tion and custom.

All over this broad land are thousands of respectable men working little grafts of their own and almost unconsciously sympathizing with the ambitions of the bigger grafters. And these men exercise no small influence on election day.

"This moral blindness to the wrongfulness of little misdeeds grows with the indulgence and unless it is checked it will be only a matter of time until the state becomes utterly corrupt, the home will become as corrupt as the state, and the history of Rome will have been repeated.

"But I think the checking process has begun. It is only a question of rousing the conscience of the public and of teaching a part of it what is right and what is wrong. Modern 'business' methods have so warped the senses of a great body of our citizens that they will have to be retaught at least the finer distinctions of right from wrong. This can be done by precept and by force; that is by preaching and by legislation. Of course we are told that morals cannot be legislated into men, but, to a certain extent they can. We declare by law that a certain ethical or moral offense is criminal, prosecute, convict and punish the offenders and in the nature of men, if the process be repeated often enough, he will learn to refrain from trespassing this law and in time come to believe the breaking of it to be wrong, no matter what opinions he may have had prior to the establishment of this particular rule. A conscience can be redeemed as surely as it can be lost, and inherently our consciences are all sound.

"There are enough right-minded citizens in this republic to save it if they but continue as they have begun. A par

JUSTICE!

tially-free press is doing noble work in teaching and rousing the public conscience and forcing legislation that will open a good many people's eyes to their own and their neighbors' misdeeds. But the battle has only begun. The great breeding-place of the graft stegomyia, the principle or legislation for the pocketbook, has hardly been touched. The great tariff-question is still argued on the proposition: Is it profitable? Not on the principle: Is it right? Great statesmen still rise in their places in the ruling body of this nation and oppose publicly and unblushingly, probably believing themselves in the rectitude of their actions, and oppose right and just measures because the codfish industry might be hurt, the cigar and tobacco business be injured, or the railroad interests might suffer, the express companies lose a few thousand dollars, or the banking fraternity be unable to rake in quite so many shekels as heretofore.

"Others champion with might and main bills of plunder, ostensibly to protect the merchant marine from losing

the dollars that the ships of some other nation are honestly earning, or to make the currency expansive enough to save a few gamblers from the pit of their own digging. No question of right or wrong, but of dollars and cents. From cover to cover the Congressional Record is full of dollar argument, with just enough highsounding patriotism and morality to give it flavor.

"This idea of legislation for the financial advancement of the nation, instead of for the moral betterment, is largely responsible for the widespread worship of the dollar. We have almost come to believe that our governing bodies exist largely for the purpose of looking after business and finance, and that legislative and official action should of right be largely influenced by its effect on the finances of the citizens instead of controlled entirely by considerations of right and wrong. President Roosevelt's exposure of the horrible practices of the beef-trust raised a howl of protest from a great many honest men, because it injured the business, not only of the guilty packers, but of the innocent stockmen and dependent industries. They would

have smothered the report, a benefit to the whole country, a godsend in its probable results, merely because somebody 'stood to lose' some money in the event of its publication! Again the right and wrong of the issue entirely overshadowed by the almighty dollar."

The representative cartoons by Mr. Spencer which we publish tell their own story and drive home certain facts very important for the people to understand, more impressively than would labored editorials.

Mr. Spencer is only twenty-eight years of age. Before him we trust there may be many fruitful years. He has it in his power to do a great work for civic integrity and democratic progress in the great battle that is now opening between the people and the interests, between free institutions and plutocracy; and unless we are greatly mistaken, he will acquit himself worthily in as noble a cause as man has ever striven for, for he is under the compulsion of moral idealism, as was Thomas Nast when he achieved one of the greatest triumphs for civic righteousness that was won in the nineteenth century.

'N HIS recent paper on "Individualism versus Socialism,"* Mr. William Jennings Bryan discusses the world-issue in a temper beyond all praise. In large part, however, he misses the socialist view-point, losing the spirit in the method, and misconceiving the method itself. But as his own positions have, in the past, been similarly misunderstood, he will appreciate fair criticism.

The essence of Mr. Bryan's position is that socialists demand complete collectivism, government monopoly of all industrial opportunity, or, in his own words: "the collective ownership, through the state, of all the means of production and distribution." To this he objects on the ground that it would diminish incentive, restrict freedom, and hamper the expansion of individuality essential to the highest development of the human race. Were his premise sound there might be force in his conclusion.

What is the socialist position as to collectivism?

The socialist believes that the social body, like the physical, is subject to the law of growth. Development in economic life, from cannibalism, through slavery and feudalism, to small industry, from the little shop through factory and factory town to factory system, and from partnership through company, corporation and syndicate, to trust and merger, corresponds, in his view, to the development in physical life from moner through polyp, insect, reptile, bird and mammal

to man.

Again, the socialist believes, with the naturalist, that life depends upon adaptation to surroundings, that growth demands continuous readjustment, and that the type, whether animal or social, *In The Century for April, 1906.

which most promptly adapts itself to changed conditions survives, while that which refuses thus to adapt itself suffers and, finally, perishes. He believes that our present economic system is largely outgrown; that institutions suited to earlier industrial stages are unsuited to our existing stage, and that it is this lack of adjustment which is chiefly responsible for the pressure, suffering and tragedy which together constitute "The Social Problem.”

To be more specific: In the period of small industry following the break-up of feudalism the individual worker owned his bit of ground and tools, competed mildly for custom, received in pay for his work the full value of his product, and supplemented supplemented this from products of garden, forest and stream, and of domestic animals and fowls feeding on the public range. He was adapted to his environment; he lived in simple comfort; the industrial system was appropriate for the economic period.

