Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1890-10-04

class, however exalted lney may Imagine
themselves to be above class hatreds, are
in fact not unbiased in the matter but
at heart do sympathize with the capital
list. Were their objection indeed to the
nature of the struggle and not to It's
hostile tendency against the capitalist,
these would not, as they do, lind fault
with the proletarians only, but they
would blame the capitalists as well for
carry ing on this struggle. Truly impair
tial in this conflict of classes can he only
those book worms who are able to forget Fl
the world of facts while porting over
their dusty folios Such men may be
honorable enough, even useful IN some
respects; yet are they utterly useless IN
connection with the practical matters
that spring out of social questions. 10
all others the social panorama can pre-
sent no other picture but that OF
struggle between an upper and lower
dog, and he whose sympathies are truly
with the lower-the proletarians-wil
not feel himself repealed by their class
struggle. However distasteful all strug-
giles may be to him, he will understand
that the proletarians do not carry on this
struggle out of haughtiness or for the
sake of a theoretic whim, but simply
because The struggle that is forced upon
| them is a social fact; he will notice that
the proletarians are nov always the ag-
gressors, nor the capitalists always the
attacked, or the prosecuted innOcents
| they appear to be; he will be able to per
ceive that wherever there is seemlI Fly
an unprovoked outbreak on the part of
| labor, such outbreak can always be
traced back to systematic extortion and
| lll.treatmPnt ON the part Of the capita
| list. OF such incidents, Of course, those
"cultivated' classes who feel no sympa-
thy for the prOetarians knOW-nOthlng
! They only see the insignificant drop that
| triCkles down from the overlooking
glass; they only see the bitterness that
manifests Itself, all the more vehement
and painless, the more oppressed labor
has been, the more persistently It has
been denied all opportunities for culture
| and organization.
None more than Socialists depreCate.
none more than they endeavOr to avoid
such painless outbreaks both by reason
of the victims they demand and their
utter fruitessness None more than
Socialists strive 20 supplant the low,
personal form of the class struggle with
the higher one of principle; but so long
as the contrast Of classes continues they
neither could, should, nor would lay it
aside. When to-day "a person of educa
ton declares he sympathizes with the
prOletaran but would have nothing to
do with Socialism because sit raises the
standard of class Conflicts, he only
shows that either he has no understan-
ding of what the term implies, or that his
| NJ ,iau IN fo,,t tbp Si1o of tba
exploiters. In the latter alternative his
argument is tlimsy pretext; in neither
case does the social movement lose aught
if such elements stay away. On the
other hand, the social movement re-
} ceives with open arms all those who are
honest in their sympathies with the pro-
letarian. The view that only the horny
handed sons Of toil' are entitled to par
ticipate in the class struggle of the pro-
letarian, never met with general accep-
lance, and has not to-day any represen-
tative among socialists. They reject
neither men of culture nor even men of
| property. The appearance of these ele-
. ments in their ranks, however, affects
the class character of the movement no
more than did the appearance of the
Comte of Mlrabeau, of the Marquis of
Lafayette, of the Able Sieyes, and of
Talleyrand, the bishop of Autun, affect
, the character of the struggle between
2 the class Of the third estate and that of
the privileged orders.
1t must be admitted there is little hope
of ever winning over to Socialism the
bulk of the ''cultured classes. They
may be easily moved to a patOniC admi-
ration of the ultimate aims Of Socialism
l provided it ceased be practical, gave up
r the class struggle, wasted its strength in
G utopias, and dropped the idea of giving
a direction to the social movement that
should rebound to the benefit of the
= proletarians. All talk to the contrary
j. Notwithstanding. that which the bour-
+. geois hates about Socialism is not what
! looks utopian to him, but that which he
recognizes can be put into practical
Il OF Grafton.
T. 1t is an error to believe that but for
Socialism there would tie no class strug-
; gle between proletarians and capitalists;
! the truth is that without that class
+ struggle there would be no Socialism.
+ What Socialism has done is to give to
q this struggle, which formerly was spo-
q radio, permanent object; to unite into
j. one compact body, conscious Of its aim,
: the various disconnected attachments of
g labor; and it is only by reason of its par
!. ticipation in the life issues between the
4 two classes that Socialism has developed
q from a sect, or debating, body into a
Il worldwide movement.
e The consciousness of class struggle is
v essential to the elevation of the proletari-
:. at. 1t were idle to claim for it a natural
/; superiority. morally and intellectually,
n over the bOurgeoisie, On the contrary,
|. the proetariat exists under such unfa.
It vorabe conditions that both its moral
e and intellectual powers would be stunted