Berger's Broadsides
By V I C T O R L. BERGER

Milwaukee
Social-Democratic Publishing Company
1912
All Rights

Reserved

VICTOR L. BERGER.
First Socialist Elected to Congress.

CONTENTS.
Page
Real Social-Democracy

..

3-

7

W e D o N o t Create Classes.

8- 14

Are Socialists P r a c t i c a l . . :

15- 19

M o v i n g By the L i g h t of R e a s o n . . . . .

19- 24

H o w Will Socialism Come?

25- 30

M e a n s T o w a r d the E n d

30- 34

Socialism or C o m m u n i s m ?

35- 39

Give T h e m H o p e

39-43

Down

With

An O u t w o r n

the

Senate

43- 54

Garment

54- 59

Do W e Worship a Fetich?..

60- 68

W o r d s of the Saints

69- 76

F r e e d o m H a s Fled
For Whom

Is T h e r e

77-

83

Freedom

83- 87

Capitalist L i b e r t y

88-96

The

97-103

Flag Superstition.

W h y the P a n i c Came

..104-114

Will You Mend Y o u r R o o f ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115-120
P e n s i o n s for Soldiers of the C o m m o n W e a l
- A Socialists View of the Single T a x
T h e Social Evil
T h e Swiss S y s t e m

121-126
126-131

....
,

..

..132-138
139-145

Is An Alliance Possible?

146-155

O n l y Seventeen D a y s to the Battle

156-158

L a b o r L e a r n s In the School of E x p e r i e n c e

159-165

Socialism Is a Question on Development

166-170

Getting on the Band Wagon

170-173

A Few Plain Pointers for Plain Working People by
a Plain Man

174-182

Is There Any Other way?
Abolish Parties? What For?

..183-186
. ..

187-192

The End of the Roosevelt Episode

193-199

This Nation Is Ruled by a Few Corporation Lawyers. 199-205
An Armed People Is Always a Free People

205-211

If This Be Treason Make the Most of It

211-216

Workingmen of Milwaukee, You Form the American
Vanguard
216-222
The Form of Government Is of Little Consequence. .222-227
Do We Want Progress by Catastrophe and Bloodshed or by Common Sense
.228-235
The Profit System Knows No Creed

.235-239

How to Make the Change

240-244

The Women Must Find the Profits for the Trusts

245-251

In What Respect Are We Better Off?

252-256

The Only Way for the People to Combat the Meat
Trust

.

256-263

What Makes Us Willing to Work and to Sacrifice?. .263-266
The Socialist Administration and the Tax Question.267-273
The Non-Partisan Workingman Is a Traitor to His
Class

273-277

The Party of the New Idea

278-283

Disagreeable Work

283-287

Let It Work Both Ways

288-292

REAL SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY

3

Real Social-Democraey.
WRITTEN IN SEPTEMBER,

1906.

As I have often said, whether with or without social
reform we cannot escape Social-Democracy. The cooperative commonwealth is the aim towards which, from
a law of nature, the entire political and economical development of modern times is moving.
A Social-Democracy is the goal of the evolution. And
not by any means a far distant goal. Nor is it the last
station on the road which humanity will have to follow.
Progress will never stop.
The Social-Democracy is the next station. We are
speeding toward it with the accelerating velocity of a
locomotive on the road.
It is only a convincing confirmation of this view, that
the "social question" now stands everywhere in the foreground of public discussion.
We all know from history that an old order of society
was always doomed, when its appointed guardians and
supporters felt called upon to make the demands of the
adherents of the new order their own—when they tried
to steal the revolutionist thunder, as the saying is.
Of course, LaFolfette, Bryan/Hearst, etc., ivant to
"steal our thunder" for exactly opposite purposes from
ours. They want to preserve the system*
* * *
But we are revolutionists.

4

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

We are revolutionary not in the vulgar meaning of the
word, which is entirely wrong, but in the sense illustrated by history, the only logical sense. For it is foolish
to expect any result from riots and. dynamite, from murderous attacks and conspiracies, in a country where we
have the ballot, as long as the ballot has not been given a
full and fair trial.
We want to convince the majority of the people. As
long as we are in the minority, we of course have no
right to force our opinions upon an unwilling majority.
Besides, as modern men and true democrats, we have
a somewhat less romantic and boyish idea of the development of human things and social systems. And we know
that one can kill tyrants and scare individuals with dynamite and bullets, but one cannot develop a system in
that way.
Therefore no true Social-Democrat ever dreams of a
sudden change of society. Such fanatic dreamers nowhere find more determined opponents than in the ranks
of the true Social-Democrats.
We know perfectly well that force serves only those
who have it, that a sudden overthrow will breed dictators,
that it can promote only subjection, never liberty.
We even propose a general arming of the people as
the safest means of preventing sudden upheavals and of
preserving Democracy.
The Social-Democrats do not expect success from a
so-coiled revolution—that is, a smaller or bigger riot—
but from a reaj revolution, from the revolutionizing of
minds3 the only true revolution there is.
Yet we do not deny that after we have convinced the

REAL SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY

5

majority of the people, we are going to use force if the
minority should resist. But in every democracy the majority rules, and must rule.
It is clear that this revolution of the minds cannot be
brought about in a day or two, nor can it be arranged
according to the pleasure of a few. It can only be attained by patient work and intelligent organization.
Therefore the Social-Democrats concentrate their whole
force on agitation and organization. The Social-Democratic leaders in every country as a general rule are
matter-of-fact, cool-headed persons. The Social-Democratic troops are known to be the best disciplined in existence.
* * *
Up to a certain point, therefore, the tactics of the Social-Democrats and the social reformers are exactly the
same. Both build upon the past historical development
and take into consideration the present conditions.
The Social-Democrats absolutely refuse to break off
the thread of history at any one place. No Social-Democrat ever dreams of introducing a year i and beginning a
new era with it, as did the fathers of the great French
Revolution—which was indeed entirely in harmony with
their "a priori" and doctrinaire methods.
The Social-Democrats leave the making of the calendars to other people.
But the tactics and the aims of the Social-Democrats
do indeed differ from those of the social reformers in
one essential point. The Social-Democrats never fail to
declare that with all the social reforms, good and worthy
of support as they may be, conditions cannot be radically
and permanently improved.

6

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

We Social-Democrats say, we are willing to accept and
help on every social reform. But we also say that social
reforms are but installments by which we must not allow
ourselves to be bribed; that full economic freedom will
only be achieved by Social-Democracy.
Yet as a stepping stone, as a transition—and even as a
necessary stepping stone and as an indispensable transition—social reforms of all kinds are fully and wholly
recognized by the Social-Democracy.
We recognize their usefulness and necessity even when
we do not agree with the motives of the promoters and
leaders of social reform. We are willing to accept these
reforms, even when we disagree about their speed and
the methods to be employed.
On the other hand, while the social reformers and the
Social-Democrats therefore have many points of contact,
they always will form and must form tzvo entirely different parties. And it is not arbitrary or willful that the
Social-Democrats all over the world constitute a distinct,
separate party. It is absolutely necessary. And it does
not in any way exclude the possibility of making common cause with social reform in legislatures and city
councils for this or the other good measure. But to keep
our party organically separate and intact is a demand of
clearness and truth, which after all have great importance in political life as everywhere else.
*

*

*

The Social-Democrats do not in the least expect to
"make history," as certain ignorant and fanatical impossibilists dream of doing. What we aspire to is much
more modest, more matter-of-fact, and therefore more reliable and more substantial.

REAL SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY

7

We want to observe closely the course of things, the
development of economic and political conditions. We
want to find out, if possible, where this development leads.
Then, supported by this knowledge, we want to put ourselves in line with the march of civilization, so that civilization will carry us, instead of crushing us, which it
would do, if—knowingly or not-— we should stand opposed to it.
* * *
Thinking workmen and thinking men of any class become Social-Democrats not because we like to be "different" from other people. Not because a man by the name
of Karl Marx has "invented the co-operative commonwealth" and painted it as gorgeously as possiWe^wfiieh
by the way he did not do. We are Scfcial^Democrats because we have recognized that the economical development of the present capitalist system leads toward Socialistic production. Not that we wish to urge upon humanity "our" Socialist Republic, but that the Socialist Republic has urged itself upon us as the next stage of civilization and will urge itself some day upon all civilized
humanity.
And once granted that the Socialist Republic is the
necessary product of our economical development, the
question of the possibility of carrying out the demands
of the Social-Democracy appears very naive and indeed
absurd. That which must come by necessity is for that
very reason possible without further question.

8

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

We Did Not Create Classes.
WRITTEN IN MAY,

1908.

DAVID S. ROSE and his crowd did not make an
intellectual campaign of any kind in the recent Milwaukee election. They depended mainly upon money, personal slander and the free beer and whiskey which they
gave away to the sovereign voters before and after
meetings.
However,, in a hazy way they occasionally attempted
to convey the idea that the Social-Democrats try to incite class antagonism and class hatred.
As far as Dave is concerned this is hardly worth answering. Dave himself does not know what he was
talking about. His idea of politics is graft, a "wide
open town'' and general debauchery. He and his gang
are below our criticism. Dave Rose ought to be answered only by the district attorney, the grand juries
and the courts.
* * *
However, ,there are some decent men who really believe that the Social-Democrats are trying to create class
antagonism and are preaching the class struggle.
There are really well meaning men in this country
who still believe that, this being a republic, there are no

W E DID NOT CREATE CLASSES

9

classes in the United States. They claim that everybody
here is free and the equal of everybody else.
There are some such people in the middle class, and
there are some even among the working class, who repeat these hollow phrases. And here and there even a
capitalist may be found who will say so, although he does
not believe it because he knows better.
*

*

*

As a matter of fact, under the present capitalist system, we have three classes, roughly speaking.
The first class is the plutocracy, composed of wealthy
bankers, railway magnates, corporation directors, trust
magnates, etc., or people who are doing nothing and inherited their wealth.
The next class is the middle class, composed chiefly
of small manufacturers, merchants, farmers and some
professional men.
The third class is the proletariat, made up of wage
workers and some persons in professional occupations.
Now, according to the census of i9°°> t n e total wealth
of this country is about $95,000,000,000.
The capitalist class numbers about 250,000 persons.
They own $67,000,000,000, or 70.5 per cent of the total
wealth.
The middle class numbers about 8,430,000 persons,
owns $24,000,000,000 or 25.3 per cent of the total value.
The proletarian class numbers 20,400,000 persons actually employed, and owns $4,000,000,000 or 4.2 per cent
of the wealth.
It is unnecessary for me here to dwell on the difference in the lives, mode of living and general standard

10

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

of the different classes. I may take this up in some
other article.
But the existence of classes is nothing new—the class
struggle is many thousand years old. It began the very
moment civilization began.
In the most democratic republic of Athens and the
aristocratic republic of Sparta, and later on in Rome, the
people were divided into different classes, with different
rights and different duties, according to their wealth.
Some of these classes were hereditary to begin with—
always provided that the respective family could keep
its wealth. In Rome, the Censor would assemble the
Roman people every four years, have every citizen show
up his wealth and put him into his respective class. And
the great Cato the Censor got the honorable name of
Censorius because he would expel from the senatorial
class the man who could not show the necessary wealth
to belong to that class.
And in all these ancient civilized commonwealths there
was to be found a large stratum of citizens who owned
nothing—and which in Rome was called the proletariat,
because the only capacity in which its members could
serve their country was by furnishing children for the
state.
Nor was this all.
Lower still—most numerous—and belonging to no
class were the slaves. They did not own their bodies,
and were not supposed to have any souls. Plato described the slaves as "animated tools." The slaves were
either captured as prisoners of war or were made slaves
on account of debts—or were the descendants of such
persons.

WE DID NOT CREATE CLASSES

11

The class struggle then was very crude and very
brutal. So much for ancient civilization.
* * *
We all know that the classes almost took the form of
castes under the feudal system. Everybody was pressed
into an iron mould.
Society then was really a pyramid with the king on
top. The high clergy and the feudal lords, the patricians
and the burghers of the cities formed the upper layers,
and the serfs owned by the lords formed the lower layers
of the pyramid.
And under the feudal system also as everywhere else,
wealth and land gotten by force, cunning, or in any
other way, furnished the basis of the classification.
* * *
The capitalist system, of course, has changed the
mould. But the class distinction and the class differences and the class struggle have remained. In fact, the
struggle is now more subtle, but more bitter than ever.
Under former civilizations, in almost every case the
class distinction was the result of war. And the ruling
class was made up of the members of the victorious
tribe or the victorious nation. This was generally the
case in ancient times and almost invariably so during* the
middle ages.
The ruling class usually was the stronger, the more
able part of the population. As a whole it was the only
class that had any education fitted for the conditions of
the time.
Thus the medieval lord was unquestionably the best
fighter of his day. He was trained for warfare, clad in

12

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

iron, and spent all his life in hunting or fighting. The
average medieval lord in war was good for about
twenty peasants. Five or six hundred of these lords
could go out to conquer a country.
When the Archduke Leopold undertook to conquer
Switzerland, he had an army of about six hundred, and
that was considered a most tremendous fighting force.
And if it had not been for the mountains and the rocks
of Switzerland, he would have accomplished his purpose.
Without any doubt, in former days the ruling class
were made up of the most capable and energetic part of
the people. The great mass of the respective nation
was also inferior to them intellectually.
Besides, in every one of these epochs they could claim,
and did claim, that it was the will of God Almighty that
they should rule, and that the others should serve and
obey.
In old Greece and old Rome the patrician families
usually also claimed descent from some god.
And all during the middle ages the church supported
the claim of the feudal system to be "God ordained/'
The church was a beneficiary of the system to no small
extent—the bishops and abbots having great estates and
ruling the people.
Besides, the ruling classes were not only more able
than these lower classes, but in many cases they differed
in nationality, speech and general make-up.
Thus, for instance, the Norman lords spoke French in
England for a long time. In France, the Franks were
a German tribe who had taken possession of Gaul. In
many parts of Germany, the Germans had subjugated

W E DID NOT CREATE CLASSES

l»

the Wends and other Slavic tribes. Hence there was an
element of conquest in every case.
* * *
In modern countries, the conditions are entirely different.
The conquered class is of the same nationality, the
same speech, the same mode of thought. And the ruling
class is not better or stronger, nor more able in any way.
Since the general introduction of public schools, the
proletarians as a whole get at least the elements of the
same kind of education. The ability to read and write
opens to them the same avenues of knowledge and mental power that the ruling class possesses.
The proletariat and the middle class not only do all
the useful and necessary work which is to be done under
the present civilization, but they also have to keep up
that civilization.
Today civilization depends entirely upon the proletariat and middle class for its existence.
And what is more, the capitalist class is even unable
to defend its position in case of danger. If there is any
fighting to be done, the capitalist class has to hire the
proletariat to do the fighting.
The capitalist class holds its position only because the
proletariat is asleep and is not conscious of its strength.
A statesman of old Rome said that the Romans could
hold their slaves because they had never counted themselves and their masters.
However, since we have universal suffrage, there is a
good chance to count ourselves and our masters at every
election.

J4

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Nor would the claim that God has ordained class rule,
hold good today. Not even the most stupid Slovak
would believe Ogden Armour that God has ordained that
he should speculate in wheat or put rat manure in sausage in order that he may make millions every year and
thus keep up his end in the plutocracy. And there are
very few priests who would dare to support such a
theory in all its nakedness, no matter how much Armour
might be willing to pay.
Nor would any one believe young Thaw or young
Gould that they are descended from the gods.
* * *
Unless plutocracy can persuade the majority of the
people to close up all the public schools and make illiterates of the next generation, and unless it can also persuade them to give up the electoral franchise, plutocracy
is doomed. So much is clear.
And that is the reason why we Social-Democrats can
look with such equanimity and complacence into the future.

ARE SOCIALISTS PRACTICAL

IS

Are Socialists Practical?
WRITTEN IN MARCH,

1903.

SOME Democratic and Republican politicians sneer at
the Socialists because we are "idealists." The others
claim that we are as a whole "pretty good fellows," but
utterly "impractical/'
Now what is Socialism? Socialism is defined as the
collective ownership of the means of production and distribution.]^ is the name given to the next stage of civilization, if civilization is to survive.
As a matter of fact, the centralization of the control
of property in a few hands is increasing with a rapidity
that threatens the existence of civilization.
Within a short time we shall have two nations in every
civilized country, and especially in America—both of native growth.
One nation will be very large in number, but semicivilized, half-fed, half-educated and degenerated from
overwork and misery; the other nation will be very small
in number, but overcivilized, overfed, overcultured and
degenerated from too much leisure and too much luxury.
What will be the outcome?
Some day there will be a volcanic eruption. The hungry millions will turn against the overfed few. A fear-

16

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

ful retribution will be enacted on the capitalist class as
a class—and the innocent will suffer with the guilty.
Such a revolution will retrograde civilization—it might
throw back the white race into barbarism. Let us heed
the warning of history.
Every honest and practical man—and every patriot
who can think—ought to say to himself the following:
The machinery and all the progress in the implements
of production today we do not want to destroy and we
cannot destroy, if we are to have civilization. Modern
humanity does not intend to go back to the barbarism
of the middle ages.
But as long as the instruments of production—land,
machinery, raw materials, railroads, telegraphs, etc.—•
remain private property, only comparatively few can be
sole owners and masters thereof. And so long as such
is the case, they will naturally use this private ownership
for their private advantage.
The present system was a step in the evolution to freedom, but only a step—it has already resulted in making
comparatively few the absolute masters of our daily
bread.
There is but one deliverance from the rule of the people by capitalism, and that is the rule of capital by the
people.
If so much of what has been considered private property is to be absorbed in great monopolistic ownership
—and there is nothing that can stop it—then, if we are
to remain a politically free people, the inevitable outcome
will be that the people must take possession collectively
of the production and distribution.
And this is called Socialism.

ARE SOCIALISTS PRACTICAL

17

It is simply a matter of growth and of evolution. Yet we must not forget that though society is
truly an organism, the evolution of society does not take
place precisely like the growth of plants and animals.
The former is the result of efforts consciously put forth;
the progress of man requires the co-operation of men.
Therefore, while it is true that Socialism will be the outcome of economic conditions, if civilization is to survive,
we must see to it that civilization does survive.
The idea that because Socialism is bound to come, we
do not have to work for it, would be fatalistic, and
might prove fatal to civilization. Carlyle is right, when
he says: "The history of what man has accomplished
is at bottom the history of the great men who have
worked here. ,,
An idea to be successful must be in harmony
with surrounding conditions, but that alone is not
enough. It must be propagated and made alive in men
and women. There must be a few people, at least, who
care a great deal about the idea and who feel a resistless
impulse towards its propagation.
And in that respect the Socialists are eminently practical people. Since Socialism is to be the next phase of
civilization—as the trusts, the centralization of property
and every new invention seem to prove—those who act
as the roadmakers and pathfinders for the new civilization do eminently practical work indeed.
I have indicated before that we are not able to destroy
the present order of society at one blow, without destroying civilization. Society is an organization. We are not
able to start all afresh. We cannot begin civilization all
over again. Socialism must emanate from capitalism,
as capitalism developed out of feudalism.

18

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Our present civilization has gradually grown up, and
the future civilization must grow out of this.
If society could be compared to a house, we could simply tear it down and build a new mansion on modern
lines with every convenience. But we cannot compare
a living organism with a house—at the best we could
say that our task is to convert the old house into a new,
up-to-date mansion and to keep it habitable all the time
while we are rebuilding.
We know what we want. The Social-Democratic
party is essentially a constructive organization. Whenever and wherever we pull out an old brick or take down
a dangerous wall, we have something better ready in its
place.
Now it has been shown that public ownership is better
than private ownership.Who would hand over the postoffice, for instance, although it is not an ideally managed
institution, to Mr. Rockefeller or Mr. Gould? Or what
Milwaukee citizen would like to see the Milwaukee Gas
Light Company take hold of the city water plant ? And
while "public ownership" is not Socialism by any means,
it is a step towards it and trains the mind for Socialism.
And it is not too much if we say that the idea of "Public
Ownership" is in the air today and that the agitation of
the Social-Democrats is largely responsible for educating
public opinion in that respect.
The Social-Democrats are students of history and
know that sunken and degraded people lose the power
to help themselves. Therefore, the Social-Democrats
welcome all efforts of the laboring people to better their
conditions right now by organization. Social-Democrats
consider it their duty to assist the trades unions in their

MOVING BY THE LIGHT OF REASON

19

struggle for fair wages and a better standard of living.
Are we alot of "impracticals" and "idealists" for so
doing?

Moving by the Light of Reason.
WRITTEN APRIL 15,

1905.

CERTAIN "impossible fellows," impossible as Socialists, impossible as Trade Unionists, and impossible as
civilized human beings generally, have accused the Social-Democratic Herald and especially Victor L. Berger
of "opportunism."
Why?
Because without losing sight of the final aim which the
Social-Democratic party seeks to accomplish, we advocate a policy of steady Socialistic reforms that are right
in line with Socialism and leading towards it.
We do not believe that a certain "catastrophe" can
change very much in the Social System, per se, unless
economic conditions (besides the education and enlightenment of the people) are favorable towards a complete
change. Otherwise we might simply change masters.
In the first place, the world has never seen such a
thorough-going transformation of property as Socialism
intends to accomplish. The change from slavery to serfdom and from serfdom to the wage system sinks into

20

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

insignificance when compared with it, and yet these
changes took many centuries in every case.
As a matter of fact, Socialism must create a new kind
of property—the collective property.
When slavery disappeared, or when feudalism fell
down, the work accomplished was purely negative. A
certain well defined property, certain well defined privileges and prerogatives disappeared—but the idea of property was not changed.
We must change it, and that cannot be done in a day,
in a year, or even in ten years.
It would not suffice for the Social Revolution to abolish
capitalism. Social-Democracy must create a new type
under which production is to go on, and the condition of
property be regulated in the future.
Such a new Social System cannot be inspired by the
minority. It cannot be created by a minority. It cannot
be worked without the consent and the co-operation of
the great majority of the citizens. The farmers alone—
even by passive resistance—could starve the whole Cooperative Commonwealth into submission within a few
weeks.
It is ridiculous and criminal to talk about the Cooperaive Commonwealth in 1908, as do some of our
thinly varnished ex-Populists, who have turned into
"impossibilists."
Besides, the city proletariat is still a minority of the
population. And outside of Milwaukee, and a few small
towns in Wisconsin, the Socialists have only gained a
very small part of this city proletariat.
Furthermore, I do not believe that even the proletariat
of any civilized country is ripe for Socialism today.

MOVING BY T H E L I G H T OF REASON

21

I leave Russia entirely out of the question, because I
do not consider Russia a civilized country.
But I do not believe that the English working class
which just four years ago applauded the butchering of
the Boers in South Africa is in any way morally or intellectually ripe for Socialism—no matter whether a
"revolution" or a dozen of them should take place during
this or the next generation.
America's proletariat is not on a higher level. I have
studied it for many years and I am fairly familiar with
its character. I also more than doubt whether the workmen of Germany have morally and intellectually reached
the mark that would enable them to establish the Cooperative Commonwealth within a generation.
In the world's history there are no sudden leaps. Today, more than 115 years after the bloody abolition of
the nobility and the church in France "forever," Jaures
and his Socialist friends had to save the Republic for
the French people. The nobles and the church are stronger in France today than they were a hundred years ago.
The pope and the Roman Catholic church did not have
nearly the power in the civilized world a hundred years
ago or fifty years ago that they have today.
Socialism is inevitable, if civilization is to survive. But
it cannot come over night.
Therefore, I say we must have a moral, physical and
intellectual strengthening of the proletariat, before all
things. We must learn a great deal. And furthermore,
we must form a close alliance with farmers of progressive views. In that way we can have a great deal of
"Socialism in our time," even though we cannot have
the full-fledged "Co-operative Commonwealth."

22

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

And besides all that, I would like to see a systematic
way of arming all the people. Not for the sake of "revolution," but for the sake of peace and progress.
Frederic Engels said once: "Give every citizen a good
rifle and fifty cartridges and you have the best guarantee
for the liberty of the people." Thomas Jefferson held the
same views exactly.
An armed people is always a free people. Even demagogues and parasites would have a great deal less to say
than they have today.
With the nation armed (as, for instance, in Switzerland) reforms of all kinds are carried easily and without
bloodshed. With the nation armed, the proletariat could
even trust capitalist parties with at least earnestly desiring social reforms and with making an earnest attempt
to carry them out.
With the nation armed in a systematic way the capitalist class need not fear any sudden uprising—there are
less riots in Switzerland where the people are armed than
in Russia where they are disarmed. But with the nation
armed, the workingmen are not in danger of being shot
down like dogs at the least provocation.
On the other hand, I am absolutely in favor of Socialistic reforms—"One step," two steps, or six steps at a time
—as many as we can make—as long as they are in our
direction—and I am absolutely opposed to the impotent
and good-for-nothing hollow phrases that are the stock
in trade of certain hypocritical or ignorant individuals.
*

*

*

Off and on we are also challenged by so-called "scientific Socialists" who are opposed to a working program

MOVING BY THE LIGHT OF REASON

23

lor our party, because "these demands give the old parties an opportunity to parade before the people as Socialistic by taking some of these demands into their platform/' and thus "steal our thunder."
Now we on the other hand are of this opinion:
Thunder which can be stolen is nothing but stage thunder, and it concerns us very little whether it is stolen or
not. Moreover, the aim of the Social-Democratic party
is not to thunder, but to lighten. And the Socialists' lightning must be real lightning, it must rend a cloud and
strike—not oratorical colophony that shines a little time
on the stage, while a few "true believers of the faith"
clap their applause.
Since the time of Prometheus, nobody has stolen genuine lightning. According to the fable, Prometheus stole
it, in order to teach men the art of making fire and to
lay the foundations of our. civilization. If a new Prometheus should steal the lightnings of the "Socialist gods,"
to give it to men and thus build a higher civilization, the
writer like an old heretic, would be most exceedingly
rejoiced.
But unfortunately the Titans are all dead—Prometheus
was the last.
But enough of mythology.
Some of us have little faith in heavens—either in an
ancient Greek, the modern Christian or the future Socialist Heaven. With this declaration I give a Mr. Ford or
some other janitor of the Socialistic heaven of the future
the right to shut the door in my face if I should apply
for admission.
According to my idea, we shall never reach the millenium. We shall never have any heaven on earth. We

24

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

shall always have great problems to solve. But we shall
have an infinitely higher civilization than we have now.
In order to reach it, we must have a truly scientific and
truly clear-cut Social-Democratic party.
And what interests this party most at present is the
solution of those problems which Socialists must solve
within the present society.
Therefore, we are compelled to put forth and maintain a working program for this party. The SocialDemocratic party is a political organization—if we were
a mere sect, then we should only need a sort of confessional faith.
The Social-Democratic party wishes above all things
to represent the wage working class in the political field.
It is our duty to take care that all people who perform
the useful and necessary labor shall be economically,
morally, and physically strengthened, rescued from extreme poverty and made capable of resistance in body
and spirit.
That is the work we have to do now.
And every success in this direction will naturally compel us to make new demands and attain new benefits for
the proletariat which will weaken the capitalist system.
In this way—not without many dangers/ and perhaps
with effusions of blood—the present state will "grow
into the Socialistic system," to use Liebknecht's expression.
This is the real revolution—I know of no other that
is real.

H O W W I L L SOCIALISM

COME

25

How Will Socialism Come?
WRITTEN A P R I L 29,

1905.

SOCIALISM is the name of an epoch of civilization—
the next epoch, if our civilization is to continue.
We must not expect that the Socialist era will come
all at one stroke. Neither capitalism nor feudalism arose
"at a certain date," nor can the Socialist form of society
have its beginning on any fixed day.
Besides, although capitalistic society has already passed
its zenith, yet even at the present day feudalism holds a
very important place in modern society. This is the case
not only in Germany, in spite of its high economic development, but also in England, the "classic land" of
capitalism.
Just so with any revolution.
Capitalism will not vanish in one day, in one year, or in
one decade. Even after the triumph of the working class
the commonwealth cannot take upon itself all kinds of
production.
Many industries today are not concentrated, and therefore are not ripe for collective production. Some will
become so in time, others perhaps will not. The editor
of this paper is no prophet and will not attempt to predict details.

26

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

However, the trusts are now showing the Social-Democrats how they must do it, only the Socialists will have
to do it from a Socialist standpoint and for the benefit
of all the people.
But it is not necessary nor possible that all industries
should be immediately taken over by the Socialist government.
Every branch of production controlled by a trust, as
well as all industries which could be conducted on a
similar scale, besides railways, telegraphs, mines, etc.,
will of course become collective public property and will
be managed by the national government.
But there is a whole class of industries (for instance
farming) which are not yet ready to be worked on this
large scale, or which are liable to be decentralized by the
technical perfection of the methods of transmitting
power. Many small industries have again become possible on account of the transmission of electric power.
These without any objection can remain in private hands.
I refer to certain petty industries, as well as to agriculture.
In other cases, the Socialist society can give the opportunity for the formation of co-operative associations,
which together with the model industries conducted by
the state, will raise the level of the working class to a
degree hardly credible at the present time.
The chief reason why workingmen's co-operative associations have been impossible hitherto, has even now been
partly removed by the trusts, and of course will be of
still less account at the rise of the political power of the
proletariat.

H O W W I L L SOCIALISM COME

27

The trusts show how a regulated business can be done.
The management of the co-operative workingmen's association of the future will find out what the demand is
and determine the amount and method of the production.
During the transition period the sale of products may
take place exactly as at present, only subject to regulation by the state.
In the trusts, the capitalist class even now plays the
most superfluous rolei in the world.
Indeed, in the trusts the capitalist class is already expropriated to a certain extent.
The smaller investors, who are the great majority, no
longer have anything to control, and only draw their profits. Their industries are apparently the property of the
shareholders; but what sort of property is that of which
one has not the free disposal ? They can no longer produce what they will, nor at what price they will, nor
with what workmen they will; all is prescribed to them
by the management of the trust. Properly speaking, they
are only profit-receivers.
The trusts are ready now for a change of ownership.
But Wisconsin has been fiercely criticized for a provision in its platform to have the nation "buy out" the
trusts and pay the net value. And yet Karl Kautsky ;
Emil Vandervelde, William Liebknecht, and even Karl
Marx, speak of compensation.
Engels wrote in 1894, "We do not consider the indemnity of the proprietors as an impossibility whatever
may be the circumstances. How many times has not
Karl Marx expressed to me the opinion that if we could
buy up the whole crowd, it would really be the cheapest
way of relieving ourselves of them.,f

28

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Vandervelde says: "There is no doubt that the expropriation without indemnity with the resistance, the troubles, the bloody disturbances which it would not fail to
produce, would be in the end most costly." (Collectivism,
Kerr edition, page 155.)
In discussing the question of compensation, Karl
Kautsky, the most radical theorist of the German SocialDemocracy, says:
"There are a number of reasons which indicate that a
proletarian regime will seek the road of compensation
and payment of the capitalists and land owners." (Social
Revolution, Kerr edition, page 118.)
In another place (on page 113) Kautsky says: "A portion of the factories, mines, etc., could be sold directly to
the laborers who are working them, and could be henceforth operated co-operatively; another portion could be
sold to the co-operatives of distribution, and still another
to the communities or the states.
"It is clear, however, that capital would find its most
extensive and generous purchaser in the state or municipalities, and for this very reason the majority of industries would pass into possession of the states and municipalities. That the Social-Democrats when they came into
control would strive consciously for this solution is well
understood."
Well understood ? Yes, everywhere excepting in America.—
Of course, all industries of national magnitude would
be carried on by the government. For smaller industries,
wherever necessary, the government could make some
agreement with the co-operative associations of workers.
We speak of the transition period.

H O W W I L L SOCIALISM

COME

29

In this transition period, the Socialist government can
of course lend the necessary capital to the co-operative
societies and furnish suitable guarantees. The government in this transition period will have at its disposal
quite different powers than at present. For instance, it
will have a monopoly of all water power, coal mines,
railroads, rivers, electrical plants, etc.
So perhaps for a time a state of affairs may arise
which will combine at the same time three forms of production. That is, the capitalistic form in petty industries,
where goods will be produced for the market; the cooperative form in which the products will be for use and
also for sale; and the purely Socialistic, where the government will carry on production for use only, and the
production will not take the form of wares at all.
That all this will take place peacefully, we do not
maintain. It will surely not come peacefully if the people
are not armed. It will come peacefully if the people will
be armed. Riots and bloodsheds are not at all desirable,
nor will they help civilization.
Besides, I do not believe that one great revolution can
turn topsy-turvy the whole civilized world, and undo or
make superfluous any economic development as outlined
here.
Capitalism was necessary to give mankind dominion
over the forces of nature, which is now assured by our
scientific attainments. Considered in itself, capitalism
has by no means reached that stage of development
where it becomes impossible.
On the contrary, in the trust system, capitalism has
just stepped into a new phase, the duration of which is
unlimited according to our present light.

30

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Of course, from a civilizing force, capitalism has already become a menace to civilization. But that does not
affect its vitality! However, the tendencies which oppose
it have now gathered such great strength that a thorough
change—must not indeed—but can take place, if the
working class understands its mission.
In conclusion, let me say that the world's history is
always made by men, and is not a mere natural process
as some Marxists want us to believe.

Means Toward the End!
WRITTEN SEPTEMBER 9,

1905.

T H E FACT IS being recogized more and more by
scientists that our civilization is in a constant flow, like
a river the current of which is ever changing. Yet one
of the greatest obstacles with which Socialists have to
contend is the notion that whatever is, must be the immutable order of nature. Because the wage system has
prevailed as far back as any one can remember, people
fancy that this system constitutes the necessary condition
for civilized society. Social-Democrats say this is a fundamental error, and history proves it.
The present state of things grew out of feudalism and
serfdom, which followed a system of master and slave.
In the ancient states there was no wage system, there
was slavery. The master was the absolute lord of the

M E A N S TOWARD T H E

END

31

persons of his slaves, of the soil, and of the instruments
of labor, which then were crude and simple.
Serfdom constitutes the next great stage. The lords of
the soil were the dominant class, but the workers of the.
soil were personally free, although attached to the soil
where they were born. Now this second stage, although
far beiow our civilization, was at any rate much above
chattel slavery.
But the progress of mankind demanded another step,
and that was capitalism. This was unknown during the
former periods of the worlds—which had wealth but not
capital. This third stage of the development of our race
has given occasion for the rise of a class of exploiters
unknown to any of the former civilizations. Our plutocracy, our industrial, commercial and moneyed aristocracy are now the masters of all production in all civilized countries on whose good will, or rather, upon whose
profits, the laboring people of the world depend for a
living.
And all these evils are heightened by cut-throat competition, which not only forces wage-workers into a
struggle to see who shall live and who shall starve, but
which also compels the employers to pay as little for
their labor as possible.
But the laborers are by no means the only sufferers.
The small employers and the small merchants are just as
much victims of that cruel kind of competition as the
wage-workers. This fierce competition lessens the profit
on each article, and that must be compensated for by
greater numbers of them being produced and sold; that
5s, the cheaper the goods, the more capital is required.
Precisely then, for the same reason that the mechanic

32

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

with his own shop and working on his own account has
disappeared in the struggle between hand-work and machine-work, for the same reason the small employers with
their little machinery, their small capital, and their little
stock of goods are being driven from the fields by the
trusts.
Our social order or rather social disorder may fitly be
compared to a ladder of which the middle rounds are
being torn away one by one. And this absorption of the
smaller - fortunes by the large ones is much hastened by
the industrial crises, called "panics," which make their
appearance every fifteen or twenty years.
The principle involved in "trusts" is the principle of
co-operation instead of competition—but it is the co-operation of capitalists only, not the co-operation of the
people. The object of a "trust" is greater regularity of
production, steadiness of price and a uniform system of
credit. It is the shadow; of Socialism and it is used for
the benefit of a few capitalists, instead of the nation.
And if this goes on, and according to all natural consequences it must go on, for all the great capital wants
to be invested, then in a very short time we shall find
most of our industries conducted by "trusts" from the
Atlantic to the Pacific.
But these phenomena have also another meaning. They
bring before the public mind the question whether we are
to have organized capital or organized production? For
it is perfectly evident that we must in the future have
organized business action of some sort. Shall we have it
for the capitalists only, or for the whole people?
In other words the "trusts" prepare the public mind
for Socialism.

M E A N S TOWARD T H E

END

33

I f our "statesmen" were less blind to the logic of
events which are pushing us with railroad speed toward
a total and abrupt revolution, they might bring about a
state of Socialism gradually and peaceably by a series of
measures, each consistently developing itself out of the
previous ones. They might begin from two poles of society.
Thus, it is now proposed, even by very conservative
people, to take the telegraph system and the railroads and
the mines of our country under government control and
own them like our postoffice department.
Suppose this measure is realized, as it is sure to be in
the near future.
Then do likewise with our express business, our steam
and sailing vessels and our mines, and thus onward.
Absorb the Standard Oil Company, the street trust
and every other trust, and one great enterprise after
another as quickly as possible.
And so from the other pole.
Why could not cities begin by taking under their control and operating their gas works, and electric light,
railway and telephone plants? And why should they not
operate their bakeries and drug stores ? Let cities furnish
to their citizens fuel in winter and ice in summer.
For are these things not just as essential to public
health as water?
Then let them also furnish all the milk, flour and
meat needed. For the millers of the country have a
trust now, and a few big packers furnish the meat to the
butchers. Yes, and let the city take charge of the liquor
traffic, so that Milwaukee would have more reading

34

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

rooms and fewer drinking places—we have 2,600 saloons
at present.
And furthermore, let the city furnish all the school
books and at least one meal a day, free of charge, to all
the children, not only the poor, and clothes to such as
are needy.
I do not say, nor even think, that the social question
will be solved* in this manner. Our people are neither wise
nor peaceable enough to do it. And some of our Socialists are just about as lunatic in that respect as are some
capitalists. But it seems to me that would be the most
practical way to solve the social question for a practical
people.

SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM

as

Socialism or Communism?
WRITTEN IN DECEMBER,

1907.

UNDER Socialism people will produce, but not consume, in common.
Our aim is Socialism, not Communism. We want this
understood.
Between Socialism and Communism there is a great
deal of difference.

Collectivism is not a negation of property, nor is
Socialism.
Please keep this in mind.
Socialism simply demands the collective ownership of
the means of production and distribution. We will produce in common, but the consumption will remain individual.
Socialism will control only our capital, not our property. A Socialist Commonwealth will not do away with
the individual ownership of property, but only with individual ownership of capital.
*
*
*
It is Communism that denies individual ownership of
all property. The Communists want to produce and
consume in common. There are few conscious Communists in the world at the present time.

36

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

To make myself still more explicit, "capital" is that
part of wealth which is used as means of production—
that is, raw materials, as machinery, factories, etc. To
socialize these is the aim of all Socialists.
But all products and wares, after they have been distributed for consumption and personal use, will remain
private property.
It is necessary to state this at this time because there
are some Communists who think they are Socialists.
There are even some editors who seem to find it difficult to distinguish between capital and property from a
Socialist standpoint.
A Social-Democracy must socialize capital because in
the Co-operative Commonwealth the industrial democracy must rule.
*
*
*
Under the present capitalistic system collective capital,,
especially as organized in the trusts and big corporations,
has practically nullified most of the advantages of political democracy, and thus the capitalist class has become
the ruler of the people.
It is clear from all this that the people must turn privately owned capital into collectively owned capital as a
matter of self-preservation.
The people must do it because private capital, which
was formerly a means of progress, is now impeding
progress.
In short, the private ownership of capital was for
several hundred years an historical necessity. Now the
collective ownership of capital is becoming an historical
necessity.

SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM

37

That such is the trend of the time we can see at a
glance from the discussion that is going on in the daily
and weekly papers and in the magazines.
But that trend is toward Socialism, not toward Communism.
The measures that the Socialists will take and must
take will closely connect with the present system and
evolve from it. As a matter of fact, the collectivity—
that is, the nation, the state and the community—will
closely follow along the lines of what people have already
long been doing, only they will do this from a Socialistic
standpoint.
So Collectivism is not Communism, and Karl Marx
and Friedrich Engels, for instance, who in their early
days were Communists, later on in life became Collectivists and Social-Democrats. Communism has often been
tried and, outside of a few small religious communities,
has failed.
About 1840 there was a wave of Fourieristic Communism in this country. It was started by Albert Brisbane, and some of the most brilliant and best men and
women this country has ever produced participated in
the experiments. But all the Communistic settlements
where the religious and ascetic elements were lacking
came to naught.
Socialism, or Social-Democracy, has never been tried,
because it will be the outcome of modern conditions—
of the invention of machinery and the centralization of
capital on one hand and the development of political
democracy on the other.

