Unit 7 导学案

TTTHHHEEE CCCLLLAAASSSSSS SSSTTTRRRUUUGGGGGGLLLEEE By Karl Kautsky Translated and Adapted to American Conditions by Daniel De Leon Published by Socialist Labor Party of America www.slp.org 2005 Entered at the Sew York Post Office as Second Class Matter. I_I~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~III~IIIIIIIIII~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ = z LABOR LIBRARY. No. 4. Issued Monthly. Single Number 10 Cents. z : Z z z Struggle. 1 z z = E NEW YORh; MARCH, 1899. ; E z : = c z = z j NEWYORKLABORNEWSCOMPANY, i z = 147 EAST 23rd STREET. z z z z z = z z c llllll1llll1llll1lllllllllllsllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll~lll~llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Labor NewsCompany, PROPERTY OF THE SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY, 147 EAST 23~~ STREET, a NEW YORK CITY. ~~------ THE COMPLETEST COLLECTION OF iSOCIALIST LITERATUREI E : E = = Z E z = z L c ew : E = E E = E z : z E Address Orders and Remittances to z = z z E z z !! z LABOR NEWS COMPANY, z z z. E z z 147 East 23rd Xireet, New York CM?/. i z z z z E z = z E = : IIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIlllllllllllllllllllllll~llllllllllllllllllllllll'll3llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll LABORLIBRARY. 2obyhed Monthly. 1 / MARCt4"1899. \ subscription priCc, . . 8100 per year. Price of this pnmphlemts per copy. Published by the N. Y. Labor News Co.. 117 East aSrd St., N. Y. Enteled at the New York Post Of&x as eecond Class Xatter. Adapted for TEE NEW YORK PEOPLE from K. Kautskj DANIEL DE LEON. I. Socialism and the k Property-holding Classes. Modern society oannot escape shipwreck unless it re-organize itself into a oo- operative oommonwealth. The establishment of the Co-operative Commonwealth implies a nodal revolution ; it implies the overthrow of the oepitalist syetem of prodnotion, that has beoome a drag to all further development and an incubus upon the oommon weal; it means the placing of the maohinery of production, now hsld and owned by landlor&v and oapitalists, into the hands of the people; in other wordz, it implies the downfall of the system of private ownerehip in the implements of labor-land and oapital, i. e., machines, toole, eta.-and its snbetitution with publie, common, oolleotive ownership, to be operated for use and not for private profit. The eubetitution of the capitalist with the co-operative or eooialist system of production is in the interest, not of the propertiless olaeses alone, but of all olaeses. The same aa slavery waz an injury to the slave-holders, and its aboli- tion tended to promote their highest interests, 60 is the present system of private ownership in the implements of labor injurious, in the highest sense, even to I_ 2 - the landlords and oapitalista themselves, and its abolition would redound to the benefit of these 88 well. They 8160 suffer severely under the oontradictione th8t typify the’ modern system of prodnotion : one set of them rots in idleness, an- other we8ra itself out in 8 neok-breaking hunt after profits, and over the head8 of all haoga the Damooles sword of bankmptoy, of ehipwreok, and of final down. fall into the olass of the proletariat, i. e., the 018~8 that haa been stripped of all the things neoeeeery for prodnotion, exoept ite labor power, whioh, leet it perish outright, it ia oompelled to eel1 for stervation wages-happy if it suooeed in doing that. It would be thought from these premises that all olassee of sooiety, ospi~alista and lendlords, no less then proletarians, would join in the eatabliehment of the Co-operative Commonweslth. Yet the reverse ie the owe. Experienoe tesohes, the faot glare8 u8 in the faoe, that, the same 88 the slave-holders of old, the property-holders of to-day, landlords and oapitalists, are blind to their higher in- terests. The bulk of the property.holding and exploiting olresee not only looks upon Sooialilism with suspicion, but stands up aggainet it in an attitude of the most bitter antagonism. Can thla be due to ignoranoe simply? The spokesmen among the adver- eariee of Sooialism are, however, the very people whose position in the Govern- ment, in sooiety, and not infrequently in soienoe itself should, presumably, fit them out best of 811 to understand the sodal meohenism, end to perceive the lar of sooisl evolution. Indeed, 80 shocking are the conditions in modem aooiety that no one, who wishes to be taken seriously in politios or in soienoe, dares any longer to deny the juetioe of the oharges preferred by Socialism against the present eooial order ; on the o>ntrary, the olearest heeds in tall the various poli- tical partiea of Capital admit that there ie ‘8ome truth” in those ahargea ; Borne even deolere that the fln8l triumph of Sooi8liam is inevitable, UNLESS, however, sooiety suddenly turn about and improve msttars-8 thing that these gentlemen imagine