E
i
,-?
The Commoner.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.
Vol. 4. No. 19.
Lincoln, Nebraska, May 27, 1904.
Whole No. 175.
DEMOCRACY AND SOCIALISM
Papers like the Chicago Chroniclo, the Nash
ville American, the St. Paul Globe, and others
which, like these papers, are owned and run in
the interests of some corporation, are constantly
accusing the democratic party a at present or
ganized of being socialistic. The platforms of
1896 and 1900 have been Criticised as socialistic,
and those who adhere to those platforms when
not described by these papers as populists, have
by these papers been classed as socialists, 1 The
fact is that the socialist niovomem is receiving
its greatest support from the greedy trusts and
corporations, and from those who yield" willing
and unthinking obedience to the large corpora
tions. The socialist may bo defined as one who
believes in the ownership and operation by the
government of all the means of production and
distributions Sometimes the thing advocated la
called thenfo-operative commonwealth. The ulti
mate purpose of the socialists is to so enlarge
the sphere of the government as to eliminate com
petition, and provide for the joint production and
distribution of all the products of labor through
the instrumentalities of the state. It is a com
mon error to obscure the line between the indi
vidualist and the socialist. One test is whether
the person believes that competition is a helpful
or a'destructive force. It is also a common error
to confuse -the arguments in favor of municipal
ownership with the arguments that favor real so
cialism. fit the term socialist was -broad enough to In
clude all co-operative effort in which the govern
ment engages, then the government would today
be socialistic to a considerable degree. But there
is a Well defined line between government owner
ship when competition is impossible, and gov
ernment ownership for the express purpose of de
stroying competition Take the case of a city
water plant. The argument in favor of the mu
nicipal ownership of such a plant is not that all
competition between water companies is neces
sarily bad, but that competition is practically im
possible. A city could not afford to allow its
streets to be torn up for the putting in and repair
of a half dozen different water systems. And if
it were willing to submit to the inconvenience, the
cost of a number of systems would be a heavy tax
upon the consumers, for each system would have
to make a dividend upon all of its plant, includ
ing the mains that parrallel other systems of
mains.
"Where there is private ownership of a water
plant, it has been customary to secure a franchise-
reserving the right to impose conditions,
but the tendency of a private monopoly to in
crease its profits' both by an increase In Its rates
and by a cheapening of the service usually mani
fests Itself, and the effort to correct abuses" and
to control franchise holding companies has re
sulted in most of the municipal corruption, of
which there is such an abundant evidence
throughout the country. There has been great
growth in public sentiment in the direction of
municipal ownership, and in most of the large
cities the question has been bo thoroughly invest!
gated that on a popular vote a proposition in
favor of a municipal water plant, a municipal gas
plant, or a municipal electric plant would in all
probability carry.
Following close behind the water and the
lighting comes the street car service, and the
same arguments that apply to water and lightlrig
apply with Almost as much force to the street car
system. .The streets are limited in width and it
Is impossible to have a number of car lines with
eparate tracks. The public recognizes the ad
vantage of havingr a1 unified street 'car system run
(rom.some central point into various directions,
with a single, fare and transfers, but when, 'this
system is in the handsof a private corporation it
soon exhibits all of the evils of any other private
monopoly, and the tendency to have the govern
ment take charge of the street car systems is an
inevitable, one. '
If central heating plants grow in fayor, as
they-seern likely to, the same principle wiU apply,
and the city will finally be constrained to take
hold of it for the same reason that the city la
taking hold, of water and lighting, and to a less
degree, of the street car lines. In doing this the
city is no more guilty of embarking upon what
can bo properly called socialism than is the na
tional government when it operates the postal
service At first the government established an
office" at which people could call for their mail,
then a system of carriers was established in the
ditles, and the mail was taken to the door, it be
ing found more economical for one person to do
liver mail to a large number than for the people
thus accommodated to go to the olfico for their
mail. Now the same system has been applied to
the country, and there is a great deal of saving of
timoto the farmers.
i. we are to shun as socialistic every co-operative
effort of the government, we must abandon
our public schools, for they are distinctly co
operative. Instead of leaving education to pri
vate schools, the people of tho country acting to
gether, establish the school house and employ
tho teacher.
In paving streets the city indulges In co-operative
effort, and in providing police protection tho
city engages in a co-operative work. Instead of
imposing upon each person the necessity of pro
tecting himself or of hiring a watchman, the
people of the town acting through their city or
ganization, employ their police force, as they also
do their fire department.
All government is co-operative In the sense
that it is an economical method employed by the
people to do for themselves by joint action what
It would be more expensive for each one to do for
himselfj
DoYrng the last few years the federal gov
ernment has been' conducting a series of ex
periments in agriculture. It tests the soil of dif
ferent sections, transfers seeds ana plants from
one latitude to another or from one point to an-
other in the same latitude for the purpose of as
certaining what can be cultivated to advantage.
