighbor as thyself?" And if you now, all of a sudden, designate this principle to be practically impossible—what a humbug your "great religion" must be! But, you are right. The mere preaching won’t do. And, the socialists knowing this to be so, are aiming, as I told you before, at establishing institutions by which the effusions of that brutal egoism will be made impossible. They know that the time will come when brutality, like all other instincts, or germs, the development of whose growth is being prevented by the application of scientific and rational means, will in the end be crippled and finally die out entirely. And thus socialism will, in this respect, by the application of its eminently practical measures, really accomplish what christianity has been attempting to accomplish all in vain for the last two thousand years.
Reporter: I might ask a great many more questions, but I see that by an interview like this the details of such a great plan could not all be exhausted; and therefore, admitting that my objections are only of minor importance, I should like to see only a few more important points to be considered. For, while understanding that all productive labor is to be organized and paid according to a well-defined system, I do not quite see how teachers, artists, literary men, poets, and other representatives of art and science could be organized into co-operative trade unions. You are probably aware of the fact that the Socialists are suspected that they little appreciate all these things?
Socialist: I know it: yet, this is but another proof of the fact that those who oppose the plans of the Socialists, know as little about their views in this respect as they know of their economic propositions. To those who thus judge the Socialists I would recommend to attend socialistic meetings, to read their papers, their books and the literature they are scattering broadcast for agitating purposes. These slanderers would soon find out that the Socialists more highly appreciate all scientific and artistic endeavors than the average public does. And this is but natural. Any man who is striving for the improvement of the present condition of society is always a lover of the beautiful and of- the advancement of art and science. He will therefore appreciate all intellectual labor. But, of course, the Socialists also know, that at all times the intellectual condition of man has been in close relation to his economic welfare. They know that true art could not flourish any length of time when the masses of the people are suffering and starving, and but a few privileged ones are rolling in luxury, They are aware of this, and they see that in a society of classes science becomes the hired, meretricious tool of the ruling class. For this reason they confidently hope—and from my point of view I declare that they are right—that art and science in a society where want and misery as well as unnerving super-abundance and demoralizing luxury are unknown, and all are well educated, will be more equally enjoyed, and that consequently they will be more highly appreciated than in our present society.
Reporter: But, how will the representatives of art and science, how will poets, artists, scientists, teachers, lawyers, physicians etc., be rewarded for their labors?
Socialist: Allow me to tell you, first, that some of these professions will, as far as the number of their representatives is concerned, be considerably reduced. What will be the use of "lawyers" in a society where the question of "mine and thine" will be so clearly defined, and where the principal motive for all so-called crimes, misery and want, is removed? How many physicians will be needed where no one is suffering from want and exposure, where nobody needs overworking himself, where all are living in comfortable homes, and no one will swallow more of the good things of the world than his system can digestwhere gluttony and vice are impossible? But, at any rate, I do not doubt, but that even these professions will be organized in a similar manner as the trades, and that those who devote their time and energy to them will be amply rewarded for their ability and skill. Though not arrogating to myself the right of prescribing how the society of the future will arrange these matters, yet I believe that you will concede to me the following points without any further dispute: It will be easy to find a system according to which to employ teachers, physicians, etc., to fully remunerate them for their services to society, and to leave them sufficient time for study and recreation besides attending to their regular public duties. So the representatives of creative genius, poets, artists, sculptors, scientists will find their places within our new social system; they will be rewarded for their labors in receiving appointments for the highest places at the great public institutions of art and science (as has been done to-day in the cases of men like Draper, Agassiz, Marsh, Arago, Virchow, Du Bois Reymond, Cornelius, Lessing (the painter), Max Mueller and others), or in any other form. Indeed, if even these men would have to sell their talent, the results of their talent respectively, upon the open market of life, as they are doing to-day—where would they fare better, ask you? In a society of the present day, composed at nine-tenths of rough, uneducated, ignorant, poor and overburdened people, or in our new society of well-educated, intelligent, wealthy and comfortable citizens, who in the average know something about art and science and have plenty of leisure time to occupy themselves with elevating and pleasant contemplation and study?
There can be but one answer to this question—the one in the affirmative. Within the course of time intellectual occupation in general will undergo unavoidable changes. For, as the hours of labor for the production of material things will be more and more reduced according to the progress made in the application of labor-saving machinery, it will become a necessary supplement to every intellectually creative activity which in itself andinits results is a reward to the individual performing it.
