Che municipality < \ \ ' / FPOM i > \ > / rivvjivi Capitalism to Socialism. By ERNEST UNTE.RMANN. 1 > ! Price, 5 cents a copy. One hundred for $3. \ < > i PUBLISHED BY THE APPEAL TO REASON, GIRARD, KAN., U. S. A. I'he Municipality Municipal problems are now a part of the daily life of 47.1% of the American people. Of these, 33.1% live in cities with a population of more than 8,000 inhabitants; 4.2% in towns of more than 4,000 inhabitants, and 9.8% in towns of more than 1,000 in¬ habitants. In order to solve these municipal problems in the direction of social progress, and to take part in them in such a way as to fulfill our special mission as Socialists, we must understand the laws of social development. The municipality is an economic a,nd political center. Un¬ der capitalism it serves the economic and political interests of the capitalist class. The importance of the municipality from a Socialist stand¬ point lies in its centralizing power. By this means it facilitates the development of capitalism in the direction of Socialism. The concentration of the population in the cities facilitates the concentration of industries, and this in turn favors the organiza¬ tion of the working class. The class lines are thus drawn clearly and forcibly, and the formation of political parties along these lines becomes inevitable. Each one of these different class par¬ ties serves a special function in the economic and political de¬ velopment of the municipality. To define the special function of the Socialist party is the object of this pamphlet. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MUNICIPALITY. The development of the municipality shows three distinct stages. The first is the development toward private monopoly. This follows the general laws of capitalist development, and is carried on under the political supremacy of capitalist parties. The political antagonisms of the capitalist parties at this stage are only sham fights and do not affect the general course of eco¬ nomic evolution. The second stage is what I term municipal capitalism. The transformation of private monopoly into municipal capitalism is a political problem. The economic problem has been solved by the great capitalists, and the appearance of capitalist municipal ownership parties is an evidence of the class struggle of the small capitalists against the great capitalists. In the United States, the transformation of private monopoly into municipal capitalism is generally the object of so-called independent parties. The po- —3— litical antagonism of these parties against the other political parties is real. It serves the two-fold purpose of opposing the grea,t capitalists and forming a pad against the pressure of rev¬ olutionary Socialism, under the guise of fighting the old party machines in the interest of “honest government,” that is, cap¬ italist government. Although occasionally a “Union Labor party” is the monkey that fetches these middle class chestnuts out of the fire, this political struggle is not carried on along distinct class lines. The aims of such independent parties a,re reaction¬ ary, and they appeal to all classes of voters regardless of their economic position. But the accomplishment of their aims, the transformation of private monopoly into municipal capitalism, is in a certain sense a, step toward Socialism. How much or how little of a step, remains to be seen. The third stage is municipal Socialism. The transformation of municipal capitalism into municipal Socialism is the mission of the Socialist party. This transformation is again a political problem. It requires the transformation of capitalist minds into Socialist minds, and must be fought out along the line of “Work¬ ing class vs. Capitalist class,” or broadly speaking, “Socialism vs. Capitalism.” Municipal Socialism in its complete form cannot come without the conquest of the state and the nation by the Socialists. A Socialist municipality within a capitalist state is impossible. MUNICIPAL CAPITALISM UNDER CAPITALIST CONTROL. I. IN EUROPE. The stage of development toward private monopoly does not fall within the scope of this pamphlet. The political influence of the Socialist party in the municipality is not felt, until the demand for municipal capitalism is voiced by the small capital¬ ists. This stage, then, forms the first object of our attention. Municipal capitalism in a more or less developed form has long existed in Europe. Especially Great Britain has taken the lead in this field, not from a,ny humanitarian or sentimental mo¬ tives, but out of sheer necessity. The English ruling class has always been quick to apply means for nipping any social rev¬ olution from below in the bud, by catering to certain harmless demands of the restless working class and thus appeasing them from generation to generation. Municipal capitalism in the Brit¬ ish cities is only another proof, how well the English capitalists understand to handle their working men. The extent of municipal capitalism in Great Britain is il¬ lustrated by the following extract from a recent consular report: “In 1875 the capital invested in municipal undertakings in Great Britain was $465,000,000, while in 1900 there were $1,500,- 000,000 invested. 4- “There are now in Great Britain 931 municipalities owning water-works; 99 owning the street railroads, (or tramways, as they are called there); 240 owning the gas works; and 181 sup¬ plying electricity. Most of these a,re in England. Municipalities were not allowed to work the tramways until 1896. It is estimated that half of the gas users in England use municipal gas. In a number of places — Liverpool among them—the municipalities supply electricity for lighting and power, while the gas supply is still in the hands of private corporations. In the case of Liv¬ erpool, the ga,s company is quite willing to sell to the munici¬ pality, but the latter will not buy; first, because under the char¬ ter of the gas company the municipality would be compelled to pay a perpetual dividend of 10% to the stockholders, and, sec¬ ondly, because it is believed that in the near future electricity will practically supersede gas as an illuminant. “The municipalities of Leamington and Harrogate own Turkish baths, two of the best at present existing in Great Brit¬ ain, and Harrogate also gives fireworks displays at municipal cost. Glasgow, like Liverpopol, owns its water-works and trams, and provides municipal lectures. Glasgow has quite recently re¬ duced the fares on the tram cars so that there are now not only half-penny (one cent) fares, but a distance of two and one-half miles can be traveled for two cents. Universal penny (two cent) fares, will probably shortly be introduced in Liverpool. Glas¬ gow was the first city to establish a “municipal palace.” Man¬ chester owns shares in its ship canal. Out of its municipal tram¬ way profits, Sheffield has appropriated $75,000 for the erection of shops and business premises, which it will rent. Quite recently, the northern townships outside of London bought the well known Alexandra Palace, where the municipal authorities maintain an auditorium and give organ recitals and theatricals, military band, and variety entertainments of all sorts, and industrial exhibi¬ tions. Torquay owns a rabbit warren; Colchester possesses an oyster fishery; St. Helens, (a chemical center in the consular district) supplies sterilized milk; Hull owns a, crematorium; Doncaster and Chester own race courses (the former actually managing the races); Bournemouth owns one of the finest golf courses in Great Britain; West Ham, a borough of London, owns a stone flag factory; and Bradford owns a hotel — as also does Liverpool (on its wa,ter-works property in Wales.) Bristol has municipalized its docks and harbor at a cost of between $10,000.