oan be done offhand, provided this or that demand of this or that party be promptly granted and enforoed ; otham, again, admit unoonditionslly the ultimate triumph of Sooislism, BUT-having the “one thing at 8 time” notion in their herds, and that thing always the wrong one-they ride a hobby, and fly off 8t 8 tangent. In this way, even those members of the non-sooialist poli- tioel parties who have obtained the clearest ineight into the teaohings of Sooial- ism, elude, by 8 somersault bask or sideways, the most important oonsequenoes and oonolusione of their own admiesions. Nor is the reason for this odd phenomenon herd to diecover. Although oer- tain important and not to be underrated interests of the property-holding olassee plead against the system of private ownership in the mean@ of prodnotion, other interests, that lie nearer to the surfaae and are more quickly felt by propertp- holders, pull in an opposite direotion. ’ This is especially the o8se with the BICE. They have nothing to gain forth- with by the abolition of private property in the mean8 of prodnotion ; the bena- 5oent reeulta that would 5ow therefrom would be ultimately felt by them as well, but suoh resulta are oomparatively too far off to oarry much immediate weight. OLI the other hand, however, the diS8dV8nt8ge8 that they would ede are self-evident and would be felt on the Spot.; the power and dietinotion tlm?* -.. 3 - enjoy today would be gone at once, and not a few might be deprived also of their present ease and comfort in idleness. Matters stand otherwise with the lower ranks of the property-holding and yet exploited classes-the small producers, traders and farmers. These have nothing whatever to lose in point of power and distinction, and they can only gain in point of ease and comfort by the introduction and development of the socialist system of prodnation. But, in order to be able to realize this fact, they must first rise above and look beyond the horizon of their own 01s~. From the narrow field of observation oooupied by the small producers, traders and farmers, the capital% system of production cannot be understood, however maoh they may and do feel its harrowing effects; and, aonsequently, modern Sooialism can be understood by them still lees. The one thing of whioh they have a clear understanding is the absolute necessity of private ownership in their own implements of labor in order to preserve their system of production. It is a forced conclusion that, so long as the small industrialist standa up as small industrialist, the small farmer as small farmer, the small trader aa small trader; so long as they are still possessed of a strong sense of their own class;-so long will they be bound to hold fast to the idea of private ownership in the means of prodnotion, and to resist Socialiim, however ill they may fare under the exist- ing order. Private ownership in the implements of labor fetters the small producers,. farmers and traders to the sinking ship of their respective pursuits, long after these have oeased to afford them a competenoe, and even when they might im- prove their condition by becoming wage-workers outright. Thus it happens that private ownership in the instruments of production is the eecret force that binds all the property-holding alasses to the present system of production, notwith- standing the ill effects-of the system upon the large oapitaliste, and notwith- standing I&J subjection of the small holdtrs themselves to exploitation, and the caricature into whioh it has turned ‘property” in the hands of the latter. Only those individuals among the small producing classes who haV8 despaimd of the preservation of their class, who are no .longer blind to the fact that the industrial or agricultural form of production, span which they depend for a living, is doomed-only they are in a condition to understand the tmaohinga of Socialism. But lack of information and a narrow horizon, both of which are the natural results of their condition, make it diilloult for them to realize the utter hopelessness of their class. Their misery and their hysterical search for a means of salvation have hitherto only had the effeot of making them the easy prey of any demagogue who was suf3lciently self-asserting, and who did not stiok at making promises. Among the upper ranks of the property-holding alaas a higher degree of culture is found, commanding a broader horizon, and among them not a few are still a!Xeoted by ideologio reminiscences from the days of the revolutionary struggles carried on by the then oncoming capftaliet cl&m against the feudal re- pime. Iint woe to that member of those upper ranks of the property-holding class who should be foolhardy enough to show an interest in Socialism, or to engage in its propaganda ! The alternative promptly confronts him either to give up his ideas er to snap all sooial bonds that thitherto held and eupported him. Few of these