# Bolshevism in Russia and America/Chapter 2

II. AMERICAN BOLSHEVISM.
The victory of Bolshevism in Russia and the Austrian, the Hungarian, and the German experiences of the last few years have accentuated the differences among the various kinds of Socialists the world over. Revolutionary Socialists have grown in numbers everywhere and have come to feel themselves ready for action. Thus it happened that when the Bolsheviki a year ago called an international conference to meet in Moscow for the purpose of creating a revolutionary Bolshevik or Communist international association, they found many ready to follow their leadership and prepared to pursue Bolshevik tactics. Not all Socialists, however, were invited to the conference; an attempt was made to exclude moderate or Menshevik Socialists and to pick Bolshevik or prospectively Bolshevik organizations and groups. The American groups invited were the Socialist Labor Party, the I. W. W., and the Left Wing of the Socialist Party, represented by the Socialist Propaganda League and Eugene V. Debs.
The Moscow International.
The conference issued a Manifesto, which declared the identity of Bolshevism or Communism with the Socialism of the first International, and condemned the policy and tactics of the second International of Menshevik Socialists. It said that Capitalism was trying to save itself by international imperialism but that it must be destroyed and can only be ended by a proletarian dictatorship throughout the world. It affirmed that the development of Capitalism had so undermined political ​democracy, that the proletarian revolution must be carried through by workmen's councils and not by political democracy and the vote. When formed, the new revolutionary State, based on workmen's councils, should have a new army to protect itself in the civil war which would come with the revolution. The Manifesto repudiated "the vacillation, mendacity and superficiality of the Socialist parties," and calls out for Communist parties everywhere. It ends: "Join us, proletarians, in every country—flock to the banner of the workmen's councils, and fight the revolutionary fight for the power and dictatorship of the proletariat!"
What are the groups in the United States which subscribe to such a programme and how many American Bolsheviki are there?
The Socialist Labor Party.
The first American group mentioned in the invitation to the Moscow International was the Socialist Labor Party. While this party maintains that it is a Bolshevik organization, it refuses to deal with the other American Bolsheviki. Moreover, though it declares that it has the theory of Bolshevism, it relies more than Bolshevism does upon the vote—at least more than Bolshevism did in Russia and more than the other American Bolsheviki in this country outline in their programs. For these reasons, the Socialist Labor Party cannot be considered a replica of the Russian Bolshevik Party, nor even an active part of the American Communist movement. Besides, since it has less than 3,000 members, its effect is almost negligible.
The I. W. W.
The other American organization invited to affiliate with the Communist International is the Industrial Workers ​of the World. Founded in 1905 as an industrial union to help introduce Socialism according to the Socialist Labor Party's idea of the process, it approached at the beginning very close to the Bolshevik position. Though the I. W. W. was not to affiliate with any political party, its preamble called for action on the political as well as the industrial field. The revolution was to be the act of the industrial organization aided by the protection of a political party. But this idea was abandoned in 1908, the organization changing its preamble and its policies. Since that time, the I. W. W. has committed itself solely and without reserve to industrial action alone. It looks upon industrial action—sabotage, the strike, the general strike, the strike on the job, etc.—as the means of preparation for the revolution towards common ownership. The revolution is to be obtained by locking out the employers, and thus taking over industry and social control. Considering industrial action alone as fundamental to the revolution, and aiming at an industrial State based on common ownership, the I. W. W., since 1908, has been a Syndicalist organization, that is to say, it relies upon the action of labor unions to accomplish a communist revolution. It is not strictly Bolshevik because it considers political action unnecessary. Bolshevism employs both political and industrial action to seize the power of the State; the I. W. W. uses industrial action alone for the direct purpose of seizing industry, and thus seizing indirectly the power of the State.
But the fact that the leaders of Bolshevism invited the I. W. W., as well as other foreign syndicalist organizations, to the Moscow or Communist International hints at the close affinity of Bolshevism and Syndicalism. Bolshevism relies very much upon economic action; both the I. W. W. and Bolshevism look forward to a Socialist society with the occupational groups as the constituencies of the new kind of State; both aim at the seizure of political power and not at a political victory at the ​polls. For these reasons, the I. W. W., while not exactly Bolshevik, can be considered so, and the Syndicalist movement can be considered a part of Bolshevism.