- 000 and $15,000,000. The docks of Liverpool are municipalized in a modified way. The system is peculiar to Liverpool. This vast estate, valued at severel hundreds of millions of dollars, is administered by a public trust, nearly all the members of which a.re elected by those who pay dock dues, and the profits, after de¬ ducting expenses and payment of interest on capital account, go to improvement, and not to the benefit of a private corpora¬ tion. The probability is that the London docks will before many years be managed under either the Bristol or the Liverpool plan. Nottingham, in addition to owning parks, markets, artisan dwellings, baths and a hospital, has bought a castle and a for¬ est, and has a natural history museum and a school of art, and was the first municipality in Great Britain to have a university college. The last item gives occasion for the statement that sev¬ eral English cities have within the last year or so taken up the question of local universities. Birmingham has established one, and Liverpool will shortly follow suit. “Liverpool owns the water-works (one of the best systems in the world); it operates the street cars; it supplies the electric light and power; it has one of the largest and best public bath systems anywhere and proposes to erect the finest Turkish bath in Europe; it provides public laundries for the poor districts; it furnishes flowers and plants for the windows in the slums; it sells sterilized humanized milk for the cliildien of* the poor at cost price; it has a salaried organist to play its famous munici¬ pal organ; it gives municipal lectures—and all these in addition to the usual undertakings of municipalities, such as parks with concerts, technical schools, etc. But the greatest undertaking by the Liverpool municipality is that of providing dwellings for the very poor, the dispossessed tenants of demolished insanitary dwellings of the slums.” Other European countries have also made rapid strides in municipal capitalism. According to the Appeal to Reason, No. 168, the following German cities owned and managed their elec¬ tric light works in 1899; Bremen, Barmen, Ca,ssel, Darmstadt, Duesseldorf, Elberfeld, Hanover, Cologne, Koenigsgerg, Luebeck and Pforzheim. All of these cities with the exception of Han¬ over, also owned their gas works. The city of Berlin owns its gas works. Almost all great German cities own their water¬ works. Jena owns a brewery which paid a profit of $32,000 in 1897. The public markets of Berlin give the city a revenue of $645,00U a year. The same city also has municipal slaughter houses and a municipal meat inspection. Gas plants are owned by 338 large cities. In France, the sams system is gaining favor in many cities. Paris gets public lighting at cost, and over $4,000,000 annually as her share of profits from six private companies whose rights revert to the city at the expiration of their franchises. The mu¬ nicipal savings bank of Paris, in October, 1897, had deposits amounting to 2,806,288 francs. Other cities have been under the control of the Socialists for several years, as we shall see later. In Italy, the capitalist minister Giolitti, under the pressure of the Socialist party, has been forced to adopt a sweeping pro¬ gram of municipal capitalism in the hope of thus stemming the rising revolutionary tide. His program includes water-works, lighting plants, street railways, telegraphs and telephones, drug stores, undertaking, bakeries, slaughter houses, market halls. baths, laundries, ice plants, electric motive power, posters and other reforms. Whether this program will pass the parliament, and if passed, will be carried out, remains to be seen. At any rate, it shows, as does the spread of municipal capitalism, not alone in other European countries, but also in all other conti¬ nents of the world, that the laboring people are beginning to exert a dim and unconscious pressure on the capitalist govern¬ ments, as a result of the ceaseless agitation of the Socialists. As soon as the wording men will have learned that they do not know the whole lesson yet, and had better follow their Socialist comrades, they will increase the pressure on the capitalists and transform municipal capitalism into a means of serving the work¬ ing class at the expense of the capitalists. IN THE UNITED STATES. Municipal capitalism in the United States is becoming pop¬ ular for the same reasons as in Europe. Here, as everywhere else, it is a straw that points to the coming supremacy of labor in politics. How extensively the new system has been adopted in this country is shown by the work of Edward W. Bemis, on “Mu¬ nicipal Monopolies.” In 1890, only 806 out of 1,878 water-works in this country, or 42.9%, were owned by municipalities. But in six years the sentiment in favor of public ownership grew to such an extent that the percentage of municipally owned water works in 1897, was as follows: Alaska, 0.0; Nevada, 0.0; Idaho, 7.1; New Mexico, 10.0; Maine, 12.3; Montana,, 12.5; California, 15.7; Arizona, 20.0; Arkansas, 20.0; Pennsylvania, 23.9; Con¬ necticut, 25.4; Texas, 26.3; North Carolina, 27.7; Louisiana, 30.0; Alabama, 31.0; Maryland, 31.0; Florida, 31.6; Mississippi, 33.3; South Carolina, 33.3; Missouri, 33.8; Kentucky, 34.0; Tennessee, 35.7; New Jersey, 37.6; Rhode Island, 40.0; Oregon, 40.5; New Hampshire, 45.3; Washington, 49.0; Kansas, 49.4; Oklahoma, 50.0; Virginia, 50.0; New York, 50.3; West Virginia, 52.1; Utah, 54.5; Wisconsin, 60.9; Wyoming, 61.5; Vermont, 63.0; Colorado, 63.2; Indiana, 63.9; Georgia, 72.2; South Dakota, 74.2; Massachu¬ setts, 74.8; Ohio, 76.5; Illinois, 78.6; North Dakota, 80.0; Mich¬ igan, 80.8; Iowa, 82.4; Delaware, 85.7; Minnesota, 87.1; Nebraska, 87.9; District of Columbia, 100.0. M. N. Baker points out in this work that the showing in favor of municipal capitalism would be still more remarkable if the figures of the population in the municipalized towns were available. The population supplied by public works in 1890 was 66.2% of the total population in municipalities having water¬ works facilities, or 15,019,000 out of 22,678,000. The last census will no doubt show a considerable increase, as -well in the pro¬ portion of municipal capitalism to the total population of the — 7 - United States, as in the proportion of the supplied and unsup¬ plied parts of the population in municipalized places. John R. Commons states in the same work that out of 302 municipal electric lighting plants reported by the American Electrical Directory in 1898, 122 were owned by cities of less than 2,500 population, 89 by cities of 2,500 to 5,000 population, making 70% of the total number owned by cities of less than 5,000 pop¬ ulation. Fifty-one were owned by cities of 5,000 to 10,000; 20 by cities of 10,000 to 20,000; 16 by cities of 20,000 to 50,000; 3 by cities of 50,000 to 500,000, and one by a city of 1,500,000. The preponder¬ ance of municipal plants in small cities over large cities is evi¬ dently due to the corrupt practices of the big private corporations who use the old party machines in the great cities to defeat the public ownership sentiment. The total municipal plants in 1899, according to the XIV An¬ nual Report of the United States Commissioner of Labor, were 1,787 water-works, 460 electric light plants and 14 gas works. The United States census of 1900 shows that fifteen American cities own and operate their gas plants. One in Kentucky, three in Massachusetts, one in Michigan, one in Minnesota, one in Mis¬ souri, one in Nebraska, two in Ohio, four in Virginia a,nd one in West Virginia. The latest census figures on water-works and electric light plants are not yet available. CHARGES AGAINST MUNICIPAL CAPITALISM. The sharpening of class antagonisms in England has re¬ cently led the capitalist press to attack municipal capitalism and influence public sentiment against it, at least in those places where it has not yet been tried. Especially the London Times has made a little stir by a series of anti-municipal articles. The upshot of the charges against municipal capitalism is that it in-’ creases taxation and that it is unprofitable. The very character of these charges reveals the quarter from which they emanate. They bear the individual mark of the “business” mind. Municipal capitalism increases the taxes — for the property owners, of course, but only very few working men belong to that class. It is unprofitable — for the great capitalists, and in that case it does not follow that it is unprofitable for the small capitalists and the working class. For whatever forces the capitalists to contribute a part of the surplus values wrung from the working class to public enterprises, is certainly acceptable to the proletariat. The fact that a capitalist administration taxes the capitalists in this manner is only an evidence of the class struggle between the small and the great capitalists. If the work¬ ing class benefits indirectly thereby, they have no cause for com¬ plaint. Granting that municipal capitalism is unprofitable to the — 8 — great capitalists, it remains to be seen what the small capitalists have to say on this score. The article of the London Times has been answered by the Municipal Journal, and its issues of October 31, and November 7, 14 and 21 absolutely deny the truth of the charges of the Times. The replies of the Municipal Journal show that municipal capitalism reduces taxation and is. therefore, prof¬ itable from the standpoint of the little property owners, who pay the bulk of the taxes. The big capitalists generally shirk the payment of taxes, and are, therefore, not interested in their re¬ duction to the same extent as the small property owners. The reduction of taxation makes municipal capitalism profitable only for an insignificant fraction of the working class, and this frac¬ tion is least in need of immediate help. The Municipal Journal shows that the following towns re¬ alized a considerable surplus from municipal capitalism, which they used for the reduction of taxation: Pounds, Sterling. Darlington . 