Scribner's Magazine/Volume 37/Number 2/The Progress of Socialism
Typical young Socialist rioters on the Place de la Concorde, Paris.
The Progress of Socialism
Political Problems of Europe as they Interest Americans
Second Paper
By Frank A. Vanderlip
Illustrations from drawings by E. C. Peixotto, J. H. Gardner-Soper, Claude Shepperson, and W. Oberhardt; and from photographs.
OCIALISM is a live political factor in Europe. There is a wave of socialism flowing over the whole Continent, reaching heights of much importance in Germany, ea. and France, and giving a distinct trend to political life in Austria and Italy.
It is of great importance to us because of the vital effect which the success of the socialist parties would have on European institutions and upon the social and industrial conditions there. Of even wider importance, however, is this great political and social movement, because it foreshadows a tendency which we are likely to see gain great force in our own country. It seems to me not improbable that we shall, in the next few years, hear much of socialism in our own political life. I do not think it will be surprising if we eventually find political forces here drawn up on a new alignment, with a party standing on a platform which might be made up from principles taken from the programmes of socialist parties of Europe, and opposed to those who will stand for conservatism and the permanance of present institutions and conditions.
What a socialist party they would make! The discontented would find promise in such a platform. The believers in the power of legislation to work miracles in bringing prosperity and bettering social conditions would find plans for legislative experiments which would interest them. Those who see danger in aggregated wealth, the opponents of trusts and combinations, the populists, would all find such a party congenial. The advocates of Federal control of railways think the Government should get deeper into finance and organize postal savings-banks, would find planks which met their views. One of the main tenets of faith would of course be the belief in universal old-age pensions and in insurance to compensate for loss of health or employment, with taxes for creating such funds laid on the of the wealthy. Such a plank would have wide popularity, and those who are dissatisfied and who are in favor of any change or of any new legislative experiment would be attracted. We certainly have just the sort of material here in plenty for the building of a socialist party along lines which are showing such vital force in the political life of Europe. And like the socialist parties of Europe, there would be much good in the programme, and much error, many fallacies for the demagogue to rant over, much that would be utterly impracticable, but much that would appeal to those whose lot is less favorable than they believe it should be.
An office for the payment of old-age pensions.
There are no influences more likely to bring change to Europe than are those various political currents which are combined under the rather loose term of socialism. I believe there are beginning to be seen in our own political life many similar currents. It is natural that those currents will eventually come together into a united political party. Such a party might be called “Socialist,” or it might find some other name, but it would be a party with many of the same principles as those of the socialist parties of Europe.
If we are facing socialism here, some study of the progress of socialism in Europe is well worth our while.
In France, the clerical question absorbing the main energies of all parties for several years, as it has, is second only in political importance to the problems which the growth of socialism has there brought into prominence. The position of the Socialists in influencing public affairs is much strengthened by the fact that they have been essential allies of the Republicans in their struggle with the Church. As has been indicated in a former article, the Socialists have presented a solid front with the Republicans in the whole programme of Republican Defence, and now that a decisive defeat has been dealt the Clerical party, the Socialists are demanding support in turn from the Republicans. The position of the Republicans makes the support of the Socialists necessary to them, and it is logical that the Government programme will in greater and greater degree recognize Socialist demands.
The French Premier, M. Combes, has recently stated the main objects of the present French ministry, and the programme as he outlined it shows the influence of the Socialists. He has stated that in addition to the continuance of repressive measures against religious orders, the ministry proposes to pass laws on the subject of working men’s pensions, adopt a comprehensive plan for the assistance of invalids and old people, reform the tax system, and reduce to two years the time of military service. This programme indicates how important the Premier recognizes it to be that the Socialists continue their support of the Government. As the Socialists and Socialist Radicals have 140 members in the Chamber of Deputies, compared with 240 Republicans, it can be readily seen what important pillars of the Government support they form. The Socialist group, composed, as it is, almost exclusively of the working class, naturally has ambitions that are by no means confined to the programme of Republican Defence. They want legislation which in their opinion will have an important bearing on the whole social order.
Bicycle riders on the Belgium country roads distributing socialistic literature.
Like socialists everywhere, there is much in their demands that is utterly impractical. The Government has accepted a few of their most workable theories. If the platform of the revolutionary Socialists was carried out there would be a complete upsetting of the Government, for they favor the suppression of the Senate and the President of the republic. The programme of the less extreme, and more truly representative, group of Socialists calls for laws restricting the hours of labor and affecting conditions of employment. They desire to transplant the German system of sick funds and old-age pensions, and lay the burden of their maintenance upon the state. This great charge upon the budget they are ready to provide without hardship to themselves by the imposition of a graduated income tax on the wealthy. Complete freedom in forming associations is desired, laws more favorable to labor unions are wanted, payment to the holders of elective offices advocated, and the control by the state of the railroads, mines,and banks is also proposed. The Socialists are almost as much opposed to state education as they have been to clerical instruction.