In doing this it Is acting for all tho people, and is
doing that which could only be done at much
greater expense by individual effort.
There has been considerable discussion In re
gard to the purchase of the telegiaph lines by
the government. Some years ago under President
Harrison the postmaster general recommended
the operation of the telegraph lines In connection
with the postal system, and hia can be defended
by the same arguments that aie employed to de
fend the carrying of the malls by the govern
ment. A considerable number of people favor the
ownership and operation of the railroads by the
government. They argue that competition is only
possible to a limited extent even where there is
no consolidation of lines, for the reason that most
of the towns have but one railroad, and the peo
ple adjacent to such towns are, by their very lo
cation, compelled to patronize that one road. The
position of tho people so situated would" bo toler
able if the government would prevent, as it might,
the watering of Btock, extortionate rates and dis
criminations. But instead of the government con
trolling the railroad corporations in the1 interest
of the people, the corporations have too often
controlled the government in the interest of the
railroad stockholders and managers. The con
solidation of the great lines of railroads has les
sened the competition and at the same time in
creased tho influence of the corporations over the
government authorities, and these consolidations
have brought many to a point whare they look
upon government ownership as the only relief. ,
Whether' the government will .embark upon
the ownership and operation of railroads will de
pend Hot so much uppn.whatis said about the
theoretical advantage xl co-operation, as upon
the- necessities that may arise.
The democratic party during the campaigns, of
1896 and 1900 was an earnest advocate not of the
government ownership of railroads, but of the
strict regulation of the rpads in the interest of
tho public.
Papers like those above raontloned, which
have been active in opposing railroad regulation,
are much more responsible than the democratic
party for any growth than has,takon placo in the
sentiment in favor of tho government ownership
of railroads, just as tho financiers who defeat leg
islation intended to incrcaso tho security of banks
are responsible for growth of the sentiment In
favor of government savings banks.
Tho question, however, which is doing most
to make socialists Is tho trust question. Thero is
no economic reason why all woolen goods should
be manufactured by one firm, and all cotton goods
by another, and all iron goods by anothor, and all
sugar by another, and all crackors by anothor,
Thoro is no reason why all tho meat should be
packed by ono firm, and all tho whisky made by
anothor, and all tho tobacco supplied by an
other. The trusts aro organized not because of
any economic necessity, but for the purposo bf
destroying competition and of putting tho con
sumer at tho mercy of tho producer.
The democratic party attacks tho principle
involved, and declares that a private monopoly is
indefensible and intolerable. It favors legisla
tion that will lay the axe at tho root of the tree,
and by making a private monopoly Impossible,
restore Industrial Independence, and by a revival
of competition give protection to tho consumer,
and stimulus to the producer J
The papors which defend the trust as an eco
nomic development are tho best friends ot social
ism. If Uiey can make tho pooplo boliovo that
all competition is harmful, that the trust is a
natural growth and "has come to stay" if they
can make the people bellove that a better article
can be furnished for a less puco when ono pro
ducer supplies it all, and If they can further con
vince tho public that thero aro no moral or 'so
ciological objections to the trust, they will have
wonderfully aided tho socialists, because the so
cialist then taking for granted what he Is not
able to prove namely, tho advantage of the
trust can insist that tho advantage must accrue
to tho whole people and not to a few individuals.
In the campaign of 189G the leading anarch
ists of tho country supported the republican party,
although the republican papors were in the habit
of speaking of Chicago platform democrats, as an
archists. Why did tho anarcnists support tho re
publican party? Because the anarchists believed
that the democratic party, by applying remedial
legislation, would relievo conditions and lessen
discontent, while they believed that tho repub
lican party would aggravate conditions and In
crease discontent.
In 1900 the ultra socialists were more friendly
to the republican party than to the democratic
party, and they aro today. Why? Because they
believe that tho republican party is friendly to
the trusts, and that the trust, when firmly estab
lished, will be so intolerable as to make the peo
ple welcome government monopoly as a relief
from private monopoly. For tho same reason the
ultra socialists sympathize with the reorganizes,
'who are as friendly to the trusts as the repub
licans aro, If not more so,
Whether papers like the Chronicle, the Glob
and the American denounce democrats as social
ists with intention to deceive, or because they are
ignorant of tho tendency of their own arguments,
or because they have perfect confidence in the
power of organized wealth to control tho people
under any and all circumstances, may be a matter
of conjecture, but that they are helping the so
. clallsts there can bo no doubt.
In advocating individualism the democratic
party, can consistently favor legislation putting
' competitors upon an approximately equal foot
ing. Legislation limiting the rate of interest Is
legislation of this kind. Such legislation does not
deny tho right of contract, but it recognizes that
in most cases the borrower and the lender are not
upon an equal footing they recognize that but for
legislative protection the bonower may become
the servant of the lender. Wo with legislation
'i
)
r
"v
,i
'-,
' .-.-,
h-
'-
(
-. "
2
5 v.
w
.
