What Socialism Stands For
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The local Council of the Knights of Columbus extended to me some time ago the kind invitation to address the people of Mt. Carmel on the subject of Socialism. This explains my presence here this evening. My acquaintance with this subject is not a passing one. About twelve years ago a rabid Socialist boarded with me for about six months. During that time we had frequent discussions on his favorite theme. It was a splendid occasion to learn what dreams and hopes the rank and file of Socialists indulge in, the ideal state they hope to realize by the introduction of their phantastic schemes. Ever since then a kindly interest in the charitable motives of the average Socialists has induced me to study this subject more in detail. It may then well be said that in the present instance the first rule of rhetoric is complied with which says that a speaker should be full of his subject, except when he talks on liquor. But the more one studies the proposals of Socialism, the doctrines of its leaders and the tactics of its promoters, the more one becomes convinced that it is not all gold that glitters, that behind the sweet perfume of the Socialistic flower there lurks a most deadly moral poison.
The study of Socialism is a very comprehensive one. It may be compared to a large volume containing many chapters. Now when we start to read a book we invariably turn to the title page and the preface. The title indicates in a general way the subject to be considered. In the preface the author states the motives which actuated him to publish the work and reveals the scope of its contents. The present address is like the preface to the study of Socialism. In a general outline we shall consider the aim and pretensions of Socialism without entering into any argument as to the value of the remedies proposed.
Moreover, your chairman stated in his introductory remarks that perhaps a great many people had no definite knowledge of Socialism. It is like a new book to them. There is undoubtedly a local reason for this want of information. Socialism pretends to better social conditions. You are, however, fortunate to live in a community of more or less satisfied people. Most of your men make fair wages. They do not come into immediate contact with corporations. Your laboring class is not directly employed by predatory wealth, as is the case, for instance, in manufacturing centers, such as mining towns, steel and textile industries. Neither are you harassed by the extreme demands of radical unionism. This condition accounts no doubt in a large measure for the lack of knowledge on Socialistic theories. Nevertheless, it is well to acquaint ourselves with the tenets and proposals of Socialism. It is an insidious element. Under the guise of social reform it quickly absorbs the interest of the unwary and unsuspecting. The purpose of these occasional addresses, then, is to explain the true nature of Socialism and its logical effects on social conditions. Forewarned is forearmed. The present address is like a preface acquainting us in a general way with the demands and theories of Socialism.
Socialism of today has its origin in the social question. A great many people are not aware of its existence even at this time. Not more than forty years ago Gambetta rose in the Italian Parliament to state that "the social question does not exist at all"; but today it is the burning question of the hour. "Wise men," says Pope Leo in his Encyclical Rerum Novarum, "are discussing it; practical men are proposing schemes, popular meetings, legislators, and rulers of nations are busied with it; there is no question which has taken a deeper hold on the public mind."
However, not only sociologists and philanthropists are aware of the existence of a social question; in a more or less definite way we are all thinking and talking about it. The strange part of it all is, that people who write and speak on "The Social Question" differ widely and often radically as to what that question is. To the quiet observer of affairs it is plain that the question is one of social unrest. This unrest is plainly visible in the economic, moral, and religious phases of society. Confined to its economic aspect it is the industrial question; the question of organization and remuneration of labor, the relation of employer and employee, the problem of the distribution of the products of labor.
From the moral point of view the social question looks for a proper adjustment of the duties and rights of those in authority; of the relation between superiors and inferiors; of the domestic relation between husband and wife, parents and children.
As to the religious side the social question demands an answer as to what creed we shall embrace as the foundation of our moral and social life; whether we shall accept infidelity or Christianity; whether we are responsible to a Supreme Being or whether every man is his own absolute master; is this life the sum and substance of our existence or only a preparation for a better world beyond.
Socialism tells us that the industrial question has its origin in the different ills which are harassing every section of society and particularly the working class. The laborer's complaint, Socialists tell us, is, that under the present industrial system, labor is continually wronged; that wages are inadequate; working hours too long; that there is no fair division of profits accruing from the laborer's toil and skill; that, in consequence, there is no sufficient rest and recreation, good enough clothing, food, and housing, nor fair enough chance of advancement for the laborer and his family. Nobody, it is true, can deny that the present industrial system has conferred many blessings upon human society. It has extended the control of man over the resources of nature; it has given us railroads, the electric telegraph, the steam engine, gas, and efficient water supply, and a thousand other appliances of a higher and better civilization. It has solved the problem of production, and has created an abundance sufficient for all; it has elevated the standard of living; it has multiplied wealth, and thereby given a mighty impetus to education, science, art, architecture, and to all refinements of the civilized world.
