man in the function of government requires adaptation not only to meet the new-found wants of the people, but also to overcome new devices for defeating the popular will. I believe in the principle of representative government as evolved from centuries of struggle and accepted by the makers of our constitution as an important part of the frame-work of free government But the corrupt, unscrupulous and rapacious foes of the public welfare have mastered the art of perverting our representative system, turning what was intended to be, and what at one time was, a bulwark for the defense of popular rights, into what has too often proved an engine of destruction of popular rule. For the people to regain their former share in the actual work of legislation they must devise some method through which they can secure from their representatives by right and by compul sion that regard for and attention to their interests which formerly was freely accorded to them from a sense of duty and of honor. The people must, by applying old principles to new methods, secure a restoration to themselves of that share in government which they enjoyed before the evolution of that colossal figure of corruption and fountain-head of crime the political boss-who demands and receives financial support from privilege-seeking corporations or individuals and in return sells legislation through his control over the men occupying the seats constitutionally intended for representatives of the people. To this end, therefore, intelligent people are coming more and more to favor directlegislation by the adoption of the initiative and referendum. LINTON SATTERTHWAIT. Trenton, N. J. MR. MACKAYE'S "DEMOCRACY AND SOCIALISM": YES AND NO. BY HON. GEORGE FRED. WILLIAMS AND PROFESSOR THOMAS ELMER WILL, A.M. Editorial Note: In the June ARENA we published an extended essay entitled Democracy and Socialism, by James MacKaye, author of The Economy of Happiness. It was in our judgment the most important politico-social discussion that has appeared in the pages of any magazine in recent years and has attracted much serious attention. The author's work, The Economy of Happiness, is one of the greatest contributions to political economy that has appeared,—a work destined, we believe, to exert a tremendous influence on the political life of our nation. So important, indeed, is the discussion that though it has already been admirably noticed by Mr. Albertson in the pages of THE ARENA, it is our purpose to make it the subject of a book-study as soon as time will permit our giving it the attention it should receive. Below we give our readers two critical appreciations of the essay on Democracy and Socialism, the first by Hon. George Fred. Williams, the able leader of the progressive Democracy of New England and one of the strongest and most scholarly and statesmanlike thinkers in America; the other from the pen of Professor Thomas Elmer Will, A.M., formerly President of the Kansas Agricultural College. By a singular coincidence Messrs. MacKaye, Williams and Will are all Harvard men. N HIS contribution to THE ARENA, of first importance in polemics. The Mr. James MacKaye has given us the rarity of a scientific and likewise practical analysis of a political situation. By his instructive and clarifying discussion Mr. MacKaye reaches a position ment of the extent to which Democracy involves an increase, or rather, a due exercise, of the functions of our State. We grope in the mazes of a new civilization which are not lighted by the tallow-dip of an antique individualism: in any collective benefits coming from we need the electric light to which our eyes are now accustomed. Socialism as a cult makes slow progress in the United States because our people are dimly conscious that Democracy has within it the essential elements of social justice. Mr. MacKaye's merit is that he has made these elements clear. A word or two of suggestion concerning the subject which Mr. MacKaye illuminates will constitute the best form for review. The truth is that the so-called Socialism in European politics is mainly engaged in securing rights which our people have already obtained, such as separation of church and state, universal suffrage, the destruction of immemorial privileges in taxation and land monopoly. That we do not exercise our rights does not signify that we do not possess them. Our worst error, or Democratic error, lies in the misunderstanding of the accepted truth that the government is best, which governs least. The majority of Democratic politicians (especially in the South, under the strict construction and state-rights policies) fail to distinguish between the service and the public functions of the State. Jefferson, Calhoun and Benton were not deceived in this regard: they were all earnest promoters of national roads, the one form which public ownership then presented in politics. The power of the state to suppress is one thing; the power to supply comforts is another. It is difficult to see why a self-governed people should not have at its disposal the highest service which the state can give, or, in other words, which the people collectively may adopt for the common good. Our difficulty lies in the fact that the service functions have been so universally farmed out to private profit, that their wealthy possessors have tremendous motive to obtain or further acquire them; hence they eagerly teach us from the kindergarten to the college, that there is something inherently wrong the State, but that somehow in a democracy the social services ought to be delivered over by the State to irresponsible corporations for gain. So far has this expensive practice miseducated our people, that we must now actually begin to preach the truth that these functions come from the State, indeed, are