It is not known how many members of the I. W. W. there are in this country. The Acting Secretary-Treasurer of the I. W. W. reports a membership of 119,000 in May, 1917. Later in the same year, a Government commission said that there were about 200,000 members. The membership declined again and the latest report given out by the organization claims a membership of about 70,000. But the membership figures of the I. W. W. have been notoriously unreliable in the past, and it is possible that 70,000 is an exaggerated estimate. Moreover, many belong to the I. W. W. because they hope to obtain, through their membership, better wages, hours, etc., and not because they are for a revolution. When, for example, a new union was formed among the Northwest timber workers during the war, many left the I. W. W. to join the new organization.
The Left Wing of the Socialist Party.
The other American group invited to the Communist International was the Left Wing of the Socialist Party. Before the Soviet Revolution and even before the war, there were some members of the Socialist Party who came very close to Bolshevism. The influence of the I. W. W. and the sterility of the Socialist Party inclined some towards a more revolutionary policy than the party called for. This took the form of a demand for "dualism," i. e., for political action, and for economic action through industrial unions. The bone of contention was the I. W. W. Finally the party in 1912 compromised on the question by recommending industrial unionism, by condemning such tactics as sabotage and violence, and by refusing to commit itself to the general strike. But ​the more revolutionary section of the party were turning away from political reformism and thus were dissatisfied over the official position of the party.
The collapse of International Socialism in 1914 inclined many towards the belief that the Socialist policy of trying to usher in the revolution through political success at a national election was not the best way of going about the matter. The war experience taught others that economic reforms if engineered by the State, would merely strengthen the State, the bureaucracy and capitalism, and bring society no closer to the coöperative commonwealth. Then the Soviet Revolution came, and it clinched that conviction in the minds of many.
During the latter part of 1918 and the first half of 1919, intense propaganda was carried on within the ranks of the Socialist Party to capture it for the Bolshevik tactics. But with the expulsion from the party of the Slavic Federation and the Michigan State Branch in May, 1919, many of the American Bolsheviki decided to form a separate Communist, or Bolshevik, Party. Others of them, still hoping to capture the Socialist Party, waited for the Socialist Emergency Convention to meet in August.
The Socialist Convention opened in Chicago on August 30, 1919. Many of the "Left Wingers" were refused credentials, and they and other Left Wingers," who had retired from the Socialist Convention, met on August 31st and formed a Communist Labor Party. The next day the Slavic Federation and the Michigan State Branch, with a few others, formed their Communist Party.
Attempts at uniting the two Communist parties have met with failure. They have remained separate organizations though they stand for identical doctrines. Both have issued Bolshevik manifestos and programs. Both adhere completely to the Communist International of Moscow.
The Communist Party.
The Manifesto of the Communist Party says that "the proletarian class struggle … is a political struggle in the sense that its objective is political—overthrow of the political organizations upon which Capitalist exploitation depends, and the introduction or a proletarian State power." The Program says that the Communist Party "aims to direct this (class) struggle to the conquest of political power, the overthrow of Capitalism, and to the destruction of the bourgeois state." "The Communist Party shall keep in the foreground its consistent appeal for proletarian revolution, the overthrow of Capitalism and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat." But, they say, "it is not a problem of immediate revolution. The revolutionary epoch may last for years and tens of years." Meanwhile the party will engage in political elections to spread the party principles and will nominate candidates for legislative offices only. If the party gains a political office, its representative "shall not introduce or support reform measures," but merely agitate the party principles. The party will participate in strikes for the purpose of agitation, for the development of strikes into general strikes, and for the development of the latter into a proletarian dictatorship. The party constitution says that "its purpose shall be the education and organization of the working class for the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the abolition of the Capitalist system and the establishment of the Communist Society." The Communist society is explained to be a society based on "industrial self-government of the communistically organized producers."
The Communist Labor Party.
The Communist Labor Party prepared a much briefer platform and program. In the platform it gives as its purpose, "the organization of the workers, as a class ​for the overthrow of Capitalist rule and the conquest of political power by the workers. The workers, organized as the ruling class, shall through their government make and enforce the laws; they shall own and control land, factories, mills, mines, transportation systems and financial institutions." It declares its adherence "to the principles laid down by the Third International formed at Moscow." The programme states that the only demand of its platform is "the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." "The class struggle is essentially a political struggle, that is, a struggle by the proletariat to conquer the Capitalist state … and to replace it by a governmental structure adapted to the Communist transformation." "The Party shall propagandize industrial unionism and industrial union organization, pointing out their revolutionary nature and possibilities," and "shall make the great industrial battles in its major campaigns to show the value of the strike as a political weapon."
The Number of Communists.