A country polling place on election day in France.
The Socialists’ contention that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer was pretty effectually disproved recently by the investigation of the French Labor Bureau covering labor conditions in France from 1840 to the end of the century. During a period in which the population grew only 12 per cent., the consumption of wheat rose 60 per cent., of meat 90 per cent., potatoes 100 per cent., sugar 500 per cent., and alcohol 260 per cent.
The demands of the Socialists seem likely now to come into the foreground. It is probable that we shall see in France much parliamentary attention given to legislation 
Interior of the great hall in the “Bourse du Travail” in Paris during the seamstresses’ strike.
Women agitators addressing the girls.
which has for its object the amelioration of the condition of the working people. That fact is by no means without significance in a survey of commercial conditions in France. The questions which promise to take a leading position in legislative consideration will involve material change in the relations of the working classes to their employers, and may threaten marked alteration of the ratio in which profits are divided between capital and labor. Considering the strength and vitality of French socialism, the future would seem to favor legislation of a character likely to effect unfavorably industrial enterprise, at least until a process of readjustment has been gone through. French commerce is therefore facing unpleasant legislative possibilities in the way of income taxes, old-age pensions, restrictions of the hours of work, and legislation favoring labor organizitions.
The adoption of a scheme for old-age pensions and the imposition of an income tax are now earnestly favored by the ministry. The Finance Minister, M. Rouvier, who has proved himself one of the most adroit and able men who ever held the Treasury portfolio,has formulated a scheme of taxation which would abolish the present somewhat intricate system, and replace it with two simple revenues—one a tax on income, and the other a tax on house rent. The Socialists condemn the Government scheme, declaring it not progressive enough. They demand a tax which shall almost entirely consume property when income reaches a high level.
The respect for property rights is generally so highly developed in France that it hardly seems probable that the Socialists, strong and growing though the party is, will be able to pass legislation of so radical a nature as they now propose. Should they make substantial progress with their income-tax scheme, French business interests will have more reason to concern themselves with politics in the next few years than has been the case for a long time past.
The Socialist party in France has none of the remarkable coherence which the Social Democrats of Germany exhibit. The most striking feature of the German Social-Democratic organization is its perfect unity. The individual subordinates his ideas to the main programme. The will of the party, as expressed by the majority, is absolute law. The party discipline is the most perfect to be found in any political organization. The French Socialists, on the other hand, are constantly at variance. They frequently break up into warring groups. At present there are two groups of importance, and five or six subordinate ones. If there was prospect of the strength of the Revolutionary Socialists increasing until they were able to impress their views upon the Chamber, the outlook for French commerce and industry would be serious indeed.
The Revolutionary Socialists want no half-way business about their old-age pension system. They desire that the pension shall be large enough to insure the aged working man living in comfort, and they do not want it to be put off until he has grown weary waiting for it. Not only do they want large pensions to begin before extreme old age is reached, but they are radically opposed to any contributions from the wages of the working people to replenish the pension fund. They want it all provided by the state. They would have the wealthy pay the pensions instead of making frugality a requisite, as in Germany.
The French Socialists show a tendency, however, to abandon the revolutionary ideas which have marked the programmes of their more radical groups. With the adoption of a sober and more practical programme they show growing strength. In national politics they have reached the dignity of representation in the Cabinet, as well as substantial power in the Chamber.
The library of the association for the betterment of working classes, known as “L’ Université Populaire,” Paris.
The chief practical success which French socialism has gained thus far, however, has been the acquisition of municipal power. Many of the larger cities of France are now controlled by Socialist councils. Before 1892 the Socialists had a majority in only one town council—in Saint Ouen—but since then they have succeeded in securing majorities in ten other important town councils, including such cities as Lille, Marseilles, and Calais. The municipal council of Paris has a Socialist group so important as to strongly influence its actions. In those towns where the Socialists have a majority they frequently pass radical measures for the benefit of the laboring classes, but those measures are always vetoed by the prefects, who have an absolute veto power. The prefects pronounce such legislation as outside the council’s jurisdiction. In that way the power of the Socialists in municipal affairs is sharply limited. No matter how radical may be the voice of the municipal council, the action of that body is held in check by the centralized system of government which Napoleon planned. The municipal council may have a majority of members with ever so revolutionary plans. The council is presided over by a prefect who represents the central Government, and wields a veto which will effectually check a tendency toward anything which the officials in Paris may regard as dangerous enactments.
In Belgium socialism is one of the strongest of the present political forces. It is natural to find in that country a fertile field in which to spread socialistic doctrines, for it is a country with a at industrial population and a comparatively small number who devote themselves to agriculture. The greatest energy is shown there in the sytematic inculcation of socialistic ideas. Not only is there thorough organization in the cities, but the proselyting is pushed out into the agricultural districts. On Sundays in Belgium it is a common thing to see squads of bicycle riders passing along the country roads distributing socialistic literature to the peasants or waiting outside the doors of the little country churches to hand out their socialist tracts.