All this it has done in a marvelous degree. But on the other hand it is attended by evils of scarcely less magnitude. It tends to divide society into two opposing classes — a small number of wealthy capitalists, and an immense multitude of laborers — classes, which are usually designated, respectively, as Capital and Labor. Of these two classes that of the laborer has to contend with the greater share of ills and misgivings. Says Thomas Kirkup, in his "An Inquiry Into Socialism," page 75: "The most conspicuous evil of the (present industrial) system, however, is the insecurity of the workingman's position. Continual fluctuations of trade force him to move from place to place. He has no control, or only a very partial control, over the economic and social conditions under which he must work. A settled home, a piece of land for a garden, a fixed outlook for his family, and a reasonable prospect of a happy and comfortable old age, untroubled by the horror of losing, through want of employment, such savings as he may have made, ant of ending his days in a workhouse — these for a large portion of the workmen in the industrial centers are unattainable blessings. Yet they are unquestionably such as every decent and honorable workingman has a right to expect."
Answer of Socialism
This preamble gives you in a brief form the general idea of the industrial question pressing for a solution. The question naturally arises whether something is not radically wrong with our modern industrial system. The Socialists readily answer that it is a system of exploitation, since it permits the capitalists to make profit of the land, tools, and machinery which all people must use in order to live; that it makes the people dependent on the few private owners, who can use this great power for every means of oppression and tyranny; that there can be no possible basis for peace, for individual freedom, for mental and moral harmony, except in the conscious and complete triumph of the working class as the only class "that has the right and power to be." And the natural conclusion drawn by the Socialists from this is, that the workers must organize "to seize the whole powers of government, in order that thereby they may lay hold of the whole system of industry, and thus come into their rightful inheritance." Having constituted themselves the ruling class and got all political power into their hands, they will abolish all distinction of class, seize all private capital, and transfer it to the whole people, who will administer it in the equal interest of the community. More than that: all labor will be put on an equal basis; nobody can accumulate riches, as labor alone will be considered the source of wealth. Briefly stated, the principles of Socialism as to the industrial question may be classified under three heads:
- Public ownership of land and capital, including the means of production and distribution.
- Uniform rate of wages for labor, both skilled and unskilled.
- Labor is to be the only source of wealth.
It is of the greatest importance that we arrive at a correct understanding of these three pillars of Socialism. For that reason we shall consider each singly and in detail.
Public Ownership
A little over thirty years ago Karl Marx, the German Socialist leader and author, formulated the underlying principle of Socialism. It is the collective ownership of all land and capital including the means of production and distribution. Let me explain by an example.
A great many of you older people no doubt remember the time when shoemakers could be found in almost every town and village. Each shoemaker had his own shop, his own tools, his own leather. Each of them made and sold shoes. Today you will find very few individual shoemakers. Shoes are now manufactured in big factories in large cities. There are several combinations of these factories or trusts which furnish all the shoes in the country. Now Socialists want to combine the comparatively few firms into one big trust, into one large company. This one firm is to make all the shoes in the whole country. However, this one big firm is not to be owned and controlled by any private citizen. Nor will it be controlled by a few citizens. It will be owned by the inhabitants of the country at large. As it is with shoes, so it is to be with the manufacture of hats, clothes, sugar, salt, groceries. Even the land is to be owned by all together. No individual will own anything, the country as such, the government owns everything. No acre of ground will be the property of the farmer; all land will belong to the State. The State, moreover, will distribute the produce.
What Socialism Is Not
To arrive at a still clearer understanding of this principle it is well to mention here certain kinds of propositions which may in no way be classed as Socialistic, although they bear at first sight some resemblance to the same or are mistaken for Socialism. It should be stated, in the first place, that the State control of public utilities is not Socialism in any shape or form. Public utilities are those enterprises which require a governmental function, such as the distribution of water, gas, electricity, the public highways, etc. If the government owns and controls the postal and telegraph service, the railway traffic, the telephone business and all such public commodities it does not overstep the bounds of our constitution nor does it commit itself in any way to Socialism, because Socialism does not strive after the common ownership of a few public utilities, but it means the abolition of all private property, private capital and enterprise, an ultimate complete centralization. Several years ago Socialistic papers, notably among them the "Appeal to Reason," would raise the cry of Socialism whenever any State or municipality would take over from private hands the control of certain public commodities. This method was employed to develop "Socialistic minds," to make people believe that Socialism stood for such public enterprises only. The real object was either willfully ignored or deftly veiled from public view to gather recruits for the cause.