When the Communist Party was formed, its secretary said that it had approximately 58,000 members. The secretary of the Communist Labor Party, however, basing his estimate on the dues stamp sales of the preceding six months, said that the Communist Party was composed of about 25,000 Slavs and 3,000 Americans. When the Slavic Federation was suspended from the Socialist Party, three months before the formation of the Communist Party, it was reported to have had between 25,000 and 30,000 members. Since the Michigan group was very small, perhaps 30,000 or 35,000 is a fair stimate of the number affiliated with the Communist Party last September.
​The Communist Labor Party, according to the Communist Party, had about 10,000 members at the time of the convention. Its own secretary, however, reported an estimated membership of 20,000 Americans, and added 9,000 others of the German, Italian, and Scandinavian Federations without saying definitely that they belonged to the party. But these figures are evidently based on guesses and hopes.
The largest estimate thus for both parties is 68,000. The smallest is 48,000. Another estimate has it that there were 55,000 members of the Communist parties last September in the United States. Perhaps 45,000 or 50,000 is closer to the facts.
But if we go farther and try to find how many real Bolsheviki there were among these, the figures shrink. Most of the members of the Slavic Federation became Socialists during the latter part of 1918 and the early months of 1919. Many of them joined the party because of a feeling of patriotism over the events in their native countries, while others who had been Socialists at an earlier date were not Bolsheviki until the Soviet Revolution had run on for a time. The Michigan section of the Communist Party, it is said, is not really Bolshevik at all. The reports are that it refused to vote in the convention on the program and manifesto of the party.
The Communist Labor Party contains a variety of groups—some Bolshevik, others who say they are, and still others who are merely dissatisfied over certain of the methods of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party. There are many "wavering centrists" among them who do not know exactly where they. stand. Moreover, the convention was a meeting of leaders; whether the rank and file are Communists is a question.
The gain of the Communists since last. September has been estimated at 55,000. But it is only an estimate and ​nothing certain is known. Other reports have it that the membership of both parties since then has shrunk very much. The men who dominated the organizations have been in Europe for several months; it is said that both parties are disintegrating.
The Socialist Party.
The Socialist Party itself is not a Bolshevik organization. Separating from the Socialist Labor Party in 1901, it has consistently followed a policy in opposition to the theoretically quasi-Bolshevik parent organization. During 1919, it expelled many organizations for being, as it thought, Bolshevik. In so doing, it diminished its own membership by half.
There is one test which decides the question. The Bolshevik believes in the direct seizure of political power. He rejects the ballot and political elections as a method of accomplishing the Socialist revolution. A Socialist, who believes that the revolutionary seizure of political power is the first necessary step towards the common ownership and use of the means of production and distribution, is a Bolshevik. The Socialist Party, however, is committed to the use of the ballot to obtain legislation, reform Capitalism, and to obtain a Socialist majority in the government. It is, therefore, not a Bolshevik organization. This idea was frequently repeated during the recent trial of the Socialist Assemblymen in Albany. Last year, when the Slavic Federation and other Left Wing Socialists were expelled from the party, Seymour Stedman, a member of the Executive Committee, told a reporter that "the differences in the Socialist movement today are between those who believe the political method should be discarded in favor of the physical, and those who believe in political action alone."
Socialists talk much of the revolution. But their revolution does not mean the direct seizure of political power ​with probable civil war; it means a fundamental change in the use of the government and industry when once the Socialists gain a majority in the government. Political victory at the polls is in their idea the first major step towards this revolution or change.
The Socialist Party has defended the Soviet Revolution, but not because it intends to imitate the Bolshevik methods. In a recent Manifesto it says: "The people of Russia, like the American colonists in 1776, were driven by their rulers to the use of violent methods to secure and maintain their freedom. The Socialist Party calls upon the workers of the United States to do all in their power to restore and maintain our civil rights to the end that the transition from Capitalism to Socialism may be effected without resort to the drastic measures made necessary by autocratic despotism." The Communist, on the other hand, denies that it is possible to introduce Socialism by the exercise of "civil rights." They are a help, he says, in spreading the ideas of Communism, but the revolution itself takes place outside the sphere of "civil rights." Drastic measures are necessary, he maintains, both in autocracies and democracies—in the Russia of the Tsars, in the Russia of the Constituent Assembly, and in the United States.
