Economists have been debating the whats and hows of socialism from the earliest days of the socialist movement. As the term has taken on a renewed life in current political debate, from time to time Economics in the Rear-View Mirror will listen in to earlier debates in historical time. One sees that Seligman attempted to frame the debate for progress as striking the correct balance between individualism and socialism whereas Hillquit argued for the wholesale replacement of capitalism and its evils with socialism and its virtues.
________________________
“SOCIALISM A MERE VISION”—SELIGMAN
Charges Morris Hillquit With Failure to Produce Proofs of Its Practicability
LARGE CROWD HEARS DEBATE
[February 16, 1915 report]
Before an audience that crowded the Horace Mann Auditorium to the doors, in spite of the bad weather, Prof. E. R. A. Seligman and Morris Hillquit debated the “Desirability of Socialism.” George Gordon Battle, the well-known lawyer, presided. While no decision was given, the sympathy of the audience seemed to go to Professor Seligman, who rested his argument, not on the perfection of the capitalist system, but on the failure of his opponent to show how Socialism would remedy the existing evils.
Mr. Hillquit opened the debate with an exposition of the principles of Socialism in which he defined the doctrine and showed its applicability to present-day civilization. The rest of his twenty-five minutes he spent in assailing the capitalistic system, which he asserted was responsible for every social evil now existing.
He outlined the development of the factory system which, according to his statement, took the tools from the workman and left him nothing. One hundred years ago the workman was independent, and he owed that independence not to the possession of capital but to his skill with his tools. The factory system substituted ten machines for the tools of a thousand workmen, but the workmen did not own the machines which took the place of their tools. The machines were owned and the workers were dependent upon the employer for their livelihood. Their employment was dependent solely upon the amount of profit resulting for the employer. This brought about the present conditions of widely prevalent unemployment, which was responsible for all the poverty, crime and vice now found in society.
Professor Seligman, in opening his speech, told his audience that far from being scientific, Socialism is an ideal. As an ideal, or religion, it deserves our gratitude, for it has been a spur to thought at all times.
He went on to say, in part: “The real point in the whole argument is this: We are told that conditions are bad. I grant you this, but the point is, is Socialism adequate to bring about better conditions?
“Let us come to this idea of Socialism being a ‘scientific and planful’ scheme, as Mr. Hillquit terms it. I think that Mr. Hillquit will agree that the ‘scientific’ Socialism is founded upon these bases: The labor theory of value, as advanced first by Carl Marx; the surplus labor theory of profits which was also also advanced by Carl Marx; and the generally accepted economic interpretation of history. It is upon these bases that ‘scientific’ Socialism stands—and yet not only has Marx been proven wrong in all these theories, but the foremost Socialists of today have refuted them.
“Here’s the way Carl Marx argued: He studied conditions about him, and he said, first, things are getting worse and worse; second, prices are getting worse and worse; third, therefore, things will get so bad that we will get to a cataclism of society, and all society will break up. And he said that this stage would be reached in five years at the most. But has it been reached, even though that was a century ago? I respect Carl Marx possibly more than any other economist, except Ricardo. Nevertheless, I think we can leave this ‘scientific’ Socialism there, flat on its back.”
In his rebuttal, Professor Seligman said, in part: “Capitalism, says Mr. Hillquit, is responsible for the present social evils; and he maintains that Socialism will do away with them. We have always had social evils, no matter what our state of society; and what reason is there for believing, beyond mere assertion and declaration, that Socialism will remove the social evils. We will all admit that civilization has progressed, and that we have from time to time remedied the evils of society; and I maintain that these social evils will be done away with in the course of progress, whether we have Socialism or no!
“I have shown you that competition and regulation, individualism and Socialism, have always been necessary to our progress; and I maintain that we shall need them for our progress, until the end of time. The Socialists say, individualism has certain evils, let us do away with individualism. No! for Socialism has even greater evils. What I want is socialized individualism, and that is what we are going to get. What we want is to preserve the good things of our society, and get rid of the bad things.”
Professor Seligman went on to say that it was absurd to condemn capitalism, before capitalism had fairly taken a start. He pointed out in elaborating this point, that it takes centuries to change systems. He said in conclusion: “Everyone is conscious of the mal-adjustment of society. We need light and guidement. We must not be blinded by the blatant light of capitalism, the press. And, on the other hand, we must not be misguided by the unreal vision that we can follow one principle to the exclusion of the other. Be sure that the foundation is solid, before you build upon it. In that way only can we hope to erect the lasting structure of social progress and social peace.”
Mr. Hillquit made his greatest stand in his rebuttal. He declared that his opponent had not controverted either of his main points that private or corporate capitalistic ownership was at the bottom of prevalent social ills and that social ownership would ameliorate these conditions. In reply to Professor Seligman’s assertion that the public schools and the Post Office were Socialism, Mr. Hillquit declared that they were only the forerunners of Socialism. He traced the growth of the early capitalism and its fight against feudalism and drew parallels between that and the conflict between capitalism and Socialism, incidentally stating that capitalism was beginning to show unpleasant and unmistakable signs of old age.
Taking up Professor Seligman’s main points, Mr. Hillquit waxed eloquent. Bringing his refutation to a conclusion, he said:
“My opponent states that production under Socialism will be less than at present, predicting his statement on the assertion that human beings are as lazy as they dare to be. Under the capitalistic system they are. Their work is not congenial or attractive. No man ever shirked work that he liked.
“In regard to distribution, let me say that we have no competition in distribution of wealth under the present system, and we will have under Socialism. Take the case of Mr. Harry K. Thaw. From what we know of the gentleman, we can hardly say that he is intellectual. But he has wealth because some ancestor bought stocks and bonds and passed them on to him. Under Socialism there will be no drain on productivity such as is furnished by the present abuses of capitalism. If we were to throw the wealth into the air and let the people race after it, we should have better distribution than at present.”
Source: Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVIII, Number 105, 16 February 1915, pp. 1, 6.
Image Source: Morris Hillquit from Bain News Service (July 25, 1924) original glass negative, digitized by the Library of Congress.