A history of socialism

by Thomas Kirkup

(10) The majority at Congresses has without reserve condemned the colonial system as being merely an extension of the field of exploitation of the capitalist class. But this majority has consisted mainly of nations that have little knowledge of colonies and little interest in them. It has ignored the colonial system of England, which has so largely consisted in the development of self-governing communities; and it has also ignored or misunderstood the beneficent work of England in establishing conditions of peace, order, and progress in India. The colonial system as understood by the majority simply means the exploitation of native and coloured races for the profit of the capitalist class. A large minority, while condemning the present colonial policy, think that it might be made beneficial.

The goal of the whole movement is collectivism; but little or nothing is said as to the forms it will take or how it will be realised. That task is left to the future. On the other hand, much is said of the means by which political power may be gained. Among these we should observe that the two points which are most essential, and may be regarded as the key of the whole position, are universal suffrage and the right of combination, the former being necessary for the purely political development of socialism, the latter for the development of labour in trade unions. For these two rights socialism and labour are prepared to put forth the greatest efforts and to make the greatest sacrifices. For them the orderly and well-disciplined Social Democracy of Germany is ready to adopt in the last resort the drastic measure of the general strike.[^[1]] Demonstrations in favour of universal suffrage have been frequent events during recent years in many European countries. The Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party has declared itself ready to accept as a field of agitation a constituent assembly elected on a thoroughly democratic basis and embodying the sovereign will of the people.

The rights of the trade union have quite recently been a supreme interest to the Labour Party in Great Britain. And in America the use of the ‘injunctions’ to hinder the development of labour combinations has been a chief grievance among the workmen. This grievance took a foremost place in the discussion of matters which went to form the platforms of candidates at the Presidential election of 1908. Universal suffrage and the right of combination, with all that these two great rights involve, may be regarded as the central points in the present tactics and policy of international socialism.

The other points in the above statement may here be left to speak for themselves. But if we note that the most deeply resented grievance of the workmen is the use of the police and the military by the executives of various countries to repress agitation, we shall the better understand many incidents of recent history in Italy, Russia, and even America.

It will be seen that the task which lies before the social democracy is a vast one. As yet even the political part of it is only to a small extent realised. At present the working class, though forming the vast majority of the people, has no corresponding representation in legislatures or influence in government. In England the ruling class has long been, and still is, an aristocracy, slowly changing in the course of generations into a plutocracy which has the wisdom to yield to the ever-growing pressure of democracy. France is now nearer to a real democracy than any other great European state. In Germany the executive depends on the Emperor; but his Chancellor has to find a majority for legislation and for the budgets in the Reichstag, which is elected by universal suffrage with an antiquated distribution of seats. The German executive is really a bureaucracy with the Emperor as chief. Government in Austria and Russia is also a bureaucracy of which the Emperor is the head. In Italy the democracy is slowly growing. It has very little real influence in Spain.

If the American people do not exert themselves very effectively in the immediate future, the Republic seems destined to be a plutocracy. A power which appears to be incompatible with a real commonwealth has arisen in a marvellously short time. The oil industry in America goes back only to 1859. Mr. J. D. Rockefeller entered the trade in 1865. It was organised by him and his associates into the Standard Oil Company; and the Company has been the type of further organisation, has provided the men, the methods, and the capital, by which other great industries have been transformed. That is to say, Mr. J. D. Rockefeller and the men trained in his methods have gained control of railways, of finance and insurance, and even of the basic industries of steel and coal. The process has naturally gained enormously in momentum as it has gone on; the capital accumulated, and still more the capital controlled by the Trusts, the interests they have absorbed or brought within their orbit are gigantic, and continually increasing. Even the American Senate is declared to be in their pay. Most evil of all symptoms, when an eminent American senator, Mr. Tillman, lately undertook to speak for his order, a main point in his defence was, that the House of Representatives was worse than the Senate! Thus we see the industrial and economic power, which is also the money power, subordinating to itself the political, and, indeed, threatening all that is articulate and organic in the American people. In 1908, at the Chicago Convention, Senator Lodge went to the heart of the matter: ‘It is the huge size of private fortunes and the vast extent of the power of modern combinations of capital which have brought upon us in these later years problems portentous in their possibilities, and threatening not only our social and political welfare, but even our personal freedom if they are not boldly met and wisely solved.’

Warnings have been given by some observers, including the present writer, that such a condition of things was coming. In my Inquiry into Socialism, published in 1887, I said: ‘In crossing the ocean the colonists left behind them the monarchy and aristocracy, and many other social forms hoary with venerable abuse; but they carried with them an institution older and more fundamental than royalty or a hereditary legislature—human nature itself.’ The old evils of Europe grew out of human nature. On the other side of the Atlantic men will still be human. ‘Freedom in America seems threatened by the domination of great corporations, combining to obtain the control of industrial operations, of governments, and courts of justice. If unchecked by the healthy public opinion, and by the collective will of the American people, such corporations may establish an economic, social, and political tyranny quite as oppressive as anything existing in Europe. It will be a miserable thing for the world if triumphant democracy, and a material prosperity unexampled in the annals of mankind, end in a fiasco such as this.’[^[2]]

The struggle to curb the corporations and bring them within the limits prescribed by the public good will not be an easy one. Waves of popular enthusiasm are apt to be fitful and transient, whilst the pull of organised wealth is steady, continuous, incessant. The favourite rhetorical figure of the octopus spreading its gigantic tentacles over American society gives but a faint impression of the subtle and insidious activity of the Trusts. Even in Russia the problem is a simple one compared with that in America; the contest with the Tzardom is merely one of force striving against force by all available means. Vastly simpler was the earliest struggle of historic civilisation, when the Greeks met the clumsy hosts of Persia. The Americans may consider themselves as the foremost champions, at the most critical point, in the most momentous struggle now going forward on the planet.

Noblesse oblige was the maxim of a caste that is vanishing. It is still an imperative call on all truly noble men and nations. The American colonies were founded by the noblest pioneers of freedom, from the best and strongest races of Europe. Such a high ancestry lays men under a special obligation to acquit themselves well in the warfare against organised wealth. One of the main causes of the present situation is that in the eager race for wealth or for a living the Americans have had no leisure to be good citizens, in the sense contemplated by the founders of the Republic. They have left their own proper civic work to professional politicians. In the combination of professional politicians ready to be bought and of wealthy capitalists ready to buy lies the supreme danger to American freedom. The danger will be averted when the people take care duly to think the matter out, and to enter upon a course of resolute organised action suitable to the time and its needs.

One of the first duties of the people will obviously be to simplify the cumbrous machinery of the Constitution, and to make it a more efficient organ of their will. In the two great crises of American history, nothing strikes us so forcibly as the high standard of character and intelligence which was shown. It may be regarded as a symptom of a really strong race, that they were so slow and reluctant to take decisive measures in the struggle for Independence and at the time of the Civil War. We may now see the same natural hesitation in deciding how to handle a problem of surpassing gravity. Such crises are the severest and truest tests of national character. All friends of freedom in every part of the world will fervently hope that the people of America may display their historic qualities of insight, high principle, energy, and resolution in the mighty struggle of Commonwealth against Wealth upon which they are entering.