“The Maison du Peuple,” Brussels, one of the most important of the coöperative societies of Belgium.
In the cities the strength of the socialists became so great that the railroad administration, which is in the hands of the Government, thought to help the industrial employers and increase the supply of workmen by organizing a series of working men’s trains. Greatly reduced fares were put in force on these trains, and they transported to the cities and to the industrial centers great numbers of working men who lived in the country and who had not yet taken up socialist ideas. The Government’s expectation of making headway against the working men’s combinations has not been realized. It has turned out that the new laborers thus brought to the cities have quickly taken up the doctrines and ideas of the dwellers in the towns, and the recent progress of the Socialist party has been mainly made among the inhabitants of those small villages. Among the peasants, those who are actually workers in the fields, little headway is made by the propaganda of the working men’s party.
Socialism in Belgium has developed largely in the direction of coöperative enterprises. In that particular it has taken a firmer hold in that country than elsewhere. Coöperative evolution is already too far advanced for any opposition by the state to be effective. There are many huge co-operative organizations, and their energies are directed toward almost every phase of economic life. In the main they may be said to be successful; certainly they are far more successful than any attempts at co-operation which we have seen in America. Without doubt their influence is beneficent. Most of the great coöperative associations have their own libraries, devoted particularly to economic and social science. In the Vooruit, at Ghent, I have seen a collection of many thousand volumes devoted to these two subjects.
Labor procession in the streets of Charleroi, Belgium, during the strikes of 1902.
There are nearly two thousand co-operative societies in Belgium, with a million consumers. Fully one-seventh of the total population belong to these institutions. They are flourishing institutions, too, showing good management and important economic results. The Maison du Peuple, in Brussels, is one of the most important of these coöperative organizations. It is a sort of people’s palace; it contains libraries, concert halls, theatre, and lecture-rooms, as well as the coöperative stores for furnishing every kind and variety of supplies. There are attached to the institution doctors, dentists, and oculists. It covers practically every department of life, and is more comprehensive than the greatest of our own department stores. Some of these institutions administer life-insurance funds and sick benefits with success.
Women’s manifestation in favor of universal suffrage at Jolimont, Belgium, in 1902
All the members of the workmen’s party are members of some coöperative organization, so that the coöperative and the political movements have gone hand in hand. In the small villages the first co-operative establishment is generally a bakery, and this becomes the nucleus of a large coöperative industrial company later. There is successful coöperation, too, in the purely agricultural communities, in the form of associations for buying supplies and for selling the produce of the farms. The farmers believe that a central control over the marketing of their products has greatly increased their income. It has tended to eliminate unnecessary competition and to better adapt the supply to the demand.
The Socialist party in Belgium now has over five hundred thousand votes, and, considering its relations to the co-operative establishments, probably controls a larger amount of capital than any other polical party. Its struggle and agitation for universal suffrage has been its most important undertaking. Dangerous weapons were used. I can imagine few graver prospects than the possibility of the introduction of similar methods of warfare into our political life. As a climax in the effort to obtain universal suffrage, there was an attempt made to bring about a universal strike in every industry, with the hope that there would be such complete paralysis of the nation’s industrial life that the Government would be compelled to yield. The attempt was a failure, but the method was a most dangerous precedent. The strike will be remembered as probably the greatest one on record. More than 300,000 working men were idle. Nearly every industry in the country, with the exception of the railroads, post-offices and telegraph lines, was affected. The strike was marked by comparatively little disorder. In spite of the imposing manifestation on the part of the people, the Government succeeded in maintaining its majority, and the Chamber, by a majority of 20, refused to consider the question of revising the constitution in favor of universal suffrage. The election which followed strengthened slightly the working men’s party, but also strengthened the Clericals who are at present the controlling force back of the ministry. The Chamber is made up of 166 members. The Clericals now have 96, the Socialists 35, and the Liberals 34.
The union of political and labor organizations is seen in the highest development in Belgium, and the result of that union, with its possibility of strictly class legislation, may well be to us an interesting field of observation. As yet it has not seriously affected industry, nor threatened existing forms of government, but if the great industrial population of Belgium is eventually united into a political organization of sufficient strength to take the control of the Government out of the hands of the Clericals, Belgium is likely to become the scene of extremely interesting socialistic legislation.
A phase of socialism which is especially emphasized in Belgium is the attitude of the party toward art, and the plans for providing culture and amusement for the people, in answer to a demand for public entertainments and for great spectacles. In a state in which they hope to abolish the Church and the army, they propose to have something to substitute for churchly pomp and military pageant. They expect to do this by parades and celebrations of one kind and another, and even now they work out the details of these in a most artistic and thorough way, modelling them largely on the magnificent festivals of the Belgium cities in the Middle Ages. A harvest festival which I recently saw in Bruges was an elaborate and artistic example. A procession with floats representing different grains and different phases of the harvest certainly made in the way of public amusement a good substitute for a spectacle on the Champs de Mars.