38

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Communism would be a step backward, would be a
retrogression to a very primitive and low stage of human
society.
Social-Democracy will mean a step forward toward a
higher civilization than history has ever known.
Just to emphasize the difference between Collectivism
and Communism—between the collective ownership of
the means of production and distribution and the common ownership of everything—there is nothing in Collectivism that will prevent people who are so inclined
from saving.
They will be able to save just as much as they wish;
they will be able to utilize their savings in any manner
they choose with one single exception. They will not be
able in any possible way to "invest" their savings—that
is to say, they will not be able to use their savings to
make profit.
Of course our capitalists will cry out, "What is the
use of a man possessing a hundred thousand dollars if
he cannot invest his money ?" which means, what is the
use of a man possessing wealth if he cannot use it to
work others and live himself without work?
This, I will admit, is a grievance that cannot be helped.
But it is a grievance that is no grievance: First,
because under Collectivism there will not be the slightest
necessity for individual saving with a view of providing
for the future or old age, for care will be taken of
every citizen. Second, there will be no' encouragement
for saving, for accumulating capital will be looked upon
as the function of society, and not of the individual.
But it is not my intention to describe the Co-operative

GIVE THEM HOPE

39

Commonwealth, the Socialist Republic or any other state
in this article.
I have simply tried to bring out a few of the differences between Socialism and Communism, and about
these a great deal more may be said.

Give Them Hope!
WRITTEN IN JULY,

1907.

T H E most formidable obstacle in the way of further
progress—and especially in the propaganda of Socialism
—is not that men are insufficiently versed in political
economy or lacking in intelligence. It is that peaple are
without hope.
Popular effort has so often been thwarted by selfish
cunning—great moral enthusiasm has so often been dissipated by the suspicious organization of the ruling classes
that men have lost heart.
Despair is the chief opponent of progress.
Our greatest need is hope.
*
*
*
The majority of our fellow workers know of public
measures that would be beneficent—if an upward step
were possible. But they claim it is impossible under the
present system. Some of them wait for some great
"revolution" that is to come "some day." Others do not
wait for anything. They do not expect anything. They
have lost hope. Why ?

40

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Both the so-called "revolutionists" and the "let-it-go-asit-is-men" are overwhelmed by a multitude of incidental
obstacles which are in themselves of small account.
Petty disappointments cloud the small horizons of these
people. Thus they are shut off from the sight of the
great universal and historic forces that are working for
progress—for Socialism—and even for progress beyond
Socialism.
Only these forces work slowly. Slowly and surely.
#
*
*
Revolutions—and special evolutions—are brought about
in human affairs not so much by the dissemination of a
multitude of ideas, as by the concentration of a multitude'
of minds upon a single idea.
And this idea must be near enough and comprehensive
enough and of sufficient importance to stir the very soul
of the masses.
Mere theoretical or dogmatic phrases—no matter how
"clear-cut"—are not capable of producing the universal
enthusiasm required to institute any fundamental innovations.
Besides, doctrinarism and dogmatism lead to splits and
to the formation of political sects. But when people are
constantly absorbed in doing things, and in preparing for
still greater things, the petty jealousies and small causes
for strife and dissension disappear.
Furthermore, I say, we ought to have "uniformity" in .
general principles and general tactics only. We ought to
leave minor details to the different state organizations.
Especially where the movement is old and well rooted,
where there are plenty of tried leaders and where the

GIVE THEM HOPE

41

membership is experienced, they are fully capable of the
righteous settlement of all incidental questions without
interference from the outside.
Instead of more uniformity we ought to have more
unity.
And we can gain this only when we leave details to the
various subdivisions—and concentrate the efforts of our
propaganda on the simple realities, self-evident and capable of being understood by all.
The first such central truth, to be proclaimed tirelessly
by every Social-Democrat, is that the earth is large
enough and wide enough to supply all the good things of
life to every human being born on it.
Add to this that the triumphs of modern science make
it possible for men to satisfy every natural craving, every
healthy desire, every reasonable hope and dream, without
any man being compelled to sacrifice another being for
his purpose.
This means that this world, now made a hell by human
greed, abetted by ignorance and prejudice, might as well
be a heaven.
It means that the misery caused by capitalism on one
hand and poverty on the other, can be displaced by happiness and plenty for all.
*
* *
Following this, one can demonstrate from history that
this capitalist system did not always exist, but succeeded
the feudal system, which had followed a system of slavery—each of these succeeding systems being better and
more humane than its predecessor.
And we can then easily show that the trusts are
the natural outcome of capitalism and competition and

42

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

cannot be legislated out of existence as long as capitalism
exists.
*
*
*
The immediate effect of the practical acceptance of
these self-evident truths is always wonderful.
Convince men that our country is large enough and
rich enough to give them all an opportunity to work and
earn enough to support their families in comfort, to educate their children properly and to be absolutely secure in
sickness and old age.
Convince men that their present poverty is unnecessary.
Proclaim that capitalism is simply a phase of civilization as feudalism was and Socialism will be—that nothing that is, lasts forever.
Convince them of this and you have them "for good."
Only take care not to have them tie their hopes for the
future to any catastrophe that is to bring the millenium
"at one stroke." Take care not to have them hope for
any Messiah.
It invariably leads to fatalism of one kind or the other
and destroys the incentive for continuous and hard work
at the present time.
Fatalism is always fatal to real progress.
*
*
*
Therefore, Social-Democratic propagandists, do not
weary your hearers with statistics or the definitions of
"surplus value." Do not confuse them by trying to explain all the intricacies of the capitalist system and by
describing the beauties of the co-operative commonwealth.
Teach them that in order to get a better world we shall
have to work for it and fight for it.

DOWN WITH THE SENATE

43

Work and fight are the "Messiahs" of proletarians.
Teach the proletariat that the highest patriotism consists in working and fighting for the new world. And
that to work and to fight for it is the sublime mission of
this generation and possibly also of the next.
Nothing else in this world can compare with this work
in» importance.

Down With the Senate.
WRITTEN IN JANUARY,

1907.

IN the state of Wisconsin we are about to elect a member of the United States Senate, a successor to John C.
Spooner, resigned. It behooves us at this time to look
into the matter of the existence of the United States
Senate—the American House of Lords—the Millionaires'
Club—or the Chamber of Trustocrats—as it is variously
called.
I have nothing to say at this time about the candidates* I will only mention that the main candidate—the
man who significantly enough is put forward by the
reformers, and backed up by Senator Robert M. LaFollette-—is Isaac M. Stephenson, a millionaire, and for
years one of the main corrupters of Wisconsin politics,
therefore very well qualified to take a position in that
august body.
For the United States Senate, the "Upper House" of
our national legislature, was created for the very pur-

44

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

pose of representing the wealth and vested interests of
the country, as Alexander Hamilton put it. And right
from the beginning it was intended to "form a check upon
the will of the people. ,, Therefore its selection was removed from the people as far as possible, and put into
the hands of the respective legislatures.
*
*
*
It is almost unnecessary to show what the United
States Senate was from its beginning, and what it is now.
We all know that it was the stronghold of the slave
barons, compelling the solution of the slavery question by
force of arms. We all know that it is the bulwark of the
railroads and trusts now.
The oil trust, the railway trust, the sugar trust, the
steel trust, and every robber concern preying upon the
common people have their representatives in the Senate.
*
*
*
Under these conditions, and in view of the fact that
the Social-Democratic program stands for the abolition
of the Senate, it is of great interest to see what several
world-famed writers have to say on the origin and the
necessity of a second chamber—an "upper house"—in this
country and elsewhere.
*
*
*
We will begin with the American writer, M. D. Conway.
Mr. Conway has made a careful treatise upon the subject of the United States Senate, and I quote the following from his valuable work :
"It was not at all necessary, when it was determined
that the states should have a distinct representation in the
congress, that they should also have a separate upper

DOWN WITH THE SENATE

45

house. The separation into two houses was accepted
upon the precedent of the British Parliament, and on no
real grounds whatever.
"Of the original states, at the time of the adoption of
the constitution, two had but one legislative chamber
each, and the confederation of 1775 had no more. When
the proposition was made to divide the congress into two
branches, three states, the great state of New York
among them, recorded their votes against it, and the delegation of another, Maryland, was equally divided on the
subject.
"There seems, however, to have been very little discussion of the matter, which was quite overshadowed by the
incomparable urgency of the only question—the relative
power of the states and the general government—which
really was discussed in the convention. The debates were
in secret, and we have but brief notes of them; but a
passage in the minutes, jotted down by one of the members, Chief Justice Yates, of New York, no doubt tells
the whole story.—'May 31, 1787. The third resolve, to
wit: "that the national legislature ought to consist of two
branches," was taken into consideration, and without any
debate agreed t o / To this Judge Yates adds, in brackets:
'N. B.—As a previous resolution had already been agreed
to, to have a supreme legislature, I could not see any
objection to its being in two branches.'
"So lightly was a step taken, which has proved to be
.of momentous consequence to America."
It is a notable fact that, while the founders of the
American constitution were taking up this relic of feudalism and clothing it with formidable power, the English
nation was already preparing the forces which were to

46

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

reduce the House of Lords to the secondary position it
now occupies. And as everybody knows, there is a strong
tendency in England to abolish it altogether.
*
*
*
After reading the statement of the American historian,
it may assist us to consider the following from one of the
ablest of recent writers on the English constitution, Mr.
Bagehot.
Mr. Bagehot, who is a defender of the "upper house"
to some extent, basing his defense upon the vices of the
House of Commons, shows that since the reform act of
1832, when the House of Lords for the last time really
tried conclusions with the House of Commons, and was
compelled to yield, it has not even had a pretension to
being an equal branch of the government. "The House
of Lords has become a revising and suspending house.
It can alter bills; it can reject bills, on which the House
of Commons is not yet thoroughly in earnest, upon which
the nation is not yet determined.
"Their veto is a sort of hypothetical veto.
"The Lords say, 'We reject your bill for this once, or
these twice, or these thrice; but if you keep on sending
it up, at last we won't reject it/ The house has ceased
to be one of latent direction, and has become one of temporary rejectors and palpable alterers/ ,
It is remarkable that it is impossible to find among the
political thinkers in England a defender of the two-house
principle on theoretical and logical grounds.
*
*
*
Having considered the views of the ablest defender of
the continued existence of the House of Lords, let us
turn to those of one of the many distinguished advocates

DOWN WITH THE SENATE

47

of the abolition of that house. I quote from Mr. Goldwin
Smith, the famous Canadian scholar, formerly Professor
of Modern History in the University of Oxford.
Professor Smith writes: "Not by reason or theory
alone, but by overwhelming experience, the House of
Lords stands condemned.
"Who can point out a single great reform, however
urgent, necessary or humanitarian, however signally ratified afterwards by the approbation of posterity, which the
House of Lords has not thrown out, or obstructed, and,
if it could do nothing more, damaged and mutilated to
the utmost of its power?
"To make legislation on any important question possible, it is necessary to get a storm sufficient to terrify
the Peers. Thus, all important legislation is made violent
and revolutionary. And this is your conservative institution/'
*
*
*
The most profound theoretical statement on the subject
comes from Mr. John Stuart Mill, who, in his admirable
"Vindications of the French Revolution of 1848," in reply to Lord Brougham and others, expresses the following opinions:
"The great majority of mankind are, as a general rule,
tenacious of things existing. Habit and custom predominate with them, in almost all cases, over remote prospects of advantage.
"The difficulty is not to prevent considerable changes,
but to accomplish them when most essentially needful.
"Any systematic provision in the constitution to render
changes difficult is therefore superfluous—it is injurious.
"It is true that in the times which accompany, or im-

48

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

mediately follow, a revolution, this tendency of the human
mind may be temporarily reversed—partially, we say, for
people are as tenacious of old customs and ways of thinking, in the crisis of a revolution as at any other time,—
on all points, except those on which they had become
strongly excited by a perception of evils or grievances;
those, in fact, on which the revolution itself hinges.
"On such points, indeed, there may easily arise, at
those periods, an ardor of ill-considered change. And it is
at such times, if ever, that the check afforded by a second
or 'upper house' might be beneficial.
"But these are the times when the resistance of such a
body is practically null. The very arguments used by the
supporters of the institution to make it endurable, assume
that it cannot prolong its resistance in excited times.
"An 'upper house' which, during a revolutionary
period, should resolutely oppose itself to the branch of
the legislature more directly representing the excited
state of popular feeling, would be infallibly swept away.
"It is the destiny of an 'upper house' to become inoperative in the very cases in which its effective operation
would have the best chance of producing less harm than
good."
* *
+
And no doubt John Stuart Mill is right about the
conservation of the great masses. We cannot change by
a legislative act or acts the habits and the mode of thinking produced by generations. The greatest force in existence in the cosmic world, as in the history of nations, is
the force of inertia. This force which holds the globe in
its place also prevents unnecessary revolutions.
If any counter-force is necessary, it should rather be
in favor of motion than of a standstill.

DOWN WITH THE SENATE

49

All that is necessary to give expression to this terrific
counter-revolutionary power of inertia would be to give
the masses the widest chance to speak their will. Give the
people the full referendum, and God knows, progress will
be slow enough. The referendum is the most conservative
political power in existence, as the example of Switzerland proves, where it has been in use for years. And yet
the referendum is infinitely stronger than all senates in
the world, because no democratic power is great enough
to resist it.
#
* *
Why is it then that our plutocracy and our capitalists
are afraid of it ?
Why?
The answer is simple enough.
Because they feel that the present system has outlived
its usefulness and has no more root among the masses of
the people.
But we say: abolish the senate. And for a good substitute and the best possible check upon any whimsical or
hasty legislation, or even crookedness of the legislators,
give us the referendum.
The best cure for democracy invariably is more democracy.
Again I say: "Down with the senate! Up with the
referendum!
II.
I N order to fully understand the origin of the two
chambers, or two houses of our legislative bodies, it
may be interesting to look at the origin of parliament
in England—the first constitutional government in

50

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Europe—and the one after which our government is
largely patterned.
* * *
So far as any clear impression arises from the hazy
annals of the earliest parliamentary government in England, it is that the king called upon the leading noblemen of the realm to become his guests for a time, for
purposes of consultation. There was very little consultation, but very much drinking, eating and hunting. The
king considered it his duty to feast his guests in grand
style. This was the first and only parliament.
To this assembly came groups of petitioners, deputations from the people. These, in order that their humble requests should be presented with some kind of
regularity, had to organize their assemblies. They appointed some mouthpiece or "speaker,"—and this is how
that most silent official of parliament bearing that name
originated.
For it is in this group of deputations that we must
recognize the embryo of the House of Commons. These
petitioners or "commoners," for a time, sat in the presence of the parliament of peers, until the latter thought
it beneath their dignity to sit beside those of the common herd.
The separation probably occurred at the time when
the "commoners" ceased to be a mere crowd of petitioners to their lordships, and showed signs of becoming
some little factor in the government.
The House of Peers represented the supremacy of
the aristocratic and clerical classes, of which the crown
was the head.

DOWN WITH THE SENATE

51

The Commons represented the degree to which the
people had managed to extort the first point, recognition
of their existence, and also the recognition of the simplest rights implied in that existence.
* * *
A recognition of their existence—that is all the commons had for a long time.
And the lords?
* * *
For three centuries, dating from the Tudor period,
the House of Lords was the most powerful branch of
the legislature. For a century, at least, it had, through
its nominees and dependents, the virtual control of the
other branch. Yet the lords did nothing but—digest.
During the whole of that period, pressing subjects for
legislation abounded, not only in the direction of political
reform, but in all directions—legal, ecclesiastical, educational, sanitary, and economical. Yet, in all those centuries, who can point out a single great measure of national improvement which really emanated from the
House of Lords ?
Not one.
* * *
On the other hand, the House of Lords resisted progress of any and all kinds as a matter of course, even
in the Nineteenth century.
As a matter of course, the House of Lords upheld the
rotten boroughs and resisted the reform bill, till it was
overcome by the threat of a swamping creation of peers,
having first, in its wisdom, brought the nation to the
verge of a civil war.
As a matter of course, it resisted the progress of re-

52

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

ligious liberty, because the privileged church was an
outwork of the privileged class.
As a matter of course, it resisted the extension of
habeas corpus and of personal liberty.
As a matter of course, it resisted the removal of restraints on the press.
As a matter of course, it resisted introduction of the
ballot.
Yet that was all natural enough because these were
measures and movements which threatened political privilege.
* * *
But the House of Lords has also resisted common
measures of humanity, such as the abolition of the slave
trade and the reform of criminal law. Romilly's petty
theft bill, which stopped hanging as a punishment for
stealing over six shillings, was thrown out by the lords;
and among the thirty-two who voted in the majority on
this occasion, were seven bishops. On all subjects about
which popular opinion was not strongly excited, including many of the greatest importance to national progress,
reformers in England have abstained from moving, because they despaired of overcoming the resistance of
the House of Lords. And that will not change until the
Social-Democrats become a powerful factor in English
government.
* * *
That is the history of the House of Lords in England.
The history of the United States Senate, if anything,
is worse. The hereditary legislator in England is, no
doubt, a thoroughly class-conscious exploiter. But noblesse oblige—they were not common grafters—at least

DOWN WITH THE SENATE

53

not as a rule. But the class legislator in our Senate is
not only a class exploiter—or the attorney and representative of a robber concern—but, as a rule, a grafter
besides.
There are a very few1 honest men in the Senate. And
even those are very soon thoroughly spoiled by the makeup, by the history, and by the very atmosphere of that
"august body."
If any one doubts this statement, let him read what
any thoughtful writer has said about the United States
Senate. Let him read the brilliant series of articles on
"The Treason of the Senate," by that earnest and apostolic man, David Graham Phillips.
*

*

*

It is said there must be in a federal government some
institution, some authority, somebody possessing a veto,
in which the separate states composing the confederation are all equal. I confess this doctrine has to me
no self-evidence. The state of Delaware is not equal
in power or influence to the state of New York, and one
cannot make it so by giving it an equal veto in the Senate.
The other argument—the necessity of a counterpoise or
counterbalance, or of a check against bad legislation—
looks a little better. But if one considers it closer, it is
even worse. Most good legislation is always opposed
in the "upper house"—most of the bad legislation always originated there.
* * *
If there is any correction to be done in a democracy—
then let democracy do it. If there is a corrective needed,
let democracy provide for it.

54

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Again I say: abolish the Senate. And for a good
substitute and best possible check upon any whimsical
or hasty legislation, or even crookedness of the legislators, give us the referendum. The referendum in any
country is stronger than all the houses of lords and senates in the world.
The best cure for any .evils arising from democracy
is—more democracy.

An Outworn Garment.
WRITTEN IN J U N E ,

1907.

ARISTOTLE, the great Greek philosopher, in his famous
work on politics, described the constitutions of all the
different states known to him. And he said that the
state existed longest and prospered most which was readiest to change its constitution and adapt it to changed conditions.
This rule holds good today. It holds good for the
United States, and for the state o.f Wisconsin.

Our last constitution was adopted in 1848. At that
time, Wisconsin was virtually a frontier state. The greatest part of it was covered with one vast primeval forest.
The largest city, Milwaukee, had about 30,000 inhabitants. There were only a few towns which had a population of from two to five thousand.

A N OUTWORN

GARMENT

55

Manufacturing in the United States was then in its
childhood, and there was hardly any manufacturing done
in a border state like Wisconsin. Corporations in the
present sense were not known.
In those days a corporation meant a city or a township.
There were no railroads, no telegraphs, no telephones, and
of course, no street cars. Public schools were few and
far between. A man who could read and "reckon" was
looked up to as a wizard in very many country places.
Capitalism in its present form and development was not
even dreamt of.
The constitution adopted at that time, of course, was
made to suit those conditions. It was made to express
the needs of a frontier state. It reflected the political,
social and economic conditions of the day.
*

*

*

What a great difference between the Wisconsin of 1907
and the Wisconsin of the Black Hawk war! Today Wisconsin is the seventh state in the Union as far as manufacturing is concerned. The total output of manufactured
products was $360,818,942 in 1900.
In 1848 we had no proletariat in the present sense.
Entirely new classes have come into existence since that
time. In 1848 any man with a strong pair of arms and
moderately good habits could not only make his living
comfortably, but also lay the foundation for a prosperous
second generation by simply sticking to the land. Today
we have not only an economically powerful class of capitalists, but also a very numerous proletariat which to all
ends and purposes has become a fixed class.
We have tremendous aggregations of capital, big railroad companies, public service corporations, and greedy

56

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

and grasping corporations of all kinds. Their oppressive
power is felt by the last pioneer farmer in the northern
part of the state.
In 1848 the only evil influence which the people seemed
to fear was the issuing of wild-cat money by the banks.
And the people took especial pains to provide against this
in their constitution. Today there is no wild-cat money.
The bank money is good enough if we can get hold of
it. But the banks themselves have become simply the
handmaids of the big corporations and trusts.
The economic conditions have changed absolutely.
* * *
Now, if we were influenced only by party motives, we
should simply say, "Keep your old constitution. Under
the present constitution, our legislature cannot make
good laws. All good laws, such as are made to fit changed
conditions, are necessarily unconstitutional. And if no
laws are made to alleviate the hardships of the people,
the people will, of necessity, become revolutionary and
Social-Democratic."
So, from a Socialistic party standpoint, the present
constitution would be just the very thing we should want.
But this is not the way we reason. We have so much
confidence in the righteousness of our cause and the inevitableness of Socialism, that we know that even the
strongest constitution cannot stop our progress in the
end. On the other hand, a good and timely constitution
will do away with a great deal of avoidable friction. It
will make sane and constructive progress possible.
Jj«

*

*

I will just mention a few details of our constitution as
they happen to come to my mind.

AN OUTWORN GARMENT

57

There is, for instance, the item of compensation for
the state school superintendent. That was fixed in 1848
at $1,200 a year and was sufficient for that time. But the
state school superintendent still gets only $1,200, although
the salary of the superintendent of the Milwaukee public
schools is $6,000 annually. In order to get a state school
superintendent who is in any way competent for the position, resort is made to a form of graft. The superintendent is given a number of clerkships, which he does not
fill, but draws the salaries. Now, if this should be done in
any other position, it might be considered a criminal
offense. Yet that is the only way that the office of state
school superintendent can be upheld.
* * *
Another important point is the way the corporations
are treated. In our constitution, only the cities and townships are mentioned as corporations. Virtually, the Milwaukee street railway company and the city of Milwaukee are on the same level, as far as the constitution is
concerned, although one represents men and the other
represents only dollars.
The power of cities is exceedingly limited. Milwaukee,
for instance, a city of 350,000 inhabitants, has no home
rule whatsoever. Even in small matters, it is absolutely
governed by the legislature. Now these legislators may
be well-meaning men, but they are men from up state
who know little or nothing about the vital needs of a
large city like Milwaukee. In 1848, that was all well
enoughs There were then no large cities in Wisconsin
and the conditions were very much the same in all parts
of the state. Today this arrangement is obsolete and
dangerous, and is the cause of a great deal of hardship
and even of graft.

58

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Another point. The state cannot be a party to any
interior improvement under our present constitution. So
the great state of Wisconsin has not the power to build
a little wagon road two miles long. Its own constitution
forbids that.
*

*

*

Amendments to the constitution are very cumbersome.
They have first to pass through two consecutive legislatures, which in itself is very difficult, on account of
certain vested interests which like to fish in the muddled
waters of our constitution. Then each amendment must
be signed by the governor, and afterwards voted upon by
the people, before it is adopted.
And, at best, such amendments can be only patch-work.
The constitution was made for a state in its childhood.
This same state has since come to maturity. The constitution is simply a cloak for our body politic. To compel us to live under our present constitution is very much
like compelling a grown person to wear baby clothes.
*

*

*

But it has been said by some ultra-conservative people
who hate everything that looks like a change, that the
lawyers and the courts understand this constitution and
know how to interpret the laws accordingly. They would
first have to learn a new constitution, and this would
make trouble.
Now, in the first place, the constitution is not made for
the lawyers and for the courts, but ought to be made for
the people.
We all know that every law is interpreted in three
or four different ways, according to the personal likes
and prejudices of the lawyers and the courts. Even the

AN OUTWORN GARMENT

59

decisions of the Supreme courts have been fearfully inconsistent. A tremendous amount of injustice and barbarism is rampant, on account of our antiquated constitution.
* * *
I repeat that the constitution of Wisconsin was all well
enough in 1848 and for its day and its conditions. So
were the constitutions of Crete, of Carthage, and of
Sparta, in their time. Aristotle mentions them as model
constitutions. But would we want to apply them to Wisconsin ?
And are we to be tied to an antiquated document for
the sole reason that some vested interests worship it as a
fetich, because there is no efficient way to curb them
under this constitution? Because, when the constitution
was framed, their existence was not foreseen?
Are we to live forever under a constitution which
makes provision against duelling, but none against trusts ?
This is one of the questions that our present legislature
has failed to answer.

60

BERGER'S

BROADSIDES

Do We Worship a Fetich?
WRITTEN IN J U N E ,

1908.

The Evening Wisconsin, Milwaukee, says editorially:
Here is a plank from the National Socialist platform, as
published in Victor Berger's SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC
HERALD:
The absolute freedom of press, speech and assemblage, as guaranteed
by the Constitution.

A respectful reference to the Constitution of the United
States in an official utterance of the Socialists is so unusual
that it may be deemed worthy of especial attention. But
here are some of the other planks of the same National
Socialist platform. They are taken from the section labeled
"Political Demands:"
The abolition of the Senate.
The abolition of the veto power of the president.
The abolition of the power usurped by the Supreme Court of the
United States to pass upon legislation enacted by Congress as to its
constitutionality. National laws passed by Congress to be repealed or
abrogated only by act of Congress or by a referendum of the whole
people.

Thus it appears that the respectful reference to the Constitution is not to be taken seriously—that the Socialist party
is against the enforcement of the Constitution — against
American institutions. This attitude of hostility to the Constitution is exhibited in another of the shorter planks of the
National Socialist platform:
That the Constitution be amendable by majority vote.

But this plank is a mere redundancy. What would be the
need of going to the trouble of amending the Constitution

DO WE WORSHIP A FETICH

61

if unconstitutional legislation by Congress could not be challenged and appealed from the legislative to the judicial
branch of the government and declared null and void by the
Supreme Court?
The Socialist platform is a wild, visionary, revolutionary
farrago, unpatriotic to the core, at war with American traditions, principles and instincts—a political crazy-quilt.
It will fail to command the support of a great many voters
who in local elections have cast their ballots for the candidates of the Social-Democratic party.
(Evening Wisconsin.)
AT the time of its adoption no one considered the constitution of the United States anything but a miserable
piece of patchwork—a stupid imitation of the English
constitution—which had to be amended a dozen times before it could be adopted by the thirteen original states.
It really satisfied nobody.
However, by and by it dawned upon the Southern
slave barons that they could hide behind this constitution
to defend black slavery. They iwere right about that,
and it took a terriflic war to patch up and amend once
more what had been poor patch-work to begin with.
* * *
After the war the growing capitalist class, which for
a while had been very much dissatisfied with the constitution, found out that, just because the constitution
was antiquated and" unsatisfactory, the capitalists
could make the same use of it for their own ends as did
the slave barons for theirs. So the constitution became
a blessed and holy document once more. It was again,
in the seventies and eighties, the fetich of every lawyer
and every school teacher. Only it was then the Northern
fetich. The fervor of the South had been rather chilled
by the "niggers' amendments," as the result of the war.

62

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

However, the South has found a way to get around
these amendments. * And the unthinking of the North
•
and the South unite in doing reverence to a poor makeshift which tried to combine the constitutional ideas of
Montesquieu with the archaic conception of an executive with despotic powers, as borrowed by Hamilton from
the English constitution.
But the intelligent men of all classes during the last 20
years have become convinced that our constitution must
be changed. Not only the proletariat and the middle class
demand this, but even the plutocrats admit it. Only
men who, Rip Van Winkle-like, have slumbered in a
sleepy hollow on the corner of Michigan and Milwaukee
streets, seem to know nothing about this necessity.
*

*

*

No doubt there were many leading men at the close
of the American Revolution who were in favor of adopting the British constitution, as they understood it. Only
this being a republic, they were very much more afraid
of the people, of the mob, than they would have been in
a monarchy. They admitted that. Therefore they wanted
a strong executive, "one that could dare to execute his
powers"—as Hamilton stated it.
That is how we got our kind of a president for the
United States. That is also the reason why we have the
Senate—"to represent the wealthy and the better class
of our land."
And that is the reason why we have the "additional
check" by the courts.
Everybody was not satisfied with this.
Thomas Jefferson, of course, was not.

DO WE WORSHIP A FETICH

63

But even at a much later day Henry Clay compared
our presidency to "an elective monarchy—the worst form
of old governments/'
And he was right, inasmuch as with the exception of
the Czar of Russia, there is not a monarch in the world
who has as much power as the President of the United
States. He is not only the chief executive, but also a
part of the law-making machine—and what part! He
counts as much as two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate-combined. No wonder that
even Daniel Webster once said, "The contest for ages
has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive
power. The President carries on the government; all
the rest are only sub-contractors. A Briareus sits in the
center of our system, and with his hundred hands touches
everything, moves everything, controls everything. I ask,
is this republicanism ? Is this a government of laws ?"
* * *
And it is almost unnecessary to show what the United
States Senate was from its beginning, and what it is
now.
However, even the Senate is not "in it" as an obstacle
to progress and justice when compared with the position
our judiciary occupies as an illegitimate part of our lawmaking body—and in telling the people what they may
want and what they may not.
And this monstrous guardianship of the judiciary over
the people, dictating to them what is law and what is
not, is purely an American institution.
No other nation in the world has it. No other nation
in the world would stand for it.

64

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

The British constitution, of which ours is otherwise a
faithful copy, knows nothing like it. The germ of the
disease was put into our constitution by the conservatives of the type of Alexander Hamilton and had the
warm support of all the ex-Royalists—but the disease
was developed by the shrewd manipulations of some
supreme justice?.
The Hamilton clique had created the Senate to take
the place of the House of Lords. Yet it was still afraid
of the common people. It wanted something in the
place of the king. And, mind you, not the constitutional
King of England either. They wanted the absolute
king of the Fifteenth or Sixteenth centuries, and they got
him. He is our American judge.
And this King Judge and his retinue of lawyers is now
the distinguishing mark between the American people
and all others on earth. And perhaps the most dangerous judge to the rights of the people is the Federal judge.
Federal judges are appointed by the President of the
United States upon the recommendation of our prominent business men, that is upon the recommendation of
our railroad presidents and millionaire manufacturers.
The federal judge almost invariably is a corporation
lawyer. He is appointed for life—and his very environment makes him part and parcel of the American plutocracy.
The Federal judge nowadays looks down upon the
state judiciary very much in the same way as the regular army looks down upon the militia.
Every federal judge nowadays is an enemy of our
democratic institutions and an adversary of the common
people. Every federal judge becomes a regular fiend

DO W E W O R S H I P A

FETICH

65

when he has to decide questions regarding the rights of
the laboring class.
The federal judiciary of the United States is the last
resort of the corporations, railroads and all kinds of plutocratic evil-doers in their straits. There they can get
help and comfort when the legislators, whom they usually own, become frightened at the anger of the people.
There they can get "injunctions" galore, or judge-made
law to suit every occasion.
*

*

*

This constitution has never been changed except by
bloody war.
It takes a two-thirds majority of Congress, and in addition thereto a majority of three-fourths of the legislatures of all the states, to change it. And that can never
be gotten. As it stands now, the constitution can only be
changed by revolutions and a sea of blood.
We Socialists want a constitution that can be amended
by a majority vote of all the people. The American government is a democracy—at least it pretends to be one.
The people ought to rule.
And every law passed by our representatives ought to
hold good unless repealed by our law-givers, or rejected
by a majority of the people.
Is this idea of majority rule—"a wild, visionary, revolutionary farrago, unpatriotic to the core, at war with
American traditions, principles and instincts ?"
However, the capitalists make the fatal mistake of their
very existence when they trust to judges and senates to
check the will of an enraged people.
An "upper house ,, which, during a revolutionary period,
should resolutely oppose itself to the branch gf the legis-

66

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

lature more directly representing the excited state of
popular feeling would be infallibly swept away. And
consult any history as to what became of the kings and
judges in either the English or the French revolutions.
As to the "judges," they simply cease to exist at the
very first outbreak.
II.
At the time of its adoption no one considered the constitution of the
United States anything but a miserable piece of patchwork—a stupid
imitation of the English constitution— which had to be amended a dozen
times before it could be adopted by the thirteen original states. It really
satisfied nobody.—(Victor Berger in Social-Democratic Herald.)

The same miserable piece of patchwork, which satisfied
nobody, was nevertheless adopted by the thirteen original
states before it was amended at all; and it has stood the test
of 120 years so well as to prove that if it is a stupid imitation of the English constitution, it is an imitation of a very
good thing. And how does Mr. Berger know that the United
States constitution is an imitation—stupid or otherwise—of
the English constitution? Has he ever read the English constitution, and can he tell where a copy of it—another copy
than his—may be found?
(Milwaukee Free Press.)
EVERYBODY who knows anything about the constitutions of different countries, knows that England is a
constitutional monarchy, and has a constitution. And he
also knows that the English constitution is not a written
constitution like the French, German, Swiss, etc., but an
unwritten constitution based upon the growth of the English institutions since the Magna Charta. And if the editorial writer of the Free Press does not know this, he has
no right to write about these things.
However, all this worship of the constitution is at par
>vith the fetich worship of our ancestors 10,000 years

DO W E W O R S H I P A

FETICH

67

ago. At that time they worshipped fetiches of wood and
stone, and now they worship a paper fetich. But what is
the difference? A fetich is a fetich.
* * *
A constitution is simply the cloak for our body politic.
A garment that may have fitted us well in 1788, when
this nation was in its swaddling clothes, cannot possibly
fit us today. We do not revere Cotton Mather's book on
witchcraft, which was considered the greatest book of
his time by his contemporaries. Now why should we
worship a document which was patched together 120 years
ago by a lot of gentlemen wearing knee pants and—
knowing nothing about railroads, telegraphs, corporations
and trusts ?
The editorial writer of the Free Press would not want
his son to wear the clothes he wore when he was a baby.
I do not believe his son would look very well in them.
The editorial writer of the Free Press would not want
the Free Press to use the antiquated facilities which Benjamin Franklin used. I do not believe that with these
the Free Press could very well compete with the Sentinel.
But why should our country be compelled to suffer under
the anomalies, inequalities and shortcomings of a document which even 120 years ago was only passed after
wire pulling of all kinds—a document which even 120
years ago satisfied nobody—why?
* * *
But, says the Milwaukee Free Press, the constitution
has "stood the test of 120 years so well as to prove that
if it is a stupid imitation of the English constitution, it
is an imitation of a very good thing."
It was not on account of the constitution that this
country has flourished. It was simply on account of our

68

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

colonial conditions, our virgin soil and apparently inexhaustible resources. Our people practically tried to use
up in a few generations the resources that nature had
stored up in many thousands or, in some instances, many
millions of years—to use them all up, if possible, in ioo
or 150 years. This was the richest country on the face
of the globe, that is why we prospered and probably
would have prospered even more if we had had no constitution at all. Whenever and wherever this constitution was subjected to any test, as for instance in i860",
then this constitution did not stand the test.
Under present conditions the American people are as
absolutely prevented from exercising their full political
power as the people of Russia or of China.
Everybody except a few moss-backs, of the type of the
editorial writer of the Free Press, admits that our federal
constitution is exceedingly clumsy and defective, yet it
practically cannot be amended except by a revolution and
by force of arms.
So great are the difficulties of amendment that in effect they are insurmountable. I believe that we could
just as soon overthrow the entire government and the
capitalist system as amend this miserable constitution.
*

*

*

However, this also is to admit that we are bound by a
most stupid fetich, and by old chains, which were put
around us 120 years ago. It means practically an admission that the American people have not free institutions,
are not a free people, and that they declare themselves
unfit for a republican form of government. And this
should be so stated by all those who defend the present
constitution.

69

WORDS OF T H E S A I N T S

Words of the Saints,
WRITTEN IN OCTOBER,

1906.

T H E Catholics recently held their annual convention in
Buffalo, N. Y. The Socialists, as usual, were bitterly
attacked.
Several speakers again declared that the Socialists were
on a level zvith thieves because they do not .recognize the
present "legal" property system.
Other speakers, for instance Archbishop Messmer, acknowledged that Socialism contained "much that is good."
But Messmer fiercely assailed the plank in the SocialDemocratic platform that "religion is a matter of private
concern/' This our friend Messmer pronounced godless and wicked, and therefore every Catholic should
fight Socialism.
* * *
And before we go any further I want to state again
that this fight with the Roman Catholic church is disagreeable to us, because it brings the element of religion into a purely economical and political matter. I
am free to say that we would rather run away from this
fight if we could. But we cannot, the "holy" church
would not let us. So "willy nilly" we must defend ourselves against the "dear old priests."

70

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Archbishop Messmer's argument is not hard to answer,
because we do not yet have any state church in America.
We willingly believe that our archbishop and other
priests of his type wish that the Roman Catholic church
in America was made the state church. He also hopes
that this will be done some day with the help of the big
capitalists who, whether Protestant, Jewish, or heathen,
see in the Roman Catholic church their last bulwark. And
we also know that the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Goulds,
etc., would go right over to the Roman Catholic church
if such a re-enforcement of that church were necessary
for the preservation of the present system. Even now
they are munificent towards the church.
Yet a state church will never exist in America. To
begin with, its establishment would require one of the
most terrible civil wars the world has ever known. True,
the church has started such wars before. But the fact
is, even if the Roman Catholic church allied with the
capitalists should conquer once, and even if it should conquer ten times, it could never maintain its rule in the
long run.
It has just lost its rule once more in France.
Therefore I should advise our friend Messmer that
it would be better for the Roman Catholic church to
adopt the Social-Democratic principle, "Religion is a
private affair." This maxim is generally accepted in
America. And yet the "only holy church" is doing a fine
business here. Just consider its growth during the last
twenty years.
Furthermore I should advise our friend Messmer
not to accept annual passes—we mean annual passes, not
clergyman's half fares—from so many railroads. It

WORDS OF THE SAINTS

71

looks bad when the archbishop has to shuffle them like a
pack of cards before he finds the particular pasteboard
that gives him a free ride to Chicago. The archbishop
is getting money enough to live like a grand duke—he
smokes the best cigars and drinks the most expensive
liquors—and he ought to be able to pay his fares. Some
unbelievers and heretics might be inclined to consider
the "annual pass" as one of the connecting links between
the hierarchy and the railroad magnates.
So much for our friend Messmer.
* * *
But to the other brothers in Christ who reproach the
Socialists with being on a "level with thieves" because
they regard the present property system as unjust, antisocial and the source of social disorder, I will say this.
Not we, but the capitalists and their defendersstand
on a "level with thieves." Capitalist ownership is continuous graft and alienation. The working people have
produced all the wealth, the capitalists have simply confiscated it and are confiscating it every day.
Of course this continuous graft and "alienation" is
now legal and passes for ownership.
The present laws are made just by the ruling class,
and in their interest. They represent might and not right
And as soon as this sort of thing has gone a little toq
far for the people to endure, they will surely proceed to
restitution.
Our opponents, the capitalists, may call this "expropriation." But we do not care what they call it as long
as it is done. And expropriation also sounds well to us.
Just here I wish to explain that the advocates of the
new order of society will use the extreme application of

72

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

their principles—that is, the expropriation of the capitalist class—for the general use, for collective ownership
and not to put other men personally in possession of land,
machines and other means of production.
*

* *
By the way, in former centuries, the holy church often
undertook such expropriation of heretics or those who
did not follow its blessed doctrines. And this was done
for the private use of lords, bishops, cloisters, etc. And
usually they took away the children also, after the parents had been killed or driven away.
And the pious in the land always regarded such "expropriations" as godly acts and sang "Te deums" and
other praises to God in the Roman Catholic churches.
Later on, of course, when in the Reformation period
the Protestants played the same game against the bishops
and cloisters, the church did curse it as outright robbery.
But then the Protestant preachers on their side thought
the deed was good. And they praised God for it and
gave thanks.
So the Lord, at least, was praised any way.
* * *
In other words, the thing was always legal, when it
was done by the strongest party, And we hereby solemnly promise not to undertake any expropriation until
we have the power.
And we will take only "means of production" and we
will harm nobody.
And after it is done, those of us who are pious will,
no doubt, thank God for it. And the Lord, at least,
will be praised any way.