are euuipped with the requisite vigor and independence of - 4 eharneter to approaoh the Epot where the roads fork; very few among these few sre brave enough to break with their own olaas when they have reached that *pot ; and 5nally, of these few among the few, the larger portion have hitherto noon grown tired, reoognimed the 3miiseretiona of their youth,“ and became ’ #nsibl& ” The ideologists are the only ones, among the upper ranks of the property- boldlng &sees, whose support it is at all possible to enlist in favor of Social- ism. But evrn with these, the large majority of those among them who have gained a deeper insight into social conditions ani into the problems thst spring toertfrom, the information they have aoquired moves them mainly to wear them- selves out in fruitless searehinge after what they style s ‘*peaocful” solution of the 93ocial Question,’ i, e., in searohing after a solution that should reconcile their more or less developed knowledge of Socialism, and their conscienoe, with the class interests of the oapi+liit olass. But this task is as impossible as to pro&m a wet fire or burning writer. Only those ideologista who have not only gained the requisite theoretical knowledge, but who are brave and strong enough to break with their class, are able to develop into genuine sooiallste. Aocordlngly, the Oause of Socialism has little to hope for from the property- holding olasses. A few of its members may be won over to Socialism, but these will be only such es no longer belong by their oonviotions and conduct to the olsss to whioh their economio position assigns them. These will ever be e very small minority, except during revolutionary perieds, when the scales will seem to be incliniig to the aide of Sooialism. Only at euah times may roeialists iwk forward to a stampede from the ranks of the property-holding elsesea. So far, the only favorable recruiting ground for the eooialist army has been, not the olasses of those who still have something to lose, however little that may be, but the olassee of those who have nothing to loss but their oh- end a whole world to gain-the proletariat, the working olass. --O----P II. Servants and Menials. The reoruiting ground for Socialism is the olass oE the propertiless; but not dl the ranks of this class are equally favorable. The student of history knows that, although the sweeping phrase of the phil- istines is false, to the effect that there have always been pear people, it ls nevertheless true that panperiem is as old as the system of production for sale. At 5rst it appeared only as an exceptional phenomenon. In the days of our ’ colonial life and even shortly after the oommencement of our national existcuoe, the number of those was but slight who did not own the implementa of pro- duetlon neoeseary to satlafy their own wanta It was then an easy matter for -. 5 - that emall number of propertileas people to find situations with some property- holding family in the oapaoity of assistants, servants, journeymen, maids, eto. These were generally young people, who still entertained the prospeot of establlah- ing their own workshop or starting their own farm. In all oases they worked jointly with the head of the family or his wife, and enjoyed in oommoa with them the fruits of their labor. As members of a property-holding family, they were not proletarians ; they felt an interest in the family’s property, whose proe- perit] and adversity aliie they shared. Where servants are part of the family of the property-holder, they will be found ready to defend property, although they be propertiless themselves. In such a place Socialism oannot oast roots. The etatug of the servant ohanged by degrees ; it ohanged in the same meaanre as the eapitallst eystem of exploitation unfolded, and as the oapitalist exploiter took shape, In even step and tread with this evolution, and presently at a more rapid peoe, the olass of the propertiless beoame more numerous, and in inoreased numbers did its members look for servioe in the familits of the oapitalist exploiters. But the fnnotions they were not to fill, and for whioh they applied, were not the same as of yore. They were not now expeoted to help the property-holder to work. Work oeased by degrees to be performed “at home.” Those who applied for work went to the shops, the yards, the faotoriee, and the mills. Thm differentiation of labor transformed the oharacter of the serving olam. It became a olass that performed personal services ; the servant of former days disappeared, and the laokey, the menial of to-day, sprang up, anxious to eaoape want, and greedy to partake of the orumbs that fell from Dives’ table. The community of labor and of enjoyment, the patriarohal relations between master and servant of our oolonial days, and of the first few decades of our independent national exietenoe, dropped with the development of the oapitalist system among us, and