EDITOR'S CHAIR

To the Readers of the Review. The new editor hardly needs to introduce himself, since he has been in touch with you for years through the Publishers' Department. But he takes pleasure in introducing his associates. John Spargo, whose article on "Woman and the Socialist Movement" opens our present issue, and who also edits the department of book reviews, is one of the ablest and most popular writers in the Socialist Party of America, and is an active and trusted member of the party in New York. He has had a wide and varied experience as manual laborer, preacher, editor, writer and lecturer, and has a sympathetic understanding of the necessary ways of thinking of all sorts and conditions of men, along with a clear grasp of the Marxian philosophy. Ernest Untermann, from whose pen an article entitled, "Pause and Consider", on the proposed union of the two socialist parties, will appear next month, has been a frequent contributor to the Review for years, and his books are sufficient proof that he combines a phenomenal scholarship with a distinctively proletarian way of thinking. He is at present living in Idaho, many miles from a railroad, and where mail communications are slow and uncertain, so that it is impossible for him just now to be as active as he would like to be, either on the Review or in the general work of the party, but he promises all the help in his power. Robert Rives LaMonte, who contributes this month the article on "Methods of Propaganda", is well known from his translations, his resent book "Socialism Positive and Negative" and his articles contributed to these pages in the past, and we feel sure that every Review reader will be glad of his promised co-operation. Max S. Hayes, editor of the Cleveland Citizen and one of the most influential members of the Typographical Union, will continue to edit the department of labor news.

What the Review Stands For. The Review will as before treat all subjects from the view-point of international socialism, and will support its principles. The editor is a member of the Socialist Party of America, and believes that all socialists in the United States can make their work for socialism count most effectively by working with the party. The Review however will open its pages to competent writers from all points of view, no matter whether they are inside or outside the Socialist Party, no matter whether they are for socialism or against it. We reserve the right to criticise all articles, but the absence of criticism does not necessarily imply that the editor agrees with all the views expressed. Indeed, the views expressed in every issue of the Review will usually be so various that no one with the

least sense of logic could agree with all of them. We regard clear thinking as essential to a healthy socialist movement, but clear thinking can not be attained by the Socialist Party's passing any set of resolutions; it can not be attained by trying to exclude from the membership of the party either opportunists or impossibilists, either Christians or materialists. It can best be attained by free, critical, logical discussion. And to afford a field for such discussion is the function of the International Socialist Review. It is sometimes objected that the Review, and a large proportion of the books issued by the same publishing house, are not good to "make socialists". The objection is perfectly well taken, but it shows a misunderstanding of one of the things that needs to be done. There are plenty of propaganda papers to bring socialism to the attention of the unconverted; the Review does not compete with these. Such papers very properly exclude from their colums any full discussions of questions on which socialists differ among themselves. Yet it is necessary that such questions be discussed if they are ever to be solved rationally, and the Review is the place for such dicsussions.

Socialist Unity. The National Executive Committee of the Socialist Labor Party adopted on Jan. 7 a preamble and resolutions setting forth the desirability of a consolidation of the two socialist parties, and electing a committee of seven to confer with a similar committee to be elected by the Socialist Party. Algernon Lee, member of the National Committee of the Socialist Party from New York State, has introduced a resolution on which the National Committee is voting as we go to press. It provides that the incoming National Executive Committee be designated as a committee of seven from the Socialist Party to meet with the committee from the S. L. P. to discuss terms of union. This motion has already received the endorsement of the New York State Committee of the Socialist Party. This action is exactly in line with the views of the present editor of the Review, as outlined by him in a signed article published in the December number. We do not, however, fail to realize the complexity of the question and the many objections that may fairly be urged. A thoughtful statement of these objections is embodied in the article by Ernest Untermann referred to above, and we regret that the length of the article and the late hour at which it was received made it impossible to publish it in this month's Review. It will appear in the March number, and meanwhile we will neither summarize Comrade Untermann's arguments nor answer them, since it is only fair to let him speak for himself. The Social Democratic Herald and the Christian Socialist have both come out emphatically against union with the Socialist Labor Party on any terms. But to our mind, if the Socialist Party were to vote down Comrade Lee's motion it would put itself in a false position before the socialists of other countries and the unorganized socialist sympathizers of the United States. If our party refuses to negotiate, it will fairly be held responsible for the failure to unite. The rational course seems to be to go into the conference, and then stand for the right of the membership as a whole to run the affairs of the consolidated party in accordance with the will of the majority. Roughly estimated, the membership of the Socialist Party is rather more than 30,000, while that of the Socialist Labor Party is rather less than 3,000. If the 3,000 will not unite unless the 30,000 will reverse their tactics and methods in some such way as was suggested by Local Redlands. 'California, then the responsibility for the failure of union will rest on the Socialist Labor Party, and the more desirable members of that