Time was, too, when people considered Socialism as a proposition to divide all property equally among the citizens of a country. But this plan is so ridiculous in practice that we may well pass it by. It was some such notion about Socialism which Mike had when he told Pat that he had become a Socialist. "And pray," says Pat, "what is Socialism?" "It means," says Mike, "that all goods will be equally divided among the people. If you, for instance, have a thousand dollars, you are to give me five hundred." "Very well," says Pat. "And if you have a hundred acres," continued Mike, "you are to turn fifty over to me." "Yes," says Pat. "And if you have a pig," says Mike, "you must give me half of that." "Ah, Mike," says Pat, "now you know I have a pig." When it came to the division of actual property, Pat could not be coaxed into Socialism. Modern Socialism, however, would not even give us half of Paddy's pig. Nobody is to possess anything whatsoever.
Again, it should be borne in mind that Socialism is not a reform of existing conditions. Professor Peabody says: "The social question of the present age is not a question of mitigating the evils of the existing order, but a question whether the existing order itself shall last. It is not so much a question of social amelioration, which occupies the modern mind, as a problem of social transformation and reconstruction . . . The time is wasted which is given to lopping off occasional branches of social wrongs when the social question cuts at the root from which the branches grew." Socialism means a complete revolution of present conditions. Revolution does not necessarily mean war or bloodshed, but an overthrow, a fundamental upsetting of present economic conditions. Socialists are not united as to the manner in which they intend to bring about their ideal. The extremists, and there are not a few of them, think that ultimately there must come an open revolt and that only streams of blood, shed in most horrible civil wars, can pro-effect the realization of their dreams. Still, the saner leaders of the present day shrink from such brutalities. They call themselves Scientific Socialists, and want to inaugurate their socialistic state in the civilized manner of legislation. They would have people vote for socialistic candidates until they posses such a majority of members in the various legislative bodies that they can pass laws expropriating the capitalists and establish the collective ownership of the commonwealth. The more liberal leaders would even grant some remuneration to the present owners of manufacturing plants, whose establishments are annexed. They would grant these men certain annuities for a certain length of time, consisting of labor certificates, since money, as we shall see later, has no value in the new era. These certificates would allow the former millionaires to live in luxury for, perhaps, twenty or thirty years, but after that they would have to come down and work like all other mortals, there would be no privileges of any kind.
To bring about this condition gradually, Socialists, for the time being, favor trusts. They are opposed to all laws against trusts. The reason is apparent. The trusts are accomplishing to a great extent what Socialism demands: centralization of the means of production. Once all coal mines are in one hand, and all the oil in one hand, and all the sugar refineries in one hand, etc., etc., and to this the trusts trend — then it will be easy to unite the oil trust with the sugar trust, and tobacco trust, and land trust, etc., into one general trust, and that will be the socialistic state.
So much for the idea of Socialism as to public ownership, what it means and what it does not mean. We now come to consider the second principle of the uniform rate of wages.
The Uniform Wage
After the state of collective ownership of land and capital, of the means of production, such as tools, factories, industries, has been inaugurated, everybody will be obliged to work for a living. The learned and illiterates, the skilled and unskilled, the rich and poor — all will alike be compelled to labor. The working hours will be limited to four a day. Socialists have figured out somehow that as man can earn a comfortable living by four hours' work. For every hour's work the citizen will receive a labor-scrip, or workhour-certificate. He will not be paid in money. Money as an exchange value will be discarded to prevent the accumulation of riches. With these certificates the individual may buy food, clothing, books, and the like. When meal time comes he simply goes to one of Uncle Sam's hotels where he will be served a square meal. When he needs a suit of clothes or a pair of shoes, all he has to do is, to present his certificates at one of Uncle Sam's stores or department houses. These certificates, however, will not buy any real estate, no houses, factories, railroads, automobiles — all these are owned and controlled and furnished by the government.
The reason of this arrangement is the socialistic idea that labor is the only source of wealth (which is the third principle of Socialism). In other words, every man who works should have the full benefit, the full value of the product of what he produces. Let us take an example.
