in carrying out the socialist programme, as to the relation of local bodies to the central government, and whether there is to be any central government, or any government at all in the ordinary sense. of the word, as to the influence of the national idea in the society of the future, etc. They differ also as to what should be regarded as an "equitable" system of distribution.

Still, it should be insisted that the basis of socialism is economic, involving a fundamental change in the relation of labour to land and capital-a change which will largely affect production, and will entirely revolutionize the existing system of distribution. But, while its basis is economic, socialism implies and carries with it a change in the political, ethical, technical and artistic arrangements and institutions of society, which would constitute a revolution greater than has ever taken place in human history, greater than the transition from the ancient to the mediaeval world, or from the latter to the existing order of society.

In the first place, such a change generally assumes as its political complement the most thoroughly democratic organization of society Socialism, in fact, claims to be the economic complement of democracy, maintaining that without a fundamental economic change political privilege has neither meaning nor value.

In the second place, socialism naturally goes with an unselfish or altruistic system of ethics. The most characteristic feature of the old societies was the exploitation of the weak by the strong under the systems of slavery, serfdom, and wage-labour. Under the socialistic regime it is the privilege and duty of the strong and talented to use their superior force and richer endowments in the service of their fellow-men without distinction of class, or nation, or creed. In the third place, socialists maintain that, under their system and no other, can the highest excellence and beauty be realized in industrial production and in art; whereas under the present system beauty and thoroughness are alike sacrificed to cheapness, which is a necessity of successful competition.

Lastly, the socialists refuse to admit that individual happiness or freedom or character would be sacrificed under the social arrangements they propose. They believe that under the present system a free and harmonious development of individual capacity and happiness is possible only for the privileged minority, and that socialism alone can open up a fair opportunity for all. They believe, in short, that there is no opposition whatever between socialism and individuality rightly understood, that these two are complements the one of the other, that in socialism alone may every individual have hope of free development and a full realization of himself.

365. Property and Industry under Socialism22

BY JOHN SPARGO

Another phase of our discussion concerns the industrial organization of the Socialist State, and the place in it of private industrial enterprise. Socialism does not involve the absolute monopolization of production and distribution, and the total suppression of private initiative and enterprise in these spheres. The economic organization of the Socialist State will undoubtedly include production and distribution by individuals and voluntary co-operative groups, as well as collective production and distribution under the auspices and control of the State itself.

In all our thought upon this question we must bear in mind that the two principal economic arguments for socialization are: First, the elimination of economic parasitism, the exploitation of the wealth producers by a class of non-producers, and, second, the attainment of greater efficiency through the elimination of the wastefulness inseparable from capitalist production, especially in its competitive stages.

The first of these reasons constitutes the prime motive of the Socialist movement. The second is the raison d'être of the development of monopoly. Every thoughtful Socialist recognizes that capitalist production involves an enormous amount of waste, and that incalculable gains would result from the socialization of industry.

The greater part of the production and distribution of our present economic system is so organized that the exploitation of the workers engaged in it is inevitable.

It is a fundamental condition of Socialism that all such processes and functions be socialized. In other words, it is a sine qua non of Socialism that they be so organized as to eliminate profit-making by investors. This does not mean that they must all be taken over by the supreme political organization which we call the State. Nor does it mean that they must all be socialized at once. A few advocates of Socialism, more zealous than intelligent, seem to believe that there will be a grand transformation day upon which all the functions of capitalism will be socialized, but that idea is not held by thoughtful Socialists.

Great organizations like the Steel Trust represent the progress already made in the direction of Socialism through one channel. Measures for the government regulation of monopolies now being advocated by conservative non-Socialists indicate an increasing readiness to make progress in the same direction through another Adapted from Applied Socialism, 116–129. Copyright by B. W. Huebsch

(1912).

channel, the channel of political organization. The process of socialization is essentially an evolutionary one.

The incentive which operates to bring about the socialization of industries conducted for profit obtained from the exploitation of the workers, obviously does not exist in the case of petty, individualistic industries which do not depend upon such exploitation. The market gardener who cultivates his own land and sells his produce without exploiting the labor of others, and the individual craftsman who does all his own work, likewise without exploiting the labor of others, illustrate very clearly the distinctive character of enterprises which are not characterized by class exploitation. There is a much larger number of these enterprises, both productive and distributive, than is generally recognized. It is exceedingly probable that a large number of them will continue to exist, as individual enterprises, in the Socialist regime.

It seems probable, then, that in the Socialist State three forms of economic enterprise will co-exist, namely (1) production and distribution on a large scale under the auspices of the governmentnational, state or municipal; (2) production and distribution by cooperative associations; (3) production and distribution by private individuals. To regulate properly the relation of these three divisions will be the supreme task of the democratic statesmanship of the future.