The attitude of the Socialist Party towards the Moscow, or Communist, International is worthy of special notice. In the August convention referred to above, majority and minority reports upon the international situation of the Socialist Party were made by a committee. The majority report, evading the question of the Moscow International, recommended the formation of another new international association. The minority report recommended that the Socialist Party affiliate with the Moscow International, not for the purpose of supporting the Moscow program and methods in the United States, but because of Moscow's challenge to world imperialism and because of a fraternal feeling towards the So​cialist society of Russia. The minority report was adopted by the party, but since the affiliation is made with those reservations, the Socialist Party cannot, in justice, be called Communist. It has joined Bolshevik company, but not as a Bolshevik.
If all four organizations—the Socialist Labor Party with its 3,000 members, the I. W. W. with its 70,000, and the two Communist parties with their 50,000 or 60,000 members, are lumped together as Bolshevik in theory and unanimously Bolshevik in membership, then we had 120,000 or 130,000 Bolsheviki in this country last September. But all four were not completely Bolshevik in theory and membership, and so that number should be greatly diminished. How much it should be diminished can hardly be estimated. Since last September the probabilities are that the Comn1unist parties have declined, that the Socialist Labor Party has stood stationary, and that the I. W. W. has retained its somewhat mythical membership. The conclusion is that Bolshevism in this country is of insignificant proportions when one remembers that its grandiose aim is to seize the political power of the United States.
Bolshevism as an Epithet.
Bolshevism has lately been used very much as an epithet. Organizations and individuals of all varieties of radical and progressive thought and action have at one time or another during the past year found then1selves listed as Bolsheviki.
Even the united labor movement has been accused of Bolshevism. Still when it is recalled that collective bargaining and the strike are not Bolshevik, and that not one of the leaders is a Bolshevik, while only a very few are Socialists, the accusation is seen to be groundless. Others say that many of the rank and file of the labor movement are Bolsheviki, but this is only an assumption. ​The Communist parties would like very much, of course, to get control of the rank and file of the A. F. L. and the whole labor movement, but they have been far from successful.
That many of the people of this country are deeply discontented with Capitalism goes without saying. That many more are opposed to certain of the effects of Capitalism is also true. But Bolshevism is not only opposition to Capitalism, nor only opposition to some of the effects of Capitalism. Bolshevism is revolutionary Socialism. The Bolshevik is opposed to the effects of Capitalism and to Capitalism itself. More than that, he is opposed to private ownership in the means of production and distribution, and not merely to the particular type of private ownership called Capitalism. He holds, too, that the means of production and distribution should be owned and controlled by a new kind of industrial State. But above all, for so far a Socialist might go, he declares that the first step towards the new society is necessarily the seizure of political power by the militant section of the propertyless.
It is to be expected that there are many organizations and individuals in the United States who, without being Bolsheviki, hold that changes of various kinds by various methods should be made in Capitalism. The labor movement has many angles; Bolshevism is only one of its angles.
The A. F. L.
The official political policy of the American Federation of Labor during the coming political campaign is "to reward its friends and punish its enemies" by swinging the labor vote at the polls to one or other of the candidates of the two major parties. Its political policy is the reflection of economic collective bargaining; it is ​hinged upon the chief economic policy of the labor unions. So far is it from being Bolshevik or even Socialistic, that it is based upon the recognition of Capitalism and the desire to bargain with the owners of capital over the conditions of work without being handicapped by governmental opposition. The political action of the coming year, as in the past, is directed towards securing fair dealing for united labor from Congress and the Presidency.
Industrial Unions.
Though most of the unions of the A. F. L. are craft unions, a few of them are industrial, joining all the workers in an industry in one organization. The industrial union is the kind of union organized by the I. W. W., and under its present constitution the industrial union is its unit organization. The Communists also favor the industrial union, and the Socialists have expressed themselves as upholding that type of organization. But the industrial union is to be judged by its purpose. With the I. W. W. and the Communists, its purpose is to lead on to the dictatorship of the proletariat and common ownership; with the Socialists, its purpose is to help political victory at the polls and gain better wages, etc. But when the industrial union is used solely as an agency for collective bargaining, it is to be classed solely as a labor union without ulterior political or revolutionary significance.
The Plumb Plan.
One proposal of a part of the labor unions has been termed Bolshevism. This is the Plumb Plan of the railroad unions for public ownership of the railroads. The plan provides for the purchase and ownership of the railroads by the Government, and their operation by a central Board of Directors and subordinate dis​trict railway councils. The Board of Directors would be composed of fifteen members, five appointed by the President of the United States, five elected by the railroad executives, and five elected by the "classified employees." The subordinate District Councils are chosen in a similar manner, save that the executives and employees within the district vote on their representatives, while the Board of Directors appoints the remaining one-third of the Council. A system of profit-sharing is also a part of the plan. The net earnings of the railroads are to be divided equally between the Government and the body of the railroad workers. The latter half of the profits will be divided among the railroad workers according to their wages and salaries. The executives, however, will get double the rate of dividend of the "classified employees."
