« ForrigeFortsæt »
to seize the telegraphs and the telephones, as they have done abroad; to hold the wireless message for the states' own and thus met the wily captains of industry on their own grounds. He might have taken possession of the coal fields, when the whole country was begging for such action.
He might have shown himself a great administrative executive and thus held back the arrogance of capital, the rising tides of discontent.
But he did not rise to the occasion. He chose to be a newspaper hero and so pass on, rather than be the man of iron and remain. Had he dealt openly, fairly and honestly with capital, he would have accomplished much of note and worth. Had he dealt openly, fairly and honestly with labor, he might have risen to the glory of Lincoln.
But scheming for the third term, never rising above his own personal fortunes, and having no administrative policy, he now sees his plans all knocked awry, and is forced into an involuntary withdrawal from public life. He must pass away the remaining years of his life in vain regrets over what might have been; not having the satisfaction that Napoleon had of knowing that, while he held the powers of the State in his hands, he had made full use of them. That he had been the leader of his class and his retirement would not witness the return of the other class to power again.
The next great Statesman in America will be he, who sees that the new movement is the struggle of the proletariat for the powers of the State. It will be he who will head that movement, he who will lead it on to victory. He will be the next Lincoln.
Since writing the foregoing, the famous message of Jan. 31st, relating to labor and capital has been given to the public and I have been asked to incorporate in this article my views on the same. The first temptation was simply to regard this as a resumption of his former mood and that it signalized the return of Lost Nerve. However, it hardly can be fairly characterized in that way, but is perhaps, the first public acknowledgment of Theodore Roosevelt, that his policies are on the defensive.
The plutocracy know that it is of no use to put up anyone for president of the United States, except one who is personally acceptable to the people as a clean and honest gentleman. Such a man was William McKinley, who was fortunate in having a business administrator as his confidential friend and adviser in the person of Mark Hanna. McKinley was an idealist; Hanna was a materialist, and the two together were able to pull the load a likely distance. Roosevelt thought that he could haul the
wagon well enough singly and alone and while apparently he was making some speed, yet because a line was hitched to the post, he only traveled around a circle.
Purely idealistic men, preaching bourgeois dualism, are bound sooner or later to come to disaster, while practical men of administrative ability, even of somewhat low and debauched ideals, will accomplish more in the administrative line. Take for instance, the heelers of Tammany Hall and the results of their actions. These are more considerable, by reason of their being able to do business, and cope with business, than the acts of idealists on the order of Mayor Jones and Mayor Dunne and others who are so theoretical that they becme tangled in the maze of their own spinning, and who leave practically nothing to show for their tenure of office.
Roosevelt started out with the handicap of Sunday School ideology. He thought if he endeavored to give a fair and square administration on a high plane, characterized by personal integrity on his own part with a fitting strenuousness, he could accomplish much of worth. But when this plan was put to the test, by the panic, he had nothing to offer, and became panic-stricken himself during the worst of the storm.
In the meantime, certain criticisms were cunningly devised by those whom he considered his enemies, and by some whom he had formerly regarded as friends, to the effect that he had become of unsound mind over his own personality, and they substantiated their arguments by quoting the intemperance of his violent characterization of those with whom he disagreed. The experts have made a rather good prima facia case, that he has gone mad over his own ego. They point out he both distrusts his enemies and entrusts his friends to the point of insanity.
This view of him reminds me of the picture Cervantes painted of the historic Don Quixote. In fact, the more we regard the confused philosophy of our subject, the more does a certain analogy lie between him and the Spanish cavalier of celebrated history. The windmill seems to inevitably characterize both careers and just as the eminent knight errant continually engaged in foolish tilts with clothes lines and other fantastic shapes of his imagination, so has our tempestuous subject been on a knight errantry after certain foolish infatuations and without the restraining hand of a Sanco Panza.
There are two classes of competent people: those whose philosophic conclusions are based on the solid ground of fact; the materialists who know what they want and go after it and get it. These are the captains of industry and the plutocrats of the upper classes. The other class of competents are those who are not only materialistic in regard to the getting of the good things of life for themselves, but who have determined that those things
should go all the way around. They have a universality of benefit in their theorizing.
The confused sentimentalists, whether republicans, democrats, or prohibitionists, lie between these two, and that explains the "insanity" of Roosevelt.