The Belgian Socialists ask of the Government that so far as possible it cultivate the artistic in all phases of public life, and that the strength of the state be directed to obliterate all ugly and unpleasant sights. Of the Minister of Finance is demanded money of more artistic appearance, modelled closely on the lines of antique coins. From the Minister of Railroads they wish stations of architectural excellence, decorated by the greatest of contemporary artists, and railway carriages where comfort is combined with the consideration of what is beautiful. They even ask for less commonplace railroad tickets. From the Minister of Agriculture is demanded comprehensive plans for the preservation of the trees along the great national roads; and from the Minister of Industry, the reorganization,improvement, and vitalizing of the provincial schools for teaching industrial art, the creation of museums and galleries, and generally the provision of the means for higher artistic culture.
Thus the Belgium Socialists by no means propose to confine their, ambitions to the improvement of material conditions. In some respects they may have impractical ideals, but on the whole their programme is one which must inevitably work toward the uplifting and better living of the dense industrial population. Undoubtedly they scatter and weaken their force by the breadth of their demands. Their programme, however, is interesting, both from the fact that it illustrates the nature of what we would regard as fundamental political rights for which they are still struggling, and illuminates some of the high ideals with which the party is imbued.
In politics they desire universal suffrage, decentralization of the legislative power, communal autonomy, the right of initiative and referendum, educational reform, the suppression of the Church and army, civil equality of the sexes and suppression of hereditary functions, and finally the establishment of a republic. In economic matters they have a great programme of public charity in the shape of general insurance for all citizens. They favor the abolition of all laws against coalition. They desire free agricultural education, insurance against the diseases of plants and animals, and against the damages of storms and floods, the suppression of the hunting preserves, and the establishment of the right to destroy during every season animals which do harm to the crops.
In the Belgium elections all the influence of the priests and of the owners of land is exercised against the Socialists. The credulity of the country folk leads them to accept from priests some remarkable interpretations of socialistic aims, and a common conservatism in the country results in advanced ideas taking root very slowly. The working men’s party in Belgium strongly favors woman’s suffrage. The organization of Belgium women into unions of political societies has not, however, made much progress.
In Austria, where the conditions of suffrage are unfavorable to Socialists, they have returned only 11 members to the Reichsrat. Although the party shows a total strength of nearly 1,000,000 votes, the class system of voting gives it small representtion. The recognized party organization has expelled the extreme revolutionists, and has taken up the interests of the peasantry. As a natural sequence the party has become anti-Semitic, as the Jews are the great land-owners of the country. It has been said that two Jews own a quarter of the agricultural land of Hungary, a statement which is hardly within the facts. The Rothschilds are said to own one-third of the farming land of Bohemia, which is perhaps another exaggeration. But in any event such accumulation of enormous tracts of land has led the Socialist party to take a strong anti-Semitic position. The agrarian interests are naturally violently opposed to the socialist doctrines. They have secured legislation authorizing employers to dismiss without wages any working man suspected of being a Socialist agitator, and are not above seeking any unfair advantage in combating what they regard as a national danger.
Hospital Burgmannrost Halle, Saxony.
Supported by the mine owners of Saxony, who send all sick and injured there from all parts of the country.
Socialism is an unimportant element in the politics of Holland, although so far as it does manifest itself it is revolutionary in character. In recent municipal elections the Socialists met with losses. They have practically no influence in national politics there.
In Sweden there is only one Socialist member of Parliament, and in Switzerland there is also one. Although socialism has shown no vitality in the Scandinavian countries, there has been a great development of coöperative enterprise there. This is true particularly of Denmark’s dairy interests. The first of the Danish coöperative dairies was started about a score of years ago. They have been so well managed and produced such satisfactory results, that four-fifths of the dairy interests of the country are now handled by co-operative organizations, and the exports of Danish butter have grown in value from $5,000,000 to more than $30,000,000. Co-operative organization has been extended with great success to other agricultural interests. There are coöperative meat-packing concerns with 65,000 members that have shown good results. Success has also attended the handling of poultry and other farm produce. The great develop-ment of Denmark’s export trade in agricultural produce and the exceptional favor and high prices those products command in the English markets are held to be in large measure an indication of the advantages of coöperation.
Women in English politics.
Canvassing for votes.
Italian Socialists show considerable political vitality, and the revolutionary phase is emphasized there. The party demands universal suffrage for adults of both sexes; greater freedom of organization, of public meetings, and of combination; religious equality; a national militia in place of the standing army; neutrality of the government in disputes between capital and labor; a more humane penal code; the nationalization of railroads and mines; effective compulsory education; old-age pensions; the establishment of a ministry of labor, and the payment of deputies and members of local councils. The Italian Socialists have shown a pretty steady growth in the last decade. Their programme in the main is such that ordinarily progressive government and a fair measure of political rights would satisfy most of the demands of the party.