70,406 Birmingham .183,723 Bolton .200,465 Wallsall . 25,000 Manchester .442,120 Leeds .174,403 Tunbridge Wells . 12,950 Notingham .144,000 Leicester .608,362 Hull . 64,400 Burton-onTrent . 38,363 Belfast. 52,511 York . 8,944 Considerable profits were also made out of municipal cap¬ italism in Blackpool, Bradford, Sheffield, Croydon, Swansea, Yeovil, Bath and Eastborne. In all these towns the prices of the products of municipal enterprise were at the same time reduced. “Reynold’s Newspaper,” speaking of the same subject, quotes from a list compiled by Mr. James Carter, ihe borough treasurer of Preston, to show that the municipal tax rates have been re¬ duced and also that municipal trading is advantageous to the citizens of a town. “We find,” it says, “that Accrington made out of its markets £455; tramways, £152; estates ,£27; miscellan¬ eous, £75; total profits, £709. This means a reduction of the rates of one and one-tentli pence. The list shows similar reduc¬ tions for other towns, ranging from one-quarter pence to one shil¬ ling and seven pence. That is to say, the rates of the towns would have been so much higher per pound, unless those towns had received these municipal profits. For instance, instead of pay¬ ing seven shilling and one-eighth pence in the pound,, Liverpool would have had to pay seven shillings and ten and one-eighth pence. What would that have meant out of the pockets of the — 9 — citizens of Liverpool? They have had to pay £133,221 extra in rates, and they would have had to pay at least the same amount in profits to the share holders, if the present municipal services had been carried on by private companies. So that the citizens of Liverpool are at least £260,442 in pocket through municipal trading. Not to mention the advantage of convenience, better service, and higher wage for the municipal employes.” In the United States, similar charges have been made by M. J. Francisco. His judgment, based on long experience and elab¬ orate statistics, is summarized in these words: ‘‘The time for municipalities to own and conduct commercial enterprises has not arrived, and will not until mankind ai'e born into a world where politics and aldermen protect taxpayers and refuse boodle; when employes with no interest in the business except to aid political bosses and draw their salaries can conduct the business more economically and successfully than men who have, perhaps, every dollar of their fortune depending upon its success. When, in fact, the millenium arrives, and the whole human family are transferred to some eternal city lying beyond the shores of time. Until that period arrives, let all cities confine their business to regulating and governing, leaving commercial industries with their hazards and losses to individuals and private corporations.” This statement is worth considering from more than one standpoint. In the first place, a Socialist will smile at the fatal¬ istic resignation of Francisco to the inevitable and eternal cor¬ ruption of capitalist politics. The same man would probably spurn the suggestion that his advice to oppose the march of progress toward municipal capitalism by reactionary support of private enterprise would be the best way to continue boodling and corruption in the form of franchise deals and tax dodging. That is the helpless despair of the capitalist mind when con¬ fronted by a development that necessarily leads to the downfall of capitalism. John R. Commons analyzes Francisco’s statistics and comes to the conclusion that they are inaccurate in several respects, and he gives several tables of careful comparisons to show where, in his opinion, Francisco was too one-sided and arbitrary in his figuring. The conclusion is. as in the case of Francisco himself, that “boodle” is the main reason for the failure of municipal en¬ terprises from the capitalist point of view. Commons incidentally discloses the secret of the ever more pronounced direct legislation movement. Seeing that dishonest politicians are the only cause, of the failure, the simplest way to make municipal capitalism profitable, always speaking from the capitalist point of view, is to purify politics by the following program, which will cause mu¬ nicipal capitalism to flourish luxuriantly in the opinion of Com¬ mons: State supervision for cities; unsalaried municipal boards; the referendum and initiative, and civil service reform. In order to make this program palatable to the working class, - 10 - nothing is needed but a sprinkling of labor politics, or a denun¬ ciation of old party machinery and the recommendation of inde¬ pendent voters’ leagues irrespective of party, and, let us add, of class lines. From the Socialist standpoint, the futility of such a, program needs no special argument. But it may be well toi ask Mr. Commons why he thinks that a capitalist state legisla¬ ture will be more inclined to champion the interests of the small capitalists than a capitalist municipal council, even with the initative and referendum. In order to make direct legislation profitable to the small capitalists the imperative mandate must he placed on the statutes and enforced. Only then can the small capitalists control the capitalist representatives which they elect by the help of working-class votes. But the working class would not vote for the small capitalist candidates, if working men understood that capitalist candidates make laws in the interest of the capitalist class. In order to make direct legislation profitable to the working class, they must first understand their own interests as a class and organize politically as a class. Mr. Commons does not tell them so, although he is a member of the National Federation for Majority Rule. His direct legislation aims to keep the small capitalist minority in power at the expense of the working class majority. So does his recommendation of state supervision for munici¬ palities. As long as capitalists are in control of the legisla-y ture, whether with or without direct legislation, they will legis¬ late in the interests of the capitalist class. It is not our business at this advanced stage of capitalism, to assist the small capital¬ ists in ousting the great capitalists representatives from the leg¬ islatures. We can wrest the power from the great capitalists di¬ rectly, and the small capitalists may help, if they wish to do so. If not, we can get along without them. State supervision for municipalities is so much more objec¬ tionable to Socialists, as it violates the right of the citizens of a municipality to manage their own affairs, and also offers a weapon to capitalist politicians in cases, where Socialists will carry a municipality without being able to carry a state. Ripper legislation would then be a welcome handle to nip all Socialist activity in the bud. There are sufficient examples to sustain this point right here in the United States, and the French Socialists have long found out that the capitalist state is a jealous guar¬ dian of capitalist property. Besides, what is the use and purpose of state contorl, if we have direct legislation? Is not one a de¬ nial of the other? And cannot the citizens of a municipality ex¬ ert a direct influence just as well on the municipal administra¬ tion as on the state legislature? The state has no more right to dictate to the municipality, than the latter has to dictate to the state. The whole program of Mr. Commons simply shows the cloven hoof of capitalism under the cloak of a democratic exterior. 