It is no wonder that he is forced to spend the remaining months of his official life in strenuously defending what he calls, "my policies" which in reality are nothing more than ephemeral fancies of a mind confused by the abstractions of the four year's world and that he has practically given up the fight to put the world forward any more. He clearly sees that he is not now and never has been a serious factor in progress, and is trying to explain why.
The explanation he will never make, no more than Don Quixote could explain the failure of his fruitless mission to restore chivalry to a world become purely commercial,
Socialism is the key that will unlock the enigmas of the present. No other key fits the lock.
ROBIN E. DUNBAR.
Karl Marx on Sectarianism and Dogmatism.
(Extract from a letter written by Marx in London, November 23, 1871, and addressed to his Friend Bolte, a member of the Central Committee of the "International" in the United States.)
HE INTERNATIONAL was organized for the purpose of putting the actual fighting organizations of the working class in the place of the socialist and semisocialist sects. The original statutes and the inaugural address show this at the first glance. On the other hand, the internationalists could not have maintained themselves, had it not been for the fact that the historical development had already smashed the sectarian cliques. The evolution of socialist sectarianism and that of the real labor movement always move in opposite direction. So long as the sects are historically justified, the working class is still unfit for an independent historical movement. As soon as it reaches this point of maturity, all sects are essentially reactionary. However, the International repeats in its history what history in general shows everywhere. The obsolete seeks to rehabilitate itself and maintain itself within the newly established form.*
And the history of the International was a continual struggle of its General Council against the attempts of sects and amateurs, who tried to maintain themselves against the real labor movement within the International. This struggle was carried on at its congress, but still more in the private negotiations of the General Council with the individual sections.
Since in Paris the Proudhonists (Mutualists) had helped to found the Association, they naturally were at the helm in Paris during the first years. In opposition to them collectivist, positivist, and other groups naturally arose later.
In Germany there was the Lassalle clique. I have myself carried on a correspondence with the illfamed Schweitzer for two years and irrefutably demonstrated to him, that Lassalle's organization is a mere sectarian organization and as such opposed to the organization of the real labor movement desired by the International. He had his reasons for not understanding.
At the close of 1868 the Russian Bakounin entered the International for the purpose of forming within it a second International, with himself as its chief, under the name of "Alliance
· This is shown once more by the recent attempt of the Socialist Labo 'arty to gain admission to the Socialist Party.-E. U.
de la Democratie Socialiste." Although he was a man without any theoretical training, he pretended to represent in this separate body the scientific propaganda of the International and to make this the special avocation of this second International within the International.
His program was a superficial mixture of things grabbed up right and left, such as the equality of classes, the abolition of the right of inheritance as a point of departure of the social movement (Saint-Simonian nonsense), atheism 'dictated to its members as a dogma, etc., and his main dogma was Proudhonian, namely abstention from political activity.
This primer for children found some support (and still has a certain hold) in Italy and Spain, where the conditions for a real labor movement have but little developed, and among a few conceited, ambitious, shallow doctrinaries in Romanic Switzerland and Belgium.
This doctrine (a hash borrowed from Proudhon, Saint Simon and others) was and is of secondary importance to Bakounin, and primarily a means for his own personal aggrandizement. Theoretically a zero, he is in his element as an intriguer. For years the General Council had to battle against this conspiracy (which was supported to a certain degree by the French Proudhonists, particularly in Southern France). At last it struck the long prepared blow by the resolutions 1, 2 and 3, IX and XVI and XVII at its London conference.*
It is a matter of course that the General Council will not lend its support to the same thing in America which it opposes in Europe. The resolutions 1, 2 and 3, and IX, offer to the New York Committee the legal weapons, by which they may make an end to all sectarianism and amateur groups and eventually expel them.
The political movement of the working class has for its natural and ultimate aim the conquest of the political power for it, and this requires, of course, that a previous organization of the working class, arising out of its economic struggles, should have reached a certain degree of maturity.
On the other hand, every movement, in which the working class meets the ruling classes as a class and seeks to overcome them by pressure from without, is a political movement. For instance, the attempt to force from individual capitalists a re
* Resolution I, 2 and 3 forbid all names of sects and decide that the individual sections shall be known exclusively as sections of the International in the various localities; resolution IX declares that the political activity of the working class is necessary and that this political activity is inseparable from its economic movement; resolution XVI declares' the question of the "Alliance de la Democratic Socialiste" settled by the announcement of its dissolution on the part of its secretary; resolu tion XVII permits to the Jurassic sections in Switzerland to adopt the name "Federation Furaesienne", but censures its publications "Progrè" and "Solidarte".