A coal miner digs coal for the owner of the mine. He gets wages for his work. But his work is worth more than his wages. What the work is worth over the pay goes to the owner of the mine. The owner does not, perhaps, work at all. Yet he gets rich from the work of his employees, getting that portion of the value of the work which is over and above the wages he pays to the miner. The latter, let us say, digs $6 worth of coal a day. One dollar, perhaps, is the cost of putting the coal on the market. Now the wages of the miner are, say, $4 a day. The remaining $1 goes to the non-working boss. This, Socialists say, is wrong. The remaining dollar ought to belong to the working man. This grievance is aggravated thus: The boss would like to make as much as he can. Therefore he will try to squeeze as much work out of his employee as he can and screw down the pay as much as possible. The fate of the coal miner is shared by all employed in the various trades, professions and occupations. The boss has it easy and the workingman leads a hard life. Conditions have today come to point. Socialists would have us believe that the lot of the working class is unbearable. By establishing the socialistic state with its compulsory labor for everybody and the uniform rate of wages, they tell us, all things will be put in first-class, satisfactory condition. Nobody is to possess anything except what he works for, but nobody works more than sufficient to keep him well fed and clothed. Hence the accumulation of riches, the source of so much injustice, will be entirely rooted out.
The Moral Aspect
Socialism and the Family
What has been said so far relates chiefly to the economic side of the social question. Socialism, however, does not confine itself to mere industrial revolution, it also reaches out its destructive hand into the domain of morality. One may well ask: How can a purely economic proposition entangle questions of morality? This will presently appear. The revolution as to ownership and labor concern men chiefly and primarily. But the question arises: What is the position of woman in the new state? In the present industrial system, Socialists tell us, woman is dependent upon man for her material comforts, for her livelihood. Man must make of necessity provision for his wife, a provision she can even legally enforce. With the introduction of economic freedom, however, this basis of support would disappear. No binding contract would be required between the parties as to livelihood, since the State is to provide for all its citizens. Property in children would cease to exist as every infant would be born into full citizenship. A new development of the family would take place, an association simply, terminable at the need or will of either party. Marriage, in the new socialistic state, is no longer recognized by law; parental care and responsibility are entirely abrogated if the individual so selects, because the State, abolishing the present system of property, assumes all those responsibilities.
Socialism, however, goes still further. According to their leaders, neither the State nor organized religion should in any way control the family or the sexual relation of men and women. Socialism would make love supreme. They would have it unfettered by any tie whatever. Socialism argues that compulsory love is not love; that marriage, save from love, is sin; that when love ends, marriage ends. For these statements we have the important testimony of acknowledged socialistic leaders and authors.
Engels, in his "Origin of the Family," page 91, writes, "Three great obstacles block the path of reform, private property, religion, and the present form of marriage." And on page 99: "With the transformation of the means of production into collective property, the monogamic marriage ceases to be the common unity of society. The private household changes to a social industry. The care and education of children become a public matter. Society cares equally for all children, legal and illegal."
From this it is evident that Socialism stands for the complete abolition of the sacred ties of marriage, of fatherhood and motherhood; maternity becomes a stock in trade. Children have no parents but the State. Marriage is replaced by free love and all that such a principle involves. For the present we shall not go further into detail, as this matter will form the subject of a separate address.
Materialistic Basis
The serious thinker may well ask upon what principle, if any, Socialism is based when it proposes to set aside all laws and institutions hallowed by custom immemorial, sanctioned by the Divine and natural law, by the civilized nations throughout the ages.
Karl Marx gives us a clear and unmistakable answer. About fifty-five years ago he formulated the origin and basis of Socialism by saying "that Socialism is founded upon the materialistic conception of history," or in a shorter form, "upon economic determinism." This phrase contains certain terms which admit of a definition and explanation for a better understanding.
Materialism is a theory or doctrine which believes in matter only to the exclusion of any spiritual or supernatural existence. Materialism, therefore, denies the existence of a soul, of spirits, and of God Himself.
Conception in this instance means view-point.
History may be taken as the record of human achievements and facts in general. The phrase, "materialistic conception of history," then, means that all evolutions in our social and moral life, in our beliefs, laws, customs are the result of matter only. Any soul or spiritual influence is denied.
Economic relates to the means of living, the resources and wealth of a country. Determinism is a doctrine which declares that a man's will is not free, but is inevitably and invincibly settled or determined by motives from outside.
Economic determinism, then, means that all our social, moral, religious, political, and legal practices are the outcome of natural evolution in no way fixed, or guided, by the will of man or a higher power. Socialism rejects all belief in a God, in the supernatural, and is opposed, in every particular, to any form of religion. Bebel says very clearly, "that Socialism and Christianity are opposed to each other as fire and water." Much more might be said on this subject, but I refrain as this matter also will be considered more in detail in a subsequent lecture.