WORDS OF THE SAINTS

73

Moreover, we do not have to rummage the history of
former times for example and precedents. Even today
expropriations are made by the federal, state and city
governments, when for any reason they are considered
necessary.
In later issues we may take occasion to return to this
subject.
But today, for the profit and edification of the brothers
in Christ who cursed us in Buffalo, we wish to cite the
opinions of the saints on the expropriation question.
*

*

>fc

St. Luke writes of the Christian community at Jerusalem, "And the multitude of them that believed were
of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them
that aught of the things which he possessed was his own;
but they had all things in common.—Neither was there
any among them that lacked, for as many as were possessors of lands or. houses sold them, and brought the
price of the things that were sold, and laid them down
at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made unto
every man according as he had need."—(Acts. IV, 3235-)
Now that is clear communism.
Indeed, it was the logical application of the command,
"Go sell all that thou hast and give to the poor."
If the communists are in need of a patron saint, they
ought to take St. Luke.
The fathers of the church, St. Chrysostom, St. Hieronymus, St. Basil, St. Gregory, St. Clement and St. Ambrose express themselves with equal clearness.
"It is not without reason," says Hieronymus, "that the
gospel calls earthly riches 'unrighteous mammon/ since

74

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

they have their source in injustice, for one cannot possess them except through the ruin of others. It is even
a common saying that they who possess them are rich
only through their own injustice or the injustice of those
whose heirs they are."—(Works of St. Hieronymus, published by Malongues, Paris, 1678.)
St. Chrysostom denounces the grain usurers.
"The land lay dry, parched by the sun, the fruits could
not grow, famine threatened. Suddenly black clouds
rolled up, it rained, deliverance came, every one rejoiced
—except one rich man. When he was asked the reason,
he said: 'I had stored up ten thousand bushels of wheat,
and now I do not know what to do with it/
"Does he not deserve to be quartered as an enemy of
the community?" asked St. Chrysostom.
St. Chrysostom must have received the anarchist John
Most with open arms, when he got to heaven.
* * *
And the good saint is no less radical where he speaks
of property in general:
"For one to use his property only for himself is to rob
the poor of it, that is, to play the robber with the property
of another, and subject himself to all the penalties which
threaten him who steals. What thou mavest keep for
thyself is that which is really necessary, the rest belongs
to the poor. It is his property and not thine."—(St.
Chrysostom, Bibliothek der Kirchenvaeter, Vol. 19, pages
27, 35> 40, 51 and 52.)
St. Gregory says, "The earth is the common property
of all men; it is vain for those to think themselves innocent who appropriate to themselves alone the wealth
which God gave to all men in common. When they do

WOfcDS OF THE SAINTS

75

not share with others what they have received they become man-slayers." ("Des Soins et des Devoirs des Pasteurs," XXI, pages 303 and 504, Lyons, 1682.)
Pope Basil the Great proclaimed these truths.
"Art thou not a thief, thou who appropriatest to thyself that which thou hast only received in order to distribute it? If he is called a thief who takes one piece of
clothing, can any other name be given to him who, seeing before him a naked man, can clothe him, and yet
leaves him naked? The rich have just got into their possession the communal wealth, and make of it private
property.'' (Sur TAvarice, by Victor Meunier, page 23.)
No Socialist could speak with more fervor.
* * *
St. Clement makes communism or communistic ownership an article of faith when he says:
"The communal life is a duty for all men. It is injustice which permits one man to say, 'This is mine/ another, 'This belongs to me.' From this has come inequality among men."
Now that is a good deal more than any Social-Democrat ever asked.
In conclusion, also hear the father of the church, St.
Ambrose.
"God created all things to let every one enjoy them and
to make the earth the property of all. Nature originated
communist right, and it is force which has produced the
rights of property. Since the earth was given to all in
common, no one can call himself the owner of what exceeds his natural needs; what is over and above this, he
has alienated from society." ( S t Ambrose, Sermon 64 on
Luke, Chap. 16.)

76

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Well, this is a small selection from the writings of
men who lived in ages when the "rights of property"
had not by far such ruinous consequences for the masses
of the people as in this century of "culture and civilization."
And I ask our friend Messmer, who has studied
church history, and knows his saints as well as I do,
whether I have not quoted them correctly?
Let him show me one single misquotation, and I will
buy a five-pound candle at Candlernas for the Capuchin
church, to be lit before the statue of the saint that I
have misquoted.
And of this be sure, dear Christians—these saints, if
they were living today, would be Socialists.

FREEDOM HAS FLED

77

Freedom Has Fled!
WRITTEN JULY 2,

1904.

W E AGAIN celebrate the Fourth of July and the
establishment of this Republic.
It is obvious that if the fathers of this republic had
any special object in throwing off the old form of government, it could be no other than the advancement of
the general interests in opposition to the interests of the
king and of the privileged classes, which were paramount
under former governments. But casting aside the highsounding phraseology of declarations and proclamations,
which characterized those days, and considering only the
results as they stand before us, what shall we say of the
fathers of this republic ? What shall we say of the inconsistencies which pervade their proclamations and render
them void in some of their most material points concerning the rights of the people? Thus, after declaring that
all men are born equal and continue equal in rights,
they gravely affirmed that property (which all men have
not) is an inviolable and sacred right, of which no one
can be deprived!
Where is the equality?
One man is born in poverty, with all that poverty implies ; another is born in affluence, with all the advantages
affluence brings. One has before him a future of. hard

78

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

labor simply to maintain existence, the other is destined
to inherit all that is most desirable in life. One owns
princely estates, the other has hardly a roof over his
head; yet both are said to be born and to continue equal
in rights!
Where is the equality?
They claim that there are no social distinctions, no
classes in America. What nonsense! Has there ever
existed a greater social distinction than exists between
the millionaire and common proletarian in America at
the present time? Is there in any country a more pronounced difference between the employing class and the
working class than in these United States? Is there a
ruling class on God's world more arrogant than the
capitalist class of America? Is there a working people
on earth more down-trodden than the workingmen of
Colorado ?
* * *
But to come back to the celebration of the establishment of this Republic. We ask again, where, as far as
actual effects go, is the much talked of superiority of the
republican over the monarchical system? Is it that the civil
list of the president is small compared with that of an
emperor? What, beyond a moral lesson, is taught by
curtailing the expenditures of one individual? He is
denied a royal revenue and the splendors of a court, yet
his power is greater than that of most modern sovereigns.
Do we actually have a ResPublica? In what respect?
Titles, which in themselves are harmless, were abolished;
but the privileges of excessive wealth, which are a public
danger, are maintained. The spirit of 1776 overthrew

FREEDOM HAS FLED

79

the Monarchy as the oppressor and proclaimed the Republic as the benefactor; yet one looks in vain through
English history for an example of the American spirit
of 1904 as it manifests itself in Colorado today. This
democratic Republic shelters a host of proud trustoerats,
who, conscious of their power, use the troops of the state
to lord it over the land regardless of any laws that may
exist.
This people-loving government serves a class of favored plutocrats who enjoy more than princely incomes and
whenever they so choose, indulge in more than princely
excesses on the poor and defenseless multitude. This
wonderful republic suffers our money kings to form
combinations and trusts whereby they are enabled to
exercise the sovereign right of levying on the governed,
and to tax them in all kinds of ways, for the personal
support and aggrandizement of the kings, without any
parliament or representation. Wander through monarchies and empires the world over, Russia and China probably excepted, and nowhere will you find conditions that
are as bad. The seed of democracy was planted in 1776,
but up to the present day it has not borne any fruit.
Our friends in the old country are beginning to see the
conditions in America in their true light and we are the
objects of their commiseration and of their—contempt.
The German Social-Democratic papers devote considerable space to comments on the treatment by the
American authorities of union miners in the Cripple
Creek district, and although the Social-Democrats are
the sworn enemies of the monarchy and even of the

80

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Kaiser, the German government comes in for a certain
amount of praise in this connection.
In a leading article commenting on the persecution of
the union miners, the Berlin Vorwaerts says editorially:
"By those who were wont to consider the great republic
on the other side of the Atlantic a haven of refuge for the
down-trodden classes, the course of political events in America is greatly regretted.
"Daily it becomes more and more evident that the United
States is no longer a democratic republic, but a mighty world
power governed by an oligarchy of plutocrats.
"In Colorado the so-called higher classes—that is to say,
the millionaire mine owners and their followers—are daily
violating the laws of the state to annihilate workingmen,
whose only crime is that they have formed unions for their
own protection, unions which are perfectly legal under the
existing laws of the sate.
"Workingmen have been corralled into pens as if they
were wild beasts, and, not having a place to banish these
unfortunate people to, they have been deported into a neighboring state, Kansas. One wonders what the next stage of
the military tyrant will be.
"We Socialists in Germany have been subject to much
oppression, and there is little doubt that the late Prince Bismarck, in his palmy days, would have liked to have treated
German workingmen in the same manner, but with hundreds
of thousands of bayonets behind him he did not dare to
do this.
"Nobody will think of accusing our present German government of loving the Social-Democrats or the labor unions
over much, but it knows that should it ever try to treat
German subjects as citizens of Colorado are being treated
today, the flames of revolution would spread over the country like wildfire.
"The kaiser is at least fighting us fairly. The monarchical
government under which we live would never think of vio-

FREEDOM H A S

FLED

81

lating the law to crush the laboring classes, and the labor
bureau in Berlin has even in some respects done good work
for the workingmen, but not so in the 'land of the free and
the home of the brave.'
"One might be tempted to say that the American laboring
men deserve what they get, when their votes give them
power to shake off their yoke at any time.
"Surely, no other people would have as much patience as
the American, but that patience has ceased to be a virtue."

*

*

*

Our brother organ in Germany is right: Patience has
ceased to be a virtue. But the American workmen have
long ceased to claim any virtues. And as to the comparison between the government of Germany and the
government of the United States—of course the Kaiser
is their mortal enemy, but he is at least a brave man;
while our ruling money-bags are shabby and cowardly
hucksters and their governors are corrupt "lawyers" and
thieves whom they buy and use at pleasure. And the
Kaiser—the great war lord of Europe—is fighting the
Socialists and the emancipation of the working class
fairly and in the open. He obeys the laws. There were
two thousand Socialist votes cast in Colorado, there were
over three million Socialist votes cast in Germany. But
the German emperor did not suspend the constitution
like Peabody, the corporation attorney and lick-spittle of
the mine owners in Colorado. There is a possibility of a
peaceful solution of the social question in Germany.
There is none here, although no doubt the orators of this
Fourth of July will favor us as usual with glowing
accounts of the grandeur of the government under which
we live.
But we will say this: In the ancient city of hanging
gardens, Belshazzar, indulging in high revelry, sur-

82

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

rounded by satraps, wives, and concubines, was not blind
to the writing on the wall. Struck with awe, he commanded the feast to end; he sent for men of lore, to
interpret the mystic words. In America today, mammon
attended by slaves of form divine, is still feasting in
gilded halls. Drunk with pleasure, dazed by the glamour
of his environment, he sees not the writing on the wall.
Yet there it is in flaming letters.
Mene, mene tekel, upharsin—In America we shall soon
have great bodies of men who are but one remove from
the last desperate strait. They are patient, very patient—
we see how they take the situation in Colorado—in fact,
they are more patient than the Chinese who rose as
"Boxers." They are about as patient as the Russians.
But the present industrial system has massed them in the
centres of population. Machinery, trusts and other new
methods are constantly increasing the proportion of the
unemployed among them. Manufacturers' associations and
other combines are constantly at work to reduce their
wages and to break down their organizations. The Peabodys, the Bells, the Mine Owners' Associations, the Citizens' Alliances are constantly showing than that "law
and order" are humbugs, and that constitutions, courts,
etc., are simply snares to oppress the non-resistants. They
are patient, very patient, but men in great numbers
always retain one element of brute force. Like animals
when driven into a corner, even the patient American
workmen will fight. With the blood of the capitalist
class will they write a new declaration of independence
—write the sentence that "All men are born equal," in
bloody Red. Those who can see—see the signs; those
who can hear—hear the voices, by day or by night. And

FOR WHOM IS THERE FREEDOM

83

yet there are some who see not; there are some who
hear not.
Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.—
Thou art weighed in the balance and art found wanting. Plutocracy and Democracy will part company—the
first to become simply a horrible example in history; the
second to become a Social-Democracy and occupy the
throne which progress and enlightenment have prepared.

For Whom is There Freedom ?
WRITTEN JULY 29,

1905.

ONE O F T H E MOST common objections to Socialism is that it would take away the freedom of the people.
Now I will say right here that this would be a very serious objection, and Communism at least is open to that
objection. There may be also certain kinds of Socialism
that would take away the people's freedom, but the Social-Democracy will never do it.
But as to freedom and liberty, who has liberty and
who is free under the present economic system?
Some time ago, an employer who was on the witness
stand gave the following definition of liberty:
"Why, liberty is the right of an American to do as he
d— pleases." And he added, "This is the ideal of American manhood/'

84

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

In one way, the man was right. Our present conditions
have made it possible for a small class of Americans to
do as they d— please, and that is looked upon by the
press, the pulpit, and the schools as the ideal of American
manhood.
Of course, it can never be real freedom. It may be the
liberty of the libertine—of the slave, who has just got
free—but it never is the freedom of the free man. The
ex-slaves of the old Romans were called libertines, and
when set at liberty they were noted for their licentiousness. They did "as they d— pleased."
If the capitalist right to oppress others is liberty, then
our present capitalist liberty is right. Liberty of that
kind, of course, can be used or abused, and our economic
conditions set a premium upon the abuse by any ex-slave
of the system who has become free.
But freedom as such can never be abused. Freedom is
inborn with us, and the only trouble is, we cannot enjoy
it, because a certain small class, the capitalist class—the
libertines of the present economic system—are absolutely
at liberty. And they use their liberty to oppress us.
Freedom is closely connected with economic conditions. A man is not free who is dependent upon another
for a job—for a chance to make a livelihood. Under the
present economic system with its unbridled competition,
only the successful are free. Only the successful can
throw off the shackles of industrial slavery—and with
this liberty they often become libertines, in every sense
of the word. For further details, please read the columns
of any metropolitan daily.
But we cannot live moral lives, unless we are free.
Hence, freedom is the ideal of the Social-Democrats, and

FOR WHOM IS THERE FREEDOM

85

we will combat and defy anything and anybody, even
within the Socialist movement and within the labor movement, that will curtail our freedom.
But who has freedom under the present economic system?
Take all the different classes of our people, and in all
of them you will find the same lack of freedom—all except a handful of plutocrats, who have succeeded in gaining the monopoly of "liberty." AH of the others, business
men, farmers, and wage-earners, are not free.
Let us take the business men first. Now we all know
that competitive business is by its very nature corrupt.
Every sincere business man will tell you that it is impossible to conduct his affairs as an upright man and be successful, for the simple reason that it is always the unscrupulous rogue who sets the standard. It is the rascal
who commences with adulterating goods, with using false
advertising—but the honest man must follow suit. The
same holds good for the manufacturer. It is the rascal
who begins cutting the wages of the employes; endangering the lives of the workmen by neglecting to put up
appliances for their protection, and employing the labor
of women and children—but the honest man must strike
the same pace.
Another suggestive fact. About 90 per cent of all business men at least once in their lives go into bankruptcy.
Still another, the mammoth store—the department store
—is continually wiping out small merchants, and the
large manufacturing establishments and the trusts are
doing the same thing for the small shops. So it is pretty
clear that the business men, the merchants, the manufacturers are not free.

86

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

It is hardly necessary to add here that the professional
class, lawyers, doctors, teachers, preachers, are not free.
They are of course mainly dependent upon the other
classes, and especially upon the class with money, for a
living. Only in rare cases can they follow their own inclinations, and express their opinions without fear or
favor. Surely, none of the men here mentioned can in
any true sense be said to be free.
Now let us consider the farmers. In times of old, they
were looked upon as the "free and independent class" par
excellence. The present high prices for the staple goods
of the fanners have for a moment relieved that class.
They experience a temporary prosperity. But let us recollect the crisis of the nineties and the mournful story
of the presidential election of 1896 when the poor farmers, burdened with debts and misery, like a drowning
man clutching at the last straw, as a class voted for "free
silver." It was lucky for the farmers more than for anybody else that they did not succeed at that time—but this
present prosperity is only temporary. It is based upon
very good crops in this country, and failure of crops
elsewhere—and upon wars, the Spanish-American War
first, the Boer War next, and now the Russian-Japanese
War. All of these conditions and circumstances will, of
course, not always prevail. And then the farmers will
deteriorate again. They are bound to deteriorate as long
as the present economic system lasts. The farmers are
the1 serfs of the trusts, thq railroads, and the speculators.
They are not free.
And how about the wage-workers ? Are they free ? We
hardly need to answer. Think of the insecurity and dependence which day by day makes the workman subject

FOR WHOM IS THERE FREEDOM

87

to his employer's favors, and to every whim of his, first
in order to obtain his daily subsistence, and second, in
order to retain it. And must not a wage-worker give up
his identity? He must identify himself with his master's
private interests, no matter whether the master is inferior
to him or not—nay, he must help him and obey him even
when the master is a rogue who adulterates goods, or in
other ways carries on a warfare against society.
In other words, the wage system possesses this miserable feature which makes it so similar to ancient slavery,
that the workman is used entirely for his master's private
ends. This was the definition of slavery.
And how about those who have no work and cannot
find any ? Are they not in a still worse predicament ? Are
they free ? Are they not the slaves of misery, hunger and
every other ill? Surely no workman, whether employed
or not, can be called free.
So to make a long story short, it is not so much the
fact that there are rich and poor in the world under the
present system, but the fact that the poor have to depend
upon the rich for a living, that makes us all servants and
slaves. It is the terrible economic power of the capitalist
class that keeps us from becoming free. Only Socialism
can help us. And we will become free only in the degree
that we introduce Socialism and Social-Democratic measures into our system.

88

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Capitalist Liberty.
WRITTEN I N APRIL, 1907.

Mr. Frank M. Hoyt, a well-known corporation lawyer,
recently delivered a lecture on Socialism before the Men's
Club in this city. He evidently tried to give a fair statement of Socialism, and aside from the error that he
considered the "iron law of wages," as formulated by
Ricardo and repeated by Lassalle, a part of Socialistic
doctrine, he succeeded pretty well.
*

*

#

But he concluded:
"The objection which is the most potent in this country
to the acceptance of the Socialists' proposal that the state
shall own or control property to the degree asked by them,
is the feeling that such a plan would result in the tyranny
of the state, and absolutely destroy all individual freedom.
"The idea is thus expressed by Judge Grosscup in a recent
address:
"The deepest instinct of the American is the instinct of
individual freedom. Beginning with himself, and those who
depend upon him, the American will willingly surrender
nothing to the community that he feels bound in conscience
to perform himself; nothing to the larger community, called
the state, that he feels should be performed by the smaller
community of which he is proportionally a larger part;
nothing to the nation that he feels should be performed by
the state.

CAPITALIST

LIBERTY

89

"And when you ask him in the interest of this or any
other cause to separate himself farther and farther from individual control of those duties that are dearest to him—the
education of his children, their religious training, the whole
circle of what he has always looked upon as a personal
responsibility—you ask him to surrender a thing that rather
than surrender he will-abandon the cause.
"Another objection, to at least the present suggestions of
the party, is found in what is claimed to be its failure to
formulate measures, which shall operate in a practical manner against the evils of which they complain, without doing
that which is confessedly impossible, namely: immediately
subvert and change our entire existing system.
"As a friend of mine humorously puts it: 'The Socialists
bring us to the banks of a deep stream, assure us there is
excellent pasturage on the other side, and fail to supply any
means of crossing over to it."

* * *
The trouble with our honest opponents—for there are
also dishonest opponents, who deal in all kinds of scientific
fibs, the hollowness of which they themselves recognize
—lies in the fact that these honest opponents cannot, in
their train of thought, sufficiently abstract from present
conditions. This explains why so many people are frightened away from Social-Democracy by all kinds of catchwords and phrases.
And the objection that is raised with special emphasis
against Social-Democracy is that the Co-operative Commonwealth is inconsistent with "individual freedom"
Now, we could make very short work of this.
We could simply answer that the present society does
not grant freedom to the individual.
We could point to the fact that the great majority of
our fellow citizens, during their lives, »re in the service
of others. All their lives the great majority must work

90

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

according to the wish and will of a small minority. And
these workers and their families do not get even enough
to eat, cannot dress themselves properly or live in a
decent home upon the wages they receive. And besides,
they are not allowed to speak and act as they feel. If
they do so, they run the risk of losing work and livelihood.
We could prove that even the well-to-do classes are
not free at present. They are tied in their business life
by competition, in their political, religious and social life
by considerations of their position, by public opinion and
by the pressure of the powerful.
And this is Mr. Hoyt's case, for instance.
* * *
This much has already been admitted by every unprejudiced observer, that our present society does not in
reality give to its members that freedom, which the constitution promises—the Fourth of July orators notwithstanding.
Herbert Spencer, who opposed Socialism because he
feared the dangers to individual liberty, was unprejudiced
enought to admit that if he had only the choice between
our present capitalistic society and the Socialist system,
he would unhesitatingly prefer the latter. And this just
from the standpoint of the real and actual, and not of
the imagined, freedom of the individual.
I could further point out that every forward step of
culture and civilization generally is connected with a certain restriction of personal liberty. The further we advance, the more fields are withdrawn from the discretion
of the individual, and put under the control of the community. Even today our entire state rests on the restriction of the liberty of the individual.

CAPITALIST LIBERTY

91

Compulsory education and taxation—to speak of these
foundations of our present government—are simply restrictions of our personal liberty. But would Mr. Hoyt
on that account wish to go back to the times when no
father was compelled to send his children to school and
when nobody knew anything of taxation ? Such regions
still exist—in Central Asia and in Central Africa. Yet
every one of us knows perfectly well that we civilized
servants of the tax commissioner and of the school superintendent are, in fact and truth, infinitely freer than our
forefathers were, who roamed "freely" in the deep forests
of Germany and Great Britain; or than the inhabitants
of this globe who still live in similar conditions.
We all know perfectly well that the great problem of
the history of mankind consists just in this: How to
restrict the liberty of each individual in such manner as
to make way for the greatest freedom for all.
We all know perfectly well that the most unrestricted
liberty leads to the brute battle of each against all.
And this never meant freedom.
It meant slavery in ancient times, and serfdom in the
middle ages.
In modern days we find this unrestricted liberty only
in the economic Held. And there it has anarchy in its
wake, which reigns supreme in our present society, with
its chronic industrial crises (called "panics"), its permanent reserve army of the unemployed, its ever-increasing
destitution of the masses, its business corruption and its
ethical hypocrisy.
All this should really be quite sufficient to prove to
every thinking man the absurdity of the twaddle about
the dangers of Social-Democracy to individual freedom.

92

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

For a freedom that does not exist cannot be in danger.
And least of all can it be endangered by something that
does not yet exist, but is going to come, as is the case
with the Socialist Republic.
So Judge Grosscup may rest assured that we ask
him to surrender nothing.
* * *
Social-Democracy, however, need not content itself with
this negative proof. It is fully able to furnish also the
positive information that the Socialist Republic is not
only entirely consistent with personal freedom, but will
bring it to its fullest development.
If there are still many well-meaning and educated people who fear the "almighty" Socialistic state, this probably arises from the fact that they always think of the
Utopian schemes of the first communists who wanted to
rule everything from above.
But modern, scientific Socialists never dream of such
a thing.
Indeed, should we, in the Socialist Republic, need other
means to keep people to their work than we need in the
present society? Why do we work today? In order to
live. Will this be otherwise in a society where all means
of production belong to the commonwealth, instead of belonging to a few capitalists ? Why should a laborer cease
to work, because the entire value of his labor will go to
the laborer?
I cannot see any logical reason.
It is said that man is a "self-seeker" by nature. That
he works only when he himself reaps the benefit; that
he will not work for others.
But is it not a fact just now that the greater part of

CAPITALIST LIBERTY

93

mankind works for othersf And is it not just in the
Co-operative Commonwealth that everybody will be enabled to call the full product of his labor his own? Where
then will justifiable self-seeking be better satisfied, in the
present or in the future society ?
In future society, the genius of work will be freed from
its most fatal defect, which is inherent today—the fact
that the chief aim of all labor is the individual interest
of somebody else, the profit of somebody else, the making
of surplus for somebody else.
In the Socialist Republic this will not be possible. There
only that will be produced which the commonwealth
needs. And everybody will get the full product of what
he has earned. Or, to express it better, the equivalent
of his work.
The material and individual interest of the workingman in his work, therefore, will not cease in the society
of the future, but, on the contrary, there it will find its
real and absolute basis.
Thus we see, that nothing will be changed regarding
the motive to work. At least nothing in its disfavor.
It is also clear, on the other hand* that the freedom of
choice of work will be much greater than at present.
How it is today every one knows. Of course, our constitution "guarantees" us, in the most solemn way, the
most unrestricted freedom. In reality, however, it depends upon a whole series of extraordinarily fortunate
chances and circumstances, whether any one can really
choose his life's work at will.
With most parents and young people, pecuniary considerations alone decide as to the choice of professions.

94

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

A single glance at the statistics on this subject show that
the choice of a profession depends upon the prospect
which the law of "supply and demand" offers at the
time. Even theology, which should be above all a matter of sentiment, is not excluded from this rule.
And the overwhelming majority of children have no
choice at all—they must go to the factory at the age of
14, or even earlier.
How different this will be in a society which guarantees all labor its full product! How all foreign considerations, which today determine the choice of work,
will fall away! So much the more, because then the educational institutions will be open to all competent persons.
Not the money-bag, but solely the ability, talent and inclination will decide.- There is some genius hidden in
almost every person. And every young man and every
young woman will have time to become clearly conscious
of his or her inclinations and gifts.
And should any one have been mistaken about his or
her choice of work, how much easier will be the transition
to another sphere of action than it is today.
*

*

*

It is not the intention of Socialists to interfere with
municipal rights, county rights or state rights which are
essential to the habit of self-government. The American
capitalist will lose the liberty of the libertine—the liberty
to abuse—but the American citizen will gain the freedom
of the man who is free economically as well as politically.
As to the education of the children, their religious
training and so forth, that will be less interfered with
than today. Religion is a private matter—that is Socialist doctrine the world over. It is for that very reason

CAPITALIST

LIBERTY

95

that the Roman Catholic Church bitterly opposes Socialism. That church wants religion—the Romanist brand
of it—to be a state affair.
So much for the observations of Judge Grosscup.
* * *
As for the remark of Mr. Hoyt that we want "to immediately subvert and change our entire existing system," I will say that no true Social-Democrat ever dreams
of a sudden change of society. We build upon the past
historical development and take into consideration the
present conditions.
We are the greatest advocates of reforms of all kinds
and every description the world has ever seen.
Mr. Hoyt ought to know that. We are proposing these
reform measures right here in Milwaukee before his
very eyes, and at Madison, Wis., in the legislature. And
we will advocate them in Washington as soon as we
elect members to congress.
Yet these reforms are only stepping stones—very useful and necessary stepping stones, if the Socialist Republic is ever to be brought about peaceably—but our
aim is to abolish the capitalist system entirely. *
The Socialist Republic will come by evolution. It cannot come any other way. We may see, however, the
most fearful revolutions (and many of them) as a part
of that great evolution.
Bloody revolutions will not hasten—they may even retard—the coming of the Socialist Republic. And whether
such eruptions are to take place at all, will depend as
much upon the policy of the capitalist class as upon the
leadership of the proletariat.

96

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

We are Social-Democrats, because we have recognized
that the economical development of the present capitalist
system, with its concentration of wealth, its trusts, etc.,
leads toward Socialistic production. Socialism is the
next phase of civilization, if civilization is to survive.
So, dear Mr. Hoyt, "we shall have to cross to the
other bank of that deep stream." We Social-Democrats
supply all kinds of social reform vehicles and bridges
to cross. We reach out the helping hand of brotherly
love. But those who refuse and fight—will perish in the
stream.
And that is the grim "humor" of it.

THE FLAG SUPERSTITION

97

The Flag Superstition.
WRITTEN IN JUNE,

1907.

A N item on the first page of the Milwaukee
says:

Sentinel

Clarence S. Darrow, the well-known Socialist lawyer of
Chicago, created considerable comment recently when he
refused to rise in his seat while "The Star Spangled Banner"
was being sung in the Silver Grill restaurant of a leading
hotel in Spokane, Wash. Among the many who took dinner
at the time at this restaurant was C. W. Mott, general emigration agent of the Northern Pacific road, who was in Milwaukee yesterday. Mr. Mott, like all other guests of the
hotel, and the restaurant was crowded at the time, was
greatly incensed over the action of Mr. Darrow.
"Out West people dine more in restaurants than here in
the East," said Mr. Mott yesterday, in speaking of the incident. "Under the circumstances it was but natural that the
Silver Grill was crowded. The orchestra had just finished a
selection from 'Tannhaeuser' when a young woman stepped
forward to sing 'The Star Spangled Banner.' As a fitting
prologue the orchestra struck up a medley of national airs
that made the blood of each one of us tingle, and when the
strains melted into 'The Star Spangled Banner* every One
arose in his seat as a mark of respect to our flag. All except
Mr. Darrow. He was seated at a table with art associate who
arose like the rest of us, but Mr. Darrow remained seated.
His friend apparently pleaded with him to rise also, but he
shook his head.
"The incident did not pass by unnoticed, Suddenly a woman

M

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

began to hiss, and before the next second had passed hisses
came from every part of the room, but Mr. Darrow paid no
attention to it. Others called to him to rise like an American, true to his country, but he remained undisturbed to the
end amid all the excitement.
"Mr. Darrow is considered the archangel of Socialism in
this country. If that is their principle of love and gratitude
toward the flag that protects them at home and abroad, it
seems to me that the people can do no less than crush
Socialists wherever they may appear to spread their doctrine
of hatred and discontent. Socialism is a serpent gnawing at
the root of the nation/'

I have not the pleasure of knowing C. W. Mott—
although I do know that he used to live in Milwaukee
and was considered a "good fellow," whatever that
means.
But I do know Mr. Darrow. And, therefore, I believe
I am safe in saying that Clarence Darrow has more
brains than all those present in the Silver Grill combined
—"Charlie" Mott thrown in to the bargain: Darrow is
one of the best lawyers in America.
Yet Clarence Darrow is no "archangel of the Socialists." In fact, he is neither an angel nor a Socialist.
He is the man who wrote the famous booklet "Resist
Not Evil." He is a "philosophic anarchist" and so
considered by everybody, including himself.
Clarence Darrow is not now, and never was, a member of the Socialist Party.
But what he did at the Silver Grill is surely not to his
discredit. And I believe I might have done the same
myself-—coming as he did from the trial of W. D. Haywood and seeing what "patriotism" means in Colorado
and Idaho.

THE

FLAG

SUPERSTITION

§9

And what is patriotism at the present time ? Today,
if ever, patriotism may be considered the "last refuge of
the scoundrel."
John D. Rockefeller is a patriot. August Belmont is
a patriot, Tom Ryan of New York is a patriot, Sherman
Bell and ex-Governor Peabody are patriots, Richard
Croker was a patriot until he expatriated himself.
The "yellow dog fund" was a patriot fund, and so is
the Republican campaign fund. Every big thief, every
great exploiter, every huge leech sucking the life blood
of the people is a patriot. He will tell you so himself.
And he is protected by the flag, by the star-spangled
banner. He is protected not only in life and limb, but
also in his stolen possessions.
*
* *
But the common workingman, the proletarian, is not
protected. He does not have anything, so he does not
need any protection. He owns nothing of the country,
not even enough of it to build a house on for himself
and family.
"This flag" cannot protect the home of a man who
owns no home.
And as for his life and limbs—the owner of the factory "insures" himself against any accidents that might
befall the man. The man has to fight it out in the
courts.
And the flag has nothing to do with it.
And the worker never goes abroad except as a sailor,
a stoker or fireman, or a stowaway.
So I cannot see where the principle of love or gratitude of workingmen toward "the flag that protects them
here and abroad" should come in.

100

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Yet I will say that the proletarians in general are
patriots in the highest sense.
They not only build the cities, railways and workshops, but they also protect them against fire and flood.
And it is the working class that furnishes the soldiers,
or at least the overwhelming majority of them. It is
the working class that has to do the fighting, although
they have nothing to do with the declaration of war.
If the railroad managers and the bankers and the capitalists should have to do their own fighting, a war would
not last long.
And it is no more than right that the workingmen as a
whole should love their country as a whole. They willinherit it as soon as they make use of their brains for
themselves. They have created these cities with their
magnificent palaces, museums, libraries, art institutions,
schools, etc., and by right these belong to them, and not
to the capitalists.
This brilliant culture of our country—art, education
and literature—is by right an inheritance of the white
race.
And a nation that will own its country again will be a
nation that will have a real reason to become patriotic
again. Amd I hope that America will be among the
first.
*
* *
The flag fetich is silly when it is not hypocritical. And
it is hypocritical when it is not silly.
It is a remnant of feudal barbarism, when it represented the feudal allegiance of the vassal to the "coat of
arms" of his lord—usually emblematic of some carnivorous beast or some bird of prey.

THE

FLAG

SUPERSTITION

101

I despise every fetich. The green flag of the prophet
Mohamet, or of Ireland, is as dear to me as the red flag
of the Socialists or the star-spangled banner. A flag is
a piece of dry goods that one can buy for 75 cents in any
department store.
It is the idea that is behind it that is to decide whether
the flag is worth following or not.
And just now the stars and stripes cover all sorts of
oppression, misery, prostitution, graft and exploitation
of women and children, not to mention the exploitation
of millions of men.
This flag is now the coat of arms of the meat trust
and the oil trust and every other trust. It is the banner
of E. H. Harriman, Tom Ryan, August Belmont, Chauncey Depew and Tom Piatt of New York.
*

*

*

And as for the silly custom of getting up whenever
the "Star Spangled Banner" is played — that was
imported from the old country. There the officers and
their women—legal or illegal—stand up in the cafe or in
the German "Wirthshaus" whenever "God Save the
King" or "Heil Dir im Siegerkranz" is played.
Ten, twenty or thirty years ago, before our plutocrats
and our middle class traveled so much in Europe this
custom was not practiced in our country.
It is a shoddy imitation of a feudal custom—just like
the "coats of arms" on the carriages of our millionaires.
I personally would just as soon get up when the band
plays "Hiawatha" or "Hail, Hail, the Gang is All Here"
as for the Star Spangled Banner. "Hiawatha" stands
for a good time, the Star Spangled Banner stood for hell

102

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

in Colorado and stands for the same thing in Pennsylvania and other places.
If they want the workingmen to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner, long may it wave,"—then this must
become again "the home of the free and the brave."
Tear the flag away from Simon Guggenheim of
Colorado, who has openly bought his seat in the Senate,
and return it to the people. And the people will love it
again.
*
*
*
There is a very serious aspect to all this.
The question is, what are we coming to? Here is the
"general emigration agent" of a thievish road—the tool
of a Harriman or a Jim Hill—having the criminal insolence to tell people that "Socialism is a serpent gnawing
at the root of the nation." Whereas, as a matter of fact,
the only persons who gave the sign of the snake were
the "ladies and gentlemen" (including Mr. Mott) who
hissed Clarence Darrow.
Quo vadis—plain American citizen?
*
* *
While the people of the United States have a quasirepublican form of government, the tendency—not only
in capitalist circles but also in the well-to-do middle class
—is decidedly anti-republican.
While we are supposed to have a democracy, we are
hampered by having an uncrowned king and a sensational
oligarchy—and the well-to-do middle class applauds both.
While we have no established church to support,
church property is not taxed, and so we are made to
support all the churches, whether we want to do so or
not.

THE FLAG SUPERSTITION

108

While we have no hereditary nobility, we have a moneyed aristocracy which has now become hereditary. And
it is the most oppressive and contemptible the world has
ever seen.
And while we have the general franchise in this country—we have at the same time the most stupendous political frauds. Six million Hack men are now disfranchised, and very soon an attempt will be made to disfranchise the poor whites.
In short, unless the people will rise in all their might
and shake off about 500,000 human lice, which infest our
economic and political body, then this country is lost.
And the Star-Spangled Banner, within a few generations, will have about the same meaning as the Green
Dragon of the Chinese Empire.

104

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Why the Panic Came.
WRITTEN IN DECEMBER,

1907.

SOME big trust companies and some banks have failed
in New York, and Wall Street was paralyzed for a day
or two. Interest went up to 100 per cent on "short calls."
Stocks went to the bottom. It looked for a while as if an
industrial crisis—a so-called "panic"—was coming.
Of course, some of our trust magnates most interested
in the industrial stock, which shrank the most, by force
of necessity threw themselves into the gap. J. Pierpont
Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, and the rest of the big
gentlemen, put in about $100,000,000, loaned them to the
brokers at 6 per cent on short calls. Our government,
through Secretary of the Treasury Cortelyou, put in also
$25,000,000. Thus the situation was saved once more.
But for how long? No one knows.
* * *
True, all capitalist papers are shrieking at the top of
their voices, "Everything is all right. Everything is secure. No one need to fear, etc. ,,
They want to restore "confidence.,,
And since capitalism is very largely a confidence game,
this may have some effect.
* * *
And whether an industrial crisis is now due or not I do
not know. In the past, crises used to come in cycles of

WHY THE PANIC CAME

105

about twenty years ever since the capitalist system
reached its full development. Thus we had crises in this
country in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, and in 1893. According to cycles a crisis would be due about in 1913. But
there are so many causes and conditions acting on this,
that it is impossible to foretell the year exactly.
Besides, we have entered into an entirely new phase of
capitalism through the development of the trusts. It is
less possible than ever to predict when the industrial
crisis will set in, or what its character will be.
*

*

*

For there are several causes for an industrial crisis.
One is the old and rather stereotyped explanation
which originated with Proudhon.
Under the capitalist system—the wage system—which
is based upon the employer making a profit out of the
work of the employes—the employer cannot pay the
working man the full value of his product.
The employer must make a profit if his business or his
factory is to continue.
Thus the workingmen of the country, not getting back
in wages the full value of the production of that country,
cannot buy back the production of that country. The
capitalist class, that is the employing class, is too small
in number to use up the difference, because, with the
aid of machinery, production has greatly increased.
*

*

*

This surplus has to look for foreign markets.
But conditions are the same in every civilized country;
all nations look for foreign markets.
Everywhere we find that the producing class of the

106

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

country cannot buy back the production of the country
with the money it gets for that production.
Therefore the competition for the world market is very
keen, and when there is any trouble about it, and the
"foreign market" gets clogged up, we have our industrial
crises.
In other words: We have a forced under-consumption
of the workers. And this forced under-consumption of
the workers brings about an artificial over-production.
Factories, workshops and mines close because we have
too much, although there are still millions of people who
never had enough. People go ragged because there are
too many clothes in the country; others starve because
there is more wheat than can be sold.
*

*

*

To the orthodox Socialist this is the only reason for
the crisis—although Marx wrote both for and against
this theory. Yet there are many other causes just as important.
Of course, the planless production of the capitalist
system, by which every employer and manufacturer produces at random without knowing how much is really
needed to cover the demand—thus creating a surplus of
articles and an overproduction in that branch—has been
largely eliminated through the trusts.
The trusts know exactly how much the market needs
in their respective branches of industry.
By controlling that branch they are in a position to
tell. And in that respect, the trusts have been beneficial.
The competitive system is being modified and partly
transformed by the trusts.

WHY THE PANIC CAME

Wl

The only trouble is that the benefits of this economy
have gone only to a handful of men, instead of going to
the people.
And the trust owners, by withdrawing tremendous
sums from industrial life—the profits of the Standard Oil
magnates alone amounted to $900,000,000—not all of
which is re-invested, on the other hand hasten crises.
And so do the high prices of all the commodities controlled by the trusts.
* # *
And there is also another element inherent in the capitalist system, which is apt to make trouble. I mean
the speculation in stocks of the industrial undertakings.
And also in wheat and the necessities of life.
This speculation with our life's necessities is in the
nature of gambling, and has very little to do with actual
values. Still it is very apt to influence our commercial
and industrial life at times. And speculation also gives
rise to all sorts of swindling undertakings and fictitious
values.
Yet as long as capitalism lasts, speculation is absolutely necessary and unavoidable in order to protect the
system from stagnation.
* * *
So this is another evil that is inherent in this system.
It cannot be avoided any more than malaria in a swampy
country. And the speculators are the mosquitos.
We should have to drain the swamp—change the capitalist system—if we want to get rid of those mosquitos.
Teddy Roosevelt, by starting a little fire here and
there to drive them out, is simply disturbing them. He

108

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

is causing them to swarm, which makes it so much more
intolerable for us poor, innocent inhabitants of this big
capitalist swamp.
5jc

*

Jji

Yet there is one more great cause of industrial crises
which must be taken into consideration, although formerly some Socialists used to overlook it. That is the
money question.
The standard of values under the capitalist system is
gold.
Gold is capital per se under capitalism. And all other
goods, commodities and wares are measured by gold.
Very nonsensical, of course, because there is not gold
enough in the world to pay for one-fiftieth part of the
real value of production and distribution. Yet the capitalist philosophers claim that this is not necessary, since
gold is only the standard—not the actual measure.
That may be so. But the curse of the capitalist is that
in a "panic" only money—cash money— is the "summum
bonum"—the sum of all good in the world. In that
pinch all other values do not seem to amount to anything
when compared with cash money.
*

Jjc

*

But every epoch has its own money, its standard of
value.
Originally everything was barter. They would exchange a coat for so many sheep, or a bow and arrow
for so many fish.
Afterwards cattle was the standard of value in many
countries, particularly so in Italy, where the Latin word
"pecunia," money, comes from "pecus," cattle.