11 — THE SUPERIORITY OF MUNICIPAL CAPITALISM OVER PRIVATE CAPITALISM. We need not turn to the partisans of municipal capitalism in order to obtain proofs for its superiority over private capitalism. The official documents of the capitalist government are one long song of praise in favor of “public” ownership. The testimony of the XIV Annual Report of the United States Commissioner of Labor is so much more eloquent, as it speaks in favor of “public ownership,” although the instructions of the executive committee of the twelfth annual convention of the National Association of Officials of Bureaus of Labor Statistics in the United States were that the investigations were “not to be considered for or against municipal ownership, but for the purpose of ascertaining all the facts bearing upon this question.” It does not matter that the report declares that “the facts classified will not and cannot set¬ tle conclusively the merits of the two systems of management— private and municipal,” and “when the varied conditions attend¬ ing the supply of water, for instance, are considered, it will read¬ ily be seen that the facts cannot, in their very nature, be con¬ clusive evidence in favor of either method.” For these facts prove without cavil that municipal enterprises CAN be carried on as successfully as private enterprises, a fact always denied by the favorites and champions of private corporations. The report states plainly that “It is shown that gas can be produced by the larger works, when corporations AND MUNICI¬ PAL ESTABLISHMENTS are under the most favorable condi¬ tions and have the best management, at a very low figure, even as low as 20 cents per 1,000 cubic feet, not including deprecian tion, interest, taxes and leakage; and including these, for from 40 to 50 cents per 1,000 feet.” This is an established fact, then. Municipal enterprise on a large scale is practicable. And even if it were not economically superior to private ownership, it would be sufficient to have dem¬ onstrated that it is just as good. For municipal capitalism has unquestionably political advantages, which private ownership has not, and for this reason alone it would be superior to private enterprise. But it also has economic advantages, for the con¬ sumer as well as for the employe. The above named report states that “of the 3,326 water-works in the United States . . . 46.27 were owned and operated by pri¬ vate individuals, firms and corporations, while 53.73% were owned and operated by the cities, towns, and villages in which they were located; of the 965 gas works, 98.55% were owned privately, while but 1.45% were municipally owned; and of the 3,032 electric light plants, 84.83% were private and 15.17% were municipal.” — 12 — These municipal plants have been, and are now, successfully operated. The cost of operating, for instance, the municipal water plants of medium and large size, is shown to be smaller than in private plants, although the municipal employes work shorter hours and receive higher wages. A comparison of 384 water- plants of different capacities from one million to ten billion gal¬ lons per year shows that the average cost of production is lower in municipal plants than in private plants. “It will be observed,” says the report, “that .... in the case of municipal plants the income from private users during the year exceeded the cost of production, and that apparently the city not only obtained water free for its own use, but made a profit besides.” In cases where small plants did not cover the cost of production, it was found to he mainly due to insufficient patronage on account of the small population of such towns. The main reason, which the report does not state in this case, is that the interest on bonds had to be paid—in other words, the capitalist profit exacted by the money lenders was the chief reason why the plants in small towns did not pay. In all but the very smallest municipal plants, the price charged per 1,000 gallons of water is smaller in municipal than private plants. For instance, the average price per 1,000 gallons of water from a privately owned plant of one to five million capacity, was 84 cents; from a municipal plant of the same size, 20 cents; from a private plant of five to ten million gallons’ capacity, 34 cents; municipal, 15 cents, and so on down the line to a private plant of five to ten billion gallons’ capacity, which furnishes 1,000 gal¬ lons of water for 11 cents, while the municipal plant of the same capacity does it for 4 cents. The small number of municipal gas plants in the United States makes a comparison with private plants rather difficult. But the various gross incomes of the municipal plants compare very favorably with those of the private plants. The average cost of production is also shown to be smaller in municipal gas plants than in private plants. And, as in the case of water-works, the municipal gas plants require a smaller expense for wages than private plants, in spite of the fact that municipal employes are better paid than private employes. This is made possible by the reduction of the high “salaries” and the increase of “wages.” The average price per 1,000 cubic feet of gas from plants of two to five million capacity is a trifle higher in municipal plants than in private plants, for similar reasons, as in the case of water¬ works. But in plants of a greater capacity, municipal gas is cheaper than private gas. For instance, a private gas plant of five to ten million capacity furnishes 1,000 cubic feet of gas at $1.64; a municipal plant of the same capacity at $1.62; a private plant of fifteen to twenty million capacity at $1.58; a municipal plant at $0.86; a private plant of one hundred to five hundred mill¬ ion capacity at $1.16, municipal, $0,92. -13- In municipal electric light plants the difference in “salaries" is very much in favor of municipal plants, and the “wages’ 1 ac¬ count shows the same superiority as in the other municipal plants. The average price per kilowatt hour charged in a,rc ser¬ vice is considerably smaller in municipal plants than in private plants. To quote only two examples, it is six and one-half cents from private plants, three to four hundred capacity, and four cents from municipal plants; it is over five cents from a private plant of three to five thousand capacity, and only two and one- half cents from a municipal plant. The same superiority is shown by municipal plants in lG-car:dle power lamps, in incandescent service per kilowatt hour, per lamp hour, and per ampere hour. The superiority of a, municipal electric plant is especially shown in the average price per lamp per year of arc lighting. “Com¬ paring the columns showing the average price charged by private plants per lamp per year to the municipality and the average price per lamp per year to the municipality of lights furnished by mu¬ nicipal plants, it is seen that in all of the groups except one the cost per lamp per year of lights furnished by the municipal plants is smaller than the price charged per lamp per year by private plants to the municipality for the lights used in the municipal service.” Thus testifies the official report. There is no doubt, then, about the economic superiority of municipal capitalism over private capitalism, even from the purely capitalist standpoint of the middle class property owner. But economic superiority is not the only thing in favor of municipal capitalism, always speaking from the standpoint of the small capitalist. Municipal capitalism transfers the management of public utilities into the hands of the advocates of “good” (capitalist) administrations, and produces public necessities for the benef\t of the better situated class of citizens, instead of the private production for the profit, of any single individual or cor¬ poration. And one of the most potent advantages in the eyes of the property owning citizens is that municipal capitalism, suc¬ cessfully operated, produces a surplus which can be used for the reduction of taxation. If added to direct legislation, it tends to establish the “best” government of which a capitalist mind can dream, viz., a, clean and honest “business” administration. Of course, municipal capitalism does not actually do away with the exploitation of the municipality by the great capitalists. For the inauguration of municipal capitalism requires the bor¬ rowing of money on bonds. And so, instead of freeing the “peo¬ ple” from the yoke of capitalist greed, it only transfers them from the hands of manufacturing capitalists into those of usurers, who saddle the coming generations of hopeful citizens with a debt, in the contracting of which they have no voice, and which permits the happy heir of the usurer’s millions to tax his fellow being without any exertion on his part but the clipping of coupons and the counting of bills. -14- MUNICIPAL CAPITALISM AND THE WORKING CLASS. While there is no doubt that municipal capitalism