As to this state of affairs the "English Social-Democratic Federation," says in its proclamation of January, 1885, viz.: "In such a society as this which we propose, while all men would live untormented by anxiety for their livelihood, while no one could advance himself by pushing back his neighbor, there would be plenty of room for emulation; for those who had any special capacity would have leisure and opportunity to develop it, instead of being, as they now are, crushed into uniformity and stupidity by the necessity for haste and ceaseless dull work; the scientist, the artist, the man of letters would no longer have to sell himself at auction for the pleasure of the idle and incapable, but sure of his livelihood, not driven to earn special profits by the exercise of his talents, would be able to devote himself deliberately to science and the arts, and satisfy all the requirements of his genius; nor can we doubt that under these happier conditions the number of people able and willing to exercise special talents for the good of the community would much increase, so that the destruction of the so-called individualist system would result in a prodigious development of individuality."
Reporter: And then, it would seem to me that in the communistic society the liberty of the individual would be less restrained than in any other social organization ever in existence heretofore?
Socialist: Undoubtedly it would. Only imagine the situation as it would really be: Everybody is given a chance to make his or her living, according to taste and choice in any industrial, agricultural or commercial pursuit; and all the facilities and opportunities to make that choice and to successfully work in any branch of business and trade would be guaranteed by the institutions of that society of the future. Every one may avail himself, or herself, of these facilities and opportunities according to the respective individual's own free will and pleasure. There will be no compulsion of any kind except that of the laws of reason and individual disposition, the latter to be restrained only so far as is necessary to avoid the violation of the rights of others, or of society as a whole. This is true liberty, and the sole freedom really agreeing with the organization of the nature of mankind.
Reporter: I might ask a great many questions more; the subject is really interesting me a good deal. For instance: will there be any taxes in your society, and how are the tax-payers to be assessed; what will be the position of woman, and how about the family question which, it seems, the public at large does not very well understand
Socialist (interrupting): Hold on, Sir! I know what you are about to say. You are going to voice the common prejudices and slanders of the wealthy populace whose ruling propensities are threatened by the advent of victorious socialism. But, I shall answer you immediately. To-day, my dear Sir, the overwhelming majority of mankind does not enjoy the real blessings of matrimony and family-life. For, matrimony to-day is an institution for the support of some of our female population, while hundreds of thousands of women and children are compelled to work for a living in order to satisfy the dire wants of their bodies. In our society all this will be different. Woman will be equal to man. If she be married her existence will be guaranteed on account of the labor she performs as a mother and a teacher of her young children. And no woman will be compelled to take a husband merely to be supported; her work will support her under all circumstances, and children will, of course, be expected to participate in the process of production considerably later in life than at present, after having been fitted thereto by a thorough scientific and practical education. You may ask, whether society will have the means thus to educate the growing generation? Indeed, it will. The work of assessing and collecting taxes, if you chose to call it so, will be very simple and practical. The necessary amount to be raised for public purposes will be estimated, and regulated according to the demands of the time; and from every certificate for labor produced, or certificate of wages, if you please, a certain percentage will be deducted, and the amount of the deduction will be according to the amount of the wages, which may also be affected by the number of members in each family. You see that it will not be very difficult to solve all these questions. But now let me tell you one thing: we might sit here till to-morrow morning to talk over all these minor arrangements and yet we would not get through; therefore, let us speak about them at some other time when you are at leisure. May it suffice at present that I have shown you by what the Socialists propose to replace the present system of production which brings misery and starvation to the masses of the people. Consequently, if it be impossible to attack the principle upon which the entire socialistic structure is based, it would be reasonable to suppose that the aspirations of the Socialists are rational, practicable. If they are carried out in practice, a society will be organized in which every one will have the means to live like a human being, and to participate in the comforts and enjoyments of life brought forth and produced by a society whose members are all contributing their best efforts to the common welfare. In such a society the interests of one are the concern of all, and vice versa, while the economic institutions will be so regulated that no individual can live upon the labor of others, i. e. that no one can rob the rest. I now ask you whether any intelligent human being could doubt that such a society with such noble aims and objects would not easily solve all the minor questions of matrimony, family, education, elections, taxation, etc.?! For, and I have to repeat it, upon a communistic-economic basis humanity would be afforded, for the first time in its history the possibility, I might even say the necessity, of an harmonious development. Who would doubt that such an harmonious development will take place?