the State, and those who exercise them are mere delegates. The whole public-ownership proposition is for a resumption by the State of services which have been falsely delegated. Happily, most of them are merely rented, not sold. That the State may resume these functions seems clear; but the average politician appears to think that somewhere beyond the Constitution is some higher right in certain individuals to exercise state power, which the State ought not to possess. Hence the extraordinary spectacle of legislators hastening to give away state franchises, because the State ought not to possess them. They arrive at the astonishing conclusion that functions of state should be exercised by irresponsible individuals, while the constitutions are full of guaranties against the usurpation of public functions by private individuals. Now, as Mr. MacKaye points out, these delegates of the State have become greater than the State, a right and natural penalty for the violation of the democratic scheme. Thus we get the oligarchy transacting the public business by legislative grant. If once our people can overcome their perverted teachings, they will realize that they have as much power to do good to themselves by contributing to their own comfort, as they have by keeping the bad from interfering with their happiness. Mr. MacKaye points out to us, so that the dullest may understand, the lines upon which our democracy should develop; and his remarkable article should be a Democratic campaign document, to be first studied by those who assume to be Democratic leaders and statesmen. It is wrong to credit every move along lines of social service to "socialism," because Democracy actually contains within itself the full range of social service. That the Socialistic school has brought us back to a realization of the real functions of our Democracy may well be conceded. Abeyance is, however, not destruction. One position maintained by Mr. MacKaye shows that he has not been deluded by the notion that the social function of the State should and must stop at the limits of highway monopoly. To be sure, our courts have landed us on this absurdity, but constitutions (and, it may be timidly remarked, courts themselves) may be changed. The fact is that the line between public and private utilities is a vanishing line. And Mr. MacKaye rightly apprehends that an existent private monopoly is ipso facto a social quantity. Indeed, all monopoly is something socialized. When any human need can be withheld by any one man or group of men, surely the deprived have a right to the service of the State in supplying the need. When coal or oil were free to commerce they were, to be sure, social needs, but being free they were within the area of individual exploitation; when, as now, they are controlled, that all mankind may be levied upon, they become active social factors. If they have the power to tax humanity at will, they are monstrosities, and the government which has not the power to furnish the social service, thus usurped, is at heart not a real democracy. Once in attempting to maintain that a proper development of state functions would begin with recognized public utilities, Mr. Wilshire answered me that the beginning would be made with the private monopoly which pressed the hardest upon the people; probably he was right. Then our line between public and private utilities may be snapped altogether. But why discuss socialized private utilities when we seem even now utterly unprepared for the idea that our people ought to control and manage their own highways? Mr. MacKaye is right in alleging that industrial despotism is incompatible with democracy; and it may be that even now our Republic is fighting for its life-with creatures of its own making. GEORGE FRED. WILLIAMS. controlled; state affairs, state controlled; municipal affairs, municipally controlled; local affairs, locally controlled, and individual affairs, individually controlled. The classification of the different varieties of socialism is unusual, but helpful to clear thinking. The fallacy that "government control" will "take the corporations out of politics" is trenchantly exposed. Too often, when such attempts have been made, the industrial giants have "controlled the controllers, regulated the regulators, and restrained the restrainers." The illogical position of the "super democratic" socialist who, to obtain equality, would sacrifice Democracy, is well brought out. The type of this fallacy in America was, of course, the old Bellamy "Nationalism." This also, by its very title, ignored the necessity of the various forms of control other than national, indicated above. A familiar socialist principle is found in the statement that "Capitalism has already brought about oligarchical socialism in production. All that is now required is to convert it into DemocraticSocialism." This is one of the consolations of the evolution philosophy. Apart from the use of the word "happiness" the "socialistic syllogism" would be hard to improve upon. The fact that political democracy necessitates industrial democracy, and that to retain the former we must advance to the latter is a familiar truth that cannot be too often repeated. Timid souls may well be reassured by the fact that, with the referendum, society can readily recover from an overdose of collectivism. If it "take over" things it has no use for, it will, by experience, readily discover the fact, and can then easily "unload." The real reason why the "fathers" of the American constitution so absurdly limited the powers of a professedly democratic republic is made clear; the evil fruit born by this policy is daily becoming more manifest. In this connection, however, attention should be called to the "elastic clause" of the constitution. The