Development, however, brought the factory system with its corollaries. Production now ceased to be individual, and became social, a multitude coöperating to produce one product. Ownership continued individual; now, however, it vested not in the worker, but in a master, the "Industrial Captain." The worker, who once owned his entire product, now came to own but a paltry fragment of it called his "wage." Driven, in the struggle for life, from rural hamlet to roaring city, he now was obliged, from this wage, to pay to another master, the "landlord," a tribute called "rent"; and, with the remainder, he purchased the necessaries of life in another new institution, "the market." And now came competition," in

66

This problem had other aspects: The "contradictions" and "vicious circles," overproduction and underconsumption, millionaires and tramps, destruction of home market with struggle for foreign, panics, strikes, lockouts, and the rest all marks not primarily of human greed, criminality or laziness, but of a misfit system; products of private ownership of the means of production which, though highly appropriate when land and tools were owned by their users, the workers, became equally inappropriate when they were owned by their abusers, the idlers. This condition, first seen in England, has to-day reached a head in the United States.

And what is the solution? To abandon the highly-organized, centralized industry, and go back to the slightly organized, decentralized form? As well endeavor to force back the oak into the acorn, or turn back the clock of time! The race takes no backward steps. We must go forward. The workers must again own their land and tools. But as the vastness of certain of these forbids owning them individually, the workers must own them socially-they must make them collective property and operate them not for private profit, but for the public good.

This principle Mr. Bryan recognizes in part. He admits "public ownership where competition is practically impossible," and concedes that this applies to various city monopolies and to railroads. This concession means much and may carry him far; for the truth of Stephenson's notable aphorism that "Where combination is possible competition is impossible" is daily being verified; and,

combination is striding forward in sevenleague boots. Thoroughgoing individualists like Herbert Spencer, so far from conceding this principle, would transfer from public to private ownership and control the things already publicly owned and operated, including the post-office, schools, and mints.

The question next arises: How far should the "taking over" process be carried? Must it include all the means of production and distribution ?

Socialists believe that collectivism should keep pace with industrial concentration; that when industry has reached the stage of water, gas, trams and telephones in the city, of railroads, telegraphs and mines in the nation, and of permanent trusts generally, these industries are ripe for socialization. But the same logic that impels the conclusion that industries which, through their great size and monopolistic character, have become social in fact, should be socially owned and operated, also carries with it the corollary that industries which, through their small size and competitive character, have continued individual in fact, should be individually owned and operated. Some socialists, it is true, believe that all industries will ultimately reach the vast, monopolistic stage, and will therefore require to be socially owned and operated; hence they demand public, collective ownership and operation of all the means of production and distribution. But whether all industry will ever reach this stage nobody knows. Suppose, however, it should do so. Would Mr. Bryan favor leaving it in private hands? Evidently not; for in his definition of individualism he approves "public ownership of those means of production and distribution in which competition is practically impossible." By his own logic, therefore, complete concentration would necessitate complete collectivism.

Mr. Bryan, of course, does not believe that, with proper legislation and admin

istration, all industry will ever become thus concentrated, and hence require collective ownership. Do socialists in general believe it will?

Socialism is an organized political movement. As in the case of any other political party, its creed must be sought not in the unauthorized utterances of individuals, but in its platform. Mr. Bryan will agree to this; for, had it been claimed in 1896 that Democrats were on both sides of the silver question, he would have held, and justly, that the platform was unequivocal, and that its utterance was decisive.

The socialist platform is equally unequivocal and decisive. It declares: "Socialism means that all those things upon which the people in common depend shall by the people in common be owned and administered. It means that the tools of employment shall belong to their creators and users"; that is, collective or social tools are to be collectively owned, and individual tools are to be individually owned.

Nor is the platform's position accidental or unrepresentative. No other party goes so far as does the socialist party to make sure that its platform represents the sentiment of its members. The committee which drafted the present platform consisted of nine persons. These were elected by the national convention of 1904, by a most thorough process most thorough process of sifting. Nominations were first made from the floor, all interested freely participating. The names thus proposed were displayed on blackboards and, from them, the convention, by repeated ballotings, made its final selections. This committee was highly representative, including the national secretary, the candidates soon after nominated for president and vice-president, and other prominent exponents of socialist doctrines. Before this committee, all members present, came the proposal that, "All industry shall be social or public industry"; it was rejected definitely, emphatically, and unanimously. The platform was

read distinctly to the convention, and almost unanimously adopted. By referendum it was then submitted to the party membership of the entire United States, and adopted by a majority of more than ten to one. This should indicate whether or not American socialists propose, as Mr. Bryan understands, "the collective ownership, through the state, of all the means of production and distribution.”

But are American socialists alone in this position? The Germans lead the movement in Europe. Their platform does not demand "collective ownership, through the state, of all the means of production and distribution." Their chief literary exponent, Karl Kautsky, in his The Socialist Republic (p. 32), heads a chapter, "Socialist Production Does Not Require Social Ownership of Non-Productive Wealth, Nor Even of All the Instruments of Production." He says:

"That which renders the socialist system necessary is large production. Production in common requires common ownership of the means of production. For the same reason that private ownership in the implements of labor is repugnant to the system of production in pugnant to the system of production in common that is carried on in large production, so likewise would common ownership in the instruments of labor be repugnant where production can, and must necessarily, be carried on by separate individuals. Production in such the worker of his tools.” cases requires the private ownership by