WHY THE PANIC CAME

109

Later on metal, which could be handled more easily
and did not have to be fed, and did not spoil readily,
was made the standard of value, particularly bronze, copper and silver, although iron money was used in Greece
and China at some time.
By the way, copper and silver were first used in the
lump and by weight. Thus a shekel of silver in the Bible
denotes a certain weight of silver. And in England they
still speak of a pound sterling, while in France all money
is still called "argent" from "argent/' silver.
By the discovery of America, and the great silver
mines of South America, silver was cheapened and therefore unsettled in value. Gold became one of the standards and finally the sole standard.
A double standard of silver and gold, as Bryan wants
it, was found to be impracticable. It is nonsensical and
unjust in finance, just as a double standard is unjust and
nonsensical in morals.
A double standard would continually disturb the equilibrium and therefore disturb business under the capitalist system. It would bring about continual changes
in the value of the money and thereby commercial disease.
And the poor fellows who would be innocent of the
whole business—that is the workingmen—would suffer
the most.
* * *
Yet there can be no question that gold is an insufficient
standard of value, even for the capitalist system, as capitalism develops further.
The capitalist theorists and magicians try to help themselves and defend this standard by declaring that it is

110

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

only an ideal standard—whatever that means—and that
most of the business is done with checks, that is, with
paper.
This last, is true, of course. But it only gives an additional proof of the insufficiency of gold.
As a matter of fact, "the gold standard is a Chinese
wall of the capitalists' own creation/' as Karl Marx says.
And capitalism bumps its head against that wall every
little while.
And it usually does so in the midst of its greatest prosperity. And the reason is simple enough: because that
is the very time that this gold cover gets too short for
the capitalist bed.
* * *
All kinds of artificial remedies have been proposed.
The most stupid was the 16 to i proposition, the great
Populist panacea of a double standard.
The most simple and naive was the proposition of the
Greenbackers, who would make artificial money by keeping the printing presses busy turning out greenbacks
until—well, everybody had money enough.
Simple, indeed. The good Greenbackers forgot only
one little thing—that the production of the country,
the factories, railroads, mines, etc., are owned by individuals who would not part with their property and goods
unless they got for them something which they considered valuable. Not for something of which everybody
else would have plenty.
* * *
In other words, as long as the capitalist class controls
all the good things of this world, they would not give
them away for greenbacks of that kind, unless they could

WHY THE PANIC CAME

111

be compelled to do so. But the government has no way
of compelling them to part with their goods. That has
been tried a«d failed in several countries—even the terrorists of 1793 and 1794 failed with their "greenbacks."
In order to make money of that kind valuable, the government, that is, the people collectively, would have to
own the production and distribution. Then the government could issue money for it and exchange its own
products.
The Greenbackers put the cart before the horse.

Yet what the banks are doing just now all over the
country, is very little better than what the Greenbackers
proposed. During the scare of the present stringency,
in all of the large cities the bankers got together and
paid no money, but simply issued clearing house certificates. They also take advantage of the legal provision
that they have to be given notice in advance when deposits are to be taken out.
Now, paying clearing house certificates instead of
money means credit money with a vengeance. It is credit
money on the credit of the banks, not even backed by the
government
Of course, as long as people have confidence in the
clearing house certificates they are all right, but in case
of a real industrial crisis, a so-called general panic, these
clearing house certificates would not be worth very much.
*

*

*

Besides, there is another danger. The banks are tightening the money stringency which has already compelled
manufacturers to lay off many thousand men.

112

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Our banks are, furthermore, disturbing the export business by not giving credit and "keeping the money in
their respective towns." And thus they may bring on a
crisis for one of the other reasons mentioned above—that
is by interfering with getting rid of our surplus production in the foreign markets.
* * *
A much better plan to relieve the money stringency
would be the following, which, by the way, did not originate with me:
Let the government issue money on bonds, to states,
counties and cities for public improvements—for roads,
street lines, sewerage, school house and public buildings,
and payable without interest, let us say, in twenty yearly
installments of 5 per cent. The returned money to be
canceled and destroyed as soon as paid back. And such
public improvements to be carried out under the.eighthour day and at the highest current union wages.
Now, this would give employment to hundreds of
thousands, even millions, very soon. It would, for a long
time to come, absorb the "reserve army," and money
would get in circulation.
Besides, this kind of money would be absolutely safe,
because it would be backed up, not only by these improvements, but also by the local taxation of the states
or communities.
Furthermore, since the money paid back would be
destroyed when paid back, it would not become "a drug
on the market" and would not destroy the equilibrium.
In short, it would be as "elastic" a currency as could
be invented under the capitalist system.
* * *
But, of course, all bankers and the speculators will bit-

WHY THE PANIC CAME

113

terly oppose this kind of a money issue. They will oppose it although the national banks get government
money of that type without so good a security. And
although the government is assisting not only the bankers, but also the brokers on Wall Street every time they
are in trouble.
And there is also this difference: The national banks
can put up government bonds as security when they issue
money, and then get interest twice. Once on the $90,000
banknotes the government issues on the $100,000 bonds,
and the second time on the interest of the $100,000 bonds
the bankers have deposited as security.
But since the above mentioned plan would make it
possible for cities to bring about tremendous and unheard
of improvements, without having to borrow money from
the capitalist class, the capitalist class, as a whole, will
also fight this plan.
And yet it is the only way to relieve the situation under capitalism.
* * *
So, to make a long story short, I cannot see very much
help under the capitalist system. The great antagonism
between the social form of production and the individual
form of appropriation will continue to break loose in
feverish industrial crises.
And while I do not want to create any scare among
our readers and friends—and while I have been asked
by several of them what they are to do with a few pennies they have saved for a rainy day—I will say this:
That I would not guarantee any bank, not the best of
them, in case of a panic.
A bank has to lend out its money in order to do busi-

114

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

ness, and naturally in case of a crisis, is subject to the
conditions of the market, and the industrial conditions.
* * *
But I would advise any workingman who has saved
a little and can afford it, to buy a little house near the
city with an acre or two around it. He will then at least
always have a roof over his head. He can always raise
his own vegetables, keep a goodly number of chickens,
and have his savings invested more safely than in any
bank. Modern conditions and transportation facilities
are making this possible for the average city worker who
has laid up a little money.
This plan, however, has some disadvantages, especially
in small towns containing only one industry. In case
of an industrial crisis, or lack of work, the man is tied to
the place. Yet a man with a family is more or less tied
down in any case. Besides, in time of a crisis, the conditions are not apt to be better in any other place, and
the advantages of my suggestion surely outweigh the
disadvantages.
The chief trouble is only that so very few workingmen
have any savings to invest.

WILL YOU MEND YOUR ROOF

115

Will You Mend Your Roof ?
WRITTEN IN JULY,

1908.

T H E Declaration of Independence is a document that is
supposed to contain the cardinal principles of the American republic and the American mode of government.
The famous declaration starts with the following gem
of thought: "All men are created equal" and are endowed
"with certain inalienable rights; among these are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
A fine phrase, indeed!
"All men are created equal." This may be true with
some qualifications. But do they live equal? Do they
die equal?
The child of the poor is born in a hovel, surrounded
by misery and poverty from his first moments. There
are three chances to one that he will not survive the first
year. And, even if he pulls through, there is a life of
misery before him. The dangers of sickness are tenfold
as great; the temptations to crime and prostitution a
thousand times as great as for the child of the rich. If
he safely passes all these perils, his is a monotonous and
laborious life, ended by an early death, which is often to
be considered a boon, since it saves the victim from the
poorhouse. Usually the poor man has very little claim

116

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

on heaven, rarely having belonged to any church, and
knowing little or nothing about religion, which is, more
or less, a costly article. So it is hell for him even hereafter—so says the priest.
* * *
"All men are created equal."
How about the child of the rich? Surrounded by all
the comforts and protections which paternal love and
money can furnish, he grows up in comfort and security
and receives an excellent education. His life is a round
of pleasure mingled perhaps with as much work as is
necessary to health. Unless early killed by excessive luxury or riotous living, he can live to a ripe old age, honored and loved by every one as a pillar of society and of
religion. He usually gives liberally to charities and the
churches. So when he dies he has even a very good
claim to a reserved seat in the front row where the fourwinged angels chant.
"All men are created equal!"
It is a phrase which did well enough in its time, but
which now has become a lie.
The reason? The struggle for existence has entirely
changed since the days of Jefferson and Paine. All that
was needed in those days was to give every individual
a chance to fight it out for himself. This great country
was undeveloped, and there were thousands of chances
for everybody to make a decent and honorable living.
Up to i860 T H E R E W E R E ONLY T W O MILLIONAIRES IN T H I S COUNTRY. In those days there was
some sense in the phrase "All men are created equal."
But since the development of the capitalist system, with
machinery and railroads, we have a few billionaires, a

W I L L YOU M E N D YOUR ROOF

117

number of millionaires, and a multitude of wage-workers
and tramps. What has become of the "equality?"
* * *
True, it is also said that we are "all equal before the
law," and that the framers of the Declaration of Independence had that in mind when they wrote the phrase.
But are we equal before the law?
There are thousands of laws passed by the legislatures
of the various states every session, not to speak of Congress. There is a flood of laws.
How many of all these laws are for the purpose of protecting the poor, the weak and the helpless?
Most of them are simply enacted for the protection of
"life and property." That is, protection of the property
of those who have it. And protection of the life of those
whose lives are worth something in a capitalistic sense.
There is no protection for those who have no property
whatever. The life of the miner who goes down into
the bowels of the earth, several hundred "feet deep, for
less than a dollar a day, receives scanty protection, or
none.
. * * *
Equality before the law is a phrase like so many others.
Two men with equally big pocketbooks are equal before
the law—otherwise they are not equal.
It cost over a million dollars to send a degenerate and
deliberate murderer like Harry Thaw to an insane asylum. None of the big insurance grafters in New York
were convicted. The big grafters in the stupendous capitol graft in Harrisburg went free. We find the same
condition everywhere. In Milwaukee, after tremendous
pressure brought by the Social-Democrats, a graft investigation took place. An energetic district attorney

118

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

brought about quite a number of indictments against the
smaller grafters, but how many of them were brought to
justice? Some of the most glaring evil-doers went scot
free. Besides, the biggest grafters were never "touched"
and were even elected to office again.
* * *
And this is the case all over.
A United States senator openly boasted in that august
body that no man with ten million dollars ever went to
prison. On the other hand, a poor workingman, stealing
a few bones in a packing house of Chicago, gets eighteen
months' imprisonment.
In small things, as in big affairs, we have a class government. This shows plainly in the fact that for misdemeanors the culprits have to pay fines in money, which
is simply a joke for the rich man, while it hits the poor
man terribly hard.
* * *
Suppose an automobile runs down the avenue at a
fearful speed, thereby endangering the lives and limbs
of hundreds of men, women and children. If the owner
is caught he will pay a fine of ten dollars or twenty dollars. He treats it as great fun and laughs over it with
his friends.
But let us take another case.
Suppose a poor tramp—a workingman who has become discouraged during the present panic—is found
sleeping on a bench in a park, or on a wagon in an alley.
The eye of the law will soon find him, and he will be
hauled up before a judge the next morning.
"Why,did you sleep in that alley, or on that bench in

WILL YOU MEND YOUR ROOF

119

the park?" the judge will ask sternly. "Why did you
not go to a hotel or a rooming house ?"
"I had no money, your honor/' answers the hobo.
"What, no money to pay for a roomI And sleeping in
an alley—that is clearly disorderly behavior. It means
ten dollars fine and the costs," says the judge.
"But, your honor, if I had the ten dollars and the costs
I would not have been sleeping in the alley," murmurs
the tramp.
"That is just it—you will go to the house of correction
for thirty days—and if you say another word I will make
it ninety days for vagrancy. For you have no visible
means of support. You are a criminal in the eyes of
the law."
And to the house of correction he goes.
This is equality before the law!
* * *
Under the protection of the laws the steel trust, the
sugar trust, the meat trust, the oil trust and many other
trusts rob the people of many millions every year. Under the protection of the laws women and children are
exploited and their life-blood coined into dollars for the
capitalist class.
Truly, the people learn slowly in this country. Phrases
work wonders. It seems as though the masses were only
born for the purpose of creating wealth enough for our
sugar kings, railway kings and pork kings, to buy European princes for their daughters.
Sifting things to the bottom, the laboring class is even
worse off in America than in Europe. Here capitalism
has full sway, while in Europe the capitalist class must

120

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

reckon not only with the laboring class, but also with
the remnants of feudalism and with the monarchy.
* * *
Last year about this time we lived in the "era of prosperity," and most of our workingmen had work and
enough to eat. Today there are hundreds of thousands
entirely out of work and starving, while millions work
only part of the time. The average workingman is like
the Irishman whose roof leaked, and who on rainy days
always made up his mind to mend it. But when the
weather cleared, and his wife asked him, "Pat, why don't
you fix the roof?" he answered, "We are dry now. Why
should I fix the roof?"
He

jje

*

Now, this is the rainy day. Your roof is leaking. My
workingman friend, will you mend the roof?

PENSIONS FOR SOLDIERS OF THE COMMON WEAL

121

Pensions for Soldiers of the
common Weal.
W R I T T E N I N AUGUST,

1908.

"The Social-Democratic proposition that at the age of
60 years every man shall be entitled to a pension, provided
he never received an income beyond a specified amount per
year does not arouse the chorus of universal approbation
which was probably anticipated by its author. Probably its
author was a benevolent visionary, eager that his fellow
men should have the prospect of ease and luxury, and never
considering very closely the practical question of who would
foot the bills.
"There is more than one point of view from which this
civil pension proposition seems vicious. A fundamental objection to it is that it would tend to paralyze industry and
enterprise. A man with his hope fixed on a pension not to
be paid if he raised himself into the ranks of the moderately
prosperous would hardly feel like combating indolence too
hard, for fear of injuring his prospects. There are too many
lazy people in the world now. This would make more.
"Why is it that there should be a proposition to pension
elderly men, and none to pension elderly women? Many a
woman who has worked hard all her life, either for relatives
or for employers paying her wages pitifully small compared
with what the same quality and quantity of service would
command from a man, finds herself in advanced age without
the means of independent support. Would not society do
better to pension women for working than to pension men
for holding back and not working as hard as they might?

122

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

"After all, however, a fundamental question is, how would
the great sums required for old-age pensions be raised? Of
course, they would have to be raised by taxation, and by
reason of grinding taxation, some people possessed of little
property would find themselves unable to hold it. A system
which would encourage indolence and make paupers by overburdening small property owners is surely not to be welcomed with open arms by American workihgmen."—Evening
Wisconsin (Mil.), July 20.

WELL, I happen to be the "benevolent visionary eager
that his fellow men should have the prospect of ease and
luxury"—if an increase of $12 a month will put any
man into "ease and luxury'—and I am sure the editor of
the Evening Wisconsin would require a little more than
$12 a month in order to live in ease and luxury.
Our friend of the Evening Wisconsin is also mistaken
when he thinks that our plan does not include women.
Our plank reads as follows:
"To enact a law granting every wage-worker over 60
years of age, who has earned less than $1,000 a year
and has been a citizen of the United States for sixteen
years, a pension of not less than $12 a month for the
rest of his or her life."
The term wage-worker means a woman as well as a
man. It denotes any person working for wages, whether
a clerk, stenographer, hired girl or washerwoman, or a
railroad engineer, typesetter or bookkeeper. We agree
with the Evening Wisconsin absolutely on the woman
question, or rather we disagree with him absolutely, because the Evening Wisconsin does not want to pension
the women either.
* * *
The fundamental question as to "who is to foot the
bills?" is a question which is easily answered. Why, of

PENSIONS FOR SOLDIERS OF THE COMMON WEAL

123

course, the workmen will foot the bill. They are raising
so many thousand millions every year for the capitalists,
for the officials, for the army and navy and for the innumerable other things. They ought to be able to get
back at least a little share of all that for themselves as an
old-age pension.
Under our plan there will be not quite a million men
and women receiving a pension of $144 a year. That
would amount to about $144,000,000 a year—a mere
bagatelle for Uncle Sam, who was spending $101,671,881
for the army in 1907, and $97,606,595 for the navy, not
figuring the new battleships.
Besides, the United States pays a pension to 967,371
persons now, to the veterans of the Civil War and their
dependents. In 1907 it was $138,030,894.22. There are
still 558 pensioners of the war of 1812, and even three
daughters of the Revolution of 1776.
Other countries have been paying old-age pensions to
the workingmen for a long time. Germany enacted a
sick benefit law in 1883, and an old-age pension law in
1889. A pension is drawn after five years of payment
by all when reaching 70 years, and at any age if disabled from earning one-third of the previous wages.
The dues for these insurances are paid partly by the
insured (maa or woman) wage-worker, partly by the
employer and partly by the state. The employer is held
responsible for the payment. By law he must pay onehalf and often agrees to pay all without deduction from
wages. For accident insurance he must pay all of it
any way, under the law. Dues are paid in stamps sold
at postoffices and pasted on each worker's pass book.
By the three kinds of insurances—sick benefit, accident

124

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

and old-age pension—every wage-worker in the country
earning not over $467 a year is insured—a total of over
14,000,000 persons.
*

sje

*

Austria established compulsory insurance for sickness and accident in 1888, and in 1898 a plan for oldage pensions. France has had compulsory accident insurance for miners since 1894, dues being paid one-half
by the employers and one-half by employes. The government is now working on a bill to give an old-age
pension to every working man and working woman in
France. A bill of the same type is now pending in the
English parliament and on the very day when the article
of the Evening Wisconsin was written the bill passed
the House of Lords with a majority of 123 to 16—because both of the old English parties had agreed to it—
both admitting that they were afraid of the English
Socialists who had made such terrific gains at the last
general election.
And if we elected some Social-Democrats to Congress
in this country, you would see how quickly the old parties would try to get things for us!
*

*

*

Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway are all
now considering various forms of compulsory accident
insurance and old-age pensions.
New Zealand, since 1899, has paid $87.50 to every person, man or woman, past 65 years of age, who has kept
sober for the preceding five years, and who has lived
twenty-five years in the colony, and whose income from
other sources is less than $260. New South Wales
started a similar pension fund in 1900, paying $2.43 per

PENSIONS FOR SOLDIERS OF THE COMMON, WEAL

125

week to every person over 65. Why not also in America ?
Marcus A. Hanna, the brightest statesman of the capitalist class forced an old-age pension plank into the Republican national platform of 1900. But the plank was
quietly dropped by the blockheads who succeeded Mark
Hanna in the leadership of the Republican party. They
much prefer to make deals with Tammany and the Democrats of the Bryan type—to the enactment of any measures which may mean something in the end.
*

*

*

It is ridiculous to claim that such a system would encourage indolence and make paupers of the workers.
The average wage of the American workmen is less than
$450 a year—his earning ability begins to decline with
the age of 45—some railroads set even a lower limit—
and, as a rule, the capacity for earning a livelihood
ceases at the age of 60.
How is a man, especially if he has a large family—
and workingmen usually serve their country also by
bringing up a family—to save a competence for his old
age out of an average wage of $450 per annum? It is
the present capitalist system that is making paupers.
Besides, we have to take care of our old disabled
workmen any way—either through charity or the poorhouse, both of which are degrading and costly—or by
means of an honorable pension, which is the cheapest
method in the end.
Furthermore, the life-work of the wage-earner in the
factory, mine, railroad, steamship, etc., is far more dangerous than that of a soldier—and is infinitely more use-;
ful. There are more men killed and disabled in the

126

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

mines and factories and the railroads every year than
were killed and disabled during any year of the Qvil
War. (During the last fiscal year 122,855 were maimed
and 11,839 killed on the railroads alone.) Therefore,
even from the standpoint of risk, the soldier of the common weal, who works and dies for the country—the
workman—ought to be entitled to a pension fully as
much as the soldier of the common woe, who lives and
bums for his country.

A Socialists View of the Single Tax.
WRITTEN MARCH 28,

1903.

T H E R E H A S BEEN a strong disposition among some
Socialist critics to regard Henry George as nothing more
than a charlatan, while others think that a passing sneer
will dispose of the theory of Single Tax. Both of these
views I deem wholly wrong. Henry George in his
"Progress and Poverty" has given us a most brilliant
criticism of the present system—more brilliant in some
respects than that of Karl Marx. And the idea of Single
Tax has taken considerable root in some Australian colonies, especially in New Zealand.
Marxism naturally must oppose the Single Tax theory
because the latter is a reform of the present system according to a scientific plan invented by a certain man,
while Socialists know that human society is an organism;
it is a matter of growth and of evolution. The Socialists

A SOCIALISTS VIEW OF THE SINGLE TAX

127

simply point to history—to the economic development,
the centralization of property, the trusts, etc.—and then
merely state the fact that we are growing into Socialism,
that Socialism is going to be the next phase of our civilization.
But before all things Socialists contend that Single
Tax would not change anything in favor of the propertyless masses—that as a matter of fact, it would infinitely
sharpen competition and sharpen it in favor of the man
with ready money. From this point of view Single Tax
has been declared by Socialist authors "an attempt to
exploit Socialist ideas in favor of the mobile capital."
Let us have a short and concise statement of the two
schools of thought.
Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of
production and distribution. It is based solely upon the
present mode of production on a large scale—production
with the help of machinery. Formerly hand labor and
individual efforts produced the necessities of mankind.
Today machine labor and social or associated labor are
the means of producing these necessities. The present
system of social production by individual ownership has
produced two classes — the propertyless class and the
capitalist class. A class of toilers who produce all wealth
and have none and a class of idlers or superfluous rulers
who get it all. Socialism holds that the structure of our
social institutions is always determined by the way we
get our living. And while in that former time it was
the imperative duty of the government to protect the individual in the possession of the property he had produced ; so, today, it is equally the duty of the government
to protect associated labor, that is to say, the whole body

128

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

of working people, in the possession of the products of
their toil. We further point to the economic evolution
—the trusts, combines, etc.—and say: If so much of
what has been considered private property is to be absorbed in great monopolistic ownership—and there is
nothing that can stop it—then, if we are to remain a
politically free people, the inevitable outcome will be
that the people must take possession collectively of the
production and distribution. And this is called Socialism.
Now what is Single Tax?
Henry George explains it as follows:
"We propose to abolish all taxes save one single tax
levied on the value of land, irrespective of the vaue of
the improvements in or on it.
"What we propose is not a tax on real estate, for real
estate includes improvements. Nor is it a tax on land,
for we would not tax all land, but only land having a
value irrespective of its improvements, and would tax
that in proportion to that value.
"When we tax houses, shops, money, furniture, capital
or wealth in any of its forms, we take from individuals
what rightfully belongs to them. We violate the right
of property, and in the name of the state commit robbery.
But when we tax ground values we take from individuals
what does not belong to them, but belongs to the community, and which cannot be left to individuals, without
the robbery of other individuals."
Now there is no doubt that Socialists and Single
Taxers agree on some points, only according to the
teachings of history and political economy the Single
Taxers put the cart before the horse.
We want to abolish the wage system. In order to do

A SOCIALISTS VIEW OF THE SINGLE TAX

129

that, it is necessary to abolish private property in capital.
According to our ideas land is an important bastion in
the fortress capital. And it is not simply we who maintain this, but some capitalists also fear that George's
land theories may hurt the present system and that is
the reason they denounce him as a Socialist. George,
and even more so his German disciple, Fleischheim,
would like to make a compromise between individualism
and Socialism. But their compromise is a failure. They
would begin with the socialization of that part of the
national wealth which is least ripe for it, because it is
the least concentrated of any, where there are still over
seven million owners of farms in the United States.
This alone stamps "Single Tax" as impossible. The collective ownership of land will be the last, not the first,
measure of Socialism.
Collectivism is now possible and necessary in very
many branches, especially in those that have reached the
form of a monopoly or trust—as Henry George rightly
indicates—and have thereby proved that they have outgrown the competitive system.
Furthermore, collectivism is now possible and necessary in mining of every description and in the ownership and management of all the means of transportation
and in the various public utilities.
But in our history Socialism in land is not possible
now and will not be for a long time to come.
For reasons not necessary to explain here, the effect
of new inventions in agricultural machinery has only
tended to strengthen the middle-sized farm. Many scientists and especially agronomists (specialists in agriculture) claim that the future in agriculture belongs to in-

130

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

tensive farming, not to farming on a large scale. At any
rate, the farmers will for very many reasons be the last
class to be expropriated by society. One very good reason is that the farming class is so numerous that it
would simply be impossible to do so. The other reason
is that it is the aim of Socialism to return to the workers
the instruments of production they have to use, and in
the case of the farmers an expropriation would mean
that we should take the land from the present owners
and forthwith give it back to them.
The farmers as a class naturally object to the Single
Tax as much and more than they do to Socialism, before
they understand it. The only difference is that they object to Single Tax a great deal more after they understand it. And there surely would be no cause for the
proletariat to fight the farmers for the single tax. Land
is still to be had very cheaply in many places in the
northern part of the state of Wisconsin, at from three
to five dollars an acre—in the southern states it is still
cheaper. In 1898 land in Ashland County, Wis., was advertised at 50 cents per acre—it was to be sold for the
tax, a "single tax" in that particular case. Fifty cents
an acre, and only one-fourth of that in cash—that is almost as good as "free land" under the rule of single tax
—:in some respects even better. But what benefit was
the cheap land to the printer or the weaver out of a job?
As A. M. Simons in his very readable pamphlet "Single
Tax vs. Socialism" (Kerr &. Co., Chicago) very pertinently remarks: "So long as capital remained private
property and its owners continued to rule, there would
be only one thing that the single taxer could do with his
"free land"—he could take a sharpened stick and cultivate it, and even then he would have to watch out that

A SOCIALISTS VIEW OF THE SINGLE TAX

131

some one did not get a corner on the sticks and leave
him to scratch with his finger nails."
To sum up: Single Tax has some good points—the
Single Taxers have criticised the present system severely
and helped to awaken the conscience of the nation. But
it is no panacea for anything.
Single Tax would not abolish our cut-throat competition
—competition is considered by Henry George a cornerstone of civilization. On the contrary, Single Tax would
sharpen competition. Single Tax would not do away
with interest, nor abolish wage slavery. The main difference between the present system and Single Tax would
be that instead of many million landlords we would have
only one landlord—the state—but the state would give
the land only to the men who would be able to pay the
"single tax/' or to make improvements upon it. In every
instance this would be the man with the "ready cash."
Nowadays at least one poor person in a great many can
sometimes inherit a piece of land and hold it, or sell it—
this would be out of the question under the Single Tax.
Only rich men would have a right to have and to hold
valuable property.

132

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

The Social Evil.
W R I T T E N I N OCTOBER,

1907.

" C E R T A I N Social Evils in Relation to Public Health
and M o r a l s " were discussed in the Sunset Club of
Milwaukee.
It is characteristic that of the six speakers of the
evening only one dared mention the word "prostitution."
Said D r . F . R o g e r s :
Three great perils threaten the health of modern society.
The alcoholic peril, the tuberculosis peril and the social
peril.
This foul ulcer has lodged and vegetated in the vitals of
society, infecting rich and poor, innocent and guilty alike,
wrecking families, converting strong men into weaklings,
dragging blooming womanhood down to hopeless invalidism,
killing our unborn children, condemning thousands at birth
to go through life sightless. And yet when a proposal is made
to recognize its existence and devise ways and means of
treating it, society shudders, closes its eyes and hides its
head like the ostrich, calls it unspeakable and so hugs the
venomous serpent closer to its bosom.
And the doctor suggested "that every private school,
primary school, high school, college and seminary should
provide courses in the hygiene and pathology of sex."
The above was the only suggestion of the evening
deserving any serious consideration—but it will not cure
the evil.

THE SOCIAL EVIL

133

There can be no question that syphilis, next to tuberculosis, is the worst enemy of the human race. And
gonorrhea is almost as bad. From 60 to 70 per cent
of all cases of blindness of children are ascribed to that
dread malady, which is very seldom cured; 75 per cent
of all men in Chicago and New York are said to be
affected.
I will not go into details—that would be beyond the
scope of a newspaper article, although I agree with the
speakers that the fullest publicity is imperative.
And what is the cause of it all?
Prostitution.
There are no trustworthy statistics on this vital question in American cities—there is too much hypocrisy.
But Paris has about 100,000 prostitutes, London has the
same number, and there is no reason to believe that New
York is any better in proportion to its size.
Prostitution is as old as matrimony.
*
*
*
Originally it had the form of religious prostitution—
in honor of the goddess of love or matrimony. Thus
women prostituted themselves in the temples of Babylon
(for Mylitta), in Phenicia (for Astarte), in Egypt (for
Isis), in Greece (for Aphrodite), in Rome (for Venus,
later on also for Bacchus), etc. And the priests took
the money.
Christianity abolished these forms, but the seducing
of girls and women and the commerce in vice took its
place. Syphilis, which was absolutely unknown to the
old Germanic tribes when they were heathens, came to
them with Christianity and civilization. By the way.

134

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

this is also the manner in which all the wild tribes—
Indians, Negroes, or South Islanders—got it in later
centuries. They received it when they got the whisky
from the traders and the Bible from the missionaries.
Civilization for them usually means syphilization.
*
*
*
And I will say that the doctors are pretty well at sea,
when it comes to the treatment of this question. The
above mentioned opinion was about the best.
Another "doctor" proposed sexual abstinence as a
remedy, and branded as a "heresy"—and a heretic is
evidently the worst being he knows of—the idea that
"sexual continence" is not compatible with the best of
health.
In the first place only one institution has ever tried
this—namely, the Roman Catholic Church, for its
clergy. It has ignominiously failed. Prostitution was
never so universal as during the period when the church
ruled supreme—according to Catholic authors. It was
nowhere so much a state institution as in Rome and
Avignon, where the popes resided. Nor was there ever
such an aggregation of prostitutes seen in the world as
during the church councils of Trent and Constance—and
that in spite of all the efforts of the church to keep its
members moral.
*
*
*
And that is natural enough. Naturam expellas furca,
tamen usque recurret—even if you knock nature with a
club, it will always come back—and the strongest impulse of every organism (be it plant or animal) is to reproduce its kind.
And as far as human beings are concerned—Love is

THE SOCIAL EVIL

135

the sum and solution of all desires in man—that in which
they converge, for which they all exist.
The other desires, the self-preservation desires—hunger,
thirst, the desire for power—are strong indeed, but when
they are satisfied, they all empty themselves in this one.
Love is a flame which uses all the rest as its' fuel.
This natural law cannot be suppressed by any artificial
law—statute or ecclesiastic.
The trouble is only, when man cannot get the real
article, he will accept a poisonous substitute.
And what is prostitution? Before all things, it is
also a remnant of the days gone by when men used to
buy their wives. Prostitution is very much the same
thing today. Men buy their wives—some buy them for
life, some buy them for a shorter time.
The man who sells himself for life to a rich woman, or
the woman who gives herself for life to a rich man,
without love, is also a prostitute.
The difference between the prostitute of the street and
the woman marrying for life without love is simply a
difference of degree, not of kind.
And now to come to the bottpm of the subject. Today
the mainspring of prostitution is poverty.
Very few daughters of rich men are to be found in
the houses of prostitution. There are probably as many
pathological cases — nymphomaniacs and ethical defectives—among rich women as among the poor, possibly
more.
But the rich find other ways of satisfying their propensities.
An investigation in 1888 in Massachusetts of 3,866

136

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

prostitutes found 1,236 poor girls with no previous occupation, 1,155 w e r e formerly servant girls, 505 were formerly dressmakers and seamstresses, 292 came from
factories, 126 from stores, 52 from the stage.
*
*
*
Let us take the case of the average hired girl or .factory girl, long, tedious hours and lack of refining pleasures. She naturally longs for something better. Besides,
she is miserably underpaid. Is it a wonder that she
often falls a prey to the first man who will take advantage of her?
After she has once made a misstep, she rarely regains
her hold, because every hand is against her. Everybody
will push her further down.
This is particularly the case of the women clerks in
stores, who, besides, are continually in contact with the
so-called upper classes, dressed in silks and satins.
The temptation to accept offers of a "good time"—a
dinner, an automobile ride—are tremendous.
And then there is the double standard of morals—still
pretty generally accepted.
It is the woman alone who is punished. It is the
woman alone who is called a prostitute, although no
woman has ever prostituted herself without a man. But
nobody ever mentions the man. If he is caught, he is
usually let go with a smile—or perhaps they run him for
mayor later on.
*
*
*
And here is another source—the majority of marriages
in the middle and upper classes are simply convenience
marriages, marriages without love. Naturally the men,
in many cases, look for "substitute love."

THE SOCIAL EVIL

137

Still other men marry late in life. And many men cannot marry at all for economic reasons.
All this means additional customers for prostitution.
*

*

*

It is generally claimed and conceded in bourgeois
circles that prostitution is necessary today in order to
protect the virtue of their wives and daughters against
attacks.
Thus the prostitutes are made out to be a sort of
patron-saints for "virtue" and "morality."
Furthermore, many highly "respectable people," and
even some churches, like Trinity church in New York,
draw profits from the rent of these places. And some
very respectable people in our city get big revenues from
old shacks by renting them for purposes of prostitution.
Now these highly respectable people are removed only
one degree from the keeper of the house, as far as the
source of the money is concerned.
*
*
*
One other point I want to bring out. Under our present society we permit everybody to marry without any
regard for his moral or physical make-up. Wealth is the
only consideration. We are more careful how we mate
our horses, and dogs, and cattle, and even our swine, than
we are in the mating of our boys and girls.
*

*

*

We shall have to make the dissolution of marriages
much easier, than it is today. There is a great outcry in
press and pulpit against the divorce courts—yet the
divorce court is one of the greatest agencies that we have
against prostitution.

138

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

In short, if we want a different world we must emancipate men and women economically, politically and socially. We must break with many prejudices if we want
to look this grave question square in the face. We must cease to regard superstitions as holy because they are old.
Courses in hygiene and pathology <rf sex are very laudable—~ka& ihk i«ircdy is very much like Mrs. Partington
trying to sweep the ocean back with a broom.
*

*

*

But what is the use of going into this matter any
further? I have said enough to prove that it is impossible
to cope with this subject under the present capitalist
system.

THE SWISS SYSTEM

139

The Swiss System.
WRITTEN IN JUNE,

1908.

AT THE LAST convention of the A. F. of L. in
Norfolk, Va., I introduced a resolution asking for the
abolition of the present militia system in the United
States and for the introduction of the Swiss military
system, or for some other method of arming in a well
organized and orderly fashion every sober and reputable
citizen of the United States.
I asked the A. F. of L. to advise union men to stay
away from the militia as it is now constituted.
* * *
Now the purpose of this measure was very much misrepresented.
On one hand it was claimed that I would leave this
country defenseless—that I was not a patriot—because
I would boycott the militia.
On the other hand, it was said that we want to "militarize" everybody. James Duncan, the most unscrupulous
of all our opponents, even characterized it as a "pistol
resolution."
But, in the first place, why are we argainst the militia ?
Simply because the militia is not a national guard as
it was originally intended to be— but has simply become
a body guard of the capitalist class and their property.

140

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

The militia is not now intended for the defense of
this country against the foreign enemy.
The spokesmen of the militia say plainly that they are
here for the ''internal war"—that is, for the purpose of
holding down the masses.
They are here to shoot down union men when upon
strike and when the employers are afraid of losing the
strike—when they import strike-breakers.
The militia is the power behind "Boss" Farley, the
king of strike-breakers.
The militia is armed for that purpose. It is armed
with so-called riot rifles and with Gatling guns.
Our militia has never done any work against a foreign enemy since the Revolutionary War, when it was
rebel militia—except once in 1814. And then it ran away
in the most shameful or shameless manner before the
English troops, and Lord Ross sacked Washington and
burned the Capitol.
On the other hand, the militia has always shown a
tremendous amount of heroism whenever arrayed against
unarmed workmen.
Now why are they such great heroes? Because the
workmen can't shoot back. It is easy to shoot at a
crowd which at the worst has only brick-bats or clubs.
Every time the militia meets a mob of workmen the
Battle on the Boyne is fought over again—and in many
cases the battle is even fought against the Irish.
*

*

*

Now I say that shooting down union men is not union
work and ought not to be done by union men. Union
men in the militia have sworn to obey orders. And when

THE SWISS SYSTEM

141

they are ordered to shoot they must shoot. Therefore
union men ought to stay away from the militia.
We know that the most peaceful strike is turned into
a riot—and the most peaceful strikers are turned into
rioters—the moment the militia appears in the field.
The agents and spies of the manufacturers, the temper
of the workingmen on strike—and the behaviour of the
militia—will always bring about that result.
* * *
Almost invariably the appearance of the militia is also
the signal for committing violence.
If the strikers don't do it, then the Pinkerton detectives look out to see that it is done. And then the militia gets into action and shows that it is made up of true
patriotic and heroic stuff and it will shoot down men,
women and children and break the strike.
* * *
We know how the railroad strike was broken in 1894.
We know of the "heroic" deeds of General Sherman
Bell in Colorado. We know of the great maxim of the
militia: "To hell with the Constitution/' And how
Bulkley Wells regards judicial decrees: "Habeas corpus?
We will give them "post mortems" instead!"
There is not a country in the world where the capitalist class is as ready and as willing to shoot down
workingmen as in this country, excepting Russia.
In Germany, Billy the Kaiser would think twice before he would give an order to shoot down workingmen.
He told the Westphalian manufacturers and mine owners
so, when they asked him for help in a coal strike.
In France such an occurrence is very rare. We seldom
hear of it in England.

142

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

But in this country not only the militia shoots at
workmen on the slightest provocation, but the deputy
sheriffs and even the policemen do likewise.
*

*

*

In Switzerland there was also a very big railroad
strike in 1897. Every railroad in the country was tied up.
Did the government use the militia and the regular
troops as they did in this country?
Oh, no.
In Switzerland every citizen is a soldier from his
twentieth year until he gets to be forty-eight years of
age. And he keeps his government rifle at home.
This fact makes it impossible for the employing class
to use the militia against the workingmen on strike, unless there is an overwhelming sentiment among the
other workingmen to do so. The employers cannot do it.
In the first place, the working class far outnumbers
the employers. And in the second place, even if the
militia of other cantons should be transported to the
scene of the strike, the strikers themselves are just as
well armed, and just as proficient in the use of arms as
any possible assailants. And that, of course, settles the
question.
The militia of Switzerland is in reality the Swiss people in arms. It can only be used where public opinion
is entirely in favor of its being used.
So when the railroad strike of 1897 occurred in
Switzerland, all the government could do to settle the
strike was to buy the railroads and operate them. And
the government has been successfully operating them
ever since.

THE SWISS SYSTEM

143

In connection with the arming of the people it might
also interest our readers to learn that there are more
murders committed in Chicago or in New York in a
week,than in all Switzerland in a whole year.
And, bear in mind, the Swiss are the best armed people in the world, and the Americans are the most disarmed, the Hindoos, Chinese and Russians excepted.
* * *
The big capitalists do not want the people armed.
Why? The British would not allow the Hindoos to be
armed. Nor can the czar of Russia afford to arm the
great masses of his subjects.
And our plutocrats can least of all afford the arming
of the people. The capitalist class might have to consider the people occasionally. And the capitalists do not
want to do that.
And that is right. We are a subjugated nation. We
have been conquered by the capitalist class. And conquered nations are always disarmed. And they deserve
no consideration.
* * *
On the other hand, only an armed nation is always a
free nation. Ever since the times of the Romans and
the Greeks a nation in arms could never be held in subjugation.
The. American colonists of 1776 were probably the
best armed people of the world in their day. It was a
population of hunters, armed farmers and armed traders.
They were always ready, and knew how to use their
guns, because of danger at all times from Indian attacks.
The American colonists of that day were practically all
frontiersmen. And when the British did not like the

144

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

American boycott of English tea and tried to send troops
to break down that big strike in Boston, then they
showed them at Lexington and at Bunker Hill and at
Saratoga and finally at Yorktown, what it means to try
to break down a strike with the help of soldiers when
all the people are armed.
A similar example in history we witnessed a few years
ago in the case of the Boers. The Boers were only a
handful of armed farmers, but it took ten trained English soldiers to every one of those farmers to subjugate
them and disarm them.
Now the Boers make no more trouble. They would
now even stand for Coolie immigration, if they were
compelled to do so—because they can not resist any
longer.
* * *
But I will say this:
If the American people would accept the Swiss military system or some similar method of arming, in an
organized and orderly fashion, every sober and reputable
citizen, then this country at once would become the
greatest and strongest democracy this world has ever
seen.
As it is now, we only have the biggest plutocracy and
may soon have a monarchy, based upon some "big stick,"
and the necessity of keeping the great "unwashed" in
his place.
I predict that if a capitalist congress and capitalist
legislature would tomorrow decide that no man is fit to
vote who does not pay at least fifty dollars taxes per
year—or if they would tomorrow decide that the working class is not fit for the ballot, because the workingmen

THE SWISS SYSTEM

145

didn't know how to use it when they had it—then the
working class would have to submit to the inevitable.
It would have to accept the new condition without resistance as a new decree of God Almighty or of his
junior partner George F. Baer.
*

*

*

On the other haid, it is clear that a scientific and systematic arming of all citizens—a real national guard—
and the general introduction of the Initiative, Referendum, Imperative Mandate and Proportional Representation—would make it possible to introduce a Socialist Republic gradually, peaceably and without any convulsions
and revolutions. It might possibly take a little longer
—and yet it would prove to be the shortest route in the
end.
And it would probably be accomplished without the
spilling of a drop of blood—by methods of democracy
and by having the power to assert the will of democracy.
*

*

*

I say, if we want to save democracy we must make it
possible for democracy to defend itself.
That was the purpose of my resolution.