Reporter (after reflecting for a short while): I shall leave this question to be answered by the learned gentlemen of our editorial staff, for I, on my part, have no longer any objections.
Reporter: But I have one more, and a very momentous question to ask you: How are you going to bring about that great, enormous revolution which is to replace the present society by the socialistic one?
Socialist: This is one of the commonly occurring questions which—allow me to say so—are generally asked mostly by thoughtless people who know nothing of history. No revolution has ever been "made," but a radical change of social systems where one principle is substituted for one of totally different tendency—and this is what I mean by revolution—has always been effected according to the natural development of society itself without the possibility for any one to arrest or materially accelerate its course, and therein lies the certainty with which we expect the victory of our ideas that they are not idle speculations, but that they are based upon facts, and that they must necessarily, according to natural development, once become a reality.
Reporter: It seems to me, to the contrary that, as you have said it yourself, the present economic development is continually strengthening and fortifying monopolism?
Socialist: Just so. This is one side of the development: but the other one, going hand in hand with this, is the enormous decrease of the middle classes whose elements are sinking to the level of the proletarian, of the non-possessing class, very fast. With every new factory smoke-stack part of the old system of producing by hand is being replaced by a new branch of the modern system of production, by steam and machinery; the opening of every new store and emporium of gigantic proportions means ruin and bankruptcy to hundreds of small business men and shop keepers; whenever a capitalist buys up several hundreds of thousands of acres of land for the purpose of modern farming upon a grand scale, hundreds of farmers who cannot compete with the gigantic monopolist are doomed; every new invention by which more workmen are made superfluous, ruins so many more manufacturers who are unable to acquire the new machines; the great monopolies like the Standard Oil Co., the Telegraph and Railroad Companies, are continually confiscating the labor and the property of the smaller capitalists, and in this way the army of the disinherited ones, of the wage-slaves, of those who have an interest in seeing the present system destroyed is constantly increased, while the number of those in whose interest the preservation of the system would be, must necessarily decrease. And finally—as the mass of the people will no longer tolerate such a state of affairs—the crash must inevitably come; and, as the entire economic organization is evolving towards co-operative production at an immense scale, as the victorious revolutionists will find it, so to speak, ready made for them to take possession of—as I have already described it to you in the instance of that great factory—there is no doubt but that not alone that revolution will take place, but that its tendency also, that the way in which it will shape things in the future, will be clearly defined.
Reporter: Then, the Socialists refrain from influencing the development of society altogether?
Socialist: Not at all! I told you that we could not materially accelerate the development toward a sudden social crash as the nature of things has this tendency already. Yet there is plenty of room for wholesome revolutionary agitation and action, among which we consider as very important the organization of the workmen, and of all who have the same class interest as the workmen, in order to enable them to resist at least somewhat any further economic degradation. We also believe that all phases and occurrences of public life should be utilized for the purpose of preparing the way for the great change to come. I mean, that whenever opportunity offers we should introduce measures of relief like the reduction of the hours of labor, the prohibition of child-labor, the organization of bureaus of labor statistics, the payment of equal wages for men and women, if the task and the quality of the labor be equal, etc. etc. For the purpose of accomplishing our aims and objects we recommend all expedient means that may be in the reach of those who are suffering from the effects of the evil system of these days. We make use of the legal institutions of the country we live in; we take part in elections whenever we think best to do so; we agitate in public and in private by the means of meetings, by publishing newspapers and tracts, and whomsoever we come in contact with we try to convince that we are teaching what is true and rational. And those whom we have convinced see it clearly before them that a lasting improvement of their condition can only be brought about by the total destruction of the present social system. A man who has once become a Socialist knows but one more object in life: To devote himself to the noble work of liberating the laboring people; and then comes the second part of the duty of Socialists: To show to those whom they have converted by what the old system which they endeavor to destroy, is to be replaced? They soon understand what we want—better than all the learned gentlemen who profess to possess the secret of solving the great social question. They see that our propositions are sensible and practical. To enlighten the workmen in this respect is as necessary as to make them act in common with us, in order to avoid that after the last battle of the revolution chaos should prevail; to enable them to assist in rebuilding society according to a real and rational social order, and to make any reaction in favor of the old system an impossibility. This kind of agitation is what the organized Socialists of all countries—in the United States the "Socialistic Labor Party"—are actively engaged in.
