Category: Socialism

American colleges and universities have historically served as an important feeding ground for research and teaching of socialist political and economic ideas. Harry W. Laidler (b. 1884; d. 1970) was the junior among the founding fathers of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS) in 1905 who included Upton Sinclair and Jack London. Laidler, who received his Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University in 1914, headed the ISS and its successor organization, the League for Industrial Democracy, from 1914 until 1957. Counted among the membership were the University of Chicago economist, later Senator from Illinois, Paul H. Douglas,  the public intellectual Walter Lippmann (himself a member of visiting committees for the Harvard economics department) and the Harvard sociologist, Talcott Parsons.

Harry Laidler served as president of the National Bureau of Economic Research from 1930 to 1932 and from 1948 to 1949. He was the head of the NBER Board of Directors from 1932 to 1934. It may come as a surprise to many of those active in today’s NBER research networks that Laidler was a trusted confidante and campaign adviser of the Socialist Party candidate for the U.S. Presidency in 1928 and 1932, Norman Thomas. In other words, Laidler was sort of a fringe-establishment Bernie Bro and a life-long Brooklynite!

Laidler’s father was a salesman and he was raised by his uncle Theodore Atworth, who himself was a socialist and former president of the Photo Engravers Union. Laidler graduated from Wesleyan University in 1907, having earlier attended the newly established American Socialist College in Wichita, Kansas from 1903-1904. Before earning his doctorate in economics from Columbia, he graduated in 1910 with a law degree from Brooklyn Law School where he attended classes in the evenings while working as a reporter for the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper. Boycotts and the Labor Struggle was the subject of his 1914 doctoral dissertation, supervised by Professor Henry R. Seager. Over his career Harry Laidler wrote or edited some fifty books and pamphlets.  In his New York Times obituary his books Social-Economic Movements (1949) and The History of Socialism (1968) were named.

The Harry W. Laidler Papers are kept at the Tamiment Library and Robert F. Wagner Labor Archive of New York University’s Elmer Holmes Bobst Library.

The following pamphlet provides a very handy bibliographic guide to the enormous changes that took place in the socialist movements across the world in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and the end of “The Great War”. It updates a 1919 pamphlet that was clearly superseded by subsequent events.

Pro-tip: The keyword “Socialism” links you to many other related artifacts here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

______________________

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SOCIALISM
with Bibliographies and Directory

COMPILED FOR THE
LEAGUE FOR INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY
70 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK CITY

BY HARRY W. LAIDLER, PH.D.

Since the armistice of November, 1918, significant changes have taken place within the Socialist and labor movements of the world. At the time of the armistice, revolutions were sweeping Europe. The Russians were celebrating the first anniversary of their November revolution. Hungary was plunging into Communism. Germany and Austria were undergoing political revolutions; new republics, such as Czecho-Slovakia, were springing up almost daily. The Italian workers were in revolt. The Belgians were rejoicing in their new boon of equal suffrage. The Social Democrats were in control in Germany, Austria and Czecho-Slovakia, and exerted a strong influence in the cabinets of other countries. To many the only alternative to a Social Democratic Europe seemed to be a Communist Europe.

The Socialist and Communist offensive, however, spent it self—at least for the time being—and, during the last few years, a distinct capitalist and monarchist reaction has set in. These movements are far stronger than they were before the war, but, at present writing, they are distinctly on the defensive. Their position has been rendered ever more difficult by the numerous splits in their own ranks. The reaction is fortunately welding the workers together again and labor is now preparing to “come back” as the one great, constructive force to be found on the European continent.

These developments have had a profound effect on Socialist theory and tactics. They have given world-wide circulation to the doctrines of Bolshevism or the newer communism, and have brought to the fore the conflict between the ideals of democracy and dictatorship and those of parliamentary representation and Sovietism.

In February, 1919, the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, the predecessor of the League for Industrial Democracy, published a pamphlet, “Study Courses in Socialism”, briefly outlining the developments of the movement to that period.*

The present pamphlet is an attempt to supplement the 1919 publication and bring it up-to-date. It is prepared primarily for college discussion classes, but may be of interest to the general reader.

_______________

*The League has a few more of these pamphlets in stock, for use in study classes. This former pamphlet is rather a detailed syllabus of the theory and practice of the movement until the close of the war.
_______________

THE INTERNATIONALS.

Prior to the World War Socialists of Europe were united in the Second International. The war split this body into two or more hostile camps. It was some months before any conference was called among the Socialists of different nations. In the beginning of 1915, demands that the Socialists act in behalf of peace began to make themselves heard and during the next few years frequent conferences were held by comrades of the allied and neutral nations for the purpose of considering the best way of bringing about an early peace. The 1918 Inter-Allied Socialist conference denounced all imperialistic designs of the warring countries, favored the principle of self-determination, and condemned the idea of an economic war after the peace. The one group of Socialists including in their conferences, comrades from both the Allies and the Central Powers were the “Zimmerwaldians”, most of them extreme, anti-war Socialists. These conferences were in a sense the forerunners of the Third International.

During the war, differences of opinion arose regarding the relation of labor to the warring governments, and later concerning the tactics adopted by the Russian Bolsheviks. With the coming of peace, these differences gave rise to the formation of a number of “internationals” bitterly opposed to one another.

1. The moderate Socialists who, for the most part, had supported their respective governments during the war, remained in the Second International. These included the British and Belgian Labor parties, the German Social Democratic party, the Swedish Socialists and similar groups.
2. Those Socialists who had taken a more militantly anti-war position, but who refused to commit themselves to the Bolshevik tactics, formed the so-called “Vienna” or “Second-and-a-Half” International. Under the banner of this organization were included the Austrian and Swiss Social Democracies, the British Independent Labor party, the German Independent Socialists, the French Socialists, and, more recently, the American Socialist party.
3. The Russian Bolsheviks formed the Third International. The Bolsheviks agreed with the members of the Vienna group in their anti-war position. They differed, however, in their advocacy of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, of the Soviet form of government, and of immediate social revolutions throughout Europe through the employment of Bolshevik tactics. The last demand was based upon the belief that the European masses were ready for revolution and were waiting only for the leadership of a determined revolutionary minority; furthermore, that only through social revolution in western and central Europe could the fruits of the Russian revolution be preserved. The Third International, organized in Moscow in March, 1919, was dominated almost entirely by the Russian Bolsheviks. The chief members of the party outside of Russia were the French and German communists.
4. A small group of communists in Germany, England, Holland and one or two other countries formed, in 1921, a Fourth International, in the belief that the Third had become the agent of the compromising Russian government, and could no longer lead the revolution.