146

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Is an Alliance Possible?
WRITTEN IN MARCH,

1907.

At a recent convention in Minneapolis, a national farmers' organization, called the Sons of Equity, sought an
alliance with the American Federation of Labor. The
farmers promised to patronize union-made goods. On
the other hand, they demanded that the trades unionists
should help them to get better prices for farm products.
The Sons of Equity did not try to hide at all the fact
that they were simply after more money for grain, meat,
butter, eggs, etc. This in the last analysis the city workmen would have to pay, although the farmers did not say
so. But they told the delegates at the convention that
by making money on the farm, boys and girls would
stay on the farm and not flock to the cities. Thus they
would diminish competition for labor in the factories.
So far, so good.
* * *
The difficulty in this case is, however, that the farmers
will not be able to keep their boys and girls on the farm
as long as the farmer's life is what it is—dreary and lonesome and lacking the advantages of modern civilization.
The farmer boys and farmer girls hunger for modern
life, for theaters, concerts and other entertainments. The
farmer boys and girls read of these things in the papers
and they want to see and enjoy them. They are not sat-

IS AN ALLIANCE POSSIBLE

147

isfied with an occasional circus or a revival meeting—as
were the old folks who did not read papers and magazines.
This is one reason why the young folks do not wish
to stay on the farm.
*

*

*

But there is another reason. Hope eternal springs in
every human breast, and false hopes are kindled in every
school building and every class room of this country.
The pupils hear and read of some farmer's boy who
went into the city and became a millionaire or a railroad
president, although starting as a molder's helper or street
car driver. So the boy goes to the city and becomes a
molder's helper or looks for a job on a street car. And
in 9,999 cases out of 10,000 he will stay on that job all
the rest of his life, and make competition for the city
proletarian.
The Sons of Equity can do nothing to help this, no
matter what they promise.

And now let us take up the second proposition—in
regard to getting higher prices for their products.
The farmers, just at the present time, get better prices
for their products than ever before in the history of
America since the Civil war. Eggs are 35 cents a dozen,
wheat is over a dollar, meat is more expensive than it
ever has been since the war. And mind you, all this is
not on a cheap money basis, but on a gold basis.
Many farmers all over the country have paid off their
mortgages. Many have money in the banks. Many
have pianos, fine carpets and other luxuries which they

148

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

never had before. This is an epoch of unparalleled prosperity for the capitalist and a period of money-making
for the farmer.
But what do the wage-workers have? They are, as a
rule, just as poor now as they were eight or nine years
ago, although they are constantly employed. And the
standard of living of the man and woman working in the
shop, and the man and woman working for a "salary"
has absolutely gone down, although many of them do
not realize it. The necessities of life have gone up 55
per cent since 1897, while wages have only gone up
from 10 to 15 per cent.
The workmen eat less and poorer meat, and they get
more oleomargarine and less butter. They wear more
shoddy and less woolen goods than they used to wear.
If the prices of wool and meat and of butter should go
up still further, then their standard of living would go
down still further.
As for the promise of the farmers to ^patronize only
union made goods, that, of course, in the first place,
would help the manufacturer of those goods. And, in
the second place, the wives of the farmers do most of
the buying, and it is one hundred to one that they will
buy where they can buy the cheapest, union or non-union.
The farmers' wives are known to be very thrifty. And,
in the third place, a large part of the buying is done
through catalogue houses, and the rest through country
stores. There is no union sentiment in those places.
The promise of the Sons of Equity to buy union goods
and thereby raise the wages of the proletarians amounts
to virtually nothing in practice.

IS AN ALLIANCE POSSIBLE

149

The truth of the matter is that these two classes—the
agriculturists and the city proletarians—are much too
large in numbers to get together for the purpose of plundering the capitalist class in its capacity as a consumer.
By putting up the prices of the necessities of life they
would inevitably plunder each other, never the capitalist
class, which owing to its small numbers, consumes only
a very small percentage of the total product of either
farm or factory.
Therefore the idea that the trades unions and the
farmers should get together on the* basis of the present
system and on the basis of keeping up the present competitive methods, each simply grabbing all they can, must
surely be a failure. And for a while, at least, the workman in the city (and the man working for a salary)
would get the worst of it. But in the end both sides
would get left.
*

*

*

All this does not say that the farmers have no good
reason for complaint. While they are enjoying a period
of prosperity just now, they are exploited by the railroads, the elevator trust (which in a good many instances
means the same thing as the railroads), by the bankers
and the commission houses. So the fact is that the farmers are really exploited by the middle man. Therefore
the elimination of the middle man is the actual basis on
which they can unite with the proletariat.
*

*

*

In order to be successful, such an alliance must closely
follow the economic development of the country. It can
only be done by each class honestly taking care of its

150

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

own class interests. And it can only be done on a political basis.
Now, to begin with, I am frank to say that the Socialists of this country will have to give up some of their
illusions and some of their cast-iron phrases.
Karl Marx's theory about the concentration of industry and the big fellows eating up the small ones and the
trusts being the final outcome of capitalist individual
ownership has not proven true in the Held of agriculture.
At least not up till today, nor for any time that can be
foreseen today. We do not know whether it will be true
in a hundred years or not, nor are we figuring on that.
The average size of the farm in America has not
changed materially within the last thirty years. And,
if anything, it has become no larger, but a little smaller.
* * *
But fortunately Social-Democrats have other facts in
their favor. Socialist measures will benefit the farmers
as they benefit the city workers. We can show the farmers where and how far the national ownership of the
means of transportation and communication, of the railroads, telegraphs, boat lines, elevators, etc., would benefit
them immediately. We can also show that collective
ownership of all the trusts, big iron industries, and mines
would help to raise the farmers to a standard of culture,
comfort and civilization of which they dare not even
dream today.
And on that basis, on the basis of the national ownership of transportation facilities and national ownership
of the trusts, there is a close alliance possible today between the farmers and the city proletariat, with tremendous benefits for both sides.

IS AN ALLIANCE POSSIBLE

151

And for generations to come, there is no other basis
possible. Especially since we do not know whether the
economic development in the farming industry will finally
wind up in the "bonanza farm" or in "intensive small
farming" or in both.
II
A WAY must be found to get the producers of the
country together, to get the farmers and the city proletariat into close touch. But it cannot be done on the
trades union basis.
* * *
To begin with, we have in this country no class of farm
laborers who have been wage-laborers for generations,
nor even of those who have to remain wage laborers f->r
life. It is easy for a farm laborer who is willing to work
hard to become a farm renter, and later on a farm owner.
If he has saved one or two hundred dollars, he can start
out to rent a farm. Even the negroes down South who
are not very provident, usually succeed in this. In fact,
almost every real farmer can soon start out to buy a
farm, for there is plenty of land in Wisconsin and other
Northwestern states and in the South to be had for five
dollars an acre. In the eastern states he can at least
rent one for little money. So if a man stays a hired
farm hand all.his life in this country, there is something
the matter with him.
As a matter of fact, it is exceedingly hard all over the
country to get hired farm help. In Waukesha county,
Wisconsin, hired men are offered thirty dollars a month
and their board and washing. Yet help is scarce at this
price. So it is nonsense to figure on an established class
of farm hands which as a fixed class does not exist.

152

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Of course, people ought not to study the farm question
on the east side of New York or on the west side of Chicago or from books. They should go out and observe
with their own eyes.
*

*

*

I will not try here to explain this phenomenon, and
why, in spite of the introduction of machinery, concentration has not taken place in the farming industry as it
has in the factories. I will mention only one or two
points.
The first is that the introduction of machinery in farming has not changed the entire mode of production as
it has in the factory.
In the factory, the introduction of machinery has resulted in a tremendous division of labor, one article sometimes going through fifty hands, before the product is
finished. Furthermore the big and costly machine has absolutely pushed out of existence the small manufacturer
and his shop.
This has not been the case in agriculture. After the
introduction of machinery, the mode of production has
more or less still remained the same. The wheat is growing in very much the same way as before, and cattle require just about the same kind of care. The machine
has so far helped only the middle-sized farmer. It has
made it possible for him to run a farm of about 120 to
160 acres with the help of a grown son and dispensing
with a hired man, where formerly he had to have a hired
man besides his son for a farm of that size.
So the introduction of machinery has not worked the
^evolution on the farm which it made in the factory.

IS AN ALLIANCE POSSIBLE

m

The other point is that while capitalism has found it
profitable to go into cattle and sheep raising on a large
scale, and into beet sugar and vineyards, capitalism has
failed whenever it has tried other branches of farming
on a large scale.
The bonanza farms have failed or are not paying.
The cause of this is pretty plain. The introduction of
costly machinery in factories pays because the capital invested is used all the year around. In other words, the
machinery is used every day in the year, sometimes even
in two or three shifts.
In farming this is not the case.
Most of the machinery can be used only a few weeks in
the year, and the rest of the time it lies idle.
The farmers help themselves to the more expensive
machinery either by having co-operative threshing
machines, co-operative creameries, etc., or by simply renting the service of a threshing machine that is continually
going from place to place. These circumstances, of
course, are not favorable for the growth of capitalism in
agriculture.
* * *
On the other hand, this co-operation of the farmers, of
which we have hundreds of examples in Wisconsin, and
just as many in other states, is bound to form the second bridge that will connect the farmer with the proletarian movement.
The first bridge necessarily will be the political movement—the movement for the nationalization of the big
transportation facilities, the mines and the trusts.
Co-operation, although still in its infancy, will have a

154

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

great and beneficial influence on the laborers in the cities,
and very soon it will be fully as important as the political and the trade union movements. At the same time cooperation will be as wide spread and as valuable for the
farmers as for the city workers.
* * *
So here is another link.
Electricity makes it possible to use small machinery
and transport power from great distances to the farm.
And we do not as yet know the possibilities of this for
the farmer—if the state or the collectivity in some form
should own the electric power.
* * *
Therefore it would be useless to ask the farmers to
stand for a collective ownership of all the means of production and distribution that would require them to give
up their farms. Socialism wants to restore property to
the propertyless, not to take property from those who
make good use of it. Socialism wants to restore property to the factory workers, and there it can be done only
in a collective manner. But it would be criminal and absurd to try to take away the land from the farmers as
long as they are the only ones who can use it for themselves and for the nation, and as long as they are fairly
prosperous.
Besides, it could not be done. Any attempt of that
kind would very soon end with the worst disaster for the
city proletariat that the world has ever seen. The failure
of the Paris Commune would be child's play compared
with that catastrophe.
* * *
In political affairs and especially in class politics, it is
useless to deal in hollow phrases. We have to consider

IS AN ALLIANCE POSSIBLE

155

realities and facts. It is foolish for one class to try to
get the support of the other by promising it the millenium
in the distant future. Promises for the distant future
will not go. Intelligent men want realities and want them
today.
* * *
I will close with a quotation from Wilhelm Liebknecht.
He says:
"It is true that both farmers and small shopkeepers are
still in the camp of our adversaries, but only because they
do not understand the causes that underlie their condition. It is of prime importance for our party to enlighten
them and bring them over to our side. This is a vital
question for our party, because these two classes form the
majority of the nation. It would be both stupid and ingenuous to insist that we should have a majority sealed
and ready in our pockets before we begin to apply our
principles. But it would be still more ingenuous to imagine that we could put our principles into practice against
the will of the immense majority of the nation."
So the way must be found.

156

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Only Seventeen Days to the Battle!
WRITTEN

OCTOBER 17,

1908.

ONLY two weeks before election, or "still two weeks ,,
«—according as you take it. Only he is with us heart
and soul who understands that for a Social-Democrat to
do his duty in this election, a short period of two weeks
would hardly suffice.
*
*
*
man who merely does that and allows others to do the
army is not doing his duty by only voting the ticket. A
man who merely does that and allows others to do the
fighting, simply plucks the fruit of a victory, which he
did not help to achieve. He even diminished the extent
of the victory by his failure to make new recruits.
His vote certainly counts, but he might have multiplied
it five or tenfold.
*
*
*
Only two weeks intervene between now and the election. But every one of these days is precious to the
Social-Democrat, while every day is lost which he allows
to pass without doing something to further our cause.
*

*

*

The celebrated Greek painter, Appelles, loved his art
so much that he would let no day go by without adding
at least a few lines to his picture. The Latin proverb,

ONLY SEVENTEEN DAYS TO THE BATTLE

157

"Nulla dies sina linea" (No day without a stroke) thus
originated .
Why should not a Social-Democrat manifest as much
zeal for the furtherance of Socialism as an artist shows
for his art?
*
*
*
From now until election let no day pass without directing a stroke against capitalism.
One need not be a writer, an orator or an agitator to
do this.
In the early morning hour, when on the way to work,
the Social-Democrat can fly his flag—the Socialist press.
In Milwaukee and Wisconsin this consists of the SocialDemocratic Herald and the Vorwaerts. Leave your Social-Democratic paper or a pamphlet lying on your car
seat to be read after you have reached " y ° u r corner. ,,
This is one simple and easy way.
However, every sympathizer of labor and of Socialism
should at all times be equipped with a few leaflets, papers
or pamphlets, and deposit them where they will do most
good. Women as well as men can aid in this work,
especially the women. Naturally we must go about this
in a practical and judicious way, not failing to take into
account the many languages that are spoken in Milwaukee. But the spirit of Socialism is uniting all nationalities.
The distribution on Sunday mornings—our old established Milwaukee feat—is, of course, still a main feature
of the campaign. We still have three Sundays. Let every
comrade take special pride in this distribution. It is a
great work and everybody can help there.
From now on, comrades, until election, consider the
time different from usual. Make every day not a holiday,

158

BERQER'S BROADSIDES

but a "holy day" devoted to the cause.
These 17 days are fighting days, and, as in the German
army, "war days count double," see to it that these days
count tenfold.
Let your first thought be each day, what task can I
fulfill txxiay?
Find a man who is wavering, but whom you could
convince.
Find a man, or a couple of men, who would vote our
ticket, but who are not registered. Tell them to register
on Tuesday, October 27—that is the last chance to register.
Find a man who is with us, but who is not a member
of our party organization.
Make a note of people who have moved in or moved
out of your election precinct.
Look over the registration list of your precinct and
see whether all who have a right to register have done
so—or whether there is a false registration.
Get subscribers for the Social-Democratic Herald and
for the Vorwaerts.
Get your friends and neighbors, and wives and grown
children to attend our meetings.
Get contributions for the campaign fund and explain
that we will not accept anything from the Standard Oil
company or the capitalist class, therefore, we must bear
the expense of the campaign ourselves.
*
*
*
Do all this during the next seventeen days, and your
work will redound to your credit all your life. You will
always look back upon these days as "real holidays"—spent in the war for humanity.

LABOR LEARNS IN THE SCHOOL OF EXPERIENCE

159

Labor Learns in the School of
Experience.
WRITTEN DECEMBER 2,

1905.

ENGLAND is the home of modern trade unionism.
There the trades unions developed directly from the old
guilds and journeymen's societies of the Middle Ages.
It is natural that in England every skilled workman
should belong to a union, and under the influence of Socialist thought and Socialist agitation, a good many
unions of non-skilled laborers have been formed, as for
instance, the dockmen's union through John Burns, and
the gasworkers' union through Will Thorne.
Yet although over a million and a half of organized
workmen belong to the trade unions in England—which
are a giant army of themselves—the trade union movement of England has failed to emancipate the wageworkers or even to alleviate the condition of the masses.
Just now the telegraph every day reports the tremendous
demonstrations of starving workingmen in London, Birmingham, and other towns. The English trade unionists
begin to understand, that without a political class movement, their economic struggle is hopeless. Our American
fraternal delegates to Europe reported in Pittsburg that
what most struck them at the last British Trade Union
Congress as different from our American conventions,
was the fact that almost all the time was taken up with

160

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

politics, and with the discussion of the political labor
movement.
So the workingmen in England have finally come to
the same conclusion which the workingmen in Germany,
France, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Holland, Sweden, Norway, etc., reajched long ago—that the economic movement
alone is absolutely insufficient even to materially and permanently improve the condition of the working class, let
alone the abolition of wage slavery. They find now in
England also that it is absolutely necessary for the workers to get hold of the latch of legislation if they intend
to accomplish anything worth while and anything lasting.
In Germany, as we all know, the development of the
labor movement was from exactly the opposite direction.
There Ferdinand Lasalle started the modern labor movement absolutely upon a political basis. The Allgemeine
Deutsche Arbeiter-Verein demanded before all things the
universal electoral franchise for the workers, and then a
hundred million dollars from the Prussian State, in order
to start a co-operative workshop system. These demands,
as all the others which Lasalle formulated, were purely
political in their character. Lasalle and the iron-clad Lasalleans had nothing but derision for the trade unions
which had been held up as one of the main panaceas for
the working people by Lasalle's bourgeois opponent,
Schultze-Delitsch. In the heat of the fight, Lasalle
naturally went too far in his opposition to the trade
unions. But even Lasalle's friend and successor in the
dictatorship of the Allgemeine Deutsche Arbeiter-Verein
and the young Socialist party of the time, Johann v.
Schweitzer, by the mere force of conditions, found him-

LABOR LEARNS IN THE SCHOOL OF EXPERIENCE

161

self compelled to start trade unions of his own, which
have grown to a membership of about 1,400,000, that is,
they have now about as many members as the English
trade union movement.
Thus while in England the tendency for a long time
was to regard the political side of the labor question as
something secondary—the labor representatives usually
voted with the Liberal party—in Germany, on the other
hand, the trade union movement was considered of less
account until of late. For even the early Marxian Socialists in Germany *had little or no use for the trade unions.
As a matter of fact, since the Lasallean wing had started
the trade union movement, the Gewerkschaften, the early
Marxians thought it their duty to fight them as much as
possible—until 1875, when the union of the Lasalleans
and the Eissenachers was affected. And similar conditions to those which forced upon the attention of the English working class the necessity of a strong political class
movement, forced also upon the German working class
the necessity of developing a strong economic movement
of the laboring class.
* * *
So the political struggle, as an equally powerful factor
with the economic struggle, is now becoming the watchword in England, and the strongest possible trade union
movement, as a necessary help and adjunct to the political
movement, is now the central idea of the Social-Democracy of Germany. At the last convention of the party,
Bernstein and Bebel went so far as to strongly endorse
and advocate the idea of a general political strike—an idea
which in former years has been repeatedly rejected as
anarchistic. Bebel even now would only use it in case of

162

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

an attempt to disfranchise the workers in Germany—
which the Junker party, the nobility and the emperor
would very much like to try—and this would be a case of
answering with anarchy from below the anarchy from
above. Bernstein, however, would like to go very much
further in the use of the strike weapon for political purposes.
So, at any rate, the trade unionists pure and simple, as
well as the Socialist politicians pure and simple, have
pretty nearly disappeared in the labor movement of the
world. The American labor movement derived its roots
from England on the one side and Germany on the other.
From England it received the idea of the trade union
pure and simple, which was in vogue in England years
ago, but is now being discarded. From Germany, the
American labor movement received its Socialism, an idea
which originally was purely political, but now takes in
the trade union movement.
But thanks to the fervor of the Socialists in the eighties of the last century, we see from the beginning of the
trade union movement in America a constant fight. The
Socialists at first tried to run the trade unions simply as
an appendix to the Socialist party, and fought and villified the labor leaders who resisted; while on the other
hand, these labor leaders—some of whom were capitalist
politicians—made use of these attacks to make the trades
unionists of the country believe that the Socialists were
the enemies of the trade unions. This war went on relentlessly for years and found its first natural expression,
when Daniel DeLeon (who made his entrance into the
Socialist movement in 1892) started the Socialist Trade
^nd Labor Alliance in 1896 in opposition to the American

LABOR LEARNS IN THE SCHOOL OF EXPERIENCE

163

Federation of Labor, for the purpose of creating a purely
political trade union movement. DeLeon was logical
from the old Socialist standpoint, but that standpoint was
wrong and the attempt necessarily failed,
Since then, even the most fanatic Lasallean Socialists
in America could not help but learn from the example of
the Socialist parties in Europe and also from the failure
of their own tactics in this country. The trouble is only
that they went to the opposite extreme. And while they
formerly tried to inject Socialist politics into the trades
unions, examples of which were the Socialist Trade and
Labor Alliance and later the American Labor Union, they
now try to inject trade unionism into Socialist politics
and to solve political questions by the trade union. The
trade union is now the fetich before which we must bow
down. And "industrialism,"—a term which simply signifies one form of an organization for trades unions and
per se has nothing to do with Socialism—is in future to
be considered by Socialists as the magic key which will
open the gate of freedom for the American proletariat.
The result of this other extreme was the formation last
June of the Industrial Workers of the World in Chicago,
which in its platform demands that the trade union
should also do the work of a political party. That is its
sense, if any sense can be made out of its contradictions.
*

*

*

As usual, both extremes are wrong. The truth lies in
the middle.
The trade union and the Socal-Democratic party are
both a part of the labor movement, but they have different and separate functions.

164

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

The trade union seeks the raising of wages in accordance with the conditions of the labor market, the abolition of overtime and better pay for it when it is absolutely necessary. Every trade union strives to secure
more human working conditions. Every trade union
opposes the reduction of wages. Every trade union
strengthens the feeling of solidarity, Every trade union
is a promise of a better standard of living for the working class.
So much for the trade union.
On the other hand, every lost strike—and every strike
won—teaches the trades union man that his economic
struggle alone is entirely inadequate. Wage scales adopted
are incapable of overbridging the chasm between labor
and capital. The fight will break out again, and must
break out again. And the interference of the capitalist
states and municipal governments—the police, the court,
the military—constantly reminds the wage-workers that
the economic rule of the capitalist class culminates in its
political rule.
It also reminds the workers that the only adequate
weapon is the ballot.
The concentration of wealth, the formation of trusts,
the industrial crisis, do the rest.
Result? Every thinking trades union man is bound to
join the Social-Democratic party, sooner or later.
*

*

*

And this is what we mean when we say that we must
have a two-armed labor movement—a labor movement
with a political arm and with an economic arm. Each
arm has its own work to do, and one arm ought not to
interfere with the other, although they are parts of the

LABOR LEARNS IN THE SCHOOL OF EXPERIENCE

165

same body. That is the "Milwaukee idea." In the personal union of the workers of both, that is, in having
the same persons take an active interest in both the trade
union and the political labor movement, we find the
strongest connecting link between the Social-Democratic
party and the trade union organization. This idea works
successfully not only in Milwaukee, but everywhere
wherever the true relationship between trades unionism
and Socialism is rightly understood. Then we find the
same men, with the same thoughts, aims, and ideals,
working in the economic and the political field, thus forming a grand army moving on two roads for the abolition
of the capitalist system.

166

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Socialism is a Question on Development.
W R I T T E N D E C E M B E R 30,

1905.

EVERY new truth tends to become a commonplace.
Every exception tends to form a rule, originality to
become a type.
The commonplace of today was the originality of
yesterday. To compare the eyes of one's sweetheart to
stars today is trite and silly, but originally the comparison was wonderfully poetical; and just because it was
beautiful, it was repeated over and over till it was
spoiled.
So it is with all wisdom and knowledge.
A modern labor convention contains a good deal more
wisdom than was probably required in Greek or Roman
senates, for the mental labor of the best thinkers and
investigators of the past, joined to the knowledge of the
present, there find their expression. Many old catchwords
and phrases may be heard, but all these not long ago
were considered fine, significant, original ideas. They,
however, have come into common use, and thus have
lost the charm of novelty. They are no longer sensational ! That is all. But the new sensational ideas of today are not therefore better, wiser or truer.
The commonplace of today is not only the originality
of yesterday, but it is yesterday's heart, its life-blood;

SOCIALISM IS A QUESTION OF DEVELOPMENT

167

for only that which was actually good and of great value
could survive and expand into common use.
What before was new and bold, for instance, Copernicus' discovery that the earth revolves around the sun,
or Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood,
and a thousand other things, are now taught in all the
schools and have thus become as commonplace as the art
of reading or writing. Public speaking was a rare art
not long ago. Now oratory among the masses is quite
a matter of course. The ballot and the present education
of the people are the results of the mental labor and the
efforts of the best men of the recent past.
The so-called genius of today will be the "philistine"
of tomorrow.
*
*
*
If living men of genius were gathered together in one
assemblage, they would by no means exhibit an astonishing amount of intellect, but would merely show themselves up as average men, as ordinary philistines. The
fact is simply this—every genius, besides his one-sided
specialty, which makes him a remarkable individuality,
has many qualities in common with his neighbors and
with all nameless human beings. All these common
qualities we will call A. Besides these, each man of
genius has something peculiar, but which with each one
of them is different. These peculiarities we will call B,
C, D, E, etc. If a hundred men of genius were together,
we should have a hundred A's, but only one B, one C,
one D, E, F, G, H, etc. And in every vote the hundred
average men A would always prevail, and the individuals
B, C, D, E, F, etc. would continually remain alone in
their wisdom.
One hundred men of genius in public affairs are there-

168

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

fore equal to one hundred philistines and probably would
be even very retrogressive, since it is well known that
remarkable strength in one direction is usually attained
at the expense of all other faculties of the individual.
These one hundred men of genius, being human in other
respects, would probably turn out remarkably reactionary.
America is pretty rich in men of genius, but in consequence of their natural peculiarities, they are called
"cranks" for short. This does not prove that every crank
is a genius.
What Social-Democrats teach, and their entire terminology, which twenty-five years ago in Europe and America was sensational, unheard-of and incomprehensible, is
now understood by almost everybody. The complete formulas of Socialism are already beginning in many circles
to become very commonplace.
Even a bourgeois-radical movement, like the Hearst
movement in New York, for instance, ten years ago
would have been impossible, but now only the large
capitalists are alarmed by it.
The bold and original thinkers, who always outstrip
their age, need not be silent because they are not perfectly understood, nor should they withhold the fruits of
their mental labor.
But they should not fall into a tone of military authority or strike a commanding attitude, for then they would
neither be listened to nor understood, and would only
hurt their cause. They must rather preach, teach, agitate,
and unweariedly present the same arguments.
The more frequently they are repeated, the more common, the more current their ideas will become, until at
last these ideas are universally known and acknowledged,

SOCIALISM IS A QUESTION OF DEVELOPMENT

169

and the most obstinate philistine will declare that he has
always said so.
Our whole agitation is a question of time, since average men want to inherit their views and not work them
out. The new teaching, which was brought to the knowledge of one generation even against its will, will be
accepted by the following generation as quite a matter
of course. Ideas which were known to one generation,
will be tried by the next, and if advantageous, will be
adopted.
*

*

*

On this rests the ever growing power of Socialism.
By the millions, it will no longer be regarded as something new, unheard-of, but it will be tried, found useful
and adopted among other conquered thoughts and ideas.
Then these millions will only wait for a favorable opportunity to realize their idea with the least possible sacrifice.
Such a harvest is now ripening for Social-Democracy
within the capitalistic world in the minds of the masses,
and no capitalistic genius has the power, by any new
artful illusion, to divert their thoughts from the new
system and its trial!
To understand Social-Democracy is to accomplish it.
Its most powerful enemies at present are old traditions
and habits of thought. But these old notions are very
out-of-date and threadbare. Moreover, the actual facts
have so plainly demonstrated them to be false, that
they have lost their power even over the unthinking
multitude. All new mental labor is for the benefit of
progress and directly or indirectly aids Socialism. The
old dies, the new grows full of vital power. The moment

170

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

is approaching, when the new society will be freed from
its old swaddling-clothes.
And this entire process we call mental development.

Getting on the Band Wagon.
W R I T T E N FEBRUARY 3,

1906.

T H E PLATFORM of the Social-Democratic party
demands the collective ownership of all the means of
production and distribution, namely, land, mines, mills,
factories, railroads, etc., for the purpose of operating the
industries in the interest of the whole people.
The Socialists say that this is no Utopian dream, but
the necessary natural outcome of the development of
capitalist society.
Antagonists of Socialism used to say that collective
ownership was impossible because the personal supervision and control of the owner was absolutely necessary
to the success of any enterprise. But today we see that
the greatest undertakings are those in which the stockholders have nothing to do with the management of
affairs and are only drawing dividends.
In all our large industrial affairs, stock companies,
railroads, and trusts, the whole business is managed and
carried on by a few paid officials who might just as well
be paid by the community, the state, or the nation (as
the case may be) to carry on the Enterprise in the inter-

GETTING ON THE BAND WAGON

171

ests of the people, as to be paid by a few wealthy men
to carry it on for their profit.
This, carried out to its logical conclusion, involves a
complete change in the system of government.
The present government is based upon private property. It is necessarily oppressive. Its vital function is the
protection of the owning and ruling class.
When productive capital becomes collective property,
government will necessarily become purely administrative. It will cease to be unjust and oppressive. And our
laws will be few and they will be simple.
Social-Democracy will be the first real democracy that
has ever existed. Political equality, under the present
system, is a snare and delusion. The wage worker who
depends upon an employer for the opportunity to work
and support his family, is not on terms of political equality with his master.
^Political liberty and economic despotism are incompatible.
The Social-Democratic party proposes to establish industrial democracy. We want to convert the present
plutocratic republic into a genuine democracy.
We want it especially understood that the Social-Democracy proposes to increase and not diminish the production of wealth.
We propose to secure private property to the overwhelming mass of people who, under the present system,
have none. Capital only is to be owned in common. Instead of countless capitalists, constantly at war with each
other, there will be only one capitalist and that will be
the people. Production will be carried on for use and
not for profit.

1?2

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

This is the end and aim of the Social-Democratic
party.
And the usual argument in defense of the present
vicious system is not that it is right, but that it is here,
and must stay, whether we like it or not. Now, we Social-Democrats deny this.
We Social-Democrats believe that in a civilized country the question is not what is but what ought to be. If
you can prove that a thing is good, let it stay. But if one
cannot prove that it is good, he cannot hide behind the
assertion that it is here and must remain. We believe
that the American people are great enough and strong
enough to get rid of anything they do not want.
The capitalist system did not always exist. It followed
the feudal system.
The capitalist has done some good in this world. The
capitalist system was useful.
The capitalist system was a step in the evolution to
freedom, but only a step. It has outlived its usefulness
and therefore it should pass away. And what is more,
it will pass away.
The contention that the Social-Democrats as yet have
not the majority is foolish. Every great party had a beginning once and was founded by a very small minority
indeed.
The Social-Democratic party is growing fast. But the
man voting for a principle never throws his vote away.
We say: Better vote for what you want, even if you do
not get it, than vote for what you don't want and get it.
The phrase of "getting on the band wagon" is a stupid
phrase. Who is on the "band wagon?" Not the average
voter. The capitalist politician and office seeker are on
the "band wagon."

GETTING ON THE BAND WAGON

173

And why should we wait for the beginning until the
majority of the votes are with us? The majority is
always indolent and often ignorant. We cannot expect
them to be anything else with their present social surroundings., They never have brought about conscientiously and deliberately any great social change. They
have always permitted an energetic minority to prepare
the way and then they have always gone with that progressive minority when the fact itself was to be accomplished.
In Milwaukee we may gain the majority next April. A
great deal may be accomplished in a city for the citizens
of that city—although we cannot accomplish everything
or anything near the whole program. We must wait for
this until we have the state and the nation.
In the state and the nation our objective point for the
next year or two must be: a respectable minority. One
respected as to numbers; respected as representing the
most advanced intelligence; and respected as containing
the sincere and energetic representatives of the proletriat which must do the bulk of the fighting in the new
world.
Given such a Social-Democratic minority in congress
and in the legislatures of every state within the next few
years,—the future of this country will be safe,

174

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

A Few Plain Pointers for Plain
Working People—By a
Plain Man.
WRITTEN MARCH 6,

1906.

W H A T is the question for you, Mr. Workingman?
For you the question is always the same.
The working part of the population—the very part that
does all the hard labor—is now damned to a hell without
hope or likelihood of redemption. They are doomed to
a life of suffering, of misery, of ignorance, and of constant hardship. They live poorly from day to day, are
badly fed, badly dressed and badly housed. And what is
worse, they are always in danger of losing their measly
little jobs. And such trouble in a short time may turn
the well-meaning workman into a good-for-nothing
tramp, his wife and daughters into miserable creatures
of lust, and his sons into thieves.
The Protection of a Jail.
And while the laws protect property and morals, capitalists and murderers, they do not protect the man in
need of work. He finds himself confronted with the
alternative of taking "charity" or starving.
If he wants protection, he must commit a crime. He
must steal, rob, dr become a common drunkard. Then

A FEW PLAIN POINTERS BY A PLAIN M A N

175

he is "protected" by the law. He is sent to jail and the
so-called "house of correction."
Now that is the condition as far as you are concerned.
Nor is this all.
Children also Doomed.
By the mere fact that they are the children of a
laborer, your children are as a rule condemned to the
same fate as their parents. Unless they are saved by a
streak of good luck, they are also doomed to become
laborers.
For no matter how talented these children may be,
they get no training or education or proper care, since
the parents, partly from ignorance, partly from poverty,
cannot give it. They are sent to work while still very
young, for they must help sustain the family, or starve
with it. Their suffering begins when they are mere
babes, in fact even before they are born.
How to change these conditions ought to be the main
question for you, Mr. Workman.
Not Christian Charity.
And this ought not to be so very hard.
For if we look closer, there are all the elements at
hand to make a comparative heaven out of this hell.
There are all the things that laborers need in all countries and in plenty. Especially is this so in America.
There are plenty of all good things, for the laborers have
produced them. And if there should not be enough, they
would produce more, if permitted to do so.
Why don't they d o i t ?
Because the laborers under the present conditions cannot employ themselves, but are dependent on the will and
convenience of some factory owner. And not for love,

176

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

nor for Christian charity, does the owner of the factory
give the laborers employment. He does so to invest
capital and to make a profit.
The workingman's labor has become a mere ware in
the market, and as such his labor (that is, himself) is
subject to the regular conditions of supply and demand.
He and his labor are now subject also to competition,
Worse Off Than the Slave.
The capitalist or employer cares to buy the laborer's
time only when he is young, strong and healthy. When
he is sick, or when he gets old, the employer has no use
for him.
And because of this we see that our so-called free
worker is actually worse off than the blacks were under
slavery before the war. The black was "property" and
represented about $1,000 of value which his master
owned. Therefore the master took good care of him.
He was anxious to have his "nigger" in good condition
as long as possible.
It is of course different with the white slaves. They
are free to starve.
What Can You Do?
With a system like this, it is only natural that the rich
should become richer, and the poor poorer.
And another thing. The strength on the capitalist side
is so great and the capacity for resistance on the side
of the workmen so insignificant, that there is actually no
freedom of contract. The monoply of tools has made
the employers a class of autocrats and the laborers a class
of dependents—of hirelings. The laborer is simply a
hired appendage to the machine. The machine has become the main thing—the only thing. The living appen-

A FEW PLAIN POINTERS BY A PLAIN M A N

177

dage, the laborer, can be gotten without much trouble
or cost.
It is a paltry evasion of our capitalists to say that the
workers are free to accept or to refuse the terms of their
employers. The laborers have to consent. If they refuse
the terms, there are plenty of others hungry, starved and
desperate, ready to take their places.
He Is in the Same Boat.
But wage workers are by no means the only sufferers.
The small employers, the small merchants are also feeling the sting of an unequal competition. For every one
of these men of business lives at war with all his brethren. The hand of the one is against the other, and no
foe is more terrible than the man who is running a neck
to neck race with him every day.
Therefore, in the factory as well as in the store, the
profits must be cut constantly and the sales must be
always enlarged. The latest improvements, the best
labor-saving machinery must be used and as little wages
must be paid as possible. The race is for life and death
and "the devil gets the hindmost."
The great capitalist triumphs, the small capitalist becomes a clerk, a politician, a traveling agent, a saloonkeeper, a lawyer, or a parasite of one kind or another—
sometimes even a wage earner.
Thus the middle class disappears little by little.
The final outcome so far is the trust and the mammoth
department store.
We Pay For It.
Private ownership being nowadays a failure in the
entire industrial system, it is a double failure in the
matter of public service monopolies. These by their very
nature ought to be carried on by the state or by the

178

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

municipality. For $9,000,000,000 worth of shares now in
existence, the original investors certainly paid not more
than $865,000,000, or ten per cent of their face value
and probably less. Without redress or possible remedy
under present laws, the American people are paying interest and dividends annually on a capital stock amounting to billions of dollars which never had real existence.
What Is Coming?
Workingmen, think deeply on these matters. Things
cannot go on like this indefinitely. White men will not
always stand it. We are by our present circumstances
and conditions creating a race of people in our midst,
compared with whom the Vandals of the Fourth Century
were a humane race. Within a short time we shall have
two nations in this country, both of native growth. One
will be very large in number, semi-civilized, half-starved
and degenerated through misery. The other will be small
in number, over-fed, over-civilized, and degenerated
through luxury.
What will be the outcome? Some day there will be a
volcanic eruption. The millions of the starved workmen
will turn against the few overfed capitalists and their
minions.
A fearful retribution will be enacted on the capitalistic
class as a class. The innocent will suffer with the guilty.
Such a revolution would even cause a temporary retrogression of civilization and throw humanity back into
semi-barbarism. Let us take warning from history.
Meaning of Social-Democracy.
There is but one deliverance from the rule of the
people by capital—and that is the rule of the capital by
the people. If much of what has been considered private

A FEW PLAIN POINTERS BY A PLAIN M A N

179

property is to be absorbed in great monopolistic ownership, as seems to be the inevitable outcome of the competitive struggle, then the people should become the
monopolists.
The only hope for the people for either industrial or
political freedom lies in their taking "lawful" possession
of the machinery and the forces of production and establishing the co-operative commonwealth. And this is called
Socialism.
Must Grow from Bottom Up.
Now a municipal campaign is a very small and insignificant part of the grand social and economic revolution,
which we intend to accomplish.
Yet municipal Socialism is very important. There can
be no doubt that the Social-Democrats will carry cities
and towns before they carry states, or before they carry
a national election. Like everything else that is growing,
Socialism must grow from the bottom up.
There is one other great question to be considered,
especially in this country.
Must Fight "Graft."
Socialism can never take deep root in a commonwealth
that is absolutely corrupt. A Social-Democracy can never
be established in a nation that is thoroughly rotten. More
than any other citizens, more than any other political
party, the Social-Democrats are interested in unearthing
corruption, weeding out grafters and fighting boodlers.
Although the boodlers are the natural product of the
capitalistic system, of the terrific competitive struggle
and of modern business principles, the boodlers more
than any other agency poison the minds of the people.
And regardless of party affiliation, the boodlers and

180

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

grafters concentrate their entire strength against the
Social-Democratic party.
We must therefore put down the boodlers and grafters in order to make Socialism possible.
Business Men and Graft.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. We are not simply
attacking David S. Rose, who is an arch-grafter, or any
Democrats and Republicans personally as "bad men."
No intelligent man longer believes in the panacea for
social ills that used to be offered, namely, the elevation
of so-called "good men" to office.
And right here let me say a few words about "business" and business men.
If there is a fetish in this country today, it is the word
"business." The business man is very often by necessity
a grafter and "boodle" is simply business applied to
politics.
The business world has degenerated. Therefore we
Socialists warn the voters not to be caught by the current drivel about "business methods" and "business principles." A government is not a personal contrivance like
a business. It should bring the greatest good to all regardless of profit.
Workmen Compelled to Be Honest.
What Milwaukee and other large cities need most just
now is workingmen's administrations.
Only the workingman is being taught by all agencies
to be honest.
His employer teaches him to be honest. If he is not,
he is discharged. His foreman teaches him to be honest;
if he is not, he loses his job. His union teaches him to
be honest, if he is not, if he becomes a scab, he is liable

JA FEW PLAIN POINTERS BY A PLAIN MAN

181

to get into sore trouble. His class interest teaches him
to be honest, because he has nothing to gain and everything to lose by being dishonest. And outside of a few
business agents or "walking delegates" here and there,
who get into touch with the contractors and politicians,
and get spoiled thereby, the working class as a class is
honest.
They have the New Conscience.
Moreover, their class interest compels them to combine, because only by combination can they resist combined capital. This class interest also awakens in them
the sense of collective social responsibility. The capitalist
class and the middle class do not have this because with
them the motto is: Each man for himself and the devil
take jthe hindmost.
Now with the working class the motto has been turned
the other way: Everybody for himself means that the
devil gets them all. We must hang together or we hang
separately.
Once more in the world a new conscience is being
formed. It is not formed by our particular goodness, but
is formed by iron necessity.
Must Turn to Us.
So in this city as in every other modern city the citizens without difference of political affiliation or religious
creed, have to turn to us workingmen for honest government and clean administration. We do not make any
special boast of our honesty. While with the capitalistic
party honesty is the highest virtue demanded, with us it
is the first and the least requisite of a Social-Democrat.
A man must also possess a good many other things before he is considered a good Social-Democrat.
Meanwhile in the camp of the enemy, boodle, corrup-

182

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

tion and scandals are growing from year to year. If any
capitalist party in this city should be victorious, things
will no doubt be worse two years from now than today.
Look backward in the history of Milwaukee for thirty
years. Tell me of a single election when the opposition
did not claim, and rightly claim, that the corruption had
gotten worse.
What Else Can You Do?
Every honest man and woman who can think ought
therefore to come to the following conclusion:
The machinery and all progress in implements of production we cannot and do* not want to destroy. Civilization must not go back to the middle ages or be reduced
to barbarism. But as long as these implements of production—land, machinery, raw materials, railroads, telegraphs, etc., remain private property, only comparatively
few can be the sole owners and masters.
Capitalism was a step in the evolution of freedom,
but only a step. There can be no social freedom or complete justice, until there are no more hirelings in the
world; until all become both the employers and the
employed of society. This is our aim. And this is what
we want to bring about gradually and peaceably.
If you want to add one stone to the building up of a
new system, where graft and grafters shall be unknown,
—if you want to vote for yourself, and for the future
of your children, then vote the Social-Democratic ticket
and vote it straight.