party will be likely to leave the sinking ship and join the Socialist Party. On the other hand, if the Socialist Labor Party is willing to accept the principles of majority rule and work with us on that basis, this will be pretty good proof that the misgivings of some of our own members are unfounded.

The Wave of Prohibition. On another page is a report of a set of resolutions presented by the socialist aldermen of Milwaukee in response to a movement on the part of the capitalists to place new restrictions on saloons. In the same temper is an article by H. Quelch in the January number of the London Social Democrat, who lashes most artistically the hypocrisy of the Temperance Reformers, who propose to prevent the workingman from spending his money for drink, so that he can live more cheaply and thus work for lower wages. On the other hand, an address delivered by Comrade E. Wurm at the last national convention of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, which is being circulated as a propaganda pamphlet by our German comrades, and which we expect to publish in next month's Review, explains the evils of alcoholism as forcibly as the prohibitionists and much more logically, and advocates practical measures. The question is up for discussion. The old-time prohibition movement was a matter of sentiment and emotion; the new prohibition crusade is a matter of business. In the days that are gone a laborer could get drunk once in a while with no particular injury except to his own family if he had one, and in a very slight degree to his employer. If he missed too many days the employer would hire some one in his place, having lost only the surplus-value he might have extracted from the drinker's own labor-power. Things are different now. The laborer now is a cog in a great wheel of a great machine, and if one particular cog is missing at a given moment the whole machine is more or less out of joint. Three or four workmen by absenting themselves from their posts on a Monday morning may cause a hundred to stand around idle and unpaid, waiting for the machine to be in working order again. If their loss of wages were the only loss, we should not hear so much of the matter, but what is far more important in the eyes of all "good" people, the capitalist loses not only what he might have made from the labor of the four convivial spirits, but also what he might have made from the labor of the ninety and six that went not astray. As the capitalist runs the government he proposes to do something about it. Hence the wave of prohibition which is sweeping over the United States and England. What position shall we as socialists take? The question is too big to settle in a paragraph. But it is up for discussion and we shall have to take a stand on it before long.

Economics and the Negro. A few months ago we published a translation of a notable article by Paul Lafargue entitled "Marx's Historical Method". Lafargue pointed out the folly of socialists who waste their time in long-winded discussions of Marx's method, instead of using the method in a practical way. We are glad that an American socialist of scholarship and ability has followed Lafargue's good advice, and we congratulate our readers on the series of studies, beginning in this month's Review, on the economic aspects of the negro problem. This seems a good time to put in a word of defense for the Marxian theory against a sort of criticism which we expect from capitalist editors but which seems annoyingly stupid when, as sometimes happens, it is brought forward by members of our own party. When we explain changes in ideas as held by masses of men

and in social institutions by changes in the mode of production, they claim that we are overlooking people's affections, or their artistic impulses, or their religion, or their inborn depravity, or some such considerations. What they seem unable to see is that we can not explain a motion by a rest, a variation by something that remains constant. Comrade Robbins will show in these articles that the negro was at one time left in his native freedom by the proud AngloSaxon, later reduced to slavery, then given nominal freedom but exploited like other laborers. Now the white men who treated him in these various ways were all more or less affectionate, artistic, religious or depraved according to the point of view of the reasoner, but, as our writer will show, the men of each successive epoch differed from the others in the way in which they produced and circulated goods. And these changes in the mode of production, rightly understood, explain what has happened to the negro. Moreover they may throw some light on the present interests and the future action of both the negro and those who come into direct relation with him. These articles will repay close study, and it is to be hoped that American socialists will now rapidly apply the same method to other problems.