possibilities revealed by the Hamiltonians, notably John Marshall, of "interpretation," should be more generally recognized. Constitution "stretching" is a game that two can play at. If an aristocratic, oligarchical court can stretch the Constitution in the interest of the corporations, another court, in sympathy with the people and the working-classes, can stretch it in favor of these. existence, whether individual or social, seems unfortunate. This, of course, was the basis of the old Benthamite “philosophical radicalism" which played so important a part in the thinking of the middle of the nineteenth century. "Happiness" is a term too easily misunderstood. As in the case of the Epicurean philosophy, it leads, with the crowd, too readily to mere sensualism. Carlyle well said that there was something higher than happiness; namely, "blessedness." "Health," "wholeness,"" completeness,' all connote more wholesome conceptions than the term "happiness." As the clergyman said, there is a wide difference between, "O! Be joyful!" and "O! Be jolly!" Again, we should concede to the conservatives the proposition that no form of government, administration, or social adjustment will, in and of itself, insure happiness or any higher good. The best that it can do is to afford larger opportunities for these things. After all, "The mind is its own place, Can make a heaven of hell, This, however, involves no modification of the writer's old-time position, that social maladjustment has, certainly in modern times, produced more "hell" than all other forces combined. As to communism, it is probably true that, as capitalism tends towards socialism, so socialism will tend toward communism. The practical difficulties in the way of full-orbed communism are, of course, mountain high. Nevertheless, communistic institutions are in existence among us now and are working very satisfactorily. The public street, highway, park, library, and school are, perhaps, more strictly communistic than socialistic; they are certainly not capitalistic. Society likes them and wants more of them. Communistic institutions usually work well when the utilities Now, as to criticisms: cally unlimited in amount. We are all willing that well-disposed persons shall "help themselves" freely to the use of streets, parks, and libraries. It is only when the supply is limited that "helping one's self" is liable to work ill. But the development of production on a vast scale points to a time when many things now bought and sold may be utilized gratis; for example, street-car lines, telephone and postal facilities, entertainment, as in Athens, and the simpler forms of food and shelter. But it is in discussing "Revolutionism" that Mr. MacKaye errs most greivously. The Marxian criticism of Mr. MacKaye's paper would be that it is the view of a middle-class intellectual." The differentiation, less sharp and general than doctrinaires have assumed, but in the factory town or mining region sufficiently obvious, of society into two classes with clearly antagonistic immediate interests; the essentially slave character of such a society, and the need of emancipation, as speedy and complete as possible, of these helots, is conspicuously absent. Mr. MacKaye's grouping of socialist plans, "the only two worth discussion," into "Revolutionary" and "Fabian," his statement that representatives of the former "seek to accomplish their objects not by degrees, but abruptly," and "to immediately establish the coöperative commonwealth,” and his further statement that the Socialist party of the United States stands for this plan, is amusing. One is led to wonder where he got his information. The view he describes does represent the view of the Socialist Labor party which, in its platform, demands the "summary end" of the present system. But that organization has been reduced to the shadow of a shade. would do well to read the Socialist platform, especially the fifth section. The State and municipal program formulated at the last national convention are also worthy of his careful perusal. If still in doubt, he would do well to correspond with the Socialist national office at Chicago. 66 66 66 The fact is that the doctrine of the summary end" was once the accepted creed of the socialist movement, as the doctrine of the summary end of the present evil world," and the sudden appearing" of the Lord, followed by the reorganization of all things earthly, was once the accepted doctrine of Christendom. Those who now hold either view are almost too few to consider. These 'summary enders" in the Socialist party are, at times, however, exceedingly aggressive and noisy, and Mr. MacKaye may have met some of them. The Socialist party, as an organization, stands for evolutionary and not revolutionary methods. 66 Since Fabians are also evolutionists, the question arises as to the difference between them and socialist party evolutionists. The chief difference lies in the maintenance, by the latter, of an organization of their own. The question next arises as to the utility of a separate organization. The value of this is found, in part, in the opportunity thus afforded the body of members to formulate a distinctive and consistent body of doctrine, and to stand for this, definitely and aggressively, all the time, the time, instead of being obliged, fusion-reformer-like, to stand for an infinitely attenuated, homeopathic dose of their creed. Populism abandoning most of its platform except the relatively unimportant free-silver plank, and finally losing even that, illustrates the weakness of the latter position. Second, a compact organization with a clearly defined program, and a body of resolute workers not confused and demoralized by entangling alliances, can force the old parties on to the perform |