Here, then, you have Socialism stands for: the complete abolition of private property by the introduction of the public ownership of land and capital and the control of all means of production together with the distribution of the products of labor; secondly, the desecration of woman's virtue opening an avenue of moral decay too dreadful to contemplate; thirdly, a denial of God, of a future life of reward or punishment. Socialism thus takes away from man the very foundation upon which dignity as man is built and caters to all his lower instincts and passion. Socialism destroys the ambition to work for advancement, destroys the sacred ties of family life, robs man of the idea of a Supreme Being. What is the consequence? Certainly not a society, much less a state, of men, but an aggregation of human brutes. Socialism puts man down the level of the brute creation. Socialism fosters his lower instincts without cultivating the higher, noble aspirations of the soul.
Indifference
In spite of these facts we find the American people woefully indifferent in their position towards Socialism. The reason for this condition is to be explained only by the ignorance of the dangerous tendencies of Socialism. If the average American is asked what Socialism really is, he will probably reply that it is a mad scheme for making all men equal, a scheme so plainly impossible of being put into execution that it is not worth wasting one's time over in study. If you tell him of the rapid rise of the socialistic party in all parts of the country, of the alarming increase it is daily making, he will probably answer that there are always malcontents to be found and that, if left to its fate the party will die a natural death. It will prove very hard to shake him out of his security in the realization of the magnitude of the impending evil. He thinks that in a Christian country, such as this, a country so enlightened and so democratic, it is well nigh impossible that any such scheme of revolution will ever get hold. The feeling of peace and security is strong within him, the skies are bright, the nation still seems to be normal and healthy, the children play happily on the street, the country is prosperous, and, above all, we are no longer in the "dark ages," the horrors of revolution are not to be thought of except in the light of the historic past. Such is the blindness, the criminal apathy of the vast majority of people today. Such, too, is the manner in which they unconsciously help to upset the very order and quiet of which they boast, harm the very cause which them mean to espouse, promote the spread of the cancerous growth they so disdain, invite the very forces of revolution and bloody strife which they fondly think to be mummies of the past.
Not the least cause of this lamentable misapprehension of the real importance of the great issue of the times arises from the inability of our people to profit from the lessons and mistakes of the past. Has human nature changed so radically that the pages of history may never again be written in blood? Is our boasted enlightenment a safeguard against such a possibility? Isn't it a fact that exactly this vainglorious boast has been the precursor of the greatest tragedies in the world's history? The "enlightened" period of the Renaissance was followed by the "reform" of Luther with its horrors of the thirty years' war that left Europe reeking with blood from one extremity to the other. After a time of rest and recreation we are ushered into the blaze of another epoch of so-called "enlightenment," that has not even to our present day lost its glamour. Yet we are still trembling from the deadly, paralyzing blow of the frightful Revolution. And today? Once more the world proclaims that we are living in an "enlightened" age; every day we hear of new and astounding discoveries in the realm of science, we hear of new systems of Godless philosophy, new "discoveries" in the world of atheism and irreligion; and now the spectre of Marxian Socialism with all its phantoms of materialism, class hatred, immorality, blasphemy, and blind judgment, its struggle against all constituted authority looms upon the horizon of our vaunted enlightenment to complete the picture. Socialism comes like another Rousseau, forerunner of the Revolution. Are we to suppose that human nature has changed so that it is immune against all these combined forces, the unmistakable warnings of the inevitable storm? Should we continue to be blindfolded by self-confidence, by an overweening sense of security, by unwillingness even to investigate the root of these evils, which are the cause of the ever growing unrest and dissatisfaction? The question seems to answer itself. The path not only of right, but of positive duty as well can lead but in one direction. We must awaken to a realization of our duty, to an understanding of the evils around us, to a knowledge of this dread disease of society, that creeps upon us like a snake, unperceived until at hand.
And yet if that be our duty, why the deadly apathy that hangs like a pall over our actions, why his criminal indifference to the forces that are rapidly undermining the very foundations of Christianity, of the sacred precincts of home, of morality, and justice? It is high time for every loyal Catholic to take up the cause of Christ, to go forth bravely into the field as His soldier to fight with the weapons of peace, love and harmony to fight for the hearts of men. Cast aside indifference; cast aside petty personal quarrels; remove the scales of ignorance from your eyes, and with combined efforts let us meet the common enemy to insure a decisive victory for the cause of God and fellowman.
© Joseph F. Wagner, Inc.
This item 9046 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