Socialist Party Elections. The present method of electing the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of America has in practice been proved to have certain defects which under circumstances that might arise hereafter would be a source of danger. Every local and member at large is now allowed to nominate seven candidates, and the names of all who accept are placed alphabetically on an Australian ballot which is used by all party members in voting. The seven who receive the highest vote are declared elected. One result of this method is that many comrades are voted on whose names are entirely unknown outside their own state, often even outside their own local. Those who vote for these "favorite sons" seem to forget that in this way their votes have nothing at all to do with determining the make-up of the committee. Again, the multitude of names (there are 133 on this year's ballot), is bewildering and confusing to the average member; there is scarcely any intelligent discussion as to the stand on party questions taken by the various comrades who really stand a chance of election, and many members mark the names of candidates simply because they have seen them mentioned in papers or have heard them speak from the soap-box. Finally, with a large share of the vote split up among a lot of candidates who have no chance of election, the successful ones are usually the choice of a minority, and often of a very small minority. This would make it possible for a compact and well organized faction to elect, under our present constitution, a majority of the National Executive Committee, even if two thirds of the membership were opposed to the tactics favored by those candidates. A second ballot would solve the difficulty, but so much of labor and expense is involved in taking a ballot that some other remedy should be found if possible, and the best suggestion yet made is that no name be placed on the ballot to be used by voters unless placed in nomination by at least ten locals. This would probably keep the number of candidates within reasonable limits and would be a step toward majority rule.

SOCIALISM

ABROAD

England. The English Parliament, which reassembled on Jan. 25th, will doubtless drag out its governmental comedy as long as possible. The present ministry has carried out practically none of its promises. Now it is under pledge to introduce a new education bill, a "licensing" bill, an old-age pension bill, and an eight-hour law for miners. No one supposes it will be able to force through the House of Lords any measure really worth while, but it may manage to remain in office for some time, and that seems to be the main point.

Meanwhile our Socialist comrades are making the most of their opportunity. The miserable failure of all the regular English halfway measures gives them a magnificent opening. The Irish peasants are up in arms, "driving" cattle from the landed estates and in other ways protesting against the present regime. One fifth of the population of London is subsisting on charities and at that, so poorly are the provisions of Parliament carried out that starvation is not uncommon. Municipal ownership has finally been shown up as the most ludicrous sort of a fiasco. Meantime news comes from Hull that on Jan. 22nd the Laborites definitely decided to make Socialism the objective of their party. 1500 meetings are being held every week, and the mutton-chop Conservatives and Liberals are scared into a veritable frenzy.

In the colonies matters are quite as lively as on the "tight little island." Now it is particularly the Indian revolutionists who are making themselves disagreeable. Led by the famous Tilak, they created such a division in the recent provincial congress at Surat that the government felt obliged to intervene, and the deliberations came to nought. The English are making a. desperate attempt to keep the "moderate" natives loyal to the imperial government, but the breach between races seems to be widening and home-rule comes

on apace.

In the Transvaal history is repeating itself in the most ironic fashion. A few years ago the English clubbed the Boers into giving what was called "fair play" to the Uitlanders. In this noble enterprise the Indian troops of his Majesty assisted eagerly. Now about 10,000 peaceable, harmless Hindus, for some time settled in the country, are beginning to get an economic foothold. And the "fairplay" English, strange to say, join with the Boers to make life unendurable for these new Uitlanders. The Englishman loves to "civilize" the Hindu in his own country where he is a native to be exploited. But let the Hindu use "Civilized" methods? Let him do the exploiting? That is a horse of another color. One wonders what will be the effect of these latest developments on Indian loyalty.