IS THERE ANY OTHER W?AY

183

Is There Any Other Way ?
WRITTEN APRIL 14,

1906.

T H I S WORLD is a veritable hell for the larger half
of the population. Truly, they need salvation. They
need it in this world. What, then, must we do to be
saved ?
And yet, if we look closer, there are all the elements at
hand to make a comparative heaven out of this hell.
There are all the things that laborers need, and in all
countries. Especially is this true in America, where there
are plenty of all good things for the laborers who have
produced them. And if there should not be enough, they
would produce more, if permitted to do so.
*

*

sjc

Right here we catch a glimpse of one of the cardinal
points of the whole question—the question of all the
misery in the world.
The workmen would and could produce everything in
plenty, but they cannot do so at will. They must wait
for somebody else to permit them to do so, to give them
work,for they do not own the tools or the raw materials.
The tools (i. e. the machines) are expensive now-adays, therefore they are under complete control of the
capitalist class. And the tools of today also require a
great amount of material, and to buy that requires capi-

184

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

tal, which is another reason why capital controls production.
You see then that "capitalism" is the wall which the
devil has put up between the laborer and his product.
But the machinery and all the progress in implements
of production we cannot and do not want to destroy.
Civilization does not want to go back to the middle ages
or be reduced to barbarism. But as long as these implements of production—land, machinery, raw materials,
railroads, telegraphs, etc., remain private property, only
comparatively few can be their sole masters. As long as
such is the case they will naturally use this private
ownership for their own private advantage.
And capitalism is marching on. In 1901 when the terrible Theodore Roosevelt became president, the trusts
controlled about nine billions worth of property. Now
they control twenty-nine billions, out of a total of ninety
billions.
*
*
*
Now, what are the people to do ? Must progress stop ?
Are we to go back to feudalism and barbarism because
the economic interests of the capitalist class dominate
both of the old parties? Our progress, our production
on a large scale, the mighty accumulation of capital
makes monopoly a necessary condition. Monopoly is
here, whether we wish it or not.
The question, therefore, is only, shall it be a private
or a public monopoly ?
The question is, do we wish to leave the products of
this country in the control of a small number of irresponsible men, whose only interest is to exploit us up to the
last limit of our endurance?
Do we wish to leave to a small clique the monopoly

IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY

185

of all things which make life good and desirable? Do
we wish to make them absolute masters of all the necessities of our lives ?
Do we wish to let a small number of capitalists decide
how much meat and how much bread we shall eat, how
much we shall spend for coal and how much for oil, how
nicely or how poorly we shall be clothed and housed—
in brief, how well or how ill, how long or how short
a time we shall live?
The same economic causes which developed capitalism
are leading to Socialism, which will abolish both the
capitalist class and the class of wage workers. And the
active force in bringing about this new and higher order
of society is the Social-Democratic party.
*

*

*

We still have one way left to conquer these powerful
economic lords. We still have the ballot and can avail
ourselves of political power. Shall we use this power?
The capitalist parties, the Republican as well as the
Democratic, are both upholding the present system' with
its exploitation and its trust rule. The question is then:
Shall we put the Social-Democratic party into power,
which will take hold of the meat trust, the oil trust, the
coal trust, and every other trust, and put them into the
possession of the whole people and thus make all the
people shareholders ?
If this is impossible, why is it possible for a comparatively small clique—the trust owners—to have this control ? These people as a rule do not know anything about
the production and distribution of this country. They
have no more to do with it than the man in the moon,
outside of the fact that they now reap the benefits. Now

186

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

if that is possible for this small number of people, why
should it not be possible for all the people?
The Social-Democrats propose the change in the mechanism of society, which has been made necessary by
the invention and application of machinery, by the concentration of wealth, and the formation of trusts. This
change will not mean the "division of property," the
plunder of the Haves for the benefit of the Have-nots.
It will take place legally, for the majority of the people
have a right to make the laws, and the new system will
make it possible for everybody to live out his own life
and to develop his personality, as long as he does not
infringe upon the right of others. Is this Un-American ?
*
*
*
Under a Social-Democratic system then, the workmen
will get the full value of their labor and you will all get
the benefit of the riches,of this great country. We will
settle the "bredd and butter" question, the question of
property which is underlying all the other social questions
of the day. Is there any other solution for the question ?
And is any other solution of this question a final solution ?

ABOLISH PARTIES; WHAT FOR

187

Abolish Parties? What For?
WRITTEN JJANI/ARY 23,

1909.

T H E GREAT OUTCRY of some "reformers" of the
present day is that parties are corrupting our political
life—particularly, that national party politics are corrupting our local politics.
, Acting on this theory, some of the reformers in the
Milwaukee charter convention lay special stress upon the
banishment of all parties from the ballot at municipal
elections. They hope, thereby, to banish all evil and to
elect so-called "good men," simply because they are
"good men."'
* * *
However, one might ask, if parties are such an evil
in local elections, why are they not an evil in state elections? A state election is a local election on a larger
scale.
And why not also banish parties from national tickets ?
A national election is a state election on a larger scale.
* * *
Moreover, we should like to know in what way
the national party corrupts local politics in New York?
Does the national Republican or the national Democratic party corrupt pure, innocent Tammany Hall ? And
do the "gray wolves" in the Chicago common council

188

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

receive their impetus from Theodore Roosevelt or from
William Jennings Bryan?
And while I am not at all an admirer of the Democratic party, still I do not believe that Bryan is in any
way responsible for the doings of Mayor Rose and his
city Democracy.
* * *
If one looks a little closer at some of the men who are
proposing to destroy all political parties, one is apt to
find the following types:
i. The average bourgeois ideologist, who is looking
for some explanation of the political rottenness, and
would under no circumstances charge it to "business men
in politics" and to legal graft. Such an opinion might
interfere with the respect for himself, his best friends,
and for capitalism in general.
2. The old exploiter, politician or lawyer, grown
wealthy by business graft, or legal graft, but who in his
old age has retired from business and is trying to appear
"good." And if he has often been defeated on some old
party ticket because of the well-merited hatred of the
voters, then he is apt to flatter himself that he would
have had better chances if there were no parties.
*

*

*

As a matter of fact a democracy (the rule of the
demos, the people)—or a republic (res publica, government by the people) is impossible tththout political parties.
As long as we have democracy, and particularly, representative democracy, parties will be absolutely necessary
for its expression. There will be either anarchy and
crude factionalism or organized political parties.

ABOLISH PARTIES; WH?AT FOR

189

Men who politically organize around some issues and
for the same class interest, will always form a party—no
matter by what name it is called, or whether they call it
a party or not.
* * *
Who are trying to smash parties because they are
corrupting political life, are acting in exactly the same
way as the workmen of old, who wanted to smash the
machines because they thought that the machines were
responsible for their poverty. However, it is not the
machine that keeps the workmen poor, but it is the
capitalist ownership of the machine.
And in exactly the same way it is not parties that
are to blame for the political rottenness of our public
life, but it is the capitalist ownership of the riding parties.
sfc

*

*

Parties are necessary in our political life as machines
are in our industrial life.
Parties in the end are simply the political expression
of econontic interests.
It is therefore only natural that class interest must
sooner or later prevail in all parties. And any effort to
suppress this is stupid, reactionary and absolutely undemocratic.
If the working class—or any other class, for that matter—is not permitted to express its opinion and demands
through parties, then these opinions and demands will
be expressed through the bomb, the dagger, the pistol
and finally through bloody revolution.

190

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

However, the majority report of the special committee
of the charter convention of Milwaukee tries, to provide
for a bill to abolish parties altogether.
All candidates who can scare up the signatures of two
per cent of the voters on their petitions, are to be placed
at random on the ballot—and all party names or designations are to be eliminated. There is to be nothing on
the ballot excepting the name of the person seeking the
office.
Now if this majority report is adopted it will eliminate
all principles and ideas from municipal elections and concentrate all attention upon the office seekers.
Dave Rose's motto, "This dying for principle is all
rot," will then be embodied in the charter by his supposed enemies, the "reformers." Principle will be
nothing—the person of the office-seeker will be everything.
Every election would be a catch-as-catch-can affair.
It would be the Eldorado for boodlers, grafters and
crooks. It would be just the very condition any grasping
corporation could wish for.
*

*

*

And the office-seeker with the most money to spend—
particularly the so-called "good fellow/' who knows how
to spend it in the saloons to the best advantage, or who
has friends who can do the trick for him—would be the ;
winner. Or the men who can afford to advertise the
most, or those backed up by the biggest newspapers,
would have the best chances to win out.
The next best chance would be for the man who belongs to many secret societies or to many church socie-

ABOLISH PARTIES; WHAT FOR

191

ties, where they distribute ballots, after the church service on the Sunday before election.
* * *
Now, I say all this, although I might also add that
there is one tremendous factor in this city, a big organization, which would also have a very good chance under
that method, and that is the Social-Democratic party,
simply on the strength of our organization. Only the
new method would require a good deal more work.
However, this method would demoralize all the other
forces for good. It would undo a great deal of the work
that our party, with the help of men who also possess
the civic conscience, has accomplished heretofore.
And it would infinitely increase the chances for corruption. The corporations and grafters would have to
deal with individuals only, instead of dealing with organizations.
* * *
For we must not forget that at the present day, no
matter how rotten a party may be, it is to a certain
extent responsible to the people who voted that ticket
for the selection of its candidates. These candidates
may be grafters and rascals. The party is beyond any
doubt responsible for them to the people. Even Tammany Hall in New York is responsible to a certain
extent. All the Cook county Democracy, with its "gray
wolves" and our city Democracy with its hyenas, is
held responsible by the people.
Abolish all parties and nobody would be responsible
to the people. We should have absolute political anarchy.
* * *
Compared with these serious objections, it is of comparatively smaller importance, that with nothing to guide

192

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

the voters in the wilderness of the long list of names on
the ballot, this will result in focusing the attention of
the people upon the half dozen men running for mayor.
No one will remember the long list of the other candidates for the other offices, unless he takes a day off to
learn them by heart. And even if he did, it will be impossible for the average voter to know their qualifications.
The selection of men for the other offices will therefore be largely a matter of mere chance.
The so-called reformers have done many stupid things
in Wisconsin. No wonder the state is in the hands of
the "epigones" of the old Stalwarts—just as grafty, and
not so crafty. We have Stephenson, Davidson and
Bancroft instead of Spooner, Payne and Pfister, a miserable come-down in every respect. And yet Robert M.
La Follette is an able man and an honest man—but he
cannot see far enough, nor look deep enough.
And in making the charter for Milwaukee the "reformers" will make the worst botch of all—if we let
them.
But we will not let them.

THE END OF THE ROOSEVELT EPISODE

193

The End of the Roosevelt Episode.
WRITTEN MARCH 6,

1909.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT, the man who has just
vacated his office, will go down in history as the most
sensational and most inconsistent president this republic
has had so far.
Theodore Roosevelt was the last great representative
of the upper middle class in the presidential chair. He
never studied political economy, and knows more about
bears and deer than about Smith, Ricardo and Marx.
But he is otherwise an educated man with good impulses
—but intensely capitalistic by descent, environment and
training. And he represents an economic stratum which
is rapidly disappearing.
* * *
Of course he never analyzed his milieu. He is not
capable of doing this.
And having been brought up in the capitalistic sphere
of thought—and being an aggressive and "strenuous"
man besides—it was natural that he should make all the
mistakes he did make—particularly in dealing with the
trusts and the labor question.
* * *
Theodore Roosevelt tried to do the impossible. He
tried to perpetuate capitalism by reforming i t B e tried

194

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

to make the trust magnates "good" by telling them to
behave themselves.
Of course that was ridiculous.
* * *
And he let Peabody do as he pleased in Colorado and
declared the Western Miners guilty while their trial
was on, yet they were afterwards pronounced "not
guilty" by a jury.
And these utterances—and his behavior towards the
Western Miners in general—will form a lasting blot
upon the history of his administration.
* * *
The Progressives of the senate were rudely handled
by Theodore Roosevelt. He stepped on its corns without mercy. He has emphasized the presidency at the
expense of congress. He contrived the Panama and San
Domingo affairs. He stole the thunder from the Bryanites and wanted to compel representatives of railroad
trusts and other monopolies to accept anti-trust laws.
That was fatal to him. Even the majority of the
Republicans voted against him.
He leaves his office with the cordial hatred of all the
dominant factors of the Republican party.
* * *
As it was, Theodore Roosevelt was only an accident
in the presidency. No one thought of nominating him
for president in the Republican convention in Philadelphia in 1900.
That convention was a typical capitalistic convention
—dominated by the late Mark A. Hanna—and it renominated William McKinley unanimously. The delegates did not have much to say anyway in that conyen-

THE END OF THE ROOSEVELT EPISODE

195

tion. And the nomination of Theodore Roosevelt for
vice-president was made for the double purpose of adding a popular "war-hero" to the ticket and of finally
disposing of Theodore Roosevelt. For it is an unwritten
law that the nomination for vice-president means the
political death of the nominee—unless the unexpected
happens.
*
* *
But the unexpected did happen. McKinley was
assassinated and Theodore Roosevelt—the man Thomas
C. Piatt of New York wanted to dispose of by making
him vice-president—became the president of the United
States.
The rest is well known. The outcome could not have
been different. It was easy to foretell it, for anybody
acquainted with the history of the Republican party.
* * *
And the history of the Republican party furnishes
many lessons of interest, upon which we may fitly dwell
on this occasion.
The growing hostility towards the institution of chattel slavery as existing in the South, where it was considered perfectly lawful and constitutional, formed the
basis for the foundation of the Republican party.
The demand for its abolition appealed readily to all
idealists. The constitutional bar against the abolition of
slavery, instead of checking or awing the abolitionists,
spurred them on to greater enthusiasm.
;Jc

%

;{i

Back of the idealists and their undaunted ardor, however, were aligned powers and interests of a very material nature.
Slavery as an economic institution had run its course

196

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

and grown out of date. It was not adapted to modern
production. It had become more and more expensive
and less productive from year to year. With slave labor
a wholesale production of raw materials was the only
thing possible. These raw materials of the southern slave
states were exchanged for the manufactured products of
the North, in particular for those of the New England
states.
However, the South discovered that it did not derive
through this exchange the advantages it sought. An
exchange trade with Europe, especially with England,
offered greater advantages for the Southern slave owners.
Under the influence of this material fact there arose
in the South a strong movement in favor of free trade.
*

*

*

The manufacturers in the North clearly recognized the
danger which threatened them through the loss of their
Southern market. They were resolved not to lose this
market at any cost.
The Northern manufacturers availed themselves with
rare skill and cleverness of the idealistic Abolitionist
movement, and the patriotic sentiment for the preservation of the Union, to further their own purposes.
The North finally succeeded in defeating, by force of
arms, the attempted secession of the South. In this,
the newly organized Republican party served them in
good stead.
* * *
The evolution through which the Republican party has
passed in the course of time is not essentially different
from the development of other bourgeois parties, pro-

THE END OF THE ROOSEVELT EPISODE

197

claiming high-sounding phrases, but founded on a material basis.
The apparently progressive parties in England, France
and Germany have all undergone the same metamorphosis as our Republican party.
The ideal demands for liberty originally set forth by
those parties have entirely disappeared after having
served to gain the coveted political power for the bourgeoisie.
* * *
In the ranks of the Republican party, this change kept
pace with the rapidity which marked the development of
our economic conditions. A few of the original founders of that party are still living, and can cast a backward
glance upon the work they helped to create.
A retrospective review of the last half century must
surely make them smile at their former idealism.
As early as 1876, this victorious party in the struggle
for the human rights it so pompously proclaimed, was so
dominated by lust for powTer that it considered it quite
the proper thing to gain control of the government by
means of election frauds. And the Republican party
even stood ready to defend its attitude, if necessary, by
force of arms.
The Republican party today is the patron saint of the
trusts and all other capitalistic organizations.
* # #
It stands before the American people today as the
bulwark of exploitation and monopolies. The buying
of a seat in the United States senate by spending a
quarter of a million dollars—as in the case of Uncle Ike
Stephenson—is the visible embodiment of a "popular

198

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

For Roosevelt has left an inheritance that cannot be
undone, overlooked or abolished.
All his attacks upon the rich malefactors have left
a mark upon the minds of all the people. His continuous blowing of trumpets against "predatory wealth"
has aroused even the most sleepy among the working
class, the professional class and the lower middle class.
They are still rubbing their eyes, but they are beginning to think, and nobody can stay that process.
These are the fruits which the Republican party has
government/' as even many "reform" Republicans understand it.
The president's chair will be occupied by William H.
Taft, "Injunction Bill"—the guardian-angel and defender
of the capitalistic state, the man who longs for the power
to summarily dispatch all labor agitators to prison.
*

*

*

With the ascendancy of William H. Taft, the Roosevelt episode is closed.
Within less than a year the administration will quietly
slide back into the sluggish and quiet waters of the McRinley channel of capitalism.
Taft will pride himself on emphasizing this difference
between his administration and that of President Roosevelt. Capitalism, including the "evil-doers of immense
wealth," will have full sway.
Taft will make less enemies in his own party—but at
the same time Socialist sentiment and Socialist organization will grow under his adrninstration as they never
grew before.
* * *

NATION RULED BY FEW CORPORATION LAWYERS

199

naturally begotten. The bourgeoisie has reached the
end of its development.
In the course of its -development it has produced the
germs of its own destruction—the proletariat.
This child of the bourgeoisie is rapidly gaining in
strength and will grow until it is old and strong enough
to take possession of the inheritance left by its aging
mother.
The history of the Republican party is one of the
infallible proofs of the. correctness of the materialistic
view of history as held by modern Social-Democrats.

This Nation is Ruled by a Few
Corporation Lawyers.
WRITTEN MAY 8,

1908.

There was a tendency in Congress to induce certain
railroads in Pennsylvania to dispose of their holdings
in hard coal lands, or at least to compel them to treat
fairly the few remaining owners of anthracite coal mines
who depend on the*good will of these railroads.
Accordingly the "trust-busting" Hepburn act contained
a clause which makes it unlawful
"for any railroad company to transport from any
state to any other state or to any foreign country
any article or commodity, other than timber, manufactured, mined, or produced by it, or under its

200

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

authority, or which it may own in whole or in part,
or in which it may have any interest, direct or indirect, except such articles or commodities as may
be necessary and intended for its use in the conduct of its business as a common carrier."
*

*

*

Of course, the railroads appealed to their patron saints
in Washington, D. C.
And what did the Supreme Court do? Declare the
law "unconstitutional" in order to favor the railroads,
as that Supreme court has often done before in other
cases, and as it was confidently expected by the railroads it would do this time?
Not at all.
The Supreme Court simply a step further.
The judges declared that this law is constitutional.
But that it does not mean what it says on the face of it,
and what its originators declared that it should mean.
No, it is to mean something entirely different.
It is to mean that the railroads cannot own and operate
coal mines, but that they can own stock in companies
which own and operate coal mines.
Now, most of the railroads do not operate the mines
now. They simply own the stock in the subsidiary companies which own and operate the coal mines. And the
few remaining railroads as, for instance, the Delaware
& Lackawanna, will obey the mandates of the Supreme
Court at once and—form the subsidiary companies and
own their stock.
Is it not laughable?

NATION RULED BY FEW CORPORATION LAWYERS

201

Of course, we care little for this special occasion.
Trust-busting, under the present system, is nonsense,
and the lawmakers in Washington, D. C , should have
brains enough to understand that and honesty enough
to admit it.
What interests us most in this case is again the arrogance and absolute shamelessness of the Supreme Court
of the United States.
We are, of course, quite accustomed to the idea that
a large portion of the time of our courts, from the lowest
to the highest, and both national and state, is now occupied in determining whether the representatives of the
people have the right to make laws or not. This is
a power no court, and no Supreme Court, of any nation
ever had, or ever will have. But it is a power which
budding capitalism in America reserved for itself about
a hundred years ago and still retains—since the days of
that great shyster lawyer, John Marshall.
However, it is a new thing, even in this country, for
a Supreme Court to tell a legislative body that the law
is constitutional, but that it is to mean something entirely
different from its wording, and something entirely different from what Congress intended it to mean.
*

*

*

And the queer part of all this is that this power of
the Supreme Court of the United States is not even constitutional.
In the convention of 1787, when the constitution of
the United States was framed, a proposition was made
that judges should pass upon the constitutionality of the
acts of Congress.

202

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

This was defeated June 5, receiving" the vote of only
two states.
It was renewed June 6, and again July 21, and finally,
for the fourth time, it was urged on the 15th of August.
But, although it had the powerful support of Madison
and Wilson, at no time did it receive the votes of more
than three states.
* * *
Prior to that convention, the courts of four states—
New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia and North Carolina
—had expressed an opinion that they could hold the acts
of their respective legislatures as unconstitutional.
It was a doctrine never held before—nor in any other
country since. It met with strong disapproval right at
the beginning. In Rhode Island a movement to oust the
offending judges was only stopped on the suggestion
that they should be dropped by the next legislature,
which was done.
* * *
These matters were then recent and before that convention.
Madison and Wilson—living at a time when government by the people was a new experiment, of which
property-holders were very much afraid—favored the
new doctrine as a check upon legislation to be operated
only by lawyers.
And they attempted to get it into the constitution in
its least objectionable shape—as a judicial examination
and veto before the final passage of the bill.
But even in this diluted form, and although presented
four times by these two very influential members, the
suggestion at no time received the votes of more than
one-fourth of the states in that convention.

NATION RULED BY FEW CORPORATION LAWYERS

203

The subsequent action of the Supreme Court is assuming the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, is without a line in the constitution to authorize it.
The Supreme Court of the United States usurped—yea,
practically stole that power—first, with the consent of
the slave barons, who had occasion to hide behind it, and
afterwards with the help of the plutocrats, who fully
realize its value.
* * *
Just think it over for a moment.
Nine corporation lawyers, appointed for life, have the
power to veto or change, according to their own sweet
pleasure, the laws enacted by Congress—and they are
responsible to nobody, not even to themselves.
Of these nine, five form a majority, and can decide
anything.
And there you have it; five crooked corporation lawyers—usually the most crooked of their craft—can negative the will of one hundred millions of intelligent people.
All our plutocrats need do, therefore, is to see to it
that they own five of these judges. And is it necessary
to prove that plutocracy owns them?
* * *
Such power as our judges have, does not exist, and
never has existed, in any other country.
Judges have never exercised such power in England,
where there is no written constitution. In England the
will of the people, when expressed through their representatives in* parliament, is final.
And the judges surely do not have such power in
France, Germany, Austria, Denmark, or any other country where there is a written constitution.
* * *

204

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

And why should anyone imagine that our United
States judges are more wise, more honest, and more
virtuous than other politicians?
These judges are not even elected by the people. They
are usually politicians who have been defeated by the
people.
They are selected by the big contributors to the campaign—by the great corporations and the railroads.
They are not picked out on account of their progressiveness or learning, but for their loyalty to the "Interests."
They are selected by influences naturally antagonistic
to the working classes and the plain people.
Why should they be more honest?
To these judges honesty means loyalty to the big
thieves who selected them and gave them a soft berth
for life.
And why should not the people have a word to say
about their election?
If the people are to be trusted to select the executive
and the legislature, they are also fit to select the judges.
Elect the federal judges every time and at the same
time when you elect the president; recall any rotten
judges who forfeit popular confidence, and you will have
a different class of judges.
And take away the right from all of them to pass upon
the power of the legislative bodies to make this or the
other law—a right which was invented in hell by Mammon.
* * *
As a check upon the legislative bodies use the Initiative
and the Referendum. This is the only way to establish

AN ARMED PEOPLE IS ALWAYS A FREE PEOPLE •

205

a Democracy and to avoid the most fearful revolution
the world has ever seen.

An Armed People is Always a
Free People.
WRITTEN AUGUST 14,

1909.

CAPITALIST PAPERS all over the country have
attacked me with great bitterness, because of my article
two weeks ago asking Socialists and workingmen in
general to prepare to fight for freedom and to be ready
to back up their ballots with bullets, if necessary.
The usual howl of "anarchist'' was raised by men who
know no more about economic and political terms than a
donkey knows of Latin grammar.
^c

*

*

What I wrote in that article I had written in this
paper before. I have also said it in numerous conventions of the American Federation of Labor.
And I have always said it in the interest of peace,
justice and order, and because I want to make peaceable
progress possible.
# * *
I repeat: A revolution can never be "made"; neither
by one man, even if he were the most powerful genius,
nor by a few thousand men, even if they ere ever so
fanatical.
We have examples of this in history.
* * *
Although the Catholic church in the Thirteenth and
Fourteenth centuries was in pressing need of a "reform

206

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

of head and members," as the holy church councils so
often complained, yet the talented Cola Rieazi, after a
brief season of triumph, was burned in Rome at the
stake in the public market-place, amid the rejoicings of
the people.
Although the French especially were quite convinced
of the necessity of a reformation, it was just in France
that the Albigenses were persecuted and rooted out with
bloody severity.
So it was in other countries.
But when the time was ripe, there arose a rough and
burly monk, a man who was neither a statesman nor
a scholar. And this reckless genius, Martin Luther,
carried through successfully what many other and some
greater men before him had attempted in vain.
The minds of men had been prepared for the revolution.
*

*

*

So it is with every revolution, it is always dependent
upon the development of conditions. The revolution
is only the seal on a preceding evolution in men's minds.
And it may require many so-called "'revolutions" to
carry out successfully one single but thorough reform.
*

*

*

In my opinion, those who would advise street riots and
insurrections would be guilty of a crime against the
laboring class, especially in view of the perfection of
modern instruments of murder and the helpless condition of the workers.
An appeal to arms without having any arms is more
than foolish—it is criminal.
As anybody who is at all acquainted with me knows,

AN ARMED PEOPLE IS ALWAYS A FREE PEOPLE

207

I am most decidedly in favor of the ballot and a propaganda of education.
We must have a great many ballots and a great deal
of education.
However, we must not forget that all nations which
have bettered existing conditions have been combatants;
that is, they have been armed.
Such was decidedly the case in the time of the Reformation and during the English revolution.
In France, indeed, the people were poorly armed at
first, till they plundered the state arsenal on the morning
of July 14, 1789, and took 28,000 guns and cartridges.
But, in the first place, the French aristocracy was perfectly rotten and no longer capable of resistance, and
secondly, the regular French troops fraternized with the
people from the very beginning of the revolution.
JJC

J}{

Jfc

Moreover, history teaches us that an armed people
has always been a free people. There has never been
a plainer example of this than the case of the Boers in
South Africa.
Tyrants and usurpers, therefore, have always taken
care to disarm the people. And the English did the same
thing in South Africa in subduing what was left of the
30,000 peaceable Dutch farmers—a little armed nation
that had learned how to shoot straight.
Whenever one nation or one class comes under the
yoke of another, the conquered nation or conquered
class is always disarmed, and rendered non-combatant.
* * *
The founders.of our nation well understood and considered all this, and therefore inserted the following
clause in the constitution of the United States:

208

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

U

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed/'—Amendment II,
Article II.
This clause was placed in the constitution expressly
for the purpose of giving the people an opportunity to
defend their freedom.
*

*

*

In the debate upon this clause it was insisted that
such a right must be reserved for the people to guard
them eventually against usurpers in our country.
It goes without saying that the founders of this republic never even dreamed of such a militia as ours is
today—the arming of fools and fops to hold in check the
great mass of people for the benefit of a few moneybags.
In those days (1783-89) there was no more a plutocracy than a proletariat in this country. Conditions
were then entirely different.
*

*

#

But, although the fathers of our republic took such
pains to create a "nation in arms/' yet today there is
scarcely any other folk in the world (except probably
the Qiinese or Russians) so completely disarmed, so
totally without weapons, as the mass of the American
workmen.
In Germany and France almost every man is a soldier,
almost every man is thus at one time of his life an
armed man.
This imprints a certain stamp on the people.
However severely militarism should be condemned,
it has at least this one good side—that besides discipline

AN ARMED PEOPLE IS ALWAYS A FREE PEOPLE

209

it gives the man a certain self-confidence and teaches
him the use of a gun.
* * *
To those who are afraid to trust the people with firearms, the example of Switzerland proves most clearly
that a general arming of the people would by no means
result in a "revolution."
In Switzerland every citizen is a soldier and owns his
own weapon and keeps it at home. The government
teaches the people the use of arms for reasons of state.
And although the Swiss workingmen are by no means
better situated materially than their American brothers,
and although the Swiss bourgeoisie sometimes carries
on regular baiting against labor agitators, we hear
nothing of revolutions or dangerous insurrections in
Switzerland.
There is a great deal less rioting in Switzerland than
either in America or in Russia, where the people are
totally disarmed.
* * *
On the contrary, if the social question is settled in any
country without spilling a drop of blood, that country
will be Switzerland.
* * *
There can be no question that the general disarming
of our people has contributed very considerably to their
enslavement.
We are obliged to fear our "government" far more
than the Montenegrins, Arabs and other half-barbarous
races fear theirs.
And yet, in accordance with progress, our higher civilization, our higher culture, ought to make us only so
much the freer.

210

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Our ruling class, indeed, knows better how to value
the advantage of arms.
Not only are barracks erected in the neighborhood
of all the large cities, not only is the militia limited to
a comparatively few regiments, recruited from the "better" class, instead of arming all the people, as in Switzerland—but even in church and school the middle class
and their children are taught to hate and abhor the socalled "dangerous classes."
This is called teaching "patriotism."
* * *
No, we surely want no Russian kind of revolution.
Nor do we want a repetition of the French revolution if
it can possibly be avoided.
* * *
However, human nature is so constituted that in the
struggle for existence—in the class struggle—people
only respect what they fear. This law holds just as
good today as it did a thousand years ago.
The Swiss workingmen are respected by the Swiss
capitalist class because they are, combatants besides having the ballot.
The American workingmen are despised and scorned,
although having the ballot, because they are non-combatants.
* * *
Therefore, in the interest of peace and harmony—in
the interest of peaceable progress—in the interest of the
future greatness of this nation—I want to see the Swiss
system or any other orderly method of a general arming of the people adopted.
* * *
If that is not done we shall have the French and Rus-

IF TillS

BE TREASON—MAKE THE MOST OF IT

211

sian kind of revolution. Then I have great fears for
our civilization.
It may soon come to an untimely end, either by the
action of the plutocracy or through an ochlocracy (mob
rule).
Let us learn from history.

If This Be Treason, Make the
Most of It.
WRITTEN AUGUST 14,

1909.

There are now about half a million workingmen idle
all the year round—even during so-called "good times"
—although willing to work and depending on work for
a support of their families.
There are now over three million men idle part of
the year, during periods extending from six weeks to
eight months. The number of the unemployed reaches
four millions during "hard times."
Talk abput patriotism'. About the "Stars and Stripes."
What is left the poor tramp but the "Stars and
Stripes?" The stars above him when he camps in the
open air in summer and the "stripes" upon him when
he is sent to jail in winter.
* * *
Nor is this all.
During the past thirteen years the prices of all the
necessaries of life have gone up, until the cost of living
is twice what it was thirteen years ago.
Our standard of living has now gone down to that of

212

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

the Western European workingman—and in some respects it is lower, because our American proletarian
lacks the legal protection of the French, English or German workingman.
*

*

*

But they tell us that this is the necessary effect of
machinery. That machinery "saves labor."
But we ask: Did genius brood over books and drawings, work about models and laboratories, to lift the
burden from the laborer's back and give the toiler time
for mental and domestic pleasures?
Or did the genius of humanity intend that by his
achievements millions of human beings shall be retired
to their miserable abodes and die there of hunger and
want ?
* * *
We understand that under the present economic system this can not be changed. That the workingman
cannot get the full value of his product because the employer (the capitalist) must nowadays make a profit on
the work of his laborers.
That if the capitalist, the owner of the machinery and
the raw material, does not see any profit in engaging
workingmen for the purpose of producing, he will not
produce.
That the capitalist's selfishness is excusable and necessary,
* * *
However, if the spirit of selfishness is to predominate
and control the entire human race—so are we selfish.
And since we cannot help ourselves individually, since
the means of production are so concentrated now that

IF THIS BE TREASON—MAKE THE MOST OF IT

213

only in a collective form can they be returned to us, oar
selfishness has taken a collective form.
And the progress of the age and the existence of
civilization depends upon the success of our selfishness.
* * *
We must help all in order to help one. That is our
aim. That is the aim of Socialism.
And if we cannot get all of it as once, we want to get
as much of it novo as we possibly can.
*

*

JJJ

We Socialists protest against deifying cash and demonizing man.
We fight against exalting the products of labor and
degrading the laborer. We insist that a brave, industrious man, factory worker or farmer, who lives and
loves, is worth infinitely more than a pile of gold or
a package of greenbacks.
We demand that even today in every industry requiring dead capital and living work—cash and labor—the
man should be considered the more important of the
two.
* * *
We resent refined brutality that excuses enforced idleness and its concomitant evils—misery, starvation and
shame—by arguing that the "price of labor is to be
regulated by the law of supply and demand,"
If labor is to be regulated by the law of supply and
demand, then we, the producers, want to have control
of the supply and demand.
And there is only one way to do it— i. e., by public
ownership.
* * *
There are two ways of effecting great social changes

214

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

in a republic—the ballot and the bullet. If our people
are not wise—if they are otherwise—then we may have
use for both of them.
But no one but a fool will consider the latter way
until the former has been used with its full effect.
And I believe the ballot has great efficiency. I believe
that while the ballot itself may not make us free, it
will put into our hands the power of achieving our
f 1 eedom.
* * *
For that purpose the ballot must be used in the right
way. If you want democratic Socialism you must have
a Social-Democratic party. None of the capitalist parties can help us.
Capitalism has no special politics. It simply wants
to perpetuate its power. Look at our national congress
in Washington.
Thousands of daily and weekly papers identify capitalism with patriotism and Socialism with disorder.
"Money is no object" if it will secure the interest of
capitalism. A Democratic senator is as good as a Republican.
* * *
It is the business of all these politicians and of all
the editors to warn the people against Socialism, and
to promise them "protection" or "free trade" or "prosperity" and a "full dinner pail,"* or to guarantee the deposits (which they do not have) in the savings banks of
the country.
* * *
In short, capitalism controls all natural resources, the
money, the commerce, the transportation lines, the congress, courts, legislatures, and executives; it controls

IF THIS BE TREASON—MAKE THE MOST OF IT

215

the press, the churches, the police, the militia and the
political leaders.
There is no hope unless the working people—the producers of the country—organize in one great body which
will fight capitalism everywhere, in politics, in the press,
in the pulpit, in the economic field, and in every other
way, as the time and the necessity may require.
*

*

sjs

I concede that this preaching may sound "lawless"
to some people.
But what of it?
Lawlessness of the right kind is a lever that has
moved the world forward.
It was by an unlawful conspiracy that the Magna
Charta was obtained. The Reformation was a rebellion against God and the Holy Church. Regicide, then
the "blackest of crimes," barred out of the English
constitution the question of the "divine right of kings."
Grand larceny in Boston led up to the Declaration of
Independence. The blood of kings, bishops and nobles
washed away feudalism in France. And John Brown's
lawless raid freed the negro slave.
And last but not least: Are the capitalists of our
country not also lawless whenever it suits their purpose ?
* * *
We should be grateful i£ the social revolution, if the
freeing of seventy-five million whites, would not cost
more blood than the freeing of four million negroes in
1861.

And
power
better
bloody

the better we are organized, the more political
and economic and social strength we obtain—the
the people are armed in every respect—the less
the revolution will be.

216

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Therefore, workingmen of America, organize in your
unions. Join the Social-Democratic party. Think of
the tremendous duty before you toward your family,
your class and your nation.

Workingmen of Milwaukee, You
Form the American Vanguard.
Written September 4, 1909.
For many years the ruling classes of Europe taught
their dependents, the working people, that the noblest
human sentiment was "patriotism," that is, the "love of
their native country."
By this the rulers meant the love of institutions, which
preserved their power over the working class, and defended them against encroachments from the governments of other lands.
* * *
This fetich worked well for a long time. It was deeply
seated in the minds and hearts of the common people.
The peasants in the country, and the workers in the
towns, were always ready to take up arms against those
who were born on the other side of some arbitrary
geographical line.
They were always willing to rush to glory and the
grave in defense of institutions in which they could have
no possible interest except to overthrow and destroy
them.
* * *
The poor clods who thus, from servile deference to

WORKINGMEN YOU FORM THE VANGUARD

2J7

their masters, the possessing classes, exposed themselves
to suffering and death, never for a moment stopped to
ask themselves the question: Of what concern are all
these matters to us?
Why should we French or English or German commoners fight among ourselves, and kill each other about
the claims of Stuart or of the Orange; of Bourbon or
Bonaparte; of the Roman pope or the Lutheran king?
Or, why should we, the common people, fight and bleed
and die for the purpose of acquiring markets for the
millionaire manufacturers, while we could use these products to much better advantages for ourselves, and for
our wives and children?
* * *
Singularly enough, such thoughts for ages never
occurred to the working people.
They had always toiled and fought and suffered
matters in which they had no real interest. For them
it was considered dangerous and sinful and rebellious to
think of anything else.
They had been told that "law and order" demanded
that they should be exploited, and they should die for
their exploiters if they so commanded.
And the "holy church" incessantly repeated the old
chant that such was the zvtil of God.
* * *
Not until sixty or seventy years ago there arose in
Europe men of great science and deep understanding,
who raised a clarion note of protest against this hellish
fraud.
These men pointed out to the working people that the
interests of all working classes, French, German, English, American, were one and the same. These men ex-

218

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

horted and entreated the working people of all nations
no longer to let themselves be divided by arbitrary geographical lines, by rivers or mountains and by the
conflicting interests of their masters, but to regard themselves as of one class, one brotherhood.
*

*

*

These men called out: "Proletarians of all the world,
unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
"No longer fight the battles of men whose every interest is to keep you slaves; but fight for yourselves, for
the right to the full product of your toil. Join in the
struggle for the abolition of class!"
* * *
The working people of France were the first to heed
the call.
They declared boldly: If the old "law and order" demanded their exploitation and their misery, they were
going to establish a new law and a new order.
They threw off the long-cherished superstition that
they were slaves of the rich and powerful, by the "will
of God."
These workmen determined that if this had been the
will of God in time past, then God should make a new
will.
And that they would help Him make it. And that
they, the working people, would be the executors of the
new will of God.
Progressive workingmen of other enlightened countries
of Europe—especially Germany, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Austria, England, etc. were soon of the

WORKINGMEN YOU FORM THE VANGUARD

219

same opinion, and they formed great political parties—
Social-Democratic parties.
And they also formed great unions in every civilized
nation to protect themselves against the aggressions of
their former unrestrained masters. Trade unions were
first organized in England. However, today Germany
leads in trades unionism.
* * *
Nor did they stop at forming mere trades unions, and
building political parties to seize upon the political power,
but they also formed co-operative societies for the purpose of production and distribution.
So successful have these workingmen's political parties become, that in Germany, for instance, the party of
the workmen, the great Social-Democracy, has polled by
far the largest vote of any party in Germany. And
were the law of Germany the same as in the United
States, namely that officers could be elected by a plurality of the votes polled, the Socialists of Germany
could probably today elect .the chief executive of the
nation, become the masters of the military power, and
enforce their just demands above all opposition.
And the workingmen are almost as successful in
Austria and in France, and have made tremendous
headway in England and in the Scandinavian countries.
* * *
The first of May each year has been fixed upon by
the workingmen of Europe as a day when they should
universally and publicly protest against the industrial
system which oppresses and crushes them.
On that day, by parades, public meetings, and eloquent
speeches, they voice their protest and demand shorter
hours and "reform."

