The Red Conspiracy

by Joseph J. Mereto

Finally, if partial payment were made, both those opposed to full compensation and those in favor of it would be displeased because of the reasons given, which would still influence them very decidedly. If the indemnity paid were very small, the former property owners and all honest citizens would be those especially offended. If the amount paid were large, dishonest Socialists would take offense. Therefore, no matter which plan of expropriation were adopted, the state would make a great number of new enemies.

Though we learn from page 186 of the "Proceedings of the 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party" that the delegates to the convention, after a factional dispute on party principles, declared by a vote of 102 to 33 for the collective ownership of all the land, and thus determined that the state should take over all the farms of the country, still it cannot be denied that a great number of Revolutionists have claimed, especially of late years, that the government should not dispossess the small farmers of their properties. On account of the rival theories of the two contending factions, the Socialist state might have to pass through a serious ordeal before either plan was adopted. Should the new government finally determine to take possession of such property, millions of farmers and their families would become exceedingly hostile to the government. Should the state allow former owners to cultivate the fields about their old homesteads, the discontent would be but partially lessened, for strict obedience to the commands of government bosses would replace the freedom of action once enjoyed by the farmer's family.

Pages 167 to 190 of the "Proceedings of the 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," and pages 220 to 235 of the "Proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," convinced us that very many of the Revolutionists who oppose government ownership of all land do so in order to gain votes. It seems highly probable, therefore, that if Socialism became the law of America many of the apparently moderate Revolutionists would throw off their masks and unhesitatingly declare for the most radical plan of government ownership.

Yet even if the contemplated state should permit the private ownership of small farms, their owners would be displeased because they would no longer be allowed to hire laborers for working the fields. Some conservative Socialists, indeed, profess willingness to tolerate the employment of one or two farm hands. But not alone do the 1908 National Platform and the amendment adopted by party referendum on September 7, 1909, oppose exploitation, or the employment of hired labor in the production of goods, but innumerable articles in Socialist papers, books and reviews denounce exploitation most emphatically. Hence, if the Socialist state allowed farmers in good standing with the government to own little farms, they could not hire labor to operate them. If the farmer should fall sick, his crops would go to ruin. Advantage could not be taken of some of the great inventions helpful to agriculture, nor scientific methods of work and management. The individual farmer, thus handicapped, might feed himself, his wife, his children, his horse, his cow, his pig, but very little more.

In the Socialist state great discontent would arise from either the toleration or prohibition of small business enterprises. If permitted, without power to hire labor, they must compete with the government. If forbidden, large numbers of persons would be obliged to work for the government, after losing little stores or shops in which for years they had been interested.

In its issue of March 30, 1912, the "Appeal to Reason," then the leading Socialist weekly of the United States, declared that under Socialism John D. Rockefeller would be allowed to retain his money and decide what to do with it. Were this the case, and every person of wealth allowed to retain his money, it is difficult to see how Socialists who hate and detest the rich could endure such a condition, any more than they could tolerate the granting of full or partial indemnity to property owners. The attempt to leave the rich in possession of their wealth would probably incite Socialists to rise in arms against the state they had founded.

On the other hand, if wealth were confiscated, the wealthy and the honest poor alike would be discontented with a dishonest government. Moreover, where would the Socialists draw the line of lawful possession? At $1,000,000, $10,000, $1,000, or $100? Would the decision be reached peaceably? Would the use and possession of government bonds be allowed? As the desire to acquire is one of the strongest passions, bitter hatred would assail the Socialist state, which, Debs tells us, would prohibit business profits, rent and interest. ["Socialism and Unionism," by Eugene V. Debs.] How could insurance companies, in which the American people have invested so much, and which depend on interest, exist under Socialism? Socialism having ruined the insurance companies, would the millions of policyholders just sit down and have a good, hearty laugh over their losses?

The real crux of Socialism is the inability of the Marxians to determine upon a system of employment and a scale of wages or remuneration satisfactory both to the government and the working classes.

Remuneration must either be in the form of money, or of goods or labor certificates entitling the holder to receive goods from the government stores. As labor certificates would be like money, we shall class them as "money" when speaking of wages.

Different schemes of employment have been proposed by Socialists. One of the oldest allows each individual to select the occupation he desires, provided he can do the work. All citizens, under this system, receive equal pay or equal supplies for their services.