under cap¬ italist control is a distinct advantage to the small capitalists, it remains to be seen what it signifies to the great majority of the propertyless working class. Naturally, the little capitalist who needs the votes of the working class, will not present this side of the picture to the working man, for the simple reason that it would tend to estrange him from capitalist politics and lead him into the Socialist party. We have seen that nearly half the population of the cities owning water-works derive no benefit from the municipal plants, because their houses are not supplied with water from those plants. In the ca.se of municipal gas and electric light, the pro¬ portion of unsupplied houses is still considerably larger. It is a fact that the majority of the people who vote for municipal gas or municipal electric light would have much more need of mu¬ nicipal oil, municipal coal, or municipal employment, not to speak of municipal houses, municipal medicine or municipal burial- But the scope of municipal capitalism under capitalist control very rarely extends to these things, and especially in the United States, there is very little hope that it will ever extend further than to gas, water, electric light, and, perhaps, street rail¬ ways. The majority of the workers derive little or no benefit from these municipal industries. The experience of Belgium has shown that cheap car fare and the extension of the railroads into the country districts re¬ sults in increasing the competition among the working class for jobs, by bringing the country dweller into the city. And these men from the country, having their own little gardens and the assistance of wives and children in raising vegetables and poul¬ try, can afford to work for smaller wages than the less fortunately situated dweller of the city slums. In consequence, the extension of cheap car fare to the country, aside from raising the rent in the country districts, tends to lower the wages of the city worker. That is the first “benefit” of municipal railways to the working class. The next reflection leads us to face the fa,ct that municipal street cars and their extension into the country districts cause many city workers to seek the balmy country air for the hot and smoky city. Leaving the result on the price of counuj and sub¬ urban real estate out of the question, the simple result of this exodus to the country is the increase of the hours of labor for the workers. In addition to their regular working time, they now must start one to two hours earlier from home, and get back to their homes from one to two hours later, making a total in¬ crease of from two to four hours. The exhausting effect of such a life is testified to by all who have tried it. In short, while the —15— family of the laborer may live in healthier surroundings, tha father has to bear an additional burden on his already over¬ strained frame, and succumbs so much sooner, a victim of mu¬ nicipal capitalism. The profits to be derived from municipal industries, if a working man is fortunately enough situated to be able to own or rent a house with municipal light and water, and to share in the reduction of taxation, are insignificant when compared to the enormous amount of direct taxation exacted by capitalist ex¬ ploitation in the production and consumption of necessities. In the case of Liverpool, for instance, with a population of 685,276, the annual profits out of municipal capitalism amounted to about seven and one-half shillings per capita. But the surplus values extracted out of the working class in the form of rent, interest and profit, in capitalist production and consumption, amounted to about 2,000 shillings per capita. The working class might have been that much in pocket, if they had not made the mistake of voting for municipal capitalism instead of Socialism. The methods by which municipal capitalism is introduced often savor of feudal times. In Glasgow, the paradise of mu¬ nicipal capitalism, for instance, as many as 50,000 inhabitants of the slums were at one time turned out of condemned houses, when the municipality decided to build municipal houses in the place of the condemned property, and no provisions were made for these unfortunates. A recent consular report states that “Under the present act, municipalities a r e compelled to divide SUBSTI¬ TUTE ACCOMMODATIONS for at least 50% of the dispossessed occupiers of slum property.” What becomes of the other half, for which no provisions are made? They will probably reflect on the cruelty of abolishing slums, but leaving unchanged the system that makes slums profit¬ able. Finally, it must be emphasized, that neither municipal cap¬ italism nor state capitalism are a means of educating the work¬ ing class to class consciousness and arraigning them solidly against the capitalists class. Municipal capitalism is only an ob¬ ject lesson, proving the practicability of public management of industries on a large scale, and of the superiority of public cap¬ italism over private capitalism. The most striking proof of the utter failure of municipal cap¬ italism as an educator of Socialist minds is furnished by the English towns, where the majority of the working class, after a generation of municipal ownership, still continue to vote cap¬ italist politicians into office. The same is true of Switzerland, where the object lesson of more than twenty years of direct legislation and national owner¬ ship of railroads has not succeeded in impressing the workers with the truth that they can only escape capitalist exploitation — 16 — by organizing as a political party distinct from a,nd opposed to the capitalist parties. The Communist Manifesto, in ridiculing the apparent solici¬ tude of the small capitalist for the working class, sums up the capitalist program in these words: Free trade for the benefit of the working class; protective duties, for the benefit of the work¬ ing class; prison reform, for the benefit of the working class. It might have added: Direct legislation and municipal capital¬ ism, for the benefit of the working class. MUNICIPAL CAPITALISM UNDER SOCIALIST CONTROL. Between capitalist and Socialist control of municipal capital¬ ism, there is a more or less prolonged period of “MIXED”' con¬ trol, in which the Socialist councillors gradually displace the capitalist councillors. During the majority rule of the capitalists, the function of the Socialist councillors is a double one: They increase the pressure from below by the introduction of bills in the interest of the working class, and they use the floor of the council as a platform for the education of the working class to a realization of their class interests. As none of their bills are ever passed, or if considered, are mutilated beyond all hope, the main function of the Socialist councillors during this stage is to hold up the injustice of class rule to the view of the working class. The administration of the municipality under mixed control is not a division of labor between the reformers and the Social¬ ists. For the capitalist reformers, under the pressure of the So¬ cialist party, adopt municipal capitalism in part as a means of catching the labor vote, for the purpose of benefiting the middle class. But the Socialists use their position for the purpose of compelling the capitalist parties to make small concessions to the working class, and of impressing the workers with the ne¬ cessity of placing the entire political power into the hands of their own class. Municipal capitalism under Socialist control still remains es¬ sentially capitalist in its organization. Nothing is changed but the political position of the opposing forces. In order to change the municipal organization from a capitalist to a Socialist basis, the Socialist city administration would require the assistance of a Socialist state legislature, and the Socialist state the backing of a majority of Socialist states in the Union. Until that point in our political development is reached, it is plain that a Socialist city administration must necessarily con¬ fine itself to the introduction of such measures, as do not necessi¬ tate a transformation of the capitalist organization. It can only press the capitalist organization as much as possible into the service of the working class. Of course, this sort of administration will not receive the applause of the capitalist element. For the capitalist mind judges —17— the success of a municipal enterprise by the profits it yields, the Socialist by the benefits it bestows on the working class. For this