220

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

And they do not stop at these. Their cry is "complete reform."
They want to abolish the present capitalist system and
put in its place universal co-operation, the collective
ownership of the means of production and distribution,
the Socialist commonwealth.
*

*

*

The workingmen in Europe extend sympathies across
the sea to the American workmen and say to them,
"Unite with us!"
"You, of America, who work with hand and brain
for wages, belong to the proletariat the same as we.
"The rate of your wages is fixed by the same economic
laws which govern ours. You cannot by the old method
long carry on the unequal struggle with labor-saving
machinery and all-powerful combinations of capital without being reduced to a condition of direct want.
"You also must make a supreme effort to seize upon
the political and economic power. You are not hampered
as we are by old customs which restrict the powers of
the people. In your country the ballot is supreme and
you have no excuse for not seizing upon power immediately, since you are in the great majority."
*

*

*

But alas! the American workingmen have heretofore
closed their ears to this heroic call from across the sea.
The American workmen have been taught by the protected manufacturers in Pittsburgh and elsewhere to believe that they were "better men" and "more intelligent"
than the laborers of Germany or France. Therefore—by
some queer logic—they should be more zvilling to be exploited by the capitalist class.

WORKINGMEN YOU FORM THE VjANGUARD

221

But, queer as it seems, jnany foolish American workmen believed this, and believe it still.
And Mr. Sam Gompers and others of the same type
are trying to keep them in that belief.
*

*

sfc

We Americans have another Labor Day, the first Monday of September. On this day trade unions meet and
parade. And in some cities they still meet and parade
before reviewing stands filled with scheming and corrupt
politicians, whose every instinct and interest is with the
enemies of the working class.
These miserable prostitutes in their speeches to the
workingmen congratulate them that they are not like
their brethren in ' Europe, rebellious against their employing exploiters; that they refuse to entertain "foreign
ideas."
And, above all things, that they are not Socialists.
Yet in some cities the American workingmen listen
and wag their heads approvingly—not knowing what
gruesome idiots they are thereby making of themselves.
* * *
But mark! that sort of thing has passed for Milwaukee ! and it is rapidly passing in all other American cities.
On Labor Day no scurvy politician reviews or addresses
the marching workmen of this city; no battiste handkerchiefs are waved at the men from the palaces of the
rich; no Civic Federation leader approves; no traitors
to labor's cause sanction the labor demonstration.
A' new day has dawned for Milwaukee and it is soon
coming for all other cities.
Why?
* # *
Because the men who join in the procession are mak-

222

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

ing their demonstration not as servile cringers at the
feet of capital, but as men who are heroically demanding the recognition of the rights of their class.
Not the right to a few cents more pay per day of the
product of their labor, but to ALL the product of their
toil.
Our Milwaukee organized workingmen know that men
gain the full product of their labor only by becoming the
owners of the means of production. Hence they inscribe
this demand upon their banners.
Hence they have built up the Social-Democratic party.
They vote for it and will fight for it—if necessary.
AH hail! you workingmen and working women of
Milwaukee—you form the American vanguard of the
greatest and most beneficial revolution this world has
ever seen.

The Form of Government Is of
Little Consequence.
WRITTEN SEPTEMBER I I ,

1909.

What is the difference between a republic and a monarchy as far as the condition of the masses is concerned ?
* * *
Aside from such natural advantages as our country
may afford, do the masses of today, under the rule of
our republic, differ strikingly from the masses under the
rule of a king?
Do the favored few enjoy less wealth, less luxuries,

FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE

223

less influence? The glories of monarchy have departed,
but the miseries of the people remain. The contrasts
which offended their sense of right and aroused their
just resentment two hundred years ago, are still visible
on all sides. The workmen are as overshadowed today
by an opulent class in America and France, as they were
formerly by a noble class in France and England.
*

*

*

Rapaciousness in the upper circles, far from diminishing, has increased; greed is allowed to run unbridled
by any law. The favorites of Industry in every country
have outstripped the favorites of Royalty.
In our republic even more than in some monarchies,
they are permitted to feed on the public, and grow rich
at our expense. They, too, dwell in palaces, are surrounded by magnificence, and display their affluence as
though to mock those from whom they draw their revenue. They realize profits and amass fortunes which
bring out, with more vividness than ever before, the
difference between the two elements of society, the rich
and the poor.
* * *
Now, more than ever, accumulation and waste are seen
on one side, want and suffering on the other.
Instead of feudalism, capitalism is dominant, instead
of Henry VIII, Mammon is king. On him has fallen
the mantle of sovereignty; before him the respectful
bearing; to him the obsequious bow. Everything is
brushed aside to make room for the Majesty of the
Moneybag.
* * *
Wherein, then, so far as actual effects go, consists the

224

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

much-talked-of superiority of the republican over the
monarchial system?
* * *
A large portion of the population, even those with
education and industry, are not only unable to better
their situation, but have to struggle constantly to maintain existence. On the other hand, a small portion, who
are strangers to toil and to whom education is a mere
adornment, partake of conditions which, from a material
standpoint, it would be difficult to better.
It is therefore manifest that the latter have at their
disposal something which the former have not; something, the possession of which implies an enormous advantage in promoting the improvement of one's condition, since it alone can bring about results which industry and education combined often strive vainly to obtain.
This something, so marvelously effective in its operation,
so all-sufficient to its possessors, is wealth.
* * *
This, in the complex adjustments of our social organism, is the most potent factor in bringing about an amelioration of the circumstances of the individual.
For it matters not under what form of governmentconstitutional or despotic, monarchial or republican—
man lives, his environment is likely to be little affected
thereby. Whether he is a Jew or Gentile, Protestant or
Catholic, does not determine what advantages he shall
enjoy. Whether he has political rights or not, does not,
per se, improve his condition in life. But whether he be
poor or rich does most materially affect his condition.
* * *
He may change his divinities or his rulers, or his
opinions, and there will be no change in his station;

FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE

225

but let the size of his purse be changed one way or the
other and lo! he and his surroundings are immediately
altered, and the world is to him as a new world.
His powers, his actions, his desires are amplified or
restricted.
He appears as a god amongst men, or as a menial
amongst gods.
* * *
So manifest, indeed, is the superiority which wealth
gives its possessor; so great is the contrast between the
opulent class and the poor class, that there is some
excuse for the impression which prevails among certain
members of the former, that they are of a race superior
to the latter.
* * *
To the child of fortune is given the golden key which
opens to him the wide world. He is a free man—free
to do what fancy suggests; free to wander where pleasure calls him. He is enabled to secure all physical and
all mental enjoyments and attainments. Respect, consideration, distinction, yes—and love, are within his easy
reach. Abundance, superfluity attend him on every side.
He is given all things till overtaken by satiety.
Leisure and luxury, so craved by many, to him become
monotonous.
He grows weary of indulgence in those pleasures
which the multitudes never taste.
*

*

*

The poor man, on the contrary, though he hears much
of sweet liberty, is a slave to adverse circumstances.
His hands are chained, his movements circumscribed,
his wishes ungratified. He searches often in vain for

226

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

an outlet for whatever reserve of effort, energy, and
ambition he may possess.
Intelligent, educated he may be, refined and cultured
he may be, yet he may be unable, through lack of capital,
to work for himself, and he may not even be allowed
the privilege of working for others. He gazes at this
immense earth, and yet cannot lay claim to a single
inch thereof. He lingers at the threshold of the highways of the world and, not having wherewith to pay
toll, finds the gates closed to him.
He is forced into an inferior position without his
fault, he must carry the odium of being a "failure" without his being to blame.
He cannot rise, for there are innumerable and often
insurmountable obstacles in the way of his rising. No
matter what his capacity or ability, the occasion to use
these being denied him, he must walk his lowly path.
* * *
Yet the rich and poor are human. Both draw life
from the same source, both dwell under the same azure
roof. Both may be equally favored by the hand of
nature. But, surely, both have not been equally favored
by the laws of man.
* * *
The advantages which the few who control great
wealth have over those who own little or none, are too
evident to require being elaborately dwelt upon.
The opportunities which riches offer in the acquiring
of knowledge, of culture and refinement, as well as the
comforts and luxuries of life, are sufficient proof that
they are powerful instruments in improving, not only
our mental, but our material condition.
Under existing conditions, wealth is the embodiment

FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE

of power.
nothing.

227

Without it, all the crowns and sceptres are

* * *
Possession or non-possession alone decides whether
one's position shall be high or low, considered or despised.
It determines whether our bodies shall enjoy plenty
or suffer want; whether our minds shall know peace, our
sojourn on this planet shall be one of pleasure or of
misery, one of toil or of leisure.
It regulates the quantity and the quality of the desirable, or necessary things one may acquire.
It prescribes how much liberty one may claim; how
much of that precious measure of life—called time—he
may call his own.
In fact, it affects the condition and the happiness of
every individual of a nation.
He

*

*

In short, since wealth is the admitted means of satisfying man's most natural, most reasonable, most legitimate desires, it is manifest that democratic rule, that a
republic aiming to benefit the people at large, far from
allowing one to monopolize wealth, should devise means
to secure its distribution among the greatest possible
number.
And this can only be done by the introduction of
Socialism, otherwise all the political changes effected
during the last two centuries amount to little or nothing,
and "sovereignty" of the citizen is a mere bubble.
Diogenes called a Croesus would still remain what he
was, and Croesus named Diogenes would be none the
less rich.
We want facts, not phrases.

228

BERGERS BROADSIDES

Do We Want Progress by Catastrophe and Bloodshed or by
Common Sense?
WRITTEN SEPTEMBER 25,

1909.

T H E GREATEST DANGER that can befall the Socialist movement—except sectarianism—is the rule of
catch-words and phrases.
One of the words used most frequently by clear-cut
and truly class-conscious, real, proletarian Socialists, is
the word "revolutionary" in antagonism to "evolutionary/' These men—they are usually ex-preachers, ex-lawyers or ex-physicians, who want to tell the workingmen
what to do—seem not to know that there has always
been a quiet and gradual evolution—an evolution in
which not only each national struggle, but every national
catastrophe was a part.
* * *
Considering the many examples which might be cited,
we distinguish two uses of the word "evolution." First
its larger use, which includes every sort of development,
regular or irregular, swift or slow, spasmodic or steady.
Secondly, its more restricted use, which confines it to
the more regular processes, to growth in the main, even
and peaceful.
So much for the meaning of the word "evolution."
* * *
By the word "revolution" we usually denote a more
or less violent convulsion—or a catastrophe. To play

PROGRESS BY CATASTROPHE OR COMMON SENSE

229

with this phrase is exceedingly silly—especially when
people at large are not armed, nor in any other way
prepared for an uprising,
The revolutionary phrase almost brought on a catastrophe of late in Sweden—but it undoubtedly would
have been a catastrophe to the working people.
I do not want to say that armed resistance is useless
or that it will not occur. We shall surely have uprisings
and bloodshed—and the more bloodshed the less the
people as a whole are armed. An armed people would
make a peaceable solution of the question very probable
—because then both sides would be sure to yield.
However, I want to bring out as strongly as possible
that a bloody uprising or a "catastrophe" is nothing to
be wished for, nothing to be played with, even in
thought.
,
There are many examples of this violent progress in
history.
But there is not one that any friend of humanity or
any sane friend of progress would wish to see repeated,
or that would now be repeated if the people who went
through them could again have the choice of ways after
the experience.
And oddly enough, almost always among the men entrusted with leadership in such times, there was one
man or another who could see the right path, and who
pointed it out, but to whom the people would not listen.
Evolution by right reason was not to be, because the
ultra-conservatives on one side and the ultra-radicals on
the other would have none of it.
So they had evolution by catastrophe, invariably much

230

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

to the disadvantage and misfortune of the cause they
pretended to serve.
* * *
Let us take the French revolution, for instance.
In the time of Louis XVI, the greatest statesman of
France was undoubtedly the physiocrat Turgot.
When Turgot became minister of France he immediately strove to develop free political institutions by
a natural process, and thus avert a catastrophe. Turgot
saw that the old feudal system was doomed, that a new era
must come. By vast comprehensive political measures
he sought to develop an environment which would fit
the people gradually and safely for the possession of
their rights, which would lead into the new system.
France stood at the parting of the ways. Could the
nation have gone on in the path of peaceful evolution
marked out by Turgot, it is, according to human foresight, reasonably certain that constitutional liberty would
have been reached within a few years and substantial
republicanism not long after; that was all the eighteenth
century could possibly achieve.
There was then no proletariat in the present sense of
the word.
Had Turgot succeeded, what weary years would have
been avoided—the terror of the guillotine, the despotism
of the recruiting officer; twenty years of ferocious war;
millions of violent deaths; billions of treasure flung
into the gulfs of hatred or greed!
But on the other side, against Turgot, stood the forces
which unconsciously and involuntarily made for progress
by catastrophe—the conservative court in Versailles, the
leading nobles, the leading churchmen.

PROGRESS BY CATASTROPHE OR COMMON SENSE

231

And hating them, but really their truest allies for a
revolution, stood the radical element—Robespierre, St.
Just, Marat and their friends.
Both sets of fanatics, conservative and radical, worked
together for a bloody revolution.
So there was progress by catastrophe.
History records the Paris massacres, the La Vendee
massacres, the Avignon massacres; the Red terror and
the White terror; revolutionary wars and imperial wars;
Jacobin despotism and Napoleonic despotism. There
was a sea of fanaticism and of hypocrisy; the fanatics
perished, almost all of them; the hypocrites almost all
survived. There were numberless bloody battles. The
downfall of Napoleon, the Bourbon reaction, the revolution of 1848, the June massacres, Napoleon III, the December massacres, the Napoleonic reaction, the downfall
of Napoleon III, the Commune and the Pere La Chaise
massacres—a whole long line of sterile revolutions and
futile tyrannies, each bringing forth a new spawn of intriguers, doctrinaires and phrase-makers, schemers and
tyrants. And as a result of it all, such a weak republic
that nine or ten years ago it was only saved by the
Socialists from again becoming an old style monarchy.
Such is the experience with catastrophes in France
during the last hundred years or so.
* * *
Take next our American civil war.
All men now see that this bloody contest against
slavery was drawing on many years before 1861; but
some Americans saw it then and they tried to avert it.
Only one man presented a great and simple measure.
That man was Henry Clay. Himself a Virginian by
birth, he proposed to extinguish slavery gradually by

232

BERGER*S BROADSIDES

a small national sacrifice. His plan was to begin at
a certain year to purchase and emancipate all newly born
slaves, until gradually through the extinction of the
older negroes by death, and the enfranchisement of the
younger by purchase, slavery would disappear.
It was a great plan. A similar one was adopted later
in Brazil and worked excellently. Clay's plan might
have cost the United States twenty-five millions of dollars.
But fanatics on both sides opposed it.
The slave barons of the South would have none of it,
for it was contrary to their theory that slavery was
a blessing, sanctioned by the bible and embedded in the
constitution.
The Abolitionists of the North would have none of it,
because it was contrary to their theory that one man
ought not to buy another.
The result we all know. Slavery was indeed abolished,
but, instead of being abolished by a peaceful evolution,
without bloodshed and with an outlay of only twentyfive million dollars, it was abolished by one of the most
fearful of modern revolutions—at a cost (when all the
loss is reckoned in) of ten thousand millions of dollars,
and of nearly, if not quite, a million of lives, among
them some of the noblest the nation had to give.
Thus we had political and social progress by catastrophe rather than by growth1—progress,not by evolution, but by "revolution."
History is full of such examples.
* * *
The question now arises, is this the necessary law of
human progress?
Must the future of mankind be no better than the
past ?

PROGRESS BY CATASTROPHE OR COMMON SENSE

233

A capitalist orator has recently answered this question
with a phrase. He tells us that "all great reforms must
be baptized in blood." Karl Marx made a similar statement. He told us "that force is the midwife at the birth
of every new epoch." Ferdinand Lasalle expressed the
same opinion.
Most Socialists accept this belief -as warranted by
human nature.
And almost involuntarily the writer of this article is
inclined to take the view, as there seems to be much in
history to support it.
Take even the simplest principles of political liberty.
Before they could be secured in England, one king
lost his head, another his crown. Take the simplest
thing in religion, the principle of toleration; before it
could be established, the world had to wade through
the religious wars and horrors of the sixteenth century,
the thirty years' war—and battles, massacres and executions innumerable.
The possibilities of human unreason are indeed vast,
and the social question, the problem of abolishing wage
slavery and giving to every worker the full product of
his labor, is greater and farther reaching than any that
humanity has hitherto encountered.
* * #
But, after all, this is no cause for rejoicing, and there
is every reason to look for another way out. And if we
look closer into the history of the past there is also
much to give us hope. The very law of evolution itself
seems to encourage us. It would seem that not only
better results, but better methods are gradually evolved.
Before all, in almost every civilized country the working people now have the ballot, the right to vote.

234

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

This is the first instance in the history of the world
that the oppressed class has virtually the same political
ba$is as the ruling class, the oppressors.
The proletariat outnumbers the capitalist class most
effectively, and actually has the fate of every country
in its hands, if the proletariat can make terms with the
farmers.
The existence of great Social-Democratic political
organizations in every civilized country shows this more
hopeful side of human progress.
* * *
The excellent party discipline, without "bossism," as
shown by the Socialist parties in Germany, France and
lately also in Belgium and Sweden, is another encouraging sign, because a large and well disciplined body of
men can, under favorable conditions, enforce great cancessions without recourse to physical force and bloodshed.
That bloody battles are not always necessary for progress was proved in 1688 in English history, when the
bloody revolution against the Stuart was sealed by a
peaceful one. And again in the year 1832, when England was put on a democratic basis. And it has also
been shown by various peaceful reforms in almost every
civilized country during the last twenty years.
And especially in our country, where the ballot is
supposed to be well-nigh almighty in things politic, it is
well worth while to try all kinds of social reforms—municipal, state and national.
Such reforms will not only mitigate the burdens of
the present and the next generation and strengthen the
power of resistance of the proletariat, but also fit it for
the part it intends to play. Nay more, it will make that

THE PROFIT SYSTEM KNOWS, NO CREED

235

part possible by furnishing political power to the workmen.
* * *
This great question of tactics, therefore, is more than
a mere question of methods.
If the development of the race is to go on, the social
problem brought about by the economic development
must be solved.
But the question is also: Are we to secure the change,
as so often in the past, by a century or two of revolutions, contra-revolutionary reactions, bloodshed and new
revolutions—or can we reach our next goal in civilizations, contra-revolutionary reactions, bloodshed and new
It is for both sides—the capitalists and the proletariat
—to answer this question.

The Profit System Knows no Creed.
WRITTEN OCTOBER 9,

1909.

A RELIGIOUS newspaper makes the assertion:
That modern materialism has degraded the workingmen
to machines, and that "godless Socialism" is now proceeding to lower them to "brute beasts/'
It goes without saying that this pious paper is a
"pious fraud."
* * *
To begin with, materialistic liberalism is far from
having degraded human beings and workingmen to
machines. It has indeed made men the servants of
machines. It furthermore strives on one hand to justify

236

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

this degradation of the workingmen effected by social
conditions; while on the other hand it seeks to blind the
workingman to his degradation by means of all sorts
of vested rights and privileges.
Socialism, however, will free the workingmen from
the weakness and wretchedness of his degradation and
make him a man once more. It will make the machine
the man's servant—the machine which today is his
master.
* * *
Of course, we admit that the capitalistic mode of production has degraded the workingman to a living appendage of the machine, and compelled him to sacrifice
his human dignity to capitalistic profit.
* * *
But religion or irreligion has nothing to do with it.
The capitalistic method of production agrees just as
well with Judaism as with the Chinese religion. It fits
to Christianity as to materialistic liberalism.
We have never heard of any church or religious body
that has condemned capitalism, or the production of
surplus value and profit at the expense of the well-being
of the laboring class, as irreligious and incompatible
with the cr^ed.
However bitterly Jews, Christians, heathens and freethinkers may contend together on matters of faith, their
social faith (if they belong to the upper class) is the
same.
It consists in this one article, that the capitalistic form
of society is the best zve can have—that it is the only one
which has any right to existence.
* * *
The majority of the men and women who live by the

THE PROFIT SYSTEM KNOWS NO CREED

237

labor of the masses and who therefore have participated
in the degradation of the workingmen, belong to some
religious body or church, and yet they do not feel disturbed by this one bit—on the contrary they consider
themselves good churchmen.
In Europe some of the Roman Catholic monasteries
and nunneries are great "business institutions." And
it remained for the Socialists to show up what beastly
and inhuman employers they are in most cases, because
they had even the advantage of being furnished orphans,
fallen women, unfortunate men, etc, as workers.
However, the average capitalist, whether Christian,
Jew or heathen, is subject to the economic laws of today.
And those who are free-thinkers or adherents of materialistic liberalism obey the same social laws which cont r o l all capitalistic society.
They make all they can out of their workmen, just like
the Christians and Jews.
Surplus value and profit have nothing to do with
religious dogma, for they fit in well with any of these
creeds.
And this cannot be otherwise.
* * *
Let us take a most Christian capitalist, for instance.
If he expects a return from his capital on which he can
live, he must invest it profitably.
Let us suppose that he invests it in railway stock,
which" pays him good dividends, or in a factory which
yields him a considerable profit, or in a business which
brings him in a considerable gain. Workmen are continually necessary to work with the capital and produce
the surplus value which the capitalist receives as dividends, profit, gain, ground rent and so on to heart's con-

238

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

tent. Workmen must be made use of so that the capital
may not only remain intact, but increase and furnish the
owner with an income.
But the conditions under which the workmen are made
use of are not created by the individual capitalist employer, but by the state of the labor market, and the
general conditions of production.
The most Christian employer can pay no more than the
heathen, the free-thinker or the Jew.
* * *
Suppose that a philanthropic manufacturer should pay
his workmen much higher wages and insure them other
favorable conditions of labor which they do not have in
other places.
What would be the inevitable consequence?
The good man would no longer be a match for competition, and he would soon—very soon, too—see before
him the alternative—either to pay his workmen as poorly
as his competitors pay theirs, or wind up his business.
It is capitalism which prescribes conditions in our
present society. To these conditions even the individual
capitalist or employer is subjected, whatever may be his
own private inclination.
Capitalism compels the capitalist to be cruel and brutal.
Capitalism makes workmen the living appendages of
machines.
Only Socialism, the aim of which is the abolition of
capitalism, will make the laborer a man once more.
How?
By withdrawing capital from individual control and
making it the common property of the whole people.
By making society master of its social means of existence and thus giving it a chance to fit the production of

THE PROFIT SYSTEM KNOWS NO CREED

239

goods to its necessities, instead of fitting its necessities
to the despotism of capital.
By freeing the capitalist from the necessity of being a
tyrant to his workmen, and the workmen from the necessity of selling themselves to the capitalist for starvation
wages and sacrificing their human dignity to capitalist
profit.
* * *
And the "good" Christian paper calls this aim of
Socialists the lowering of men to the level of brute
beasts!
Ah ye pious humbugs, consider the horrible conditions
under which thousands and tens of thousands of our
fellow men rot away in the midst of our "Christian
civilization," and then tell us, who has ground down
these wretches to the level of beasts?
Only Socialism can help these unfortunates.
Present society has nothing for them but disgust and
suspicion—the prison and the gallows.
* * *
Workingmen of all nations and all denominations,
throw off your medieval prejudices! Throw off the yoke
of clericalism and hellish superstition which has cost the
lives of untold millions. Be strong! Be fearless! Be
free! And even you may yet be happy. Then your descendants will surely be happy.

240

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

How to Make the Change.
WRITTEN NOVEMBER 27,

1909.

[The following from the pen of Victor L. Berger, is
reproduced this week by request of a western reader.
It was written in answer to "A Late Comer/' who asked
this question: "It seems to me that in the 'Social-Democratic Herald' you often stand for a somewhat different school of Socialism from the other Socialist papers
I read. Will you not please inform me how you are to
make it possible for a Transition to Socialism to take
place?"]
We do not need at all "to make it possible." The transition is coming quite of itself. In a certain sense, we
find ourselves in it at the present day.
Socialism is the name of an epoch of civilization—the
next epoch, if our civilization is to continue in existence;
We must not expect that the Socialist era will come all
at one stroke. Neither capitalism nor feudalism arose
"at a certain date," nor can the Socialist form of society
have its beginning on any fixed day.
* * *
Besides, although capitalistic society has already passed
its zenith, yet even at the present day feudalism holds a
very important place in modern society.
This is the case not only in Germany, in spite of its
high economic development, but also in England, the
"classic land" of capitalism.

HOW TO MAKE THE CHANGE

241

Just so with any revolution.
Capitalism will not vanish in one day, in one year or
in one decade. Even after the triumph of the proletariat,
the commonwealth cannot take upon itself all kinds of
production.
Many industries today are not at all concentrated, and
therefore are not yet ripe for this. Some will become
so with time, others perhaps will not. The editor of this
paper is no prophet, and will not attempt to predict
details.
However, the trusts are now showing the SocialDemocrats how they must do it, only they will have to do
it from a Socialist standpoint and for the benefit of all
the people.
It is not necessary that all industries should be immediately taken over by the Socialist republic, or as many
Socialist prefer to say, by the "Socialist society."
Every branch of production controlled by a trust, as
well as all industries which could be conducted on a
similar scale, besides railways, telegraphs, mines, etc.,
will, of course become collective public property.
But there is a whole class of industries which are not
yet ready to be worked on this large scale or which are
liable to be decentralized by the technical perfection of
the methods of transmitting power. These without any
objection may remain in private hands.
We refer to certain petty industries, as well as mainly
to agriculture.
In all such cases the Socialist state can give the opportunity for the formation of associations which, together

242

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

with the model industries directed by the state, will raise
the level of the workers in these branches to a degree
incredible at the present time.
The chief reason why workingmen's associations have
been impossible hitherto, has even now been removed by
the trusts, and, of course, will be of still less account at
the rise of the political power of the proletariat.
As long as the former anarchial condition of production prevailed, workingmen's productive associations,
started usually with very little capital or with outside
capital.
They were, therefore, especially subject to bankruptcy.
They were compelled to produce continually in order to
support their members, and not having any control of
the market, they did not know how much to produce.
And consequently, with their insufficient or borrowed
capital, they quickly went to the wall when there was any
difficulty in the market.
But this is now quite different.
The trusts show how a regulated business can be done.
The management of the workingmen's associations
will find out what the demand is, and determine the what,
how and how much of production.
During the transition period the sale of products may
take place exactly as at present, only subject to regulation by the government which will be in the hands of
the working class.
* * **
In the trusts, the capitalist class even now plays the
most superfluous role in the world.
Indeed, in the trusts the capitalist class is already ex-

HOW TO MAKE THE CHANGE

243

propriated to a certain extent; for they no longer have
anything to control, and only draw their profits.
Their industries are apparently the property of the
shareholders; but what sort of property is that of which
one has not the free disposal?
They can no longer produce what they will, nor at
what price they will, nor with what workmen they will;
all, all is prescribed to them by the management of the
trust. Properly speaking, the shareholders are not the
owners, they are only the profit-receivers.
*

5jc

JJC

Why, then, if the proletariat gets political power,
should workingmen's associations not be possible, which,
instead of the capitalists,-will own the factories where
the workmen themselves will choose the managers and
themselves receive the profits?
Of course, at the same time, many industries, all of
those of national magnitude, could be carried on by the
government. Where necessary, the government could
make some agreement with the productive associations
of workers.
We speak of the transition period.
In this transition period, the Socialist government, of
course, can lend the necessary capital to the productive
societies and furnish suitable guarantees.
The government in this transition period will have at
its disposal quite different powers than it has at present.
iFor instance, it will have a monopoly of all water
power, coal mines, railroads, rivers, electrical plants, etc.
So, perhaps for a time a state of affairs may arise
which will combine at the same time the three forms
of production; the capitalistic in petty industries, where

244

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

goods will be produced for the market; the cooperative,
in which the products will also be for sale; and the
purely socialistic, where the government will carry on
production for use only, and the product will not take
the form of wares at all.
That all this will take place peacefully, I do not maintain. However, it surely will not come peacefully if the
people are not armed.
But riots and bloodshed do not seem to us at all desirable. Nor do I believe that one great revolution can
turn topsy-turvy the whole civilized world, and undo or
make superfluous any economic development.
* * *
Capitalism was necessary to give mankind dominion
over the forces of nature, which is now assured by our
scientific attainments.
Considered in itself, capitalism has by no means
reached that point of time where is becomes impossible.
On the contrary, in the trust system, it has just stepped
into a new phase, the duration of which is unlimited
according to our present light.
Of course, from a civilizing force, capitalism has
already become a menace to civilization. But that does
not affect its vitality!
However, the tendencies which oppose it have now
gathered such strength that a thorough change—must
not indeed—but can take place, if the working class
understands its mission.
In conclusion let me also say that the world's history is
always made by men, and is not a mere natural process,
as some Marxists want us to believe.

WOMEN MUST FIND PROFITS FOR THE TRUSTS

245

The Women Must Find the Profits
For the Trusts.
WRITTEN FEBRUARY 5,

1910.

One more question to you, madam. Have you noticed
that the prices of all the necessaries of life, have gone
up as they never went up before?
Of course, you have noticed that they were very high.
But do you know that the American prices on January 1,
1910, were the highest ever recorded?
* * *
According to statistics, breadstuffs, which were, to use
an average figure, 52 cents on July 1, 1896—were 99
cents on September 1, 1907, and $1.02 on July 1, 1910.
It is true that because of the general outcry, some
prices have fallen slightly, about one-half per cent wholesale.
What if they did? Even so, most prices are higher
than they ever were known to be before. And the chances
are that they will hold their own this year.
* * *
We should like to know, madam, how you manage to
feed your family on the money you get.
How do you manage to make ends meet, especially
at the close of the week?
Did you ever think about it yourself?
* * *
No doubt this last year has been very hard or you.
Food prices especially have gone up to figures they
have never before reached.

246

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

But it has been found by statistics that more than half
of the total income of a workingman's family is spent
for food.
* * *
And that is natural enough. Before all things, one
must eat.
The rent may be stood off. The clothing may be
patched. The family may be cold. But the children
must eat. And so must the grown people.
Now, what will you do with your family, madam ?
# * *
The wealthy people say that you do not know how to
save, madam.
But how can you save ?
Because the average workingman is poor, his family is
unable to practice such ordinary economies as the middle
class think most necessary.
The wife buys one cake of soap for S cents, when 25
cents would buy six cakes. She buys one can of tomatoes
at a time for 10 cents, when six cans may be bought for
50 cents, etc.
For the workingman who earns $750 a year, which is
more than the average workingman earns in Milwaukee,
we can say the following:
His family is underfed; is almost ragged; is cold in
winter; is huddled, six or seven persons, in four rooms;
is without sanitation; is weighted down by debts; is a
prey to Shylocks; is in wretched surroundings; and is in
a daily race with starvation.
For meat, the average family eats sausage, cheap stew
meat, pork, and sometimes the cheapest round steak.

WOMEN MUST FIND PROFITS FOR THE TRUSTS

247

And they are mighty glad to get that. Half the year the
family uses no eggs.
The only luxury is tobacco for the head of the family.
And in some families, an occasional pint of beer.
* * *
Certain papers are beginning to print all sorts of fine
recipes; how you can live on cornstarch alone, for 3
cents a day. But I would advise you not to try it.
Others tell you how you could live on nuts alone.
But nuts have gone up fearfully of late. You would
better cut them out.
Still others—among them an archbishop—claim that
your family eats too much, and that you do not know
how to cook.
So what are you going to do about it ?
This is a great country, and produces all we need.
We produce so many things of all kinds, particularly
foodstuffs, that we send them all over the world. And
if there should not be enough, we could easily produce
ten times as much.
Wise men tell us that the Mississippi Valley alone
could raise food enough to feed the inhabitants of the
whole world.
And yet steady, industrious working people make
hardly the barest kind of a bare living.
And that is your case also, if you are the wife of a
workingman, of a clerk, of a teacher, a clergyman, or
a small business man.
And do you know the reason for this ungodly rise of
the means of livelihood? Do you know it is not a bad
harvest, that it is not because things did not grow, nor
because cattle cannot be raised?

248

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

It is simply because everything is in the hands of a few
trusts.
They not only control the packing houses, but through
their cold storage houses and magazines control also the
poultry, the butter and the fruit.
And through their elevators they control the wheat,
which naturally influences the price of bread.
The railroads do the rest.
* * *
The trust owners, of course, need the money.
The average New York plutocrat spends $400,000 a
year for his household and living expenses—that means
500 times more than a workingman's family get whose
head has steady employment.
There are 100 women in New York who each spend
$30,000 a year for dresses, and 1,000 who spend $15,000
a year each.
Quite a number of our millionaires own plates of solid
gold and there are rich families who boast of china
costing $5,000 a dozen.
* * *
A hundred thousand dollars would not even pay the
interest on the money spent for trinkets which are worn
every evening at the Metropolitan opera by the rich
women in the boxes. There are a number of New York
women that boast that their jewelry costs them half a
million dollars. A single pearl necklace was recently
sold at Tiffany's for $200,000. There are fifty New York
men who were link cuff buttons worth $5,0oo a pair.
So the capitalists need the money.
* * *
The stables of the horses and the dog kennels of the
millionaires are infinitely nicer than your house.

WOMEN MUST FIND PROFITS FOR THE TRUSTS

249

There are some poodle dogs thq,t wear diamond studded
necklaces costing $10,000 or more.
And no matter how pretty and good your child may
be, it will never have as good a living in this world as
a milionaire's dog or horse—if capitalism is to last.
There is only one way in which we can stop this starvation brought about artificially by a handful of sharks in
human form.
The nation must get possession of the trusts, and thus
get possession of the most necessary means of livelihood
for the people.
We have spoken to your husband about this. Maybe
he understands. But it is also possible that he has not
given any thought to this matter.
Now we want to speak to you. We know you have
at heart the welfare of your children, the welfare of
your family.
We want you to think of your present condition. We
want you to think of your future, of your old age.
We want you to think what will become of you and
your children if your husband should get out of work ?
What will become of you and your children if your
husband should become sick, if he should die?
* * *
Think of all this, if your husband does not.
And then answer this question: Is the Social-Democratic party right or not, when it tries to unite the workingmen and the poor people generally in order to change
this system, so that you and your children and your
neighbor and her children shall be taken care of now
and be assured for the future?

250

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

For the Social-Democratic party expects to find its
strongest ally in the home. The Social-Democratic party
expects to find an ally in every woman who loves her
husband and her children.
And the Social-Democratic party is entitled to the
help of every woman. It fights especially for woman
and the home.
It fights for better economic conditions—that means
a fight for greater prosperity and greater happiness for
every woman.
Women can only be happy when they can keep their
children comfortable, well-fed, well-dressed—when they
can have a good home for them.
* * *
Women are spending the money of the wage-earners
for the benefit of the home. Therefore wiomen are the
principal victims of the trust exploitation.
* * *
It is the woman who must find the profits for the
trusts out of her household money. It is the woman
who must find the dividends on the watered trust stocks
and who must find the dividends for the beef trust, the
coal trust, the ice trust, the gas trust, the cottQn trust,
the woolen trust and all the other trusts.
The woman is doing all the managing. And she must
do all the worrying to make possible the enormous trust
profits.
She bears the brunt of the criminal taxation of the
people by the trust and the trust government.
Therefore, we want you to see that your husband or
young grown-up son gets some reading matter about the
Social-Democratic party.

WOMEN MUST FIND PROFITS FOR THE TRUSTS

251

It is the greatest workingman's party in the world, and
has done much good for the workingmen and the poor
people all over the world. And it has also made a good
record in Milwaukee.
This literature will explain how the Social-Democratic
party intends to proceed so that the nation may get
possession of the trusts and return to the common people
what is their natural heritage, because it is the working
people w/ho have made it all.
* * *
And remember, madam, every vote for the SocialDemocratic party is a knock for the trust and a boost
for you and your children. Every vote for the SocialDemocratic party helps to make your bread cheaper, and
your old age more secure.
Tell your husband to get our reading matter. It will
cost you nothing. And it cannot hurt him or you.
* * *
If you do not agree with us, you need not accept our
ideas.
But if you do, then help us to make this life better,
nicer and more worth living.

252

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

In What Respect Are We
Better Off?
WRITTEN JULY 2,

1910.

Next Monday we will celebrate the Fourth of July—
celebrate the anniversary of the day when we cut loose
from England.
The eagle will "scream." And we shall hear much
about our "blessed liberties" and that wonderful constitution of the United States.
But in what respect are our people more free than the
people of England ?
In what respect is our written constitution superior to
the unwritten constitution of England—unless it be that
America is ruled by a plutocratic oligarchy, while England is in the hands of a capitalistic aristocracy.
* * *
However, there is this to be said in favor of the English constitution: it can be changed at any time by a
simple act of parliament, while it required a bloody war
of four years to make a comparatively slight change in
ours.
Otherwise, it may be said as a general principle that
a man must have money in America as in England in
order to buy food, clothes and shelter. And that if a
man has no capital he must work for wages in America
as in England. And the effect of the introduction of

IN WHAT RESPECT ARE WE BETTER OFF

253

machinery into our methods of production is no different
in this country than in England or any other country.
Sifting things to the bottom—the great masses of the
American people are no better off because the "Fourth
of July, 1776," has happened.
* * *
The Declaration of Independence is the document that
is supposed to contain the cardinal principles of the
American republic and the American mode of government. It is a great document, far superior to the constitution of the United States—which was never more
than a miserable compromise between a few men who
stood for wealth and a fewi men who stood for ideas.
* * *
Right in the beginning of the Declaration of Independence we find a beautiful phrase. "All men are created
equal" and are endowed "with certain inalienable rights;
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Is this phrase true?
* * *
"All men are created equal." This may be true.
But do they live equal? Do they die equal?
The child of the poor is born in a hovel surrounded
by misery and poverty from its first moments. There
are three chances to one that it will not survive the first
year. And even if it does, there is a life of misery before
it, dangers of sickness tenfold as great, temptations to
crime and prostitution a thousand times as great as for
the child of the rich, If it safely passes all these perils,
a life of drudgery is before it, ended by an early death,
which is often to be considered a boon since it saves the
victim from the poor house.

254

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Usually this poor person has not even a claim on
heaven, never having belonged to any church, and knowing little or nothing about religion, which is a more or
less costly article.
"All men are created equal I"
* * *
How about the child of the rich, surrounded by all
comforts and protections which paternal love and money
can furnish? He grows up in comfort and security and
receives an excellent education. His life is a round of
pleasure mingled perhaps with as much work as is necessary to health.
Unless killed early by excessive luxury or riotous living, he can live to a ripe old age, honored and loved by
every one as a pillar of society and the church.
And if he gives money to charities and churches, when
he dies he has even a very good claim to a reserved seat
in heaven.
* * *
It is a phrase which did well enough in its time, but
which now, like most phrases, has become a lie.
The reason? The struggle for existence has changed
entirely since the days of Jefferson and Paine. All that
was needed in those days was to give every individual
a chance to fight it out for himself.
This great country was undeveloped, and there were
thousands of chances for everybody to make a decent
and honorable living and to prove that all men are1
created equal.
* * *
In those days there was some sense in the motto,
"Every man for himself."
However, since the development of the capitalist sys-

IN WHAT RESPECT ARE WE BETTER OFF

255

tern, with machinery and railways, this rule has led to
the struggle of all against all. Most men are compelled
to be what they are by an inhuman competition.
Competition nowi means, "Do everybody because everybody will do you."
It is competition which causes the labor of women
and children.
It is competition which finally winds up by killing
competition and creating the trust.
*

*

*

True, it is said that we are "all equal before the law,"
and that in this sense the phrase that all men are created
equal has become the truth.
But are we equal before the law ? We are, if we have
money enough to get a good lawyer.
* * *
There is a flood of laws passed every year.
How many of these laws are for the purpose of protecting the poor, the weak and the helpless?
Very few. Most of them are simply enacted for the
protection of "life and property," that is, protection of
the property of those who have it, and protection of the
life of those whose lives are worth something in a capitalistic sense.
There is no protection for those who have no property
whatever. The life of the miner who goes down in the
bowels of the earth, several hundred feet deep—the life
of the man who works in a big factory—receives scanty,
or no protection
Yet under the protection of the law the sugar trust
made one hundred and ten millions profit last year. The
steel trust made even more. The Pacific Railway com-

256

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

pany and every other thievish combine have the protection of the law.
* * *
Truly, the people learn slowly in this country.