Here we have public ownership and a new kind of management in which the Government and those who work in the industry cooperate. Because of these two elements, the Plumb Plan has been frequently called Bolshevik, and more frequently, an attempt to set up a railroad Soviet. But it is not Bolshevik, because it aims at obtaining the public ownership of only one industry through political victory at the polls. Neither can it be called a proposal to establish a railroad Soviet, for the Soviet is a political unit—a constituency of the State—the basis of a new kind of government, while the Plumb Plan looks to the partnership of one class of workers with the political State in the operation of the railroads.
Mr. Plumb has outlined an extension of his plan to the rest of industry. He divides the industrial fields into four sections. The first class embraces industries owned by individuals and managed and worked by them, such as small farms. The second class embraces industries which were formerly of the first class, but are now so owned and organized as to make the owners ​directors of the work of others, who do not own any of the industry. The third class embraces industries based upon a public grant, special privilege or monopoly, such as public service corporations and industries engaged in exploiting natural resources. The fourth class is composed of railroads and commercial transportation facilities. For the last class, the railroads, etc., he proposes the Plumb Plan. For industries based on grants, privileges, monopolies, and those engaged in exploiting natural resources, there is a double choice, government ownership or private ownership. If government ownership is adopted, the general features of the Plumb Plan are to be applied. If private ownership is retained, he proposes a new system. In the new system there would be an equal partnership, in control and direction, by the public, the owners of the capital employed, and the workers in the industry. Capital would receive a guaranteed rate of dividends high enough to keep the securities at par. All over that sum would be divided in two parts. One-half would go to the public, and the other half would be given to capital and labor, according to the proportion of interest and wages. The individualist industries are to be left as now. Those industries formerly individualistic should be required, he proposes, to recognize the right of labor to share with the management in the control, management, and profits of the corporation on equal terms with the owners of the capital. All this is to be set in motion through legislation within the limits of our kind of Government.
Under this plan, though public ownership is widely extended, it is to be obtained by purchase through political legislation, and it leaves still a very wide area for private ownership. For these reasons it is not Bolshevism nor even Socialism. Neither is it the Soviet idea, since it proposes an industrial plan and not a political system. That it calls for a great change in ​Capitalism is, of course, true; but it stops a long way from common ownership of all the means of production and distribution, while even in those industries placed under public ownership a system of profit-sharing is to be installed.
Government Ownership not Socialism.
Public ownership of some of the means of production and distribution is often mistaken for Socialism, and in the turmoil of today is frequently called Bolshevism. Public ownership mayor may not be a foolish policy; that is not the question here. But whether wise or foolish, it is not Socialism for the precise reason that it is public ownership of only some of the means of production and distribution. The field of private ownership in the means of livelihood is limited by it, but not destroyed.
Within the ranks of the labor unions during the last year and a half, there has sprung up a Labor Party in opposition to the political policy of the A. F. L. In November, 1919, a National Labor Party was formed at a convention in Chicago. The Declaration of Principles adopted by the convention calls for the nationalization "under democratic management" of unused lands, public utilities, basic industries and natural resources, and banking and credit systems. A steeply graduated tax on incomes and inheritances and a limitation of the amount of both is another principle of the party.
A short time after the Labor Party was organized, the Committee of 48 met in St. Louis for a conference. The first article of its platform is: "Public ownership of transportation, including stock yards, large abattoirs, grain elevators, terminal elevators, terminal warehouses, pipe-lines and tanks. Public ownership of other utilities and of the principal natural resources, such as coal, oil, natural gas, mineral deposits, ​large water powers and large commercial lumber tracts."
Five years ago a Non-Partisan League of farmers was organized in North Dakota. It stands for "State ownership of marketing facilities, such as terminal elevators, flour mills, packing houses, cold storage plants, and State banks." At the present it controls the North Dakota Government and has State officials in Minnesota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska and Colorado. A year ago, it had 188,365 members, and since then it has grown very much. In its last convention it added to its program the Plumb Plan and government ownership of the coal mines.
In North Dakota, labor has coöperated with the League from the start. Recently there has been formed in Minnesota, a Non-Partisan League for workingmen, which, in alliance with the Non-Partisan League of farmers, has become a very strong political combination. In the State of Washington a similar alliance has been made.