reason, municipal capitalism under Socialist control is rarely successful from the capitalist point of view. Instead of economiz¬ ing where the capitalists do, viz., in the number and wages of the employes, the Socialists are apt to increase wages, shorten the working hours and employ more men. Instead of wasting, on the other hand, where the old party politicians do, viz., in the emoluments of the heelers, ward politicians and other patronage, especially in contract work and taxes, the Socialists are apt to cut down the high priced offices on the principle that office is worth having for the honor, not for the money. And they very properly insist that corporations and wealthy citizens do not shirk their taxes. Contract work is generally displaced by mu¬ nicipal enterprise. Of course, such things are extremely “im¬ practicable.” The capitalist press it not slow in recognizing this and giving it due publicity. Now, about half of the city population, as we have seen, drink well water, burn kerosene and walk, in spite of the municipal enterprises. Having no practical opportunity to test the efficiency of the different administrations, they are easily misled by the capitalist press. He wno shouts loudest is gen¬ erally considered in the right, and as no one can shout so loud, and lie so well, as the capitalist press, the “other half” conclude after a while, not without good reason, that the capitalists know more about municipal capitalism than Socialists. And so they send the old party politicians back into office and give the So¬ cialists a better chance to do what they should have done all the time — make Socialists who understand Socialism. The best test of municipal capitalism under Socialist control has been made by the Parti Ouvrier Francais, the uncompromis¬ ing and revolutionary wing of the French Socialists. They have held such places of Roubaix, Lille and Montlucon for about ten years without interruption, and used their position to the advant¬ age of the working class as much as the French constitution would permit them. In Roubaix, they introduced the eight-hour day in the mu¬ nicipal industries, increased the wages of the lower employes and reduced the wages of the higher positions. They also reduced the local ta,xes on foodstuffs, and enforced the taxation of the great corporations. They voted funds tfor the assistance of moth¬ erhood and supplied trousseaus and milk to working men’s fami¬ lies. Free medical assistance, nurseries for children whose moth¬ ers were compelled to leave them alone during working hours, school restaurants, distribution of free clothing to school chil¬ dren, assistance to poor students, sanitariums for children, were some of the means of showing that the Socialists are a party of, for, and by the working class. Streets were improved, the sup- - 18 - ply of water regulated, public bathipg houses erected and dis¬ infecting plants established. The Socialist city administration voted higher appropria¬ tions for the bureau of relief and for poor houses, distributed free bread directly to the houses of the needy, instead of forcing them to parade their poverty in the streets or relief stations, cared for the incurable, aged and invalid working men, opened municipal kitchens and employment bureaus for the unemployed, and built homes for widows of working men. Free legal advice was also given to the poor. All this was accomplished without increasing the budget, and yet the old debts contracted by the capitalist administration were paid off at the same time. Similar steps were taken by the Socialist administration of Lille, Ivry and Montlucon. This is doubtless a great deal more than a Socialist admin¬ istration in most of the cities of the United States would be permitted to do at the present stage of capitalist evolution, and under the constitutions of many states. SOME PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS. We have seen that municipal capitalism is undeniably su¬ perior to private capitalism, from a purely economic standpoint. We have also seen that under capitalist control, municipal cap¬ italism bestows its greatest favors on the capitalist class, espe¬ cially on the small fry that can no longer compete with the trust magnates, and turns, therefore, to political patronage as a means of fighting the trusts. We have, furthermore, shown that many of the so-called benefits of municipal capitalism are “Greek gifts” for the working men, and must be classed among the many de¬ lusions by which capitalism ensnares them in continuel servi¬ tude. And lastly, we have learned, that under the control of the Socialists, municipal capitalism cannot only be made to yield as much as can reasonably be expected from capitalism, but can also be regarded as a step toward Socialism. It is a step toward Socialism under capitalist control only in so far as it demonstrates the practicability of the economic organization which is the aim of Socialism. But under the con¬ trol of the Socialists it becomes a step toward Socialism in the sense that it brings the wbrking class nearer to its final victory as the ruling class, by the conquest of the political power. We are now ready to answer conclusively such questions as the following: Does the Socialist party favor the establishment of munici¬ pally owned street car systems, telephones, etc., while the pres¬ ent system lasts? Should any part of our program be acceptable to us coming 19— from either of the old parties? Or shall we wait until a majority has been secured by us, before any changes are made? A republican city administration is endeavoring to establish the thing nearest to public ownership possible. Should the So¬ cialist party endorse the scheme? These, and other questions of a similar nature which have actually been asked by members of the party in different parts of the country, bear on their face the evidence of an indistinct conception of the true nature of the problem. Our objective analysis of the various stages of capitalist de¬ velopment has shown that municipal capitalism under capitalist control follows as the consequence of economic development to the point of private monopoly. It is the result of the political struggle of the small capitalists for two well defined purposes, viz., to control the great capitalists by political means and to weaken the Socialist party by attracting to their own support all the radical elements that incline toward Socialism, but do not understand the class character of the labor movement. What does this mean for the working class ? What does it show to the Socialist party? As to the working class, the transfer of private capitalism into the control of capitalist politicians does not change the na¬ ture of the relations of the workers to the capitalists. The dif¬ ference is only that the class struggle of the working people for emancipation from capitalist rule is then no longer carried on against private capitalists, but against the capitalist government. This class struggle remains economic and political in its nature as before. But the economic organization into unions is far more difficult under the new conditions. The capitalists op¬ pose to the utmost all attempts of the working class to organize and enforce better conditions, and the public service gives them a more powerful and direct means of oppression. The most des¬ potic regulations and a tyrannical code of discipline keeps the workers under a constant and irritating supervision, and the spy system flourishes as never before. The result is, that political action remains the only refuge of the oppressed, and even this is rendered more difficult because the circulation of literature and the holding of political meetings in opposition to the ruling party are at once reported at headquarters and intimidation fol¬ lows inevitably, ending in discharge in case of continued oppo¬ sition. This is the “coming slavery” which Herbert Spencer pic¬ tured as the inevitable outcome of Socialism, but which is really in full bloom under municipal and state capitalism. A few examples ma,y serve to illustrate this point more for¬ cibly. In Germany, where state capitalism is used as an open means of combatting Socialism, the employes of the state indus¬ tries are uniformed and held in a discipline as rigid as that of the army. Regulations forbidding the participation in Socialist meetings, and making the reading of Socialist literature a crime — 20 — punishable with instant dismissal, are a prominent feature in keeping the ruling class enthroned. In Switzerland the employes of the government