There are some economic activities which from their very nature require a national organization for their most efficient direction. This is true of railways, telegraphs, postal and express services among distributive agencies, and of mining, oil production, and steel manufacture among the productive functions. There are other economic activities which can be most efficiently directed by the smaller unit, the State or Province, and yet others which can be most efficiently conducted by the still smaller political unit, the city

or commune.

It is impossible to make a rigid classification of the economic functions and decide to which political unit each will be entrusted. Moreover, were such a classification possible it would not be of much value. The Socialist State will inherit the economic organization of the capitalist system, and will modify it in the light of its experience and according to the needs of its economic development. The economic functions entrusted at first to municipalities may later be transferred to the larger units, the States and provinces, the citizens choosing a greater degree of centralization in the interests of efficiency. On the other hand, a certain amount of decentralization may take place.

The State, using the term in its most comprehensive sense to cover the whole political organization of society, thus assumes the functions now performed by the capitalist class in the employment, direction and superintendence of labor. Naturally, the relations of the State to the individual worker will differ materially from those which now exist between employer and employe. The position of the worker will be somewhat analogous to that of the employe who is also a shareholder in the concern for which he works. Misunderstandings and conflicts between them are, therefore, not only possible but highly probable-perhaps inevitable.

Inseparable from such a system would be the danger of conflict between the decisions of the workers engaged in important branches of the industrial organization and the interests of the people as a whole.

It is very evident therefore, that some way must be found to base the industrial organization of the Socialist State upon the dual basis of the interests of the whole citizenry on the one hand, and the special interests of the workers as such upon the other hand. One Socialist writer has gravely proposed the establishment of an elective "industrial parliament of two chambers, in one of which representation will be according to numbers, while in the other every industry will be represented irrespective of size."

One weakness is common to all such ingenious devices. They are all essentially Utopian. Based upon abstract principles, they fail to take into account the important fact that society is an organism subject to the laws of evolution. Social institutions are never the result of the deliberate adoption of clever inventions. It is easy enough and harmless enough for the believer in a certain form of social organization to sit down and ask himself: "What institutions and what methods will best serve that form of social organization in which I believe?" but we must not be disappointed if quite other institutions and methods are developed.

Socialism is the child of capitalism. If the Socialist State is ever realized at all it will be a development of the capitalist State, not a new creation. Many of us believe that the transition from capitalism will be a tranquil process, stretching over a period of many years; that the "Social Revolution" of which we hear so much, instead of being a terrible upheaval attended with an enormous amount of violence and suffering, which even the stoutest hearts must anticipate with anxiety, is a long-drawn process of social effort and experiment. The Social Revolution is not a sanguinary episode which must attend the birth of the new social order. It is a long period of effort, experiment and adjustment, and is now taking place.

The acceptance of this evolutionary view will save us from wasting time and energy in devising social institutions and methods. to conform with abstract principles. Instead, we shall seek the beginnings of such institutions and methods as the new epoch will require within the present order, together with the beginning of the new epoch itself.

E. SOCIALIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE MASSES

366. Capitalism-A Vampire System28

BY GEORGE E. LITTLEFIELD

1. Under capitalism, labor of brain and hand-human lifepower is a mere commodity. The world's workers are wage-slaves, compelled to sell time portions of themselves in the auction marts of competition to master bidders, lowering their price in the rivalry for jobs for the opportunity to live-until it is just enough to equal the bare cost of living and reproduction-the iron law of wages.

2.

3.

Human labor, applied to natural resources, creates all value. The unpaid portion of labor is surplus value or capital, with which the exploiting capitalists become masters of land, buildings, machinery, and raw material—all the means of production and distribution that labor depends upon for existence therefore masters also of the wage-slaves.

4. The withholding of this surplus value from labor prevents the exploited workers from buying or consuming but a fraction of their full product-hence periodic over-production and consequent "hard times," ever becoming more severe and chronic, until finally the whole capitalist system must smother in its own "prosperity."

5. Capitalism is a vampire system. While it absorbs the labor and life of the competitive wage-slaves, the competing capitalist masters, preying one upon another, destroy each other until thus we have but a few monster vampires sucking the last dregs of vitality from a vastly increased proletariat, and finally comes the crisisthe sin of wageism is death-the collapse of the capitalist system. Labor unions and fake legislation for the strangling little capitalists (like the impotent railroad-control law) may palliate and prolong the present agony for a brief time, but the end is fatally doomed as is the diseased person who will not cut out his life-absorbing cancer. The huge modern plutocratic parasites, inflated with interest, rent, and profits, must finally expire with the death of what they feed

"From Capitalism to Socialism, Flashlight Number 7 (1905).