In England there are but two Socialist members of Parliament, and one of them, John Burns, is hardly considered a Socialist by the members of the party. In spite of that there is to be found in England an impressive manifestation of socialistic tendencies. Its development is in connection with the municipal ownership of public utilities. What is called “gas and water socialism” has generally been the beginning of these municipal enterprises. There are some successes and a great many failures. In England human nature is not greatly different from human nature as found elsewhere, and municipal counsellors are, as a usual thing, demonstrated to be none too well fitted for the conduct of the huge industrial enterprises which many of the municipalities have undertaken. There has been an astonishing increase in municipal indebtedness following in the wake of these industrial undertakings. The municipal expenditures for industrial undertakings have resulted in the raising of the tax rate to such a point as to cause a wholesale exodus of tax-payers from some municipal districts.
The labor vote in England frequently unites solidly in favor of its candidates for municipal office, and sometimes with curious results. Two labor leaders were recently elected to the town council of Battersea, for example, and shortly after their election, having used their political influence to secure jobs as street-sweepers at 27 shillings a week, they resigned their political office.
A small sized socialistic disturbance in Berlin, Germany.
These disturbances are usually easily quelled by the police, who seldom have to draw their swords.
More or less important as is the socialist movement in those countries already referred to, it is in Germany that we find it developed to a commanding political position. It is, perhaps, hardly fair to call the Social-Democratic party of Germany as it now exists strictly a party of Socialists, for there are many members of it who elsewhere would be known as Liberals. It is true the platform of the Social-Democratic party was originally the communistic manifestos of Carl Marx and Frederick Engels, and at first the party held that the emancipation of labor demanded the transfer of raw material to the common possession of society, and that only the best results and the just distribution of the products of labor could be obtained by the communistic regulation of collective labor. Thirty years ago, under the direction of Liebknecht and Bebel, the party united to itself the labor unions and organizations of various sorts, and became a party of political importance. The growth of the Social Democrats in Germany has been coincident with the growth of industrialism. It is the party of labor and of protest. Its most violent opponents are the agrarians, whose lands have been stripped of cheap laborers by the development of industrialism in the cities. The party has thrived under persecution. It steadily gained votes in the face of the most antagonistic laws which the Junkers could devise with Bismarck’s aid, and the most harassing police espionage which the bureaucratic system of Government has made possible.
In the country districts the polling place is always a beer-garden.
At the entrance the heelers of the opposing candidates sit at tables drinking beer while handing out the slips to new-comers.
In the last German election nearly one-third of the 9,500,000 votes were polled for the Social-Democratic candidates. The result of that election shows a loss of nearly 30 per cent. by the agrarian groups, and a gain of 43 per cent. by the Social Democrats. It was the sort of thing that we call, in our politics, a land-slide. Every session of the Reichstag for eighteen years, however, has shown an increasing number of seats occupied by the Social Democrats, so that the great gains of the last election did not indicate a turning over of public sentiment. It rather represented a culmination of those influences which have been adding strength to the Social-Democratic party ever since the first session of the Reichstag in 1871, when only one Social Democrat sat on the extreme left.
A polling place in the laboring man’s quarter of Berlin, generally a restaurant or beer-garden.
The Social Democrats now poll a majority of votes in nearly every capital city, every great mercantile marine port, and if all the great industrial centers. They are handicapped by unfair representation. If the true expression of the will of the German people were reflected in the Reichstag the Social Democrats would be in a commanding position there.
In studying German politics, however, it must be borne in mind that the ministry is not responsible to the Reichstag, but only to the Emperor. No cabinet resignations or dissolution of parliament follows a vote unfavorable to the Government. The Reichstag has little more than a veto power, and the people are hampered in the expression of even that veto privilege by the in the electoral diviions of the empire. The election law originally provided that there should be one member of the Reichstag for, generally speaking, every 100,000 inhabitants, but did not provide for fair readjustment in case of increasing or shifting population. Since that law was passed, the population has increased from 40,000,000 to 58,000,000, but there has been no rearrangement of electoral divisions. There is one member of the Reichstag who represents 183,076 votes, and another who represents only 9,551.
August Bebel, a prominent and influential German Socialist.
The increase in population has been in the cities, and it is from the cities that the Social Democrats draw their main strength. The unfairness and inequality of the present electoral arrangement, therefore, falls with greatest force upon the Social Democrats, and reacts to the greatest advantage of the agrarians and clericals. Those groups, forming, as they do, the Government majority, and being the beneficiaries of the present inequalities in the electoral distribution, are unwilling to concede the slightest change. They dread the ascendancy of the Social Democrats as some great national calamity, and they offer their fears as their excuse for manifest unfairness.
Although the Social Democrats polled 3,010,000 votes, or 32 per cent. of the total, they have only 81 seats in the Reichstag, which is composed of 397 members. The Centre, with a popular vote of 1,850,000, has 100 seats in the Reichstag. If there had been fair representation and an equal distribution of political rights the Social Democrats would have 125 members and would have been the strongest group in the Chamber. Berlin has 6 members of the Reichstag, but on a fair plan of distribution would have 20.