The Only Way For the People to
Combat the Meat Truft.
W R I T T E N OCTOBER 22,

1910.

T H E MEAT T R U S T has made its existence plainly
felt in the kitchens of rich and poor. Even the government of the United States has seen fit to take action
against the pork kings. Every one is talking about the
trusts and the common people are against them.
*
*
*
In regard to the outcome of the investigation of the
meat trust by the government, it is safe to say that the
result will be nothing in the future as it was nothing in
the past.
In other words—the meat trust and the other trusts
own the government.
*
*
*
Every investigation of the trusts by the Republican
government is a bluff.
The court could find the "guilty conspirators" in the.
case of the boycotting Danbury hatters quickly enough—
and the court found every member of the union guilty.
But the investigators in Chicago will never find evidence against the millionaires making up the meat trust.

ONLY WAY TO COMBAT THE MEAT TRUST

257

And the price of all kinds of meat continues to rise.
It is now the highest since the war—when the country
was on a greenback basis.
This meat trust has made it possible for a few men
representing the private interest of a few firms to fix
the price of meat, the article of consumption which
next to bread, forms the most important food for 90,000,000 citizens.
sjs

*

*

The business of the new firms conposing the meat
trust has reached a magnitude which excludes any kind
of competition. They can at their pleasure exploit the
nation.
It is reported that the net earnings of the meat trust
during the last twelve years amounted to over $200,000,000 annually.
*

*

*

And it is not the lack of cattle which has caused the
rise in meat values—no matter what the hog kings may
say. This country supplies a great part of the civilized
world with flesh foods.
A rational management of the existing supply would
readily yield still greater increase of stock cattle than is
obtained at present. But the ranchmen say that the
packers oppress them.
*

*

*

Nor is the expense of the packing house excessive. In
these plants all parts of the animals are so handled that
nothing—simply nothing—is wasted.
It is the boast of the packers that they utilize everything of the pig except the squeal,

258

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

At the same time, it is well known that workmen in the
packing houses belong to the poorest paid and most exploited laborers in the country.
It is really a disgrace to this country that the government has not taken some steps to change the barbaric
conditions in the big packing houses in spite of the expose made a few years ago by that celebrated book, "The
Jungle."
*
*
*
So it is an undisputed fact that neither the grower of
the cattle, nor the worker in the packing house gets any
advantage from the abnormal gains of the packer.
The trust simply dictates prices both for the raw material bought and for the product sold by it, and at the
same time pays as little wages to its workmen as is possible to pay.
Nor is this all.
*
*
*
By its "route" cars, which are perambulating butcher
shops, it has destroyed the retail business of the small
towns, and it has been known for a long time that the
retail dealers in the large cities are simply its agents.
By its cold storage houses the trust controls also the
market for eggs, butter, vegetables and fruits.
*
*
*
Its business transactions amount to $700,000,000 annually and this business is growing with the natural increase of the population.
*
*
*
And this shows plainly the nature of these exactions,
that while prices within the United States have been
advanced continually, those charged European consumers
have been adapted to the local state of each market.

ONLY WAY TO COMBAT THE MEAT TRUST

259

Thus, American meats are cheaper in London or
Liverpool or Dublin, than they are in New York, Chicago
of Milwaukee—the frozen meats of Australia compelling
the reduction in Europe.
*
*
*
The fact is that under the Sherman law the combination of the meat packers is "illegal"—just as illegal as
the blacklists against employes and the underhanded
dealings against cattle dealers, which form a part of the
conspiracy of the wholesale butchers against the public.
However, the Sherman anti-trust law seems to work
only against the trade unions.
#

*

*

But what is to be done? The two "great" political
parties are owned by the trusts. The leaders of the Democratic party in the East and in the South—where it still
exists—are all trust men.
And the Republican party has long been known to be
the favored organization of capitalists and capitalism.
Taft, Root and Roosevelt are fruits of the same tree.
*
* *
And La Follette might just as well expect a wolf to
eat hay as expect the Republican party to become "antitrust."
The various Republican cliques—the insurgents, Progressives, etc.,—that now steal a few Socialistic planks,
will never accomplish anything and have never accomplished anything worth while anywhere. They are simply
serving as a cloak to hide the iniquity of the Republican
party as a whole.
*
*
*
These various state and local reform associations
simply serve as feeders for the great capitalist political

260

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

system, by advising well-meaning men to vote that ticket
in the vain hope that by some miracle the Republican
party might change.
But no more can it change than a tiger can ever be
made to become a domestic animal.
Even now the "Progressives" of Milwaukee are asked
to vote for "Mad Mullah" Bancroft, "Sport" McGee, the
$12,000 "Uncle Ike barrel" Knell, and other notorious
characters.
And the "Progressive" state central committee, and
the "Progressive" county committee want the people to
vote for these men.
*
*
*
As for the Democratic party—that is knocked out in
Milwaukee pretty effectively by the Republican 20 per
cent law in this state.
However, in the North it is going to pieces everywhere.
The South of our country is just waking up in a capitalistic sense. And the southern capitalists (who are invariably Democrats) want their share of the general
plunder. The Democratic party of the South is down
there exactly what the Republican party is here. Only
the name is different.
*
*
*
It is silly to blame the trusts.
The trusts are in business to make more money. And
they naturally try to get as much as possible for their
goods.
Every small merchant does the same. The principle is
the same.

ONLY WAY TO COMBAT THE MEAT TRUST

261

The motive—the desire to make as much profit as
possible—is also the same.
The difference is only that the trust does on a large
scale what the small business men do on a petty scale.
*
* *
And the central idea of the trusts—concentration. instead of division—co-operation instead of competition—
is also a perfectly correct idea.
It gives great advantages to those who avail themselves of it, in other words, to those "who are in it."
*
*
*
And yet the alarm about the trusts is easily understood. The trusts just by their greatness have brought
the evils of the capitalist system clearly before the eyes
of every one.
The trusts have proved that under the present industrial system a small number.of capitalists have it in their
power to decide how much meat and how much bread
we shall eat.
How much we shall spend for coal and how much
for oil.
How much sugar and how much tobacco we are permitted to use.
How nicely or how poorly we shall be clothed and
housed, or whether we are to own a house at all.
In short, the trusts decide how well or how ill, how
long or how short a time we shall live.
The trusts, as we have said before, are a benefit to
those who own them. Yet the trusts are large enough
for the whole people to feel this benefit if the whole
people should own the trusts.
Therefore, we Social-Democrats contend that the

262

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

whole people collectively—as a nation—should take the
place of the few trust magnates and become the owner
of the trusts.
*
* *
Against the trusts there is no other remedy.
Progress, production on a large scale, the mighty
accumulation of capital, makes monopoly a necessary
condition. Monopoly is here, whether we wish it or not.
The question, therefore, is only whether it shall be a
private or a public monopoly.
*
*
*
The question is, do we wish to leave the products of
this country in the control of a small number of irresponsible men, whose only interest is to exploit us up to
the last limit of our endurance ?
Do we wish to leave to a small clique the monopoly of
all things which make life good and desirable? Do we
wish to make them absolute masters of all the necessities
of our lives ?
Do we wish to starve in our hovels like rats? Or do
we wish to fight with bomb, dagger, dynamite and shotgun?
*
*
*
No! No! No!
We still have one way left to try to conquer these
powerful economic tyrants. We still have the ballot.
This country is politically a democracy and we can avail
ourselves of political power.
Down with the power of capitalism. Down with the
Republican as well as the Democratic parties, which are
upholding the present system and its exploitation and its
trust robbery.
Up with the banner of Social-Democracy! Let the

WHAT MAKES US WILLING TO WORK AND SACRIFICE 2 6 3

people take hold of the trusts. Let the trusts be put into
the possession of the whole nation. Let all of us become
shareholders.
There is no other solution.
Therefore, if you really
you really want to make a
Democratic candidates for
*

want to combat the trusts—if
change—then vote for Sociallegislature and Congress.
*
*

The election of two Social-Democratic congressmen
from Wisconsin will send a cold shiver down the spine
of every trust.
And it is bound to affect the high prices.

What Makes Us Willing to Work
and to Sacrifice?
WRITTEN DECEMBER 3,

1910.

IT is not overstating the fact when I say that the
eyes of all the thinking men in this country—without
distinction of party or class—are upon us just now and
will be upon us for some time to come.
*
* *
In fact, one might think from what some of the newspapers say about us, that Victor Berger is a Jengis Khan,
who is going to destroy civilization within the next two
or three years; and from others that this same Victor
Berger is the greatest genius and benefactor of humanity
that has lived in many a century.

264

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Well, so much is safe to say—Victor Berger's head is
not going to be turned in the least by the unprecedented
newspaper fame and notoriety he is getting nowadays.
*
*
*
And not only in this country, but also in Europe, the
recent election of Victor Berger to Congress created
quite a sensation.
French and German Socialists have been making a
great deal of the victory in their papers and party conventions. The victory has been celebrated in many meetings and in many banquets by workmen in France, Germany and Austria.
*
*
*
And one can easily understand the reason for this.
It was always a reproach to the Socialists in Germany,
France, England and Austria—that the Socialist Party
has not made any headway in the United States. The
European comrades were told that while they were fighting capitalism at home, in the most capitalistic republic
of the world, in the United States, Socialism had made
no headway—in spite of the political freedom the workingmen are supposed to enjoy here. That not a single
representative of the working class—not a single SocialDemocrat—sat in the national law-giving body in
America.
Thus the battle won November the 8th in Milwaukee
has an international significance. And that is the
reason why the class-conscious workingmen from "London to Buda Pesth, and from St. Petersburg to Palermo," now rejoice—to use a figure of speech of the Milwaukee Sentinel.
*
*
*
However, the international significance of this Mil-

WHAT MAKES US WILLING TO WORK AND SACRIFICE 2 6 5

waukee victory only adds to the responsibility of the
comrades.
Milwaukee comrades must never forget for one
moment what they owe to the movement of the country
and to the movement of the world.
They should never forget that while they must make
good in Milwaukee county, this is only a little part of
their problem.
In fact, it is only an incident.
They must, of course, make good in the administration. They must, therefore, get the best possible material
for every office—Socialists wherever political affiliation
is a requirement—men with knowledge, without any
regard for party, wherever technical ability is paramount.
Comrades and non-comrades alike—friends and foes
alike—must never forget that this party was not started
and built up for the purpose of getting political jobs for
fifty or for five hundred. This party was started for. the
emancipation of the working class.
Comrades and non-comrades alike—friends and foes
alike—must never forget that this party was not started
and built up solely for the purpose of giving Milwaukee
County a good administration. Milwaukee County will
get this, and, in fact, will get the best administration any
county in America has ever had. But we have bigger
things in view and will never forget our greater aims
for one moment.
*
*
*
We shall never forget for one moment that while the
Social-Democratic Party fights the battles of the workers

266

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

—now and here—while it fights the battle for honesty
and for all the people alike as far as good government
is concerned—the ultimate aim of our party is not
reform, it is a revolution—a legal and peaceable revolution, but none the less a revolution.
Our party will never stop in its work until it has attained the complete government of the nation and has
substituted for the present profit system and capitalist
exploitation a system under which the people will collectively own and control the natural resources and the
machinery of production and distribution—until we get
a system which will eliminate corruption, child labor,
poverty, want, misery and prostitution—a system in
which all will have an equal opportunity and equal
chance to work out their share of life, liberty and happiness as far as human imperfection will permit.
*
*
*
Now, this is our ultimate aim. This makes us willing
to fight and to sacrifice.
Anybody who is in our party for any other purpose
has got into the wrong camp and he would better get
out as quickly as possible.
*

*

sjs

And I therefore appeal to all our comrades within the
organized Socialist movement to absolutely discourage
office-hunters and office-hunting, and to look upon it as a
danger to our great cause and to our great movement.
And with this before us I appeal to the 24,000 Socialist voters in Milwaukee County to stand by us, not only
on election day, but every day of the year, as long as
we are trying to live up to our principles and to get
nearer to our ideals.

SOCIALIST ADMINISTRATION AND TAX QUESTION

267

The Socialist Administration and the
Tax Question.
WRITTEN DECEMBER 24,

1910.

T H E R E is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the
citizens of Milwaukee because the taxes this year are
considerably higher than last year.
Many people blame the Social-Democratic administration.
Yet this is not only very unjust, but it shows a deplorable lack of information about the administration of
affairs in this city.
*
* *
The present administration has nothing to do with the
taxes for this year, except that it has to enforce them.
The tax levy was fixed by the former regime, by the
Rose government.
So if any indignant citizen wants to "make a kick,"
he will have to send it in the direction of David S. Rose
and the democratic aggregation which still held sway
last year.
* * *
However, the question of taxes is very much misunderstood on general principles.
As I have said before, the question is not how much
taxes a person pays, but how much benefit the tax-payer
derives from them.
* * *
A tax of $20 a year on a cottage may be very high
and costly, if the money is squandered—if there are bad

268

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

streets, unhealthy sanitary conditions and no benefit
otherwise to the people.
On the other hand, a tax of $40 on the same property
may be very low if the tax-payer gets fine streets, excellent schools, beautiful parks, model sanitary conditions
and pther advantages—in short, if the city is made a fit
place for decent people, and especially for working
people, to live and bring up a family.
*

*

*

In fact, every dollar paid in taxes ought to bring its
full value in benefits for all the people. And every taxpayer knows by this time that the Social-Democratic
administration will try to stretch every dollar as far in
that direction as it will possibly go.
* * *
However, the trouble is that we Social-Democrats have
to suffer for the sins of our predecessors in this direction
as in every other.
There can be no doubt that our tax system is miserable and inefficient beyond description.
There can be no doubt that a tremendous amount of
property, which ought to be taxed under the law—and
it is property of wealthy people—is now escaping taxation.
*

5j?

*

For instance, just take the general condition. According to the figures of the United States census for the
year 1900—the latest figures available—1532 establishments owned $162,129,641 of property in Milwaukee.
According to the assessor's figures the total valuation
of the property of the city of Milwaukee in 1906 was
$201,585,127.

SOCIALIST ADMINISTRATION AND TAX QUESTION

269

According to the United States Census for Manufactures in 1900, the items of cash and sundries in 1532
establishments alone were given as $89,669,315.
But in 1906, the entire personal property of all the
citizens of Milwaukee was assessed at a total of $43,973,567, although since 1900 the city had grown tremendously.
In other words, the assessment for personal property
for all the tax-payers of the entire city was less than
half what the Census of Manufactures showed for 1532
establishments six years before.
Talk about tax dodging!
* * *
Another item. Last year the Milwaukee baseball club
made $50,000. But the personal taxes of the baseball
magnate amounted to a few paltry dollars. Of course,
I do not want to insinuate that this was because Mr.
Havenor contributed to the Democratic campaign fund.
Still another illustration. Last year, the state demanded—besides the taxes on real estate and improvements and on tangible personal property—a tax upon
$21,000,000 of intangible property.
However, our city assessor in the year 1909 was able
to find and assess only $6,800,000 of intangible property.
What became of the difference of nearly $15,500,000,
on which the city was compelled to pay taxes to the
state ?
What is worse, the city had to raise the other assessments and the taxes on other property in order to make
up to the state and the county the taxes for the $15,000,000, which our assessor could not find.
This has been going on for years in Milwaukee.

270

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Now what is to be done?
No doubt that even the system for real estate assessments should be changed. It is not modern and ought
to be brought up to date.
For example, the city of Cleveland changed its tax
system in the fall of 1909 and elected some competent
men as real estate appraisers. They raised the valuations
in the city of Cleveland from $200,000,000 to $600,000,000.

* * *
And what is of more importance, this new commission
found that large properties had been greatly underassessed. This was corrected and saved the small homeowners in Cleveland $2,000,000 in taxes last year.
All property was placed on the tax list at its full
market value, complying with the law, which had never
been done before. But instead of this causing an outcry,
it met with" almost universal approval from the masses
of the people in Cleveland.
Only the wealthy chronic tax-dodgers, whose property
had increased enormously in value during the past ten
years and who want to hog all the unearned increment,
are dissatisfied with the change.
But the law in regard to placing all property on the
tax list at its full value, is the same in this state. And
the Social-Democratic administration intends to comply
with this law. And the Social-Democratic administration intends also to adopt a system as nearly similar to
the Cleveland system as possible.
*

*

*

Moreover, the Common Council has decided to employ

SOCIALIST /ADMINISTRATION AND TAX QUESTION

271

ferrets to find personal property which is now. escaping:
taxation altogether.
And no honest man, not even an honest capitalist,
ought to object if the city wants to compel the tax
dodgers to pay their fair share.
* * *
As the thing now stands, real estate and tangible personal property is readily discovered if the tax assessor is
honest and does his duty.
Furthermore, loans secured by mortgages in the State
of Wisconsin and stocks in any corporation in this state
which pays taxes otherwise are exempt from taxation
by the city.
• But mortgages on lands in other states and countries,,
and stocks and bonds in corporations outside of the
State of Wisconsin are not tax-free. Such securities
must pay taxes—says the law. They only escape taxation if not found by the assessor.
*

*

#

But the average capitalist in this country has a pretty
convenient memory and a very wide conscience in that
respect. And men who are known to own thousands of
stocks and bonds either do not own up at all or report
a ridiculously low sum.
In Germany, tax-dodgers of that kind are punished,
not only by a sentence in jail—because perjury, if committed against the state, is punished twice as severely
as other perjury and is liable to get a man into the penitentiary for five years—but in case of detection or
when the inheritance is recorded, the government has
a right to collect ten times, and sometimes fourteen
times, as much back taxes as are due. In many cases.

272

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

this would amount to confiscation. This rigor makes
tax-dodging in Germany a very dangerous business.
But this country is the paradise of the rich tax-dodger.
And Milwaukee is not the only city where this is the
case.
But the honest tax-payer, especially the small homeowner, has to pay the price as things are now. And so
must the honest business man, manufacturer or owner
of business blocks who does not stand in with the tax
assessors and who does not want to resort to bribery.
All these people, including the man who pays the rent,
have to make up for the dishonesty of the others. They
not only have to pay so much more, but since it is impossible for them to make up for the big tax-dodgers,
the city is continually hard up. It has poor streets,
insufficient school facilities, and it cannot meet its obligations.
* * *
Therefore the following is going to be the program of
the Social-Democratic Party on the tax question.
We will assess the full value of the property as the
law prescribes.
We will apply a new method which will put the main
burden on those who can afford to bear it.
And we will employ tax ferrets in order to reach the
tax-dodgers.
* * *
Though it is disagreeable for a city administration, and
especially for a Socialist administration, to employ spies
to find tax-dodgers, yet it is no worse than employing
detectives against other criminals.
Modern American cities are in the same condition as

NON-PARTISAN WORKINGMAN TRlAITOR

273

the Italian and German cities of the middle ages which
had to hire condottieri and landsknechte and other mercenaries to defend themselves against the robber barons.
The robber baron is upon us again—only he wears
a frock coat and is a pillar of society.

The Non-Partisan Workingman is a
Traitor to His Class.
WRITTEN JULY 22,

1911.

T H E M I L W A U K E E JOURNAL and such so-called
reformers as it can command or who hope to get into
office with its help, are instituting another campaign for
"non-partisan" municipal elections.
This is not the first effort in that direction. An
attempt to abolish parties in Milwaukee by law has failed.
And rightly so.
Every democracy presupposes parties.
Whenever a dozen electors stand together for the
same measure or issue they will form some sort of an
organization to carry out that measure or issue,—or they
will fail. Every such little clique will be a party in
embryo.
Only as long as it remains a little clique, it will stand
for small things and for the personal advantage of a few
men. A clique will also be much more easily manipu-

274

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

lated than a real party—and manipulated by smaller and
crookeder men.
Thus in the final analysis "non-partisanship" is simply
a question whether it is more advantageous to rally
around small issues and petty men or around great principles and big men.
* * *
Moreover, if parties are an evil in the municipal field,
why are these parties not an evil also in state and national elections? Certain "reformers" are now trying to
organize a party to abolish parties—and have the initiative and referendum instead.
If the Journal reformers were consistent they would
do the same thing. If parties are an evil in the city,
then they are surely an evil in the state and in the nation.
* * *
Students of history know that a democracy must have
parties or it will dribble into small cliques and groups.
Without parties democracy will become inefficient. It
will wind up either in anarchy or monarchy,—usually it
will result in first one, then the other.
* * *
Political parties are also necessary in a republic because they fix the responsibility.
A party may be good, or bad, or indifferent, but it is
always held responsible by the voters.
The Rose democracy was surely bad enough, yet it
was better than no organization at all, because the people
could fix the guilt. The same is the case in New York,
Chicago or Philadelphia. Tammany, the Republicans in
Philadelphia, and the County Democracy in Chicago are
undoubtedly rotten—yet they are a great deal better than

NON-PARTISAN WORKINGMAN TRAITOR

275

anything the "reformers'' have ever been able to put in
their place.
^ ^ %
But the Journal reformers do not mean to abolish
parties entirely. They only want to abolish them in Milwaukee, where the Journal is printed.
They say, the national parties corrupt local politics.
Well, the Journal ought to know. The Journal helped
Mark Hanna in 1896, in the days of the utmost corruption of politics, and stood for the so-called "gold democracy." Yet the Journal no doubt was actuated by honest capitalistic motives in opposing the free coinage of
silver.
However, national parties are not responsible for local
graft or grafting city administrations.
* * *
The national Republican party is not responsible for
the Republican grafters in Philadelphia. The national
Democratic "party cannot be blamed for the Tammany
graft, or for the Rose grafters.
Both national parties are only responsible for the graft
and the grafters inasmuch as they stand for capitalism,
and capitalism is the basis of all graft.
Jjc

jjc

>Jc

The trouble is that even our honest reformers have
always expected too much from mere changes in the
election machinery. Even our honest reformers expect
conditions to change by changing the way of expression.
Instead of attacking capitalism and the principle of
getting something for nothing, which is pervading our
entire system and is also the mother of all graft and
crime,—these reformers have always hoped miracles
from blanket ballots, Australian ballots, short ballots,

276

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

non-partisan ballots, Mary-Ann puzzle ballots and any
old ballots.
Even the brainier ones among them expect wonders
from the Initiative, the Referendum and the "Recall"
which can never be accomplished by these methods.
Now, the Initiative, the Referendum and the Recall
were Social-Democratic measures originally. We acknowledge them and use them for what they are worth.
But we do not think that they are a panacea for all
evils. They are simply a method of expressing the will
of the people in democracy. They are simply details of
the democratic machinery.
Yet it all depends upon how this machinery is used.
And under the capitalist system, capitalists, grafters,
schemers and crooks who have money and talent at
their disposal, can handle the Initiative, the Referendum
and the Recall with just as much facility as they handled
the old party caucus, the Australian ballot, the blanket
ballot and as they handle the short ballot in Chicago
and other cities.
We say so much for the honest reformers.
But the Journal reformers are not honest.
To the Journal "non-partisanship" means all parties
united against the Socialist party.
The Journal is looking for a way to unite Republicans
and Democrats, common grafters and honest reformers,
saloonkeepers and church people, red-light district heelers and Protestant preachers under one banner against
the Social-Democrats.
The Journal is trying to find a catch-phrase by vhich
it can unite capitalists who know what they are about
and ignorant workingmen who don't know what they are

N0N-PARTIS1AN WORKINGMAN TRiAITOR

277

about in one and the same "non-partisan" anti-Socialist
citizens' party.
And the entire aggregation and congregation is to
have the blessings and the support of that dark power of
reaction, oppression and superstition which has opposed
all enlightenment and progress for sixteen hundred
years. Only the Journal, of course, will not admit this.
However, the Journal reformers will fail miserably,
for the simple reason that they cannot possibly succeed.
* * *
Unless this earth of ours is struck by a comet or unless
at least the white race and its civilization is wiped out
entirely by some barbaric invasion which we cannot now
foresee, this world is going to have Socialism as the next
phase of civilization.
* * *
And every step against Socialism is futile.
And every step in the direction of Socialism is successful and can never be retracted.
* * *
Moreover, Social-Democracy is the political economy
of the working class the world over. And the Socialist
party is the political expression of the working class the
world over.
Therefore, the workingman must be partisan and bitterly partisan—unless he is a contemptible traitor to his
class, his family and to himself.
* * *
Labor can never be non-partisan.
Labor will always be partisan to labor until the present system is abolished—grafters, capitalists, reformers
and all. Only the working class is immortal.

278

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

The Party of the New Idea.
WRITTFN

DECEMBER,

1906.

Like every new phase of civilization, Socialism thus
far has received the attention only of the oppressed and
the lowly. The opulent and the rich have no reason to
wish for a change of the system. They do not, as a rule,
want to hear anything about it.
Until of late, outside of the working class, only students of history, of political economy, and a few advanced thinkers have given any attention to the principles of Socialism. Most other persons have only a
very vague idea even of its basis. Yet Socialism is in
the foreground of discussion.
Is This the End?
Socialism stands for a new civilization.
Of course, with people who believe that whatever is
will exist forever, and that we have reached the acme
of civilization, it is entirely useless to argue.
But surely no educated man believes that the present
conditions are the end of all things.
That we have not reached the end of our national
development is clear. Every new invention and every
new political question proves that to us. And it would
be sad indeed if we had reached "the end." We then
should soon be on a level with China.
And I need not explain, that the Social-Democratic
movement is not to be traced to the irresponsible work of
individual agitators or eccentric persons.
The very name of our party, "Social-Democracy/' proclaims our aims.

THE PiARTY OF THE NEW IDEA

279

In regard to the political form we demand the rule of
the people, i. e. democracy. In regard to the economic
sphere, and the spirit which shall manifest itself in this
form and give life to it, we demand Socialism, that is,
the collective ownership of the means of production and
distribution.
Thus we shall have Social-Democracy. A democracy
which is founded on economic independence, upon the
political and industrial equality of opportunity for all.
Industry on a Large Scale.
Determined opponents of the present capitalistic system of industry as the Social-Democrats are, still they
never think of calling the concentration of capital the
cause of all evil.
Social-Democrats do not try to smash the trusts as
such. On the contrary, the Social-Democracy appreciates so fully the advantages of industrial production
on a large scale that we wish its most perfect development, which is impossible under the capitalist system.
The control of production by the people as a whole
means the highest possible perfection of industry on a
large scale.
Our Lives Are in Their Hands.
And we all deeply feel the disadvantages of the private
ownership of the means of production and distribution
on a large scale.
We observe how the railroads, street car companies,
and other public service corporations corrupt our legislatures. We notice how our life insurance savings are.
simply furnishing funds for high-financiers. We witness
how the largest factory owners combine into trusts which
are "financiered" by banks and how the meat trust> the

280

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

oil trust, the steel trust, and all the other trusts are
"regulating prices," and how moreover some of these
trusts are ruining the health of the people.
We all see it. We all feel it. And we all know it.
Then we all must also comprehend that the owners of
these sheets and strips of paper (which under our present
system stand for "capital") virtually decide how much
we shall pay for our coffee and our bread, how much for
our kerosene and our coal, and how much we are to
spend for our houses, clothing, etc.
In other words, they decide how well or how poorly we
are to live. They have "the say" as to how long or how
short a time we are permitted to live.
The Wolves Succeed Best.
And the wage workers are by no means the only ones
who suffer from these conditions.
With every increase of power and concentration of
wealth the educated and professional class is forced more
and more into dependence upon the capitalist. Our
teachers, professors, speakers, newspaper editors, and
writers, and even ministers, doctors, and all professional
men, are more and more at the mercy of the capitalistic
systemj and brought into abject dependence. Thus the
educated proletariat ever increases.
On the other hand—money-making is not a matter of
education.
On the contrary, the more vulgar and wolfish the man,
the more readily he succeeds.
A Grafters' World.
And wealth, usually expressed by money, is now the
god. It is by the distribution of part of this wealth that
the rich man gets his dangerous powers. It is the mono-

THE PJARTY OF THE NEW IDEA

281

poly of that which all want—some of which all must
have—that makes his power so fearful.
The big grafter (or his heir) writes his check and
gets all the good or bad things his heart desires. He
gets adulation, professional skill, wine and women, paragraphs in the newspapers and the disposal of political
places.
A man like Sherburn M. Becker, who only with difficulty is able to read off the trashy speeches written by
his private secretary, is made mayor of Milwaukee, and
heralded far and wide as a "boy wonder. ,,
Why? Because he uses the great wealth left to him
by his great grandfather very freely to advertise himself.
A vulgar and coarse English exploiter like Sir Thomas
Lipton, who for the last 40 years has not earned an
honest dollar—but is reported to be "worth" 50 millions
—is invited to Milwaukee and treated as a "demi-god."
Under such conditions it is only natural that money
hase become the root of all evil. Wealth being the greatest social power, it naturally is the worst of all temptations. Our present economic system creates grafters,
criminals, thieves, and prostitutes.
Parties Act From Self-Inter est.
These conditions are before our eyes in spite of all
that is said by the capitalist press and the capitalist
politician.
And what remedy can the old political parties bring
to the people?
Parties, like individuals, act from motives of selfinterest.
Now both of the old parties are owned by the capk

282

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

taiists. -This is a fact, not even denied by the more
honest leaders of both Republican and Democratic parties.
And what can you you do about it?
There~ is only one party in the field standing for the
"new idea/' There is only one party representing in the
political field the necessary outcome of the evolution in
the economic field. That is the Social-Democratic party.
The Social-Democratic party stands squarely upon the
principles of international Socialism. It relies wholly
upon education and upon the development of the industrial forces. Both of these factors make for Socialism.
A Peaceful Revolution.
The Social-Democratic party, while it is revolutionary
in its final aim, is none the less distinctly evolutionary
and constructive in its method.
Social reforms of all kinds are welcomed by the SocialDemocrats for many reasons.
In the first place, by reforms we can stop the increasing pauperization, and consequently also the enervation
of the masses of the people. If real reforms are seriously taken up and carried out with determination, they
may even lift the masses to a considerable extent.
But the main reason for our favoring them is because such reforms, if logically carried out, offer the
possibility of a peaceful, lazvful and orderly transformation of society.
Social-Democracy Is

Constructive.

The Social-Democratic party is the only true reform
party in existence. We agitate for the organization of

DISAGREEABLE

WORK

283

the masses. And organization everywhere means order.
We educate, we enlighten, we reason, we discipline.
And, therefore, besides order, we bring also law, reason,
discipline, and progress.
It is therefore absolutely false to represent our SocialDemocracy as merely destructive, as intending to overthrow and annihilate society, as an appeal to the brute
passions of the masses.
Just the opposite is true.
Our Social-Democracy wants to maintain our culture
and civilization, and bring it to a higher level.
Our party wants to guard this nation from destruction.
W e ' appeal to the best in every man, to the public
spirit of the citizen, to his love of wife and children.

"Disagreeable Work/*
WRITTEN APRIL,

1907.

A LAWYER who has read our answer to Mr. Hoyt,
is very much disturbed, lest in the Socialist Republic
nobody could be found who would do the "disagreable"
work. He fears that everybody would want the "easy"
jobs.
In answer to this we would first say that the decision
as to what work or employment is "agreeable'' and
"disagreeable" will no doubt differ according to personal
taste and inclination. Agricultural pursuits, which, for
example, are the most agreeable occupation to some,
might be perfectly intolerable to others. Office work

284

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

and bookkeeping, which to some people seem very desirable, would be the last occupation I would choose.
One could therefore wager ten to one that almost
every "disagreeable" employment might find its lover.
To this must be added the fact that the machine will
do more and more the work of men. Today competition is the incentive of the capitalist to let the machine
do as much work as possible, in order to save money.
In the Socialist Society the prospect of the alleviation
and embellishment of life for everybody will have the
effect even in a greater degree.
But for those who point to street-cleaning, scavenging,
etc., I should like to draw their attention to the fact,
that not only in foreign countries, but also in America,
there are many cities which use machines for that kind
of work. It is perfectly clear that a society which
makes its special aim to fashion human life as humanely
as possible, will endeavor, far more than the present
society to have as much labor as possible done by
machines.
That all "disagreeable work" will ever be entirely
abolished in this world, I do not believe.
Of course, nobody knows the future. But I am sure
that such labor will be limited to the smallest possible
amount. Maybe even then there will be a good deal
more disagreeable labor than will please most people.
Suppose this should be the case, what would that prove
against the Socialist Republic?
Is it not a fact, that even today the most disagreeable
work is done without remuneration, without wages or
material gain, simply from a feeling of solidarity? Or
from friendship and love?

DISAGREEABLE WORK

285

Just think of the care of the sick, the nursing of little
children and the efforts for the salvation of fallen
women. You will then agree that if even a society like
our present capitalist society, built on egotism and greed,
and which, therefore, necessarily must promote and
strengthen egotism and anti-social impulses—if even
such a society is capable of bringing forth deeds of unselfish sacrifice, how much more a society founded upon
the feeling of solidarity, which naturally will endeavor
to strengthen that side of humanity.
?ji

JJ«

jjt

And even if we should not succeed, at least not immediately and from the very first, in resurrecting the altruistic spirit to such a degree that it will be strong enough
to secure the performance of the "most disagreeable
labor" because it is necessary, we should still have the
expedient of securing the performance of such labor
through the greatest shortening of the working day for
those performing such labor, and by granting special
premiums, or even by assigning such labor as a punishment to those who have broken the laws of society.
I believe, therefore, that, after calm consideration, even
this objection will lose the illusive power which it did
seem to have at first glance to our lawyer friend.
* * *
And if our friend should bring up the other notion,
that in the Co-operative Commonwealth men would lack
the incentive to activity, this only proves what wrong
ideas our perverted order of society has produced. Because today greed and graft are the basis of society,
some people believe that society will fall to pieces the
minute that greed and graft make room for a noble and
stronger basis.

286

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Does not the sight of every child teach that a healthy
human being cannot exist without activity?
And is it not clear that a society which for the first
time makes us all bodily and mentally healthy will bring
this inherent impulse towards activity to its fullest development ?
This inherent impulse to work will be mightily
strengthened in a society which offers opportunity to
every one to choose that kind of work which is best
suited to him or her, and which will burden nobody too
much, and which will secure to every one the fullest
equivalent of his or her labor.
To this must be added the stimulating thought—that
only work is being done which is necessary and useful
to the community.
Where everybody must work, the idea of compulsion
vanishes of itself.
On the contrary, work will then become the only
badge of honor that society knows. Today money and
inherited wealth are the golden keys.
And wher^ all work which is done, is necessary from a
social standpoint, by and by the different valuation of
different kinds of work will also cease.
*

*

*

For, if we look at it more closely, we find that today
it is the wages of labor, i. e. money, which decides the
higher or lesser respect which is accorded to a skilled
trade or profession. In a society which no longer knows
such standard of value, the valuation of the different
kinds of work which depend solely upon the money
earned, will also come to an end.

DISAGREEABLE WORK

287

Far from destroying in men the joy of work or
even diminishing it, the Socialist Republic, on the contrary, will rather bring it to its fullest development.
Only in the Socialist Republic the time in human history
will be reached when labor will cease to be a burden and
become a joy.
There for the first time labor will be, no longer a sign
of degradation, but a title of honor.
In reality it is the society of today which is the great
penitentiary, that some—and not only Herbert Spencer—
suppose the Socialistic society will be. On the contrary,
it will be the Walhalla of labor, flooded, with light and
air, in which the song of freedom, of happy human
beings will never cease.
The Socialist Republic does not mean the. destruction
and downfall of our culture and civilization—this is
threatened by the present society—but its salvation and
maintenance. Our victory will be the victory of civilization.
% * *
Whoever still doubts this should be taught by the fact
that the Social-Democratic party alone is called upon to
defend more and more the immortal achievements of
the Declaration of Independence, of true democracy. All
other parties will grow more and more into one reactionary mass.
* * *
There is no doubt that a great historical day is again
approaching when men will separate to the right and the
left. This will be done whether we want it or not.
Those who remain true to the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity can follow no other flag than the red
international banner of Social-Democracy.

288

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

Let It Work Both Ways!
WRITTEN OCTOBER,

1907.

From time immemorial in all civilized countries there
have been laws of a restraining nature. They were
always based upon the principle that individuals must
curb their powers, their passions, their desires whenever,
by gratifying these, the interests of society as a whole
might be injured.
Robbery, forgery, rape and arson are forbidden, because the committal of these crimes, if permitted, would
prove injurious to the welfare of the people in general,
though they might advance the interests of those committing them.
* * *
Let us suppose the case of a needy man who sees within easy reach the wherewithal to satisfy his wants. All
he has to do is to stretch out his hands to get it.
Yet he is not permitted to do so. The law stands
before him with a solemn threat. It tells him that it is
wiser and better for the welfare of the community that
he should suffer—or even that he should perish—rather
than that he should take things which do not belong to
him.
At least this is the contention of the state in enforcing
this regulation. It is for the welfare of the many, as
opposed to that of the individual, that this particular
citizen must restrain his desires, sometimes even his
hunger.
In other words, the first law of nature—that of personal self-preservation—is made subordinate to the code

LET IT WOfcK BOTH WAYS

288j

of laws which has been adopted for the preservation of
society as it is. A man who is starving cannot even steal
a loaf of bread to preserve his life, because stealing is
supposed to be destructive to society.
The principle is clearly established and recognized
that individual interests—no matter how pressing—
should not in any case supersede general interests.
* * *
And yet how limited is the application of this excellent principle of restriction.
The law which prohibits the gratification of the poor
man's hunger at the expense of his neighbor, to be
logical, should prohibit the gratification of the rich man's
greed at the expense of his neighbors.
If it is just and politic that individuals should be
restrained whenever their actions tend'to affect adversely
the morals and welfare of the community or of the
nation—then certainly a check should also be imposed on
those who, by accumulation of wealth far beyond their
needs, are instrumental in producing poverty and the
Crimes and vices which are the results of poverty.
If personal self-gratification and even personal self*
preservation must make way for social preservation, then
it should be required that the opulent surrender their
riches in order to save the social organization.
If the principle of subjection to restriction for the general good is one whose application is essential to the
welfare of the common wealth, then even the power of
indulging the passion of greed for immoderate wealth,
which might inflict injury on others, should be absolutely
curbed.
There is a strange power whereby gold is drawn

290

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

toward gold. The greater the accumulation, the greater
the attraction.
There are a number of men in our country who annually add millions to their possessions. If the same process
of accumulation were applied to land—and there is no
law to forbid it—it is evident that a man acquiring a
title to several million acres every year need only live
long enough to become possessed of the earth. Considering the vast holdings of certain Americans now—
and their strenuous efforts to add to these and the power
thus obtained—there is no reason why a few men in
our generation should not combine and form a powerful
trust of trusts—compared with which.the power of the
Kaiser of Germany would sink to insignificance.
As it is now, our trust magnates—in spite of all the
efforts of Roosevelt and Bryan and Bonaparte and Taft—
constitute a power in our public and private and social
life which renders ridiculous all the pretensions of a
republic of citizens "free and equal."
While we have a democracy in name, we live in a plutocracy in fact.
But how long will it last ?
* * *
For let it not be thought that the lessons of the past
are completely forgotten.
The overthrow of mighty kings in the past, the breakdown of hierarchies and the reduction of popes, are not
mere romances without historical meaning.
On the contrary. The history of the future can to no
small extent be read in the pages of the past.
The princes and popes of the past claimed their power
and their authority from God. If these princes, nobles

LET IT WORK BOTH WAYS

291

and priests had their prerogatives curtailed in spite of
their claim that these prerogatives were of divine origin,
can our plutocrats expect that their power, that their prerogatives will last forever?
Or do they mean to say that the forward march of
Democracy, which did not halt before the crown and the
tiara—that the Democracy, which rebelled against the
"holiness" of the crosier and the cassock—will forever
bow down before the unholiness of the money bag?
* * *
And what did it profit to restrict the prerogatives of
rulers and the privileges of nobles and of the clergy, as
long as the privileges of wealth remain intact ?
Distributing votes and concentrating wealth did not
fulfilll the promises of Democracy.
A score of men in our great country enjoy privileges,
and have a power for weal and for woe—political, financial and social—greater than the privileges and powers
of the millions of the masses combined.
Call this state of things whatever you will, but you
cannot call it Democracy. Claim for it what advantage
you please, but you cannot claim that it is advantageous
to the masses of the nation.
The principle which should guide our government—
the principle which should guide every honest government—of subordinating the individual to the general welfare—requires a broader application than it receives at
present.
If a man is not allowed to steal a loaf of bread from
others to satisfy his hunger, then a man ought not to be
allowed to steal a million loaves from others and steal
them every day to satisfy his greed.
We have solved the problem of production, we must

292

BERGER'S BROADSIDES

solve the problem of distribution—or our civilization will
break down.
In short, our present Democracy cannot defend its very
name against the encroachment of plutocracy. And
what is worse, it cannot defend its ve.ry existence on the
grdund of equity, of morality, or even of expediency—unless it becomes Social-Democracy.