railway at Geneva, recently were given a vivid object lesson in government capitalism. When the king of Italy passed through the city on his way to Germany, it was feared that some anarchists would approach him in the uniform of the railway employes. In order to prevent any injury to the royal ruler, the “democratic” state’s attorney simply imprisoned the whole station force of Swiss “freemen” in the station buildings, until the king had passed in safety. In Italy the railway employes were placed under martial law during a recent strike. In Russia, the government is one of the chief exploiters of several industries. The employes are practically slaves under the intellectual and spiritual supervision of the bureaucracy and the priests. That the free United States do not yield to any European despotism in the matter of oppressing the working class in the public service, is proven by the draconic regulations issued by Roosevelt for the discipline of the civil service, by the petty code of rules prescribed to the lower employes in the postoflices, to the corruption and intimidation of the various police forces in the interest of the ruling party, and by the attempts to suppress all independent minds in the Chicago Teachers Federation. Comparing these drawbacks with the insignificant and often doubtful advantages of municipal capitalism under capitalist con¬ trol, considering furthermore, that the class struggle of the work¬ ing class is rather checked under such control than strengthened; and remembering that political action as a class against capital¬ ism is after all the final outcome of this stage of municipal de¬ velopment, it may be said with good reason that municipal cap¬ italism under capitalist control offers no incentive to the work¬ ing class, and therefore, deserves no support from them. Now to the position of the Socialist party on this point. We know that municipal capitalism under capitalist control is a means of combatting Socialism. The tactics of capitalist or “in¬ dependent” municipal ownership parties are to withdraw the sup¬ port of the non-class-conscious radical element from the Social¬ ist party. The very fact that this element is not yet aware of the fact that its class interests are opposed to the interests of those who engineer such independent movements, is a guarantee that the Socialists will lose their support. That is unavoidable wher¬ ever the majority of the workers are still believers in the “iden¬ tity of interests.” The fact that the Socialist party may have an elaborate “immediate demand” platform in the field does not change this result. For we have seen, that municipal capitalism, even after a generation of actual operation, does not act as an educator to class consciousness. Much less does the mere plat- —21 form outlining the good things that might be done, act as a maker of Socialist minds. It ma}' he objected: If the demonstration of the practica¬ bility and superiority of public over private management of in¬ dustries does not convert a man to Socialism, what else will in¬ duce him to become a Socialist? But this question evades a very important point. The value of public ownership as a means to demonstrate the desirability of Socialism has already been ad¬ mitted. However, the demonstration of the practicability of So¬ cialism is one thing, the means of obtaining the political control for the purpose of inaugurating Socialism, another. The class struggle being the means by which tbe political battle must be fought to a finish, the understanding of this class question is as indispensable for the realization of Socialism, as the understand¬ ing of the economic advantages of collective ownership. The op¬ portunists wish to make Socialist experiments, before the people understand the essence of the political Socialist movement. The revolutionary Socialists insist that the people shall know the foundation of political Socialism, before they try any “practical” experiments. From a Socialist standpoint, the latter are un¬ doubtedly backed up in their judgment hy the historical facts in the case of Switzerland, France, Italy and England. We have yet to see a case, where a man could be trusted as a municipal representative of the Socialist party without understanding the class basis of the movement. The same argument, by the way, holds good in regard to direct legislation. For a Socialist party to endorse municipal capitalism under capitalist control, or to fuse with independent or “labor union” parties for the purpose of obtaining municipal capitalism is leav¬ ing the field of the class struggle and entering the maze of the “identity of interests.” It is abandoning the field of Socialism for capitalism, and signing our own death warrant afe a class party, distinct from capitalist parties. The Socialist party is not organized for the purpose of inaugurating any form of capitalism, but to abolish it, root and branch. Remember, also, that municipal ownership parties advocat¬ ing municipal capitalism are forced to adopt these measures un¬ der the pressure of the revolutionary Socialist element. If our opportunist friends assist the capitalist parties in opposing So¬ cialism, they are helping to destroy the very party which they are professing to elevate to power. They are sawing off the branch on which they are sitting, and assisting in constructing a pad against the pressure from below. The opportunist may object to this charge and claim to serve Socialism by securing a political office through fusion. The re¬ ply to this excuse is that the experiment is too dangerous and productive of too little good for the working class, to be worth the risk. Such tactics are much more profitable to the office seeker than to the working class. And what little advantage may — 22 — be gained by electing a Socialist representative in this way, is amply offset by the disadvantage of effacing the class line be¬ tween capitalist and Socialist parties. If the capitalists must have municipal capitalism, let them work for it themselves. They will only do it for the purpose of escaping the fangs of the trusts, and of preventing the working class as long as possible, from gaining control of the political power through the Socialist party. For my part, I am willing to forgo the pleasures of municipal capitalism until the Socialist party is strong enough to wrest the municipal offices out of the hands of the capitalist parties. We can get much more out of the capitalists by pressing them hard, than by trading with them. Consider also this question: Is it absolutely necessary that municipal capitalism under capitalist control should be the next step in the evolution of the municipality? Have not the Ameri¬ can capitalists started their little game rather late? Not a sin¬ gle American city has adopted a complete municipal program so far. The first steps toward municipal capitalism are just be¬ ing made. And the capitalists are realizing that they ape tread¬ ing on dangerous ground, and openly asking: “HOW FAR IS IT SAFE TO MUNICIPALIZE?” Is not this an opening for us? Is it not possible to elect rev¬ olutionary Socialists by our own strength, and FORCE the cap¬ italists to make concessions to us? Is it not possible to make the next steps in municipal development under Socialist control? And is not this the only logical step for the Socialist party to take in municipal elections? Municipal capitalism under Socialist control does not mean the institution of capitalism by the Socialist party. It means primarily, the raising of the working class to the position of the ruling class, for the purpose of pressing municipal capitalism into the service of this class. How small the economic advant¬ ages to be derived from even a Socialist control of municipal capitalism are, we have seen in preceding chapters. It is only logical, therefore, that we do not value the control of the mu¬ nicipality by Socialists so much for the economic benefits to be derived under capitalism, as because it makes the working class the leading factor in politics. But in order to spur the working class on to assert itself, the Socialist party must make them Socialists. And how are So¬ cialists made in the last analysis? By making the working class realize that their interests are opposed to those of the capitalists and can only be served by a party of their own class, standing on a Socialist platform. And this lesson can only be taught by a Socialist party that has the courage of its convictions and the energy to take the lead, instead of permitting Itself to be led by the men it wants to teach. Other than general considerations furthermore contribute in forcing us into this position. The Socialist movement in the -23- cities is inseparable from that of the state and nation. The greater issues of the national movement dictate in a prominent degree our attitude in the municipalities. And in seeking to define our tactics in the great cities, we must never leave the exigencies of the national situation out of consideration. THE PRESENT SITUATION IN THE UNITED STATES. The tactics of the European comrades have often been quoted as an example which we should follow in our municipal cam-1 paigns. But a simple comparison of the political and economic conditions in the various European countries is sufficient to dem¬ onstrate the utter untentability of this view. Neither in France nor in Belgium, nor in Germany, nor even in England has the economic development reached the climax which confronts us in this country. In none of these countries, therefore, has the political expression of the economic situation reached the ad¬ vanced stage of American politics. In none of these countries, with the exception of England, is there any government owner¬ ship, direct legislation or independent labor union party to bor¬ row any of the planks of the Socialist platform. In England alone, ha,s there been an Independent Labor Party, and it has been the bane of the Socialist movement of that country. And there is not a single European country today, in which the na¬ tional issue between labor and capital has come so pre-eminently to the front as in our country. Nor does a national election in any of those countries decide the fate of the contending parties to such an extent as our presidential elections. Keeping this in mind, we find that the American trade unions are on the point of joining the Socialist party. The American Labor Union has already endorsed the Socialist platform. The American Federation of Labor cannot resist the Socialist elements within its ranks very much longer. The intelligent elements of the unorganized working men are also more and more withdraw¬ ing from the old parties and resisting the viles of the nondescript independent voters’ parties. The majority of the populists are strongly inclining toward Socialism. Most suggestive of all, the Hearst democracy is advocating “government ownership,” and making strong efforts to influence the local trade unions in the direction of state Socialism. In short, the various reform, public ownership, direct legisla¬ tion and independent parties are all steering toward a radical democratic combination in 1904. The trade unions in the large cities are holding the key to this situation, and the rank and file of the populists are the cen¬ ter of this new direction in the country. In either case, these tw r o elements are now the legitimate allies of an uncompromising Socialist party, and we can get them, if we assert ourselves suffi- —24— ciently. More, still, if we wish to be a factor in the next national election, we MUST get them. This national issue completely overshadows the local mu¬ nicipal questions. Oi;r success in the great municipalities actually depends on winning the trade unions away from the new radical democratic movement before it has had time to ta,ke root. We have two years before us in which to do this. The working class vote in the great industrial centers is the bulk of the working class vote in the respective states. Greater New York polls more votes than the rest of the state, Chicago more than the rest of Illinois, Sa,n Francisco, Philadelphia and St. Louis, the majority of the votes in Pennsylvania, California and Missouri. To sway such an overwhelming body of voters in the direction of municipal capitalism, at the .very moment when they are preparing to strive for freedom by the Socialist ballot, is evidently a menace to the Socialist movement, and, if successful, must retard the growth of Socialism many years. This is what Hearst is seeking to accomplish. It would be suicidal folly for a Socialist organization in any of the great centers to indorse such a movement or ally itself with an independent labor union party. That would be precisely what Hearst is aiming at. We would be neglecting our duty if we did not throw all of our strength into the attempt to save the, organized workers from walking into this democratic trap. But organized labor is not the only element in present so¬ ciety which demands our attention. We are just as much inter¬ ested in rallying which modern societies depend, and the substitution of a regulated system of co-operative action.—Imperial Dictionary. Government and co-operation are in all things and eternally, the laws of life; anarchy and competition, eternally and in all things, the laws of death.—John Ruskin. A theory of society that advocates a more precise, orderly and harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than that which has hitherto prevailed.—Webster. A science of reconstructing society on entirely new basis, by sub¬ stituting the principle of association for that of competition in ev¬ ery branch of industry.—Worcester’s Dictionary. No thinking man will contradict that associate! industry is the most powerful agent of production, and chat che principles of as¬ sociation are susceptible of further and beneficial development.— John Stuart Mill. Socialism does not wish to abolish private property or the accu¬ mulation of wealth; but it aims to displace the present system of private capital by a system of collective capital, which would in¬ troduce a unified organization of national labor.—Prof. Schaffle. The answer of Socialism to the capitalist is that society can do without him just as society now does without the slave owner and —30— the feudal lord; both were formerly regarded as necessary to the well being and even the very existence of society.—Prof. W. Clarke. The citizens of a large nation, industrially organized, have reach¬ ed their happiness when the producing, distributing and other ac- tlvites are such that each citizen finds in them a place for all his energies and aptitudes, while he obtains the means of satisfying all of his desires.— Herbert Spencer. A theory of policy that aims to secure the reconstruction of so¬ ciety, increase of wealth, and a more equal distribution of the pro¬ ducts of labor through the public collective ownership of labor and capital (as distinguished from property) and the public collective management of all industries. Its motto is, "Every one according to his deeds.’’—Standard Dictionary. Any theory or system of local organization which would abol¬ ish entirely or in a great part, the individual effort and competition on which modern society rests, and substitute co-operation; would Introduce a more perfect and equal distribution of the products of labor, and would make land and capital, as the Instruments of pro¬ duction, the Joint possession of the community .--Century Diction¬ ary. K you would know the wonderful progress of the Socialist move- ment in the United States in the last three years, send twenty-five cents for a trial subscription to ( */fppeal tcJ&ascn. " " GIRARD. KANSAS. -K>£Q*Q*0*0*K5*K>*0*J0*0*K>*K>fr0* < A Woman's Boole to Women . The fey That Pits the Lock, Or, Justice to the Toiler, Lizaheth. READ ! READ I This book from the hand and heart of a woman goes out with a message of hope to a bewildered world. It teaches that air, land and water belong to every child of God. They can come peacefully Into their heritage through Socialistic education. Read, ignorance knows no force but physical. This book is the harbinger of the good time that is coming. Printed in two colors on rich paper. 250 postpaid. 0*Q-K>*0*G*©*G*©*©*G*0*Q*0*0*0*G' 3*0*0*G*0* A Little Sentimental Socialism BY W. H. MEEK. A booklet that will appeal to the good in every heart. It is the good part of human nature that must be aroused, and t he author certainly has painted a picture that will touch and waken It. It is having a big run. 5 cents per copy; 12 for 50 cents. LABEL> For any of above Books address (sftppeal tc7iemm i i GIRARD, KANSAS. 04" 404<>fO'i*0'fO^O<-J'0^0^0^0*K5^0»K5^0*KHO‘K5^C4‘3^0^0*t , 0 11 \Aa (entire § IN FRENCH, GERMAN, ITALIAN and SPANISH D" Warum Arbeiter Sozialisten Sein Sollten. Devrait Un Ouvrier Etre Socialiste ? I Topi E 11 Gato. Los Gastos y Los Ratones. Que Es El Socialismo ? Ein Wort An Die Kohlengraeber. Une Adresse Aox Mineors de Houille. Price 10 cents per dozen, 50 cents per hundred. ^0*040 *©*©*0*©*Q^*©*^Q*©*©4^:^*©*©*©*K*K>*©*0*©^*KM«©*KM<>*©*©*C<