with it also went by the board the solidarity that had existed between the propertiless and the property-holders. In lieu of the old, however, a new sort of solidarity sprang ap between the master and his menial. Where a large number of these are retained, there are also many degrees among them. Each individual strivea to rise, to increase his hire, and thereby his own importanoe over his fellows. Success in this direction depends upon the whim of the master. The more skilfully the menial accommodates and adepts himself to his master, i. e., the more completely he sucoeeds in wiping out his own individuality, and the greater his sucoess in outstripping hii fellows in thie ignoble raoe, all the better are his prospeots. Again, the larger the inoome of the master, and the greater his power and distinotion, all the more plentiful are the piokings for his menials; thie holds good eapeoially with regard to those menials who are held for show, whose only task is to make a parade of the superfluities which their master enjoys, to assist him in squandering his wealth, and to stand “true” and “ioyal” by him tbrough- out his career of folly and of orime. Accordingly, the modern servant, the breed of menials we now meet wherever large oapitalists settle down, 1s drawn into peouliar relations of intimacy with his master, and he has, as a matter of course, developed into a seoret foe of the exploited and oppressed working people; not infrequently he excels even his master in the reckless treatment of these. The master, if he has any sense at all, will not kill the hen that lays him the golden eggs ; he would preserve her, not for himself alone, but alao for his -6- 8110oe880?8. The menial is not held back by any eaoh ooneiderations; l&e the eannohe, he has no poeterity. The oharaoteristios of the menial are, however, deteoted not alone among the propertilese people from the lower, but also among those of the upper, olaasee. The aristooratio and the plebeian laokey go hand in hand. No wonder there is nothing the people hate more heartily t,han the flunkeys, the lackeys. the menial aless, whatever their extraotion, whose servility towards the upper and brutality to the lower ranks of sooiety are fact beooming aa proverbial among us 88 they are in older oountries. The words %+okey” and “menial” already oonvey the meaning of the very easenoe of vileness. The growing intensity of exploitation, the yearly swelling quantity of capitalists’ eurplue, together with the resulting extravagances of luxury, all favor a steady inorezse of the menial oleatithe olass least favorsble to the progress of Sooialism. But deapita the power of these c&uses, other tendenaies are fortunately working in an oppoeite diriotion: the steady going revolution in industry with ita en- oroaohmeuts upon the family, its withdrawing from the sphere of household duties one oooupation after another and turning them into epeoia! industries, and, above all, the infinite divieion and subdivieion of labor, are building up the various trades of barbers, waiters, oabmen, eto. Long after these tradea branched off from their original trunk of the menial olees and became independent pw- suite, they preserved the oharaoteristiae of their origin ; nevertheless. a8 time pmsaes, these ugly ohrraoteristica are wearing off and the member6 of these trades are acquiring the qualities and methods of thought of the industrial wagsworking olase. Ill. The Slums. However numerous the menial olase may be in all ita ramifiaations, it ia not now, and was not even in the luxuriant days of the deolining Boman Empire, oapaaione enough to absorb the whole propertiless olses. The steady dieplaae- ment of labor by the perfeotion of maohinery, the concentration of oapital, and e aoore oL other aauses, all of them the re&~lta of the development of oapital, inoreese the number of the propertilees people immeaswahly fester than they oan be taken up by the olase of the menial& To these masees, whether they oonsiet of able-bodied men and women, or ohildren, old people, the orippled and infirm, unable to work, there ie nothing left hut to beg, steal or prostitute themrtelves. The alternative foroed upon these is either to perish or to throw overboard all sense of shame, honor, and self-reepeot. They oauld prolong their ’ exietenoe only by giving precedenoe to their own personal and immediate wants rather than to their regard for their own reputation. That suoh a oonditiou oannot but exeroiee the moat demoralizing and oorrupting inflnenoe is self-evident. Furthermore, the effeat of thfe oorrupting influenoe is all the more inteneified -T--’ by me oiroumstanoe that the unemployed poor are utterly superfluous in the existing aooial order; that, not only does it not need them, but, on the oon- trary, it would be relieved of an undesirable burden by their extinction. Whatever olass is snperflnous, whatever olass has no neoeseary functions