The unfairness of the electoral distribution in the empire is even more marked in some of the states of which the empire is formed. In the Prussian Diet there is, for example, not only the same inequalities in the size of the constituencies, but there is a unique plutocratic system of voting by class according to the amount of taxes paid. The city of Berlin now has 9 members in the Diet, but would have, on an equitable basis of population, 25. The system of voting by class is peculiar, and must strike those of us who love political equality as most unfortunate. The system is this: In each election precinct the voters are divided into three equal classes, on a basis of the amount of taxes paid. These electors form a little electoral college, choosing the member or members of the Diet. Here is a specific illustration of how this system works out: In a certain district in Berlin, which includes a part of the Wilhelmstrasse, the first class has in it 3 voters, the second class 8, and the third class 294. The ballots of the three voters in the first class thus have the same political weight as the ballots of the 294 in the third class, because the first class pays the same amount of taxes as the third class. But the particularly amusing feature here is that this third class of 294 includes Count von Bülow and other Cabinet ministers, and many high Government officials.
Under this system there is not only inequality of political rights within a district, based on the tax contribution of the voter, but it results in most absurd inequality in the political rights of one district as against another. In some districts of Berlin, for instance, a man must pay 150,000 marks. in taxes in order to vote in the first class; in other districts a payment of taxes to the amount of 36 marks puts the voter into the first class. Bismarck called the Prussian method “the most miserable of all electoral systems,” but the Government shows no growing disposition to change it. Herr von Hammerstein recently said, “No other electoral system gives such a correct impression of public opinion as our tripartite system in Prussia.”
A place of repose and recreation in the Jungfernheide, set aside by the Berlin municipal government for the benefit of working people.
What is it that caused such remarkable growth of the Social-Democratic party? What are the complaints of the German people? What measures do the Social Democrats purpose? Does this party of protest and discontent, growing, as it has the most rapidly of any political party in Europe, foreshadow changes which will have a momentous effect on industrial conditions? Those are all questions, the answers to which seem to me of direct interest to us.
In the Jungfernheide, Berlin.
The point of view of the Social Democrats, without doubt, rests in large measure on a sound appreciation of economic facts. They have seen at close range the effect of modern economic development. They have noted the substitution of machinery for hand labor and the stifling of small industries by great and more efficient industrial combinations. They offer no plan to oppose such development. They recognize that it is in the line of economic evolution. But they are convinced that it has deprived, and will continue to deprive in an increasing degree, the individual worker of the means of independent production. The result, they believe, is the creation of a new social order, and there must in time be a readjustment of economic conditions to meet the change. There is no disposition violently to overthrow existing conditions.
A German Socialist meeting.
Listening to a demagogue leader who appeals to envy and passion, and under a guise of justice and equality proposes measures that are unjust and inequitable.—Page 193.
A natural deduction from the growth of the Social-Democratic party might be that such growth indicates a tendency toward revolution, and that with increasing power and confidence it may become a movement to overthrow the Government. Probably nothing could be further from the future course of events.
The principles for which the Social Democrats stand are the sort that naturally thrive in the German character. The German is supercritical. He delights in national fault-finding. He takes naturally and kindly to a party of opposition. He is devoted to speculative philosophy, and the dreams of the classical socialist writers appeal to him. His phrenological bump of the ideal is highly developed, and political ideals that would in other countries be regarded as impractical dreams are in Germany the sort of thing around which a party can be built, and a party, too, which will submit to the most rigid and practical party discipline—the sort of discipline that every German has learned to know the value of in his army training. Not alone is the German character the sort which would encourage the growth of socialism, but German political conditions, which were inherent in the varied political development of those countries which were forged together into the German Empire, have been such as must inevitably have united into a party of opposition men who had ideals of true liberty. The German states were securely bound together when the empire was agreed to, but they were not amalgamated. They remained states whose political development covered the whole range from actual feudalism to those republican cities with well-developed constitutional government. Even in dominating Prussia constitutionalism was only skin deep; the real government was junkerism and militarism. The Junkers are slow to give up their traditions of feudal authority. Their deep-seated conviction to-day is that they should rule by authority not by majority. There is many a Junker aristocrat who believes as devoutly in his divine right to stand in a position of authority toward his humbler, though perhaps wealthier fellow citizens, as does the Emperor himself.
Few nations have had a more trying task than Germany has had in disentangling the confused political rights as found in the governmental institutions of the various states, in reducing to proper proportions the dual powers of state diets and Imperial Reichstag. Popular representation at first had little meaning. Part of the work which the Socialists set out to do was to develop it. Tangible form was to be given to those constitutional provisions defining the rights of the people, and a party with something more than Junker agrarianism or clerical conservatism in its programme was needed. The Social Democrats took that as their work. The development of true liberty demanded the abolishing of caste and the undermining of class privileges. Nothing could be more to the taste of those men who directed the socialist movement. The Socialists believe that the political task which they have to accomplish is the development of a living constitution and the impression of modern ideas of freedom on Government and Reichstag.