Reporter: So you believe that in spite of the peaceable means you propose to employ, a violent revolution will come in the end?
Socialist: In order to best answer this question I will read to you what the "Socialistic Labor Party" of this country have said in a Manifesto, adopted at their congress convened at Baltimore in December, 1883":
"Organize; make use of the legal institutions of the land; do your utmost to send your own representatives, independent of the old corrupt parties, into the legislative bodies. Make the most of this opportunity to strengthen your organization and to propagate the doctrines you aim at. In one word, leave no practicable method untried, to strengthen yourselves and your cause, and to weaken your enemies. But perhaps you may ask, whether it is possible to accomplish your aims by these means, peaceably?
Fellow workmen! Look around and listen to the teachings of history. History shows, that the privileged classes have rarely, if ever, surrendered their privileges, without forcible compulsion. The history of our own country furnishes a striking example in the late rebellion. And when you look around, what do you see? You see everywhere the employer violate most brutally even the civil rights of the employed; you see, how they compel the workingman to give up his organizations, by threatening him with all the woes of hunger and misery; how they frequently try to sow bloody dissensions among the workingmen themselves, and oppose their just demands with force of arms; you see, furthermore, how in all these excesses, they are supported by a government, that to-day exists only in the interests of the ruling classes, by the police, and when necessary, by the military power. You know how these classes, well trained to all the tricks of political corruption, have always been skilful in the art of falsifying the alleged will of the people, expressed at the polls, and that they surely will employ these sorts of falsification all the more, the more dangerous to their interests the increasing organization of the workingmen becomes; under these conditions, we must expect that our enemies—when they see our power increase in a peaceful and legal way and our victory approaching—will, on their part—just as the slaveholders—become rebels,and that then the time will come for the cause of labor, when that old prime lever of all revolutions,—effective as long as mankind is still in a barbarous state—force must be applied in order to place the working masses in control of the state, which then for the first time, will be the representative, not of a few privileged classes, but of all society."
Reporter: Then you are aiming at bringing about a violent revolution notwithstanding?
Socialist: Will you please look out of this window?
Reporter: What do you mean?
Socialist: Do you see those clouds?
Reporter: I see they are quite black, and from their general aspect I apprehend we shall soon have a tremendous thunderstorm.
Socialist: Are you sure of it?
Reporter: Indeed, I am. There—did you see the lightning?
Socialist: Then, my dear Sir, you are "aiming" at bringing about a thunderstorm?
Reporter: What do you mean? I have nothing to do with it—it is coming, it is there already!
Socialist: Now then, my young friend: This is the way we are aiming at bringing about the violent revolution. We see it approaching—it is almost there, and we are preparing to meet its consequences.
For sale at W. L. ROSENBERG, 60 St. Marks Place, New York.
| EXTRACTS FROM CARL MARX’ CAPITAL | $0 | 10 |
| BETTER TIMES. By A. Dovai | 5 | |
| THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH; an exposition of Modern Socialism. By Laurence Gronlund Cloth. | 1 | 00 |
| SOCIALISM AND THE WORKER | 5 | |
| SOCIALISTIC TRACTS (No.1. Government; 2. Who should be Socialists; 4. What Socialists Want; 7. Self-Employment; 8. Why are we Poor?) 100 copies | 20 | |
| PEOPLE'S READER. By G. C. Stiebeling | 15 | |
| REPORTER AND SOCIALIST. (German edition) | 8 |
For German Readers:
Ferdinand Lassalle's Gesammelte Reden und Schriften.
Verlag von Wolff & Hoehne, 386 E, 4. Str, N. Y.
Preis broschirt $4.00. Elegant gebunden, 3 Bände, $5.00.
Central-Niederlage sozial, Schriften in Amerika
(Filiale der Züricher Volksbuchhandlung)
Empfiehlt sich zum Bezug aller sozialistischen Literatur. Es wird zu den
selben Bedingungen geliefert wie von der Schweiz aus.
Wegen Uebersendung von Katalogen schreibe man an:
A. HOEHNE, 386 East 4. Str.. New York,
JOHN HEINRICHS,
175 ORCHARD STREET 175
Niederlage aller soz. Bücher, Broschüren, Zeitschriften &c.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse