CHAPTER XIV

THE POSSIBILITIES OF SOCIAL REFORM

I. Socialism and Social Reform Contrasted

WHEN we approach with serious purpose the social problems of our day, there is one question which must, first of all, confront us, provided we have the power of thinking clearly and logically and are fairly well informed concerning the movements of our own time. The question is this, Is our social order essentially sound, has it vitality and capacity for improvement, or is it essentially unsound so that it must give way to a new social order? If there is to be a new social order, there is every indication that it will be socialism. By this it is meant that the only plan of a society, having large and widespread support on the part of thinkers of capacity, which it is proposed to substitute for existing society, is socialism. The alternative which confronts us is, then, socialism or social reform. It is important that we should make up our minds concerning this alternative, because, as we adopt the one belief or the other, our line of conduct will be very largely shaped. This antagonism between socialism and social reform is well brought

out in the following quotation from an editorial in Boyce's Weekly for March 4, 1903. It is written by Mr. A. M. Simons, one of the ablest American socialists:

"Among those who seek to patch up and tinker our present society few phrases are more frequently used than that of 'special privilege.' This phrase is used to show that the abuses of our present society are specific, not generic, superficial, not inherent. It implies that if certain definite excrescences were peeled off, a smooth and beautiful social organization would be revealed beneath. With a little sticking plaster here and there, and a few patches judiciously applied, or, at the most, a few minor amputations performed, the social organism would be restored to health.

"With such people monopoly and extortion are always due to some special privilege, some peculiar advantage, some abnormal situation. The ownership of land and franchises is particularly regarded as a 'special privilege.' Because the number or extent of these things is limited, therefore, they say, ownership confers a monopoly. This limitation, it is claimed, is peculiar to these few things and does not extend to the general mass of industrial capital.

"Here is where the socialist parts company with them. He claims that instead of there being several different special privileges for a few individuals, there is one great 'special privilege' for a whole social class. There is only just so much land

needed, say the defenders of special privilege; there are only just so many franchises to be granted, he continues; when those have been taken there is no chance for any one else to compete. True enough, but is this a special or a general rule? In each market to-day, whether that market be the neighborhood or the world, the firm which can produce the cheapest is the only one which can live, is, moreover, the only one which is needed. Another one in the field is a nuisance, a duplication of effort, a waste of human energy. The trusts are seeing to it that this waste is abolished. Therefore, when once private ownership has been obtained in this one industry, whether it be land, mine, railroad, telegraph, iron mill, cotton factory, or grocery store, it constitutes a 'special privilege' for the owner against all the rest of the world. . .

"If a half-dozen great department stores or finally one will supply the city of Chicago and fill the demand in the retail trade at a less cost of human labor than a thousand, then, when once the private ownership of these few stores is determined, that ownership becomes as much a special privilege as does the ownership of the street cars or telegraph.

"In both cases the worker has exactly the same theoretical right and is prevented by the same practical impossibility of ever owning the thing with which he works. Nor is it any answer to say that the laborer could still work with simple tools if these special privileges were removed. The laborer created the complex, improved, and more

productive tool. Production with anything but these is a criminal waste of human energy. To sentence men to use the more imperfect tools in order that a class of parasites may draw a revenue from the ownership of the more perfect means of production is simply to drive the laborers from the higher civilization their toil created to a lower and more painful social stage in order that the luxury of a ruling class may not be disturbed.

"So long as the tools of production are so complex that it takes thousands of men to use them, private ownership of those tools gives a 'special privilege to the owners as opposed to those who must use them and cannot own them.

"This is the 'special privilege' at which the socialist is striking. He sees it can be abolished only by making the ownership correspond with the use, that is, by making the ownership of the collectively used tools also collective."

It is the present writer's belief, on the contrary, that our existing society has great vitality, that it is sound in its most essential elements, that a widely diffused ownership of wealth is practicable, and that the work which is required is improvement along existing lines. What is proposed in the present chapter is to show, so far as may be in brief outline the needlessness of socialism, on account of the strength, actual, latent, and potential, of the existing socio-economic order; and when we have said the needlessness of socialism, we have said also the hopelessness of socialism, inasmuch as to

an ever increasing extent society in its evolution is purposeful; or to express it in other words, is governed by self-conscious social action. We are shaping society in order to accomplish ends which we have in view, and we do not change fundamental institutions which are even tolerably satisfactory. It is proposed also to point out the lines of improvement, so that it may be seen what direction intelligent effort for social reform must take. This chapter will then to some extent be a résumé of suggestions for reform already made as well as a conclusion of this book.

It may be appropriate first to speak about an inclination which one can discover, now and then, to preach to the cultured, to the well-to-do, and especially to the rich, a stronger kind of doctrine than one would like to preach to wage-earners, in order, if possible, to urge the power-holding classes in the community to use their resources for social amelioration. Sometimes, in fact, we read addresses and articles which evidently aim to frighten the wealthy into a righteous course of action. Indeed, it may be said that in the addresses of Christ the power-holding classes were arraigned in scathing terms for the selfish use of their power. Ruskin used strong language, but his books evidently were, for the most part, designed to reach especially the educated and wealthier classes in the community. At times the writer has feltand has perhaps given expression to the feelingthat it would be a good thing if all those in the