A split also developed within the trade union movement of Europe with the organization of the “Red” Trade Union International, as opposed to the “Amsterdam” International Federation of Trade Unions—the latter still representative of the great mass of organized workers outside of Russia.

The formation of communist parties in the various European countries failed to produce the hoped-for revolution. Instead, the spasmodic and often ill-advised rebellions of the communists, the weakened condition of the movement as a result of its internal fights, the intense period of unemployment and the war-weariness of the masses, gave added impetus to the forces of reaction. The unexpected strength of this reaction, among other forces, led “Moscow” to demand that the European workers join once more in a “united front”. During the Spring of 1922, the three Internationals sought some method of federation, but conferences looking to that end were unsuccessful. Present indications point to a union of the Second and Vienna Internationals within the next few months and to a more gradual rapprochement with the Communist International.

EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

During the last two years, the European Socialists have been engaged largely in defensive warfare.

The British Labor party during 1920–22 gained a number of seats in by-elections and entered the November General Elections with a representation of about 74 in the House of Commons. This was increased as a result of the elections of 1922 to about 140 seats, thus making Labor the second party in the country. In Sweden, the leader of the Swedish Socialists, Branting, was chosen Premier.

In Germany, the Independent Socialists split, a strong minority forming a communist party. The failure of the March “putsch” of 1921 greatly weakened this party, and, at present writing, its influence is waning. The Independent Socialists, in the early fall of 1922, joined forces again with the Majority Socialists, thus forming the most powerful single party in the country. The United Social Democratic party (the new consolidated party) and the communists control over 40 per cent of the seats in the Reichstag. President Ebert, the moderate Social Democratic president, will retain office, as a result of a recent vote in the Reichstag, until 1925. The Socialists and trade unionists in 1920 crushed, largely by means of a general strike, the attempt of Kapp to place the monarchists in power. Many prominent Socialists, including Hugo Haase, were assassinated during the course of the reaction by the bullets of their opponents. While the socialists are at present represented in the Wirth cabinet, they are not as yet in the majority.

Since the social revolution of November, 1917, in Russia, the Soviet government has been compelled to give its main attention to fighting foes without and within. During the last year, on account of insurmountable obstacles confronting a thorough going communist industrial order, they have adopted a new economic policy, and have granted extensive concessions to private owners. They have, however, retained in governmental hands the main industries of the country. Chief attention has of late been directed to the opening up of commercial relations with other countries.

Following the World War, the Italian Socialists won a notable victory, increasing their representation from between 70 and 80 to 156—about one-third the entire parliamentary representation. In the summer and early fall of 1920, during a strike of the metal workers, factories were seized throughout the country, employers were ousted and the metal workers proceeded for a short period to run industry. Later they com promised and returned the factories to their original owners. This action gave to Mussolini, former Socialist, and his followers, the ultra-nationalistic Fascisti, an excuse for a relentless campaign of violence against the Socialist, trade union and cooperative movements. The split of the movement into the Socialist and communist branches further weakened the radicals and whetted the enthusiasm of the Fascisti.

In the 1921 elections Socialists and communists elected 125 representatives, despite the Fascisti terrorism at the polls. Since then scores of labor groups have joined the Fascisti movement, which is now in part a nationalistic syndicalist movement, and the Fascisti have become the undisputed rulers of Italy. Whether it will have to make great concessions to the masses in order to keep their allegiance, or will be the tool of the reaction until driven from power, it is too early to say.

The French Socialists also split, following the war, into the Communist party, the majority group, and the Socialist party. The communists have at present the larger party membership, though the French Socialist party has the greater number of adherents in the Chamber of Deputies. The two parties are represented in the Chamber of Deputies by between 60 and 70 seats, as against 101 prior to the war. The trade union movement has been greatly weakened in recent years.

The 1921 election of the Belgian Labor party gave that party some 66 seats in the lower house and over 40 in the senate. Before the war there were 40 in the house and a mere handful in the senate. Belgium now enjoys universal and equal manhood suffrage.

The Socialists in Austria and Czecho-Slovakia were in power immediately after the revolution, but, as a result of the split, later became minority forces. The Austrian Social Democracy controls between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of the seats in the national chamber. The Czecho-Slovakian Social Democratic party is represented also in the cabinet by several members. In Hungary, Jugo-Slavia and Rumania, the reactionary governments have done their best to suppress the radical movements in their respective countries.

While in the large majority of the European countries, the working class political movements are proportionately far more influential than in 1914, they have, for the most part, been compelled to mark time during the past two years, and in a number of instances have retrogressed. Between 1914 and 1920 the trade union movement more than doubled in numbers. The past year of unemployment and reaction has caused a consider able loss in membership, due in part to economic depression and unemployment, in part to the pressure of the reaction, and in part to excesses and to dissensions within the ranks of labor.

THE UNITED STATES.

The Socialist movement in the United States during and after the war was profoundly influenced by the political and economic currents abroad. Throughout the war the Socialist party maintained a consistent anti-war attitude. In the latter part of 1917 this position led to a considerable increase in its membership. As the war advanced, however, and the government began its prosecutions, the party membership and the party votes decreased.

During the early part of 1919, opposition manifested itself within the party on the ground that its anti-war position had not been militant enough and that it had failed to adopt the tactics of the Russian Bolsheviks. This opposition at first organized itself into a distinct “Left Wing” within the Socialist party. A portion of the Left Wing, composed largely of the Russian federations, broke away from the party during the spring and summer of 1919, and in the fall of that year formed the Communist party. Another portion seceded from the party during the fall convention in Chicago, and organized a Communist Labor party—the chief difference between the Communist party and the Communist Labor party being the dominance in the former of the Russian group. The Communist Labor party later amalgamated with the non-Russian elements in the Communist party. forming the United Communist party.