The programmes of the Non-Partisan Leagues, the Labor Party and the Committee of 48 unite in demanding the public ownership of a number of industries. The Labor Party stands for the public ownership of the largest number of industries of any of these groups, calling for the public ownership of basic industries and the banking and credit systems. All of them attack Capitalism as now organized and extended, but at the same time all leave a wide field for private ownership. They even leave a wide field for capitalistic organization. None of them plans the common ownership, for example, of factories engaged in other than basic industries and thus none of them proposes the elimination of capitalistic business.
For these reasons, although public ownership by their success would he extended over a large part of industry, the Socialist society would not be inaugurated. ​Since, too, the intention of all these organizations is to reach their aims by way of political victory at the polls, none of them uses the Bolshevik tactics.
Capitalism and Private Ownership Not Identical.
A final distinction in these matters is worthy of notice. Capitalism and private ownership are often identified, and people in opposing either Bolshevism or the ordinary variety of Socialism are led to defend Capitalism. But Con1munism and Socialism do not level their guns at Capitalism alone. They attack private ownership itself; they want to substitute common ownership both for capitalistic private ownership and for all forms of private ownership in the means of production and distribution. Capitalism itself is a newcomer on the stage of the world, and late indeed in the United States. Capitalism is a kind of society in which the predominant means of production and distribution are owned and controlled by a comparatively small part of the people, while the propertyless section, which is very large, is forced by the hard facts of life to work for livelihood on other people's property for other people's primary advantage and profit. To oppose such a system is not to oppose private ownership, for Capitalism is only one very modern kind of private ownership. The Socialist opposes Capitalism, and also private ownership in the means of production and distribution. He aims at the substitution of common ownership for private ownership. The methods he uses or intends to use, and the kind of management of industry and society he proposes in the era of common ownership, distinguish the types of Socialism. But he who attacks Capitalism without aiming at private ownership and without desiring to substitute common ownership for Capitalism is not a Socialist of any kind nor can he be called one.
Bishop's Program.
In the Bishops' Programme of Reconstruction, published by the National Catholic War Council, we find the following sentence: "The majority must somehow become owners, at least in part, of the instruments of production." This statement shows that the Programme of the Bishops, while opposing Socialism, opposes Capitalism also and aims at the extension to the majority of the people of private ownership in the means of livelihood. It aims at a society in which wage-earners will also be part owners of the tools and materials with which they work. Involving to a great extent the abolition of the wage system, still it does not propose public ownership of all the means of production and distribution. It rejects Capitalism, but not private ownership.
Another statement in the same paragraph points out a truth of even greater interest now, than when it was written. "However slow the attainment of these ends," it reads, "they will have to be reached before we can have a thoroughly efficient system of production, or an industrial and social order that will be secure from the danger of revolution." Bolshevism is not an isolated phenomenon. It has its roots in the present scheme of things. It is an angry, impatient protest against the economic and social evils of the modern man. It is a bitter cry against Capitalism. Because Capitalism is one kind of private ownership, and the only kind of private ownership many have experienced, men are led in their protest to embrace Socialism. In their deep discontent and their unbridled impatience before the wrongs they suffer, some would rise up in their might and smash the sorry scheme of things. They plan then to build upon the ruins of a capitalist world a new society based on common ownership. But their angry protest and sharp impatience, their hatred of private own​ership, and their yearning for a revolution even at the cost of life itself, are the bitter fruits of Capitalism. As long as Capitalism stands, we are not safe from revolution. Out of Capitalism comes the demand for the evolutionary and political Socialism of the American Socialist and the revolutionary, industrial Socialism of the Bolshevik. "It is only when the reasonable and practicable are denied that men demand the unreasonable and impracticable; only when the possible is made difficult that they fancy the impossible to be easy."
Present Danger of a Revolution.
But in the United States, at the present time, the demand for common ownership has made only slight headway, while Bolshevism has obtained even fewer adherents. Social unrest is wide and deep, but people have not yet turned in large numbers either to Socialism or to Communism. The members of the organizations pledged to a Communist United States are relatively few. Many who belong to those organizations have little influence, while others, though members, do not believe in the Communist theory and tactics. But if the threat now of a revolution cannot be taken seriously no one can be certain of the future. For our social unrest can easily grow to revolutionary proportions, unless concerted and far-reaching action is taken to right the economic wrongs which are the soil from which revolutions spring.
* ↑ Communist Labor Party News, September, 1919.
* ↑ Idem.