In the meanwhile many leaders in these organizations were arrested under State syndicalist laws and sentenced to prison. The party headquarters were entered, the literature and other property confiscated or destroyed. “Agents provocateurs” were hired to spy on the members and no stone was left unturned in an effort to suppress the “red peril”.

These parties were thus compelled to function, in part at least, as “underground” organizations. One of the charges which the remnants of the Communist party made against the United Communist party was that the latter made no guaranty in its constitution that it would remain underground. They claimed that it might at any moment come out as an open-and above-board group.

In the meanwhile another Left Wing group was developing within the Socialist party. After the Socialists had refused to join the Third International, this group likewise seceded, joined hands in the late fall of 1921 with various communist elements and formed a “legal communist party”, known as the Workers’ party.

Bereft of its left-wingers, the Socialist party—now greatly reduced in membership—sought an alliance with other groups. In February, 1922, it sent representatives to a conference called by some of the leaders of the railway brotherhoods, and unofficially assisted in launching the rather loose organization known as the Conference for Progressive Political Action.

In New York State, the party participated, in the summer of 1922, in the formation of the American Labor party, consisting of a number of trade unions, the Farmer–Labor party and the Socialist. The American Labor party was modeled somewhat after the British Labor party. The party is now strongest in Wisconsin, where it elected Victor L. Berger to Congress in the November, 1922, elections, and controls the office of mayor in Milwaukee.

Another Labor party was formed in Chicago in 1919, and in the succeeding year, as the Farmer–Labor party, nominated a presidential ticket headed by Parley Parker Christensen, and secured 265,411 votes, as compared with 919,799 obtained by Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist party candidate, then, in prison. Other radical or progressive movements functioning during the past few years have been the National Non-Partisan League, which, at times, completely controlled the State of North Dakota; and the Committee of Forty-eight, which has recently helped in the organization of several Liberal parties, primarily in the western states. The November, 1922, elections which sent to the U. S. Senate Shipstead, representing the Farmer-Labor party in Minnesota, Frazier, of the North Dakota Nonpartisan League, Brookhart of Iowa, Dill of Washington, La Follette of Wisconsin, etc., and that elected Sweet to the governorship of Colorado, is indicative of the wide-spread dissatisfaction existing with the conservative group in the old parties, a dissatisfaction which seems likely ultimately to express itself in a powerful labor and farmer party.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ON “POST-WAR DEVELOPMENTS.”

The Internationals: Laidler, “Socialism”, etc., pp. 283-307; Dutt, “The Two Internationals” (London, Labour Pub. Co.); Labour Research Department, “International Labour Handbook” (London, Labour Pub. Co.); Rand School, “American Labor Year Book,” 1919-20, p. 311-20; 1921-22 (N.Y., Hanford Press); Postgate, “Workers’ Internationals” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1920). Zimand, “Modern Social Movements,” p. 127; Lenin, “The Collapse of the Second International,” (Glasgow, Socialist Labor Press). See also files of Labour Monthly, Labor Age, The Nation, Current History, Socialist Review.

Russia.—(1) Bibliography: Zimand, “Modern Social Movements” (N.Y., H. W. Wilson, 1921), pp. 231-251; Clark, Evans, “Facts and Fabrications About Soviet Russia” (N.Y., Rand School, 1920; pamphlet); International Labor Office, Bibliography on Russia, 1920; Bloomfield, in selected articles on Modern Industrial Movement, 1919.

(2) Descriptive: Brailsford, “Russian Workers’ Republic” (N.Y., Harper, 1921); Ransome, “Russia in 1919” (N.Y., Huebsch, 1919); Williams, Albert Rhys, “Through the Russian Revolution” (N.Y., Boni & Liveright, 1921); Goode, “Bolshevism at Work” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1920); Russell, Bertrand, “Bolshevism, Practice and Theory” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1920, Pt. 2); Humphries, “The Structure of Soviet Russia” (Chicago, Kerr, 1920; pamphlet); Hard, William, “Raymond Robins’ Own Story” (N.Y., Harper, 1920); Price, Phillips, “The Old Order in Europe and the New Order in Russia,” (N Y., Soc. Pub. Soc.); Labour Party Delegation, “British Labor Delegation to Russia 1920” (London, Labour Party); Wells, H. G., “Russia in the Shadows” (N.Y., Doran, 1921); Ross, “Russia in Upheaval” (N.Y., Century, 1918); Lansbury, “What I Saw in Russia” (N.Y., Boni & Liveright, 1920); Bullitt, “The Bullitt Mission to Russia” (N.Y., Huebsch, 1919); McBride, “Barbarous Soviet Russia” (N.Y., Seltzer, 1920); Bullard, “The Russian Pendulum” (N.Y., Macmillan, 1919); Williams, A. R., “Lenin, the Man and His Work” (N.Y., Seltzer, 1919); Leary, “Education and Autocracy in Russia” (Buffalo, Univ. of Buffalo, 1919); Lomonossoff, “Memoirs of the Russian Revolution” (N.Y., Rand School, 1919; pamphlet); Albertson, “Fighting Without a War” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1920); Buxton, “In a Russian Village” (London, Labour Pub. Co., 1922); Hunt, A. R., “Facts About Communist Hungary” (N.Y., People’s Print, 1919); Brailsford, H. N., “Across the Blockade” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1919); Heller, “Industrial Revival in Soviet Russia” (N.Y., Seltzer, 1922); Masaryk, “The Spirit of Russia” (N.Y., Macmillan, 1918); Foster, “The Russian Revolution” (Chicago, Trade Union Educational League, 1922).

(3) Documentary: “Decrees and Constitution of Soviet Russia,” Reprinted from The Nation; Magnes, “Russia and Germany at Brest-Litovsk” (N.Y., Rand School, 1919); Gumming and Pettit, “Russian-American Relations” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1920); U.S. State Department, “The Second Congress of the Communist International” (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1920); “Education and Art in Soviet Russia” (N.Y. Socialist Pub. Soc.; pamphlet); Files of The Nation, Class Struggle, Socialist Review, Labour Monthly, etc.

Great Britain. Zimand, “Modern Social Movements”, pp. 168-173; Gleason, “What the Workers Want” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1920); Laidler, “Socialism”, etc., pp. 409-20; Labour Research Department, “International Labour Handbook”, pp. 252-258; Thomas, “When Labour Rules” (London, W. Collins Sons & Co., 1920); Webb, “Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain” (N.Y., Longmans, 1920); Stewart, “J. Keir Hardie” (London, I.L.P., 1922); Macdonald, “A policy for the Labour Party” (London, Leonard Parsons, 1920); Files of Labour Monthly, Labor Age, Socialist Review, etc.

Continental European Countries, Outside of Russia.—Zimand, “Modern Social Movements”, pp. 160 seq.; Labour Research Department, “International Labour Handbook”, 1919-1920; Young, “The New Germany” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1920); Dannenberg, “Revolution in Germany” (N.Y., Radical Rev. Pub. Assn., 1919); Matthaei, “Germany in Revolution” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1920); Zimand, “German Revolution and After”, in Intercollegiate Socialist, April-May, 1919; Beard, “Cross Currents in Europe Today” (Boston, Marshall Jones Co., 1922); Files of Socialist Review (Dec., 1919, to April-May, 1921); Labor Age (Nov., 1921); The Nation, Labour Monthly, Liberator, Current History, etc.

The United States. Benedict, “The Larger Socialism”; Laidler, “Socialism”, etc., pps. 454-474; in The Socialist Review, “Present Status of Socialism in America”, Jan., 1920; Socialist Party of the U. S., “Political Guide for the Workers” (Chicago, Soc. Pty., 1920); Solomon, Charles, “Albany Trial” (N.Y., Rand School, 1920); Hillquit, “Socialism on Trial” (N.Y., Huebsch, 1920); Karsner, “Debs: His Authorized Life” (N.Y., Boni & Liveright, 1919); Zimand, “Modern Social Movements”, p. 177ff; Rand School, “American Labor Year Book”; see files of The Nation, Labor Age, Liberator, etc.; Russell, C.E., “The Story of the Non-Partisan League” (N.Y., Harper & Bros., 1920); National Non-Partisan League, “Origin, Purpose and Method” (St. Paul, Nat. Non-Partisan League); Gaston, H.E., “Non-Partisan League” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1920).

BOLSHEVISM.

Bolshevism or modern communism differs from Socialism not so much in the ends to be attained as in the means used to attain these ends. The ultimate aim of the Bolshevists is similar to that of the Socialists, a system of industry socially owned and democratically managed for the common good. Bolsheviks contend, however, that labor cannot depend upon the ballot or upon political democracy as a means to that goal. If labor had to wait until it elected a majority of representatives to a national legislature, it would, in most countries, contend the Bolsheviks, take many weary years, especially in view of the corrupting power of the press and other forces of public opinion. And even after labor had attained a majority of seats, there still would be no guarantee that the labor representatives would undertake to socialize industry.

The Bolshevik method of procedure is to organize the intelligent, aggressive, militant minority of the working class population for revolutionary action. Efforts should be made toward this end particularly in “strategic” or “key” industries such as the railroads, telegraphs, telephones, electric lights, mines, etc., as well as in the army and navy. The members of these revolutionary groups, Bolsheviks say, should be subjected to strong discipline. Local groups should give implicit obedience to central committees of action, and should do their best to permeate the rank and file of labor with the Bolshevik philosophy.

At a favorable moment, they should begin a concerted effort for the capture of the government. The army and navy or important portions of it should be swung into the ranks of the revolutionists. The agencies of transportation and communication and the public press should be seized, and utilized in behalf of the revolution; old officials should be ousted; the old democratic forms abolished, and Soviets of workers, peasants and soldiers should supplant representative legislatures.

According to Bolshevik tactics, this capture of the state should be succeeded by a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. In establishing this dictatorship, the workers should disfranchise non-producers, extending the right to vote only to workers. The farming population should be represented, but should have proportionately a smaller representation than has the city worker. Opposition papers should be temporarily suppressed; counter-revolutionary movements put down with an iron hand, and the Soviets should proceed immediately upon a comprehensive program of socialization. Side by side with this action, an international of the workers should be formed for the purpose of stimulating immediate revolution in other countries. Following the transition period, freedom of discussion should be restored and, with the elimination of parasitism, the franchise should again be made practically universal.

The Soviet form of government, as advocated by the Bolsheviks, is pyramidal in form. Groups of workers in local districts elect delegates to the local Soviets; these delegates, in turn, elect representatives to the provincial Soviets and the latter chose the representatives to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets. The national congress elects a central executive committee of 200. This executive committee chooses the Commissars, which constitute the most important administrative body. The Commissars are in charge of foreign affairs, education, finance, justice, etc. The economic functions are centralized in the Supreme Economic Council, a cabinet department whose membership of 69 consists of 30 representatives from industrial unions, 20 from regional councils, 10 from the central executive committee, 7 from the council of peoples commissaries, and 2 from cooperatives.

The original Bolshevik tactics have been considerably modified during the past few years, owing largely to the failure of social revolutionary movements in other parts of Europe, and to the fact that the peasants, who constitute the great majority of the population, had to be conciliated. The Bolsheviks have recently granted an increased measure of free discussion to their opponents, have brought numerous non-Bolshevik elements into the government, are granting to private employers the right to own and operate certain industries and are leasing out other industries to private managers.

The critics of Bolshevism maintain that the Bolsheviks erred in basing their tactics so largely on the assumption that revolutions were about to break out in other European countries; in adopting anti-social means, such as violence, to attain social ends; in assuming that such a semi-feudalistic system as existed in Russia could be transformed at a single step into a cooperative commonwealth, and that a highly centralized and comparatively inexperienced Soviet government, after thus socializing the entire industrial structure, could run this structure efficiently; in failing adequately to consider the economic beliefs and the potential power of the large mass of slowly moving peasants; in excluding from the government the non-Bolshevik revolutionary elements; in failing to bring to its aid from the very beginning the technicians and other intellectual forces of the community; and in trying to superimpose upon the labor movements of other countries tactics which may have been necessary and desirable in a semi-feudal, agricultural country like Russia, but which are not adaptable to countries with a widely different economic, social and political background.

The recent change in front of the Soviet government indicates that the Bolsheviks themselves now admit, at least in part, the justice of many of these criticisms.

Socialist, critics of the Bolsheviks, however, maintain that much of the present distress in Russia today is due largely to the blockade and to the fact that the Bolsheviks were compelled to divert most of their attention from economic reconstruction to military operations against internal and external forces that were assisted with money and ammunition supplied by the capitalist governments of Western Europe.

Socialists maintain that the Russian government should be immediately recognized, and that all trade restrictions with Russia should be removed. Russia is now a great laboratory of economic experimentation. The world should know the value of this experiment to economic progress. But it is impossible to know what elements in this experiment may be valuable, what elements should be discarded, unless Russia is given a free hand to work out its own destiny.

It must be added that the success or failure of Bolshevism in a country like Russia proves little regarding the probable success of social ownership in a country where economic and social conditions are more advanced

(1) Favoring: Postgate, “The Bolshevik Theory” (N.Y., Dodd, Mead & Co., 1920); Lenin, “The State and Revolution” (London, Socialist Labour Press); Paul, Eden and Cedar, “Creative Revolution” (London, Geo. Allen & Unwin, 1920); Marchand, Rene, “Why I Support Bolshevism” (London, British Socialist Party); Litvinoff, “The Bolshevik Revolution—Its Rise and Meaning” (Chicago, Socialist Party, 1920); Kameneff, “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (London, Communist Party of Great Britain; pamphlet); Lenin, “Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?” (London, Labour Pub. Co., 1922); Lenin, “The Land Revolution in Russia” (London, Indep. Labour Party, 1919; pamphlet); Lenin, “Left Wing” Communism (London, Communist Party); Lenin, “The Soviets at Work” (N.Y., Rand School, 1918; pamphlet); Lenin, and Trotsky, “Proletarian Revolution in Russia” (N.Y., Communist Press, 1918); Trotsky, “From October to Brest-Litovsk” (Brooklyn, N.Y., Soc. Pub. Soc., 1919); Trotsky, “A Defence of Terrorism”; Losovsky, “The International Council of Trade and Industrial Unions” (N.Y., Union Pub. Co.; pamphlet); Trotsky, “Dictatorship vs. Democracy” (N.Y., Workers’ Party, 1922).

(2) Critical of: Russell, Bertrand, “Bolshevism; Practice and Theory” (N.Y., Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1920, Part 2); Kautsky, “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (Girard, Ks. Appeal to Reason, 1920); Spargo, “Bolshevism” (N.Y., Harpers, 1919); Russell, C. E., “Bolshevism and the U. S.” (Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1919); Walling, W. E., “Sovietism” (N.Y., Dutton, 1920); Kerensky, “Prelude to Bolshevism” (N.Y., Dodd, Mead & Co., 1919); Hillquit, “From Marx to Lenin” (N.Y., Hanford Press, 1921).

RECENT LITERATURE ON SOCIALIST THEORY.

“Study Courses in Socialism”, referred to above, mentioned the most important books published prior to 1919 on such phases of Socialism as Utopian Socialism, Marxism, Guild Socialism, etc., as well as on the facts of the present system. In the following pages we are adding to that list some of the most significant additions.

For thorough bibliographies on Socialism, Guild Socialism, Syndicalism, Bolshevism, and other fundamental social solutions, together with summaries of these movements, the student’s attention is called to the recent volume by Savel Zimand’s “Modern Social Movements”, published 1921 by the H. W. Wilson Company ($1.00; 260 pages). No group should be without this invaluable guide to social literature the most comprehensive volume of its kind in any language. This volume also contains bibliographies on the trade union movement, cooperation, copartnership, national industrial councils, single tax, anarchism, etc.

May we add to the list of text books presented in our former syllabus, Laidler’s “Socialism in Thought and Action”, published by Macmillan Company in 1920 ($2.60; 574 pages), and used as a text book in more than a score of colleges. This book follows the general outline of the syllabus and describes Socialist development up to January, 1920. Beer’s “History of British Socialism”, in two volumes is the most important contribution of the period to Socialist history. (Published by Harcourt, Brace & Howe). Additions to the literature on various phases of Socialist thought following the 1919 syllabus, include:

SECTION I INDICTMENT OF CAPITALISM.

Recent Books: Chase, “The Challenge of Waste”, with bibliography on waste (L.I.D. pamphlet, 1922, 10 cents); Laidler, “Socialism in Thought and Action”, Chs. I-II; Committee of Federated American Engineering Societies (Hoover Engineers), “Waste in Industry” (Chicago, McGraw-Hill Co.); Bruere, “The Coming of Coal” (N.Y., Association Press);Archbald, “The Four-Hour Day in Coal” (N.Y., Harcourt, Brace & Co.); Page, “Industrial Facts” (N.Y., Doran, 10 cents); National Bureau of Economic Research, “The Income in the United States” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1921); Committee of Inquiry of Interchurch World Movement, “Report of the Steel Trust, 1920”, “Public Opinion and the Steel Strikes, 1921” (N.Y., Harcourt); Sinclair, “The Brass Check” (Pasadena, Cal., Sinclair); Veblen, “The Engineers and the Price System” (N.Y., Huebsch, 1921); Howard, “The Labor Spy” (N.Y., New Republic, 1921); Pettigrew, “Triumphant Plutocracy” (N.Y., Academy Press, 1921); Angell, “The Press and the Organization of Society” (London, Labour Pub. Co., 1922); Claessens, “The Trinity of Plunder” (N.Y., Academy Press, 1922); Nearing, “The American Empire” (N, Y., Hanford Press, 1921).

Attention is particularly called to Stuart Chase’s admirable pamphlet referred to above. It would be well for student groups to obtain a copy of this pamphlet for each of their members (special rates for students) and use it as the basis for discussion at one or more meetings. “Industrial Facts”, by Kirby Page, another 10 cent pamphlet, is also strongly urged for study classes. The most comprehensive study of waste is that of the Hoover engineers. The best study of the division of the national income is the National Bureau of Economic Research findings. A most interesting development of recent years has been the growing acknowledgment on the part of engineers and business men that the present way of doing business is exceedingly wasteful and inefficient.

SECTION II. UTOPIAN SOCIALISM.

Add: Zimand, “Modern Social Movements,” p. 149.

SECTION III. MARXIAN SOCIALISM.

Add: Hillquit, “Socialism from Marx to Lenin” (N.Y., Hanford Press, 1921); Laidler, “Socialism”, etc., Chs. III-IV; Zimand, “Modern Social Movements,” pp. 150-2; Loria, “Karl Marx” (N.Y., Seltzer, 1920); Beer, “The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx” (London, National Labour Press, 1921); Portus, “Marx and Modern Thought” (New South Wales, Workers’ Educational Association, 1921); Benedict, “The Larger Socialism” (N.Y., Macmillan, 1921); Le Rossignol, “What Is Socialism?” (Anti-Marxist), (N.Y., Crowell, 1921).

SECTION IV. THE SOCIALIST STATE.

Add: Webb, “A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain” (N.Y., Longmans, 1920); Laidler, “Socialism”, etc., Ch. V.; Glasier “The Meaning of Socialism” (N.Y., Seltzer, 1920); Rathenau, “The New Society” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1921); Hunter, “Why We Fail as Christians” (N.Y., Macmillan, 1919); Vandervelde, “Socialism vs. The State” (Chicago, Kerr & Co., 1919); Nearing, “The Next Step” (Ridgewood, N. J., The Author, 1922).

SECTION V. GUILD SOCIALISM AND SYNDICALISM.

Add: (1) Cole, “Guild Socialism (Restated)” (N.Y., Fred. Stokes, 1920); Hobson (S. G.), “National Guilds and the State” (N.Y., Macmillan, 1920); Reckitt and Bechhofer, “The Meaning of National Guilds” (Revised edition, N.Y., Macmillan, 1920); Zimand, “Modern Social Movements”, pp. 175-207. (2) Scott, “Syndicalism and Philosophic Realism” (London, A. C. Black, 1919); Laidler, “Socialism”, etc., Ch. VI; Zimand, “Modern Social Movements”, pp. 207-227.

The Guild Socialists of England during the last few years have been rent by a conflict between the communists, who emphasized the need of a strong, centralized state, at least during the transitional period, and those who emphasized decentralized producers’ control. Mr. Cole, the leading figure in the movement, has gradually swung around to the point of view that the guildsmen erred in working out their future state in too great detail. The Orage group in the movement is giving increasing attention to the transformation of the credit system.

SECTION VI. TENDENCIES TOWARD SOCIALISM.

Add: Zimand, “Modern Social Movements”, pp. 5-113; Laidler, “Socialism”, etc., Ch. VII; Goodrich, “The Frontier of Control” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1920); Chiozza-Money, “The Triumph of Nationalization (London, Cassell, 1920); Savage, “Industrial Unionism” (N.Y., Button, 1922); Webb, “Consumers’ Cooperative Movement” (N.Y., Longmans, 1922); Woolf, “Cooperation and the Future of Industry” (London, Geo. Allen & Unwin, 1919); Sennichsen, “Consumers’ Cooperation” (N.Y., Macmillan, 1919); Redfern, “The Consumer’s Place in Society” (Manchester, Cooperative Union, 1920); Gleason, “What the Workers Want” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1920); Beer, “History of Socialism” (N.Y., Harcourt, Vol. 2, pp. 363-72, 1920); Howe, “Denmark, A Cooperative Commonwealth” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1921); Nationalization Research Committee, United Mine Workers, “How to Run Coal” (N.Y., Bureau of Industrial Research, 1922); Hodges, Frank, “Nationalization of the Mines” (London, Leonard Parsons, 1920); Foster, “The Railroaders’ Next Step” (Chicago, Trade Union Educational League, 1922); Baker, “The New Industrial Unrest” (N.Y., Harpers, 1920).

The Workers’ Council Movement in Europe is one of the most significant of post-war developments. In this country among the most important steps toward industrial democracy are the gradual emergency of a labor-farmer party, the demand of the miners for social ownership of the mines, the growth of labor banking, labor education, labor research and a labor press service and the increased hold of consumers’ cooperation on the masses.

SECTION VII. OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM.

Add: Hobson, “Incentives in the New Industrial Order” (N.Y., Seltzer, 1922); Dell, “Socialism and Personal Liberty” (N.Y., Seltzer, 1922); Laidler, “Socialism,” etc., Ch. VIII; Glasier, “The Meaning of Socialism”; Boucke, “Limits of Socialism” (N.Y., Macmillan, 1920).

SECTION VIII. DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN SOCIALISM.

Add: Postgate, “The Workers’ Internationals” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1920); Beer, “History of British Socialism”, 2 Vols. (N.Y., Harcourt, 1919-1921); Laidler, “Socialism”, etc., Pt. II; Hillquit, “From Marx to Lenin” (N.Y., Hanford Press, 1921); Files of Socialist Review, Dec., 1919-April, May, 1921; Labour Herald, .Labor Age, Nov., 1921; Labour Monthly (British), August, 1921 to; Bulletin of U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 268, “Historical Survey of International Action Affecting Labor” (Washington, U. S. Dept. of Labor, 1920).

SECTION IX. SOCIALISM AND THE GREAT WAR.

Add: Kellogg and Gleason; “British Labour and the War” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1919); Bevan, “German Social Democracy During the War” (N.Y., Dutton, 1919); Laidler, “Socialism”, etc., Chs. X-XIV; Zimand, “Modern Social Movements,” pp. 123 ff; Oneal, “Labor and the Next War” (Chicago, Socialist Party, 1922).

SECTION X. RECONSTRUCTION NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL.

Add: Gleason, “What the Workers Want” (N.Y., Harcourt, 1920); Hobson, “Problems of the New World” (London, George Allen & Unwin, 1921); Committee on the War and Religious Outlook, “The Church and Industrial Reconstruction” (N.Y., Association Press, 1920); Chiozza-Money, “The Triumph of Nationalization” (London, Cassell & Co., 1921); Ward, “The New Social Order” (N.Y., Macmillan, 1919); Villiers, “Britain After the Peace” (N.Y., Dutton, 1918); Carter (Editor), “Industrial Reconstruction,” a Symposium, (N.Y., Dutton, 1918); Nearing, “Irrepressible America”; Brailsford, “After the Peace” (London, Leonard Parsons, 1920); Turner, “Shall It Be Again?” (N.Y., Huebsch, 1922).

Unfortunately most of these reconstruction plans have thus far failed to materialize.

PARTIAL DIRECTORY OF SOCIAL AGENCIES.

American Labor Party, 3. W. 16th St., N.Y.C. A New York State party composed of trade unionists, Socialists and Farmer-Laborites.

American Association for Labor Legislation, 131 E. 23rd St., N.Y.C. Publishes monthly, “American Labor Legislation Review.”

American Civil Liberties Union, 100 Fifth Ave., N.Y.C. Distributes a weekly service on civil liberties and publishes numerous pamphlets.

American Federation of Labor, Federation Building, Washington, D.C. Publishes monthly, “American Federationist.”

American Federation of Teachers, 166 W. Washington St., Chicago, Ill.

Bureau of Industrial Research, 289 Fourth Ave., N.Y.C. Special research on reorganization of the coal mining industry. Publishes valuable pamphlets.

Church League for Industrial Democracy, 6140 Cottage Grove Ave., Chicago, Ill. Regular membership confined to members of the Episcopal Church.

Committee of Forty-eight, 15 East Fortieth St., N.Y.C. Seeks to crystallize progressive sentiment of the country into liberal party.

Conference for Progressive Political Action, Machinist Building, Washington, D. C. Formed by the railway brotherhoods, machinists, etc. Contains representatives of the Socialist, Farmer-Labor and other parties. Seeks to work out a program of effective political action in behalf of labor.

Co-operative League of America, The, 167 W. 12th St., N.Y.C. Central education bureau of consumers’ cooperative movement of America. Publishes monthly, “Co-operation” and pamphlets on cooperation.

Farmer-Labor Party, 166 W. Washington St., Chicago, Ill.

Farmers’ National Council, Bliss Building, Washington, D. C. A progressive organization of “dirt” farmers.

The Federated Press, 511 N. Peoria St., Chicago, Ill. Labor press bureau supplying daily news service to more than 100 labor papers. Also issues weekly service.

Fellowship of Reconciliation, 396 Broadway, N.Y.C. Stresses the ethical aspects of pacifism and of industrial reorganization.

Friends of Soviet Russia, 201 W. 13th St., N.Y.C. Organized for relief work for Russia. Publishes monthly, “Soviet Russia.”

Industrial Workers of the World, 1001 W. Madison St., Chicago, Ill. Publishes weekly, “Solidarity”, and pamphlets.

International Relation. Clubs, 419 W. 117th St., N.Y.C. College section of the Institute of International Education, formed to throw light on international problems.

The Labor Bureau, Inc., 1 Union Square, N.Y.C. Formed to supply trade unions with statistical information and advice.

League for Industrial Democracy, 70 Fifth Ave., N.Y.C. Object: “Education for a new social order based on production for use and not for profit.” Works within and without the colleges. Publishes literature, schedules lecturers, conducts research, publicity, etc.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 70 Fifth Ave., N.Y.C. Publishes monthly, “The Crisis.”

National Bureau of Economic Research, 465 W. 13th St., N.Y.C. An impartial fact-finding agency. Has published valuable material on distribution of incomes, unemployment, business cycles, etc.

National Council for Prevention of War, 532 Seventeenth St., N.W., Washington, D.C.

National Consumers’ League, 44 E. 23rd St., N.Y.C. Has specialized on labor legislation for women.

National Student Forum, 2929 Broadway, N.Y.C. Seeks to stimulate students to investigate all phases of public questions.

National Women’s Trade Union League, 311 S. Ashland Blvd., Chicago, Ill.

Nationalization Research Committee, United Mine Workers of America, Merchants’ Bank Building, Indianapolis, Ind.

National Non-Partisan League, St. Paul, Minn.

People’s Legislative Service, Southern Building, Washington, D.C. Seeks to keep the country informed regarding federal legislation.

Public Ownership League of America, 127 N. Dearborn St., Chicago, Ill. Publishes monthly, “Public Ownership,” and pamphlets. Specializes on question of municipal and federal ownership.

Rand School of Social Science, 7 E. 15th St., N.Y.C. The Rand Book Store, connected with the school, has the best equipment of books on industrial democracy of any store in the country.

Research Bureau, Social Service Commission of the Federal Council of Churches of America, 105 E. 22nd St., N.Y.C. A research and publicity organization among the churches on social and labor problems.

Social Service Committee of Methodist Church, 150 Fifth Ave., N.Y.C. Research and publicity service.

Socialist Party, 2418 W. Madison St., Chicago, Ill. Publishes weekly, “The Eye Opener”, monthly, “The Socialist World”, and book and pamphlet literature.

Trade Union Educational League, 118 N. LaSalle St., Chicago, Ill. Seeks to promote program of industrial unionism. Publishes monthly, “Labor Herald”, and pamphlets.

Workers’ Education Bureau, 465 W. 23rd St., N.Y.C. Central bureau of the American workers’ educational movement. Publishes text-books and pamphlets.

The Workers’ Party, 799 Broadway, N.Y.C. The “above-ground” communist party of America. Weekly journal, “The Worker”.

Women’s Peace Society, 505 Fifth Ave., N.Y.C.

Women’s Peace Union of the Western Hemisphere, 70 Fifth Ave., N.Y.C.

Among the progressive and radical journals not listed above are:

Monthlies: “Labor Age”, 41 Union Square, N.Y.C.; “World Tomorrow”, 396 Broadway, N.Y.C.; “The National Leader”, 427 Sixth Ave., S. Minneapolis, Minn.; “Locomotive Engineers’ Journal”, B. of L.E. Building, Cleveland, Ohio; “Machinists’ Monthly Journal,” Machinist Bldg., Washington, D.C.; “Survey Graphic”, 112 E. 19th St., N.Y.C.; “Liberator”, 138 W. 13th St., N.Y. C.; “Arbitrator”, 114 E. 31st St., N.Y.C.

Weeklies: “The Nation”, 20 Vesey St., N.Y.C.; “New Republic”, 421 W. 21st St., N.Y.C.; “The Survey”, 112 E. 19th St., N.Y.C.; “New Majority”, 166 W. Washington St., Chicago, Ill.; “The Searchlight”, Woodward Bldg., Washington, D.C.; “Labor”, Machinist Building, Washington, D. C.; “The Freeman”, 116 W. 13th St., N.Y.C.; “Justice” (organ of International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union), 3 W. 16th St., N.Y.C.; “Advance” (organ of Amalgamated Clothing Workers), 31 Union Square, N.Y.C..

Labor Dailies: “N.Y. Call”, 112 Fourth Aye., N.Y.C.; “Milwaukee Leader”, Brisbane Bldg., Milwaukee, Wisconsin; “Minneapolis Daily Star,” 427 Sixth Ave., Minneapolis, Minn.; “Seattle Record,” Seattle, Washington.

The following publishers have devoted very considerable attention to labor and socialist literature:

Chas. H. Kerr & Co., 341 E. Ohio St., Chicago, Ill.; Hanford Press, 7 E. 15th St., N.Y.C.; Academy Press, 112 Fourth Ave., N.Y.C.; Bureau of Industrial Research, 289 Fourth Ave., N.Y.C.; Thos. Seltzer, 5 W. 50th St.; Macmillan Co., 64 5th Ave., N.Y.C.; Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1 W. 47th St., N.Y.C.; B. W. Huebsch, 116 W. 13th St., N.Y.C.; Boni & Liveright, 105 W. 40th St., N.Y.C.

ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ABROAD.

International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland (also 7, Seamore PL, Curzon St., London, W.I. Eng.). The labour bureau of the League of Nations. Publishes a comprehensive monthly, “The International Labour Review”, and a large number of studies on various aspects of the labour movement.

International Cooperative Alliance, 4 Great Smith St., Westminster, London, Eng. The central organization of the international consumers’ movement. Publishes monthly, “The International Cooperative Bulletin”.

The International Federation of Trade Unions, 61 Vondelstraat, Amsterdam, Holland. The federation containing most of the trade unions of the world outside of those in Russia and the United States. Publishes monthly, and supplies a news service.

International Council of Trade and Industrial Unions, Moscow, Russia. The Communist “Red” trade union international.

World Association for Adult Education, 13 John St., Adelphi, London, S.C.2, England.

Political Internationals—For further information concerning the “Second International”, apply to British Labour Party; for “Vienna International”, to Independent Labor Party; for “Third International’ , to Communist Party of Great Britain (address below).

Labour Research Department, 34 Eccleston Square, London, S.W.I., England. A central clearing house for information concerning the international labor, socialist and communist movements. Publishes the “Labour Monthly”, a well-informed journal of the international labor movement, with a communistic slant. Prepared International Labour Handbook and numerous other publications.

Fabian Society, 25 Tothill St., London, S.W.I., England. Makes specialty of scientific and popular pamphlet literature. Publishes monthly, “The Fabian News”.

Guild Socialist League, 39 Cursitor St., London, Eng. Central organization  for Guild Socialist movement in England. Publishes monthly, “The Guild Socialist”, and numerous pamphlets.

Labour Publishing Company, 6 Tavistock Square, London, England. Publishes a large number of important books on the socialist and communist movements.

Daily Herald, 2 Carmelite St., Fleet St., London, E.C.4, England. The official newspaper of the Labour party.

The New Statesman, 10 Great Queen St., London, W.C., England. A weekly of moderate socialist thought.

Foreign Affairs, Great Smith St., Westminster, London, England. A weekly emphasizing the need of a broad internationalism.

The New Age, 38 Cursitor St., London, E.C.4, Eng. Guildsman weekly, interested chiefly in Douglas’ credit plan.

British Labour Party, 33 Eccleston Square, London, S.W.I., England. Publishes weekly news service, a monthly, “The Labour Review” and numerous pamphlets.

Independent Labour Party, 8 and 9 Johnston’s Court, London, E.C.4, Eng. The socialist branch of the British Labour party. Publishes weekly, “The New Leader”, edited by H. N. Brailsford, and monthly, “The Socialist Review”, edited by Ramsay Macdonald.

British Communist Party, 16 King St., Covent Garden, London, W.C.2, Eng. Publishes weekly, “The Communist”, and many leaflets.

University Labour Federation, 33 Eccleston Square, London, S.W.I.,

Eng. University Socialist Federation, 34 Eccleston Square, London, S.W.I., Eng.

For a more complete list of labor and socialist organizations and papers abroad see “International Labour Handbook”, published by Labour Publishing Co., London, Eng., and the “International Labour Directory”, published by the International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland.

This syllabus is published by the LEAGUE FOR INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY. For further information regarding the League’s college and city groups, lectures, literature, conferences, etc., write to the League headquarters, 70 Fifth Avenue, New York City. Among the League pamphlets recommended are “Challenge of Waste”, Stuart Chase (10¢) “Irrepressible America”, Dr. Scott Nearing (10¢); “Express Companies of the U.S.”, Bertram Benedict (10¢); “Freedom in the Workshop”, Felix Grendon (10¢); “Public Ownership Throughout the World”, Harry W. Laidler (10¢); “ Study Courses in Socialism”, Harry W. Laidler (10¢); “A Study Course in Socialism” (a sketch), Jesse Lynch Williams (1¢).

LEAGUE FOR INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY
70 Fifth Avenue, New York City

This Pamphlet 10¢. a Copy (December, 1922). 15 Copies for $1.00

Source: Hathitrust Digital Library. Copy also at archive.org.

Image Source: Poster for League for Industrial Democracy, designed by Anita Willcox during the Great Depression, showing solidarity with struggles of workers and poor in America (Wikipedia).