They have grown to be a party with over three million votes, but they feel they have as yet accomplished small part of their work. They have seen the empire become a great political and commercial power, but there has been little progress toward individual freedom and equality. They declare that constitutional government, as found in Germany, is a semblance and a pretence, not a reality, and they are largely right. The Reichstag is not truly representative, and if it were it would still be without authority. The Emperor, the army, the aristocrats, the bureaucracy, and the police govern Germany. The vote of a citizen has less direct influence than in any other country with a constitutional government.
The power of the police is especially obnoxious to the German Socialists. It is true that the police do interfere in about every relation of life, and while from one point of view the result is the most orderly government in the world, there is ample ground for irritation at the nature of the espionage. Nowhere else, not even in Russia, do the police so completely constitute themselves the guardians of the public. There is complaint, too, against the tendency to give the widest possible interpretation to the penal code, to make every conceivable action liable to punishment, to restrict the freedom of meetings, of public speech, and of the press, and to invoke the laws of lese-majesty in a way that is regarded as barbarous and intolerable.
So much for the general grounds upon which may stand a party of protest. There is one specific grievance, however, which has had more influence in building up the Social-Democratic party than almost all other factors together. The question of dear food or cheap food makes an issue that is easily comprehended. The natural political enemies of the Socialists, the Junkers, want nothing in politics more than high protective duties on agricultural prod-uce, for that is all there is between the agrarians and ruinous competition with the fields of America. The industrial population, of course, wants cheap food, and so the issue is clearly drawn. Their war cry is the epithet of “bread usurer.” Their arguments, from the industrial point of view alone, are unanswerable. Germany has the dearest meats and dearest wheat of any country in the world. Converts are plentiful when a campaign is made to centre about the easily understood phrase of cheap food.
It is natural to find the Socialists opposed to the great expenditures on army and navy. They are not so much opposed to the army as to the vast sums which the Kaiser pours into the building of a navy. They know that the navy is built from customs dues. They know that the taxes on cereals and coffee provide almost half of the customs receipts, and they feel that the Government unjustly taxes the necessities of life in such a way that the poor contribute to the defence of the country practically as much per man as do the well-to-do and the rich. The new tariff, raising the duty on wheat and rye from 33 to 55 marks, has not softened their bitterness. If this new customs law comes fully into force, they believe they will lose as much in that single blow as they gained by the passing of all the old-age pension laws which they secured after years of struggle. The Socialists’ complaint against the army is not directed toward military service, but against the system under which the army is officered only by aristocrats, and remains the least democratic of all German institutions, although every German gives part of his life to it.
Here is the programme of the German Socialists as formulated by the more moderate members of the party. They pronounce for the maintenance of constitutional guarantees, and would give real form and substance to the constitutional rights of the individual. They aim at the establishmeat of a sound financial system, with a view to free and unfettered economical development and the free interchange of commodities between nations. They desire the maintenance of peace, a just system of parliamentary representation and responsibility of the Ministers to the Reichstag, a fair division of the burdens of taxation by means of a progressive income tax, the making of proper commercial treaties, the administration of justice in criminal courts in a more humane spirit, reduction in the period of military service, and the limitation of military expenditure. All this does not seem very revolutionary in character, nor likely to result in serious harm to the German nation.
The Social Democracy has been wonderfully fortunate in the devotion and pure motives of its leaders. One sometimes hears the influence of August Bebel likened to that of the Pope in the extent to which he requires and wins the fidelity and obedience of radical elements noted in other countries for diversity of views and for restlessness under restraint. This great man ought not to be judged alone by his utterances in public speeches. He has an oratorical passion that sometimes goes far beyond his generally cool judgment and moderate views. Herr Bebel even in the opinion of the court is, I believe, first a lover of Germany, and second an implacable enemy of privilege and humbug. He has a vast talent for organization and for the selection and phrasing of issues. The millions of the poor behind him believe, and doubtless, justly, that his courage and discriminating devotion to them is without bounds.
One thing especially stands out in regard to the German Socialist party, and that is its absolute unity. The discipline of the party is magnificent. A most striking example of this was the way in which Bernstein accepted the vote directed against him by the majority of the general Congress of Lübeck, and declared himself to be willing to follow, under all circumstances, the wishes of the majority of the party. Shortly after this, Bernstein was chosen by the Socialists as their candidate for election from a certain district to the Reichstag, whereupon the entire party ia that district, including some of those who had been most violently opposed to him in the Congress, voted loyally for him and secured his election.
There have only been two cases in twenty-seven years where there has been such a split in the Socialist party of any district that they have put up two candidates for the same election.
The decisions of the general congress of the party are final, but the delegates have been careful to limit these decisions chiefly to matters of principle. Local organizations in the different states have a great deal of freedom in regard to deciding their own questions.
During the last seven or eight years the coöperative movement and the movement for the formation of workmen’s syndicates have grown rapidly in Germany, and have made great headway among the Socialists themselves. It is the same active working class that composes the Socialist party, the Syndicates, and the Workmen’s Coöperative Societies, and these organizations will be of the greatest help to the Socialists in their future conflicts.
Although the Social Democrats form the party of the working men, they do not select working men as their representatives in the Reichstag. More than half of the representatives of that party are editors, and practically none are actually industrial workers.
There is a phase of human nature which one encounters in Germany which has a marked influence upon political development there. It is “unfashionable” to be out of accord with the Government policy. In England a man may be a “Free Trader” or a “Protectionist,” a “Little Englander” or a dreamer of imperialistic dreams, without affecting his social status one way or another. In France the whole business of politics is rather outside the highest social life and society concerns itself little with the shades of a man’s political opinion. But in Germany all that is different. It is distinctly unfashionable, in the view of the best society, to hold opinions antagonistic to the Government, and the weight of that fact is tremendous in the shaping of men’s opinions. The young man of good family who finds that with the adoption of radical political ideas he meets with distinct coolness in the homes of his friends, that his name is dropped from dinner lists, and his social acquaintances regard him with disfavor, needs a great deal of courage to pursue that line of thought. The power of social opinion, as represented in aristocratic society, is perhaps nowhere more potent in political matters than in Berlin.
The tremendous increase in the vote of the Social Democrats in Germany, while it has failed to give to that party anything like a proportionate representation in the Reichstag, has nevertheless had marked influence on legislative action. On the part of all the other parties there appears to be a wholesome fear of the increasing power of the Socialists and they are ready to adopt, not only any unfair means that they may devise to compass the Socialists’ defeat, but they are quite ready to make concessions and attempt to placate the dissatisfied workman. No other country has gone so far as Germany in legislating in the interests of the working class. The system of old-age pensions is the most notable example of such legislation. By Bismarck’s own admission, the measure was designed to take the wind out of the sails of socialism. It was believed that the interest which every workman would be given in the Government through a prospective pension would furnish the motive for securing the support of the working classes for the Government side. The ill success of the scheme from that stand-point is apparent. Nevertheless, the direst foes of socialism, after the great victory of the Social Democrats in the last election, called for further labor reform legislation as an antidote against the spirit of socialism.
In the Reichstag there has been a flood of enactments for the benefit of the laboring classes, and the consideration of suggestions along this line has occupied much of the time of members. Labor legislation has been popular with all parties. With the Socialists, naturally, because it was labor legislation which they particularly demanded, and with the other parties because they thought by championing the cause of labor they could overcome the disaffection of working men from their ranks. In the recent budget debates, an astonishing amount of time was given to petty questions regarding the wages of workmen in certain Government shops, their hours of work, and the regulations controlling their employment.
There is every reason to believe that legislation favoring the working classes will continue to be enacted by the Reichstag. Soon after the opening of the last session, Count von Bülow announced that the Government hoped eventually to bring forward a scheme of insurance for widows and orphans, at the public expense, and it was also intimated that some plan for insuring working men against non-employment was under consideration as a probability within the next ten years. Thus, the state, as an antidote to socialism, adopts measure after measure of a distinctly socialistic character.
An idea of the activity in turning out social reform laws can be gained by enumerating some of the recent legislation of this kind. In 1899 the system of old-age pensions was revised and extended, and the rate of pension payments was increased; then the law on accident insurance was amended and improved. In 1902 a law defining the rights of seamen was thoroughly overhauled and brought into harmony with the spirit of modern labor reform views in Germany. A revision of the sick-insurance law was made last year. Laws regulating the relations between tradesmen and their employees have been passed, making specific provisions regarding the hours of closing, number of hours for work, and daily intermission for meals. A resolution has been passed asking for a bill similarly to protect the employees of lawyers, notaries, and bailiffs. There have also been many laws passed regulating the hours of employment in all manner of industries.
The German Government is pleased to busy itself in passing many laws for the benefit of the working population, but it never fails to assume the position of having conferred favors rather than having granted rights that intrinsically belonged to the class which the legislation concerns. In such legislation the Government always assumes the position of the giver of benefits to inferior beings. All this is apparent from the attitude of the different ministers toward the lower Government officials and employees, who are domineered over in an astonishing way. The right of organization by minor Government employees is severely frowned upon, and the harshest means are used to prevent it. If the political footsteps of the Government employee stray into the path of Social Democracy, they are quick to encounter serious obstacles. Count von Bülow has enunciated the principle that no Government employee can be a Socialist and every under official adopts that view.
The Government looks with scant favor on any sort of labor organization and steadfastly refuses to enact a law to permit labor unions to affiliate with each other in joint associations. That has long been one of the points of Socialist demand, and it is a permission strongly desired by the working classes generally. Last year a great congress of union socialistic workmen was held at Frankfort-on-the-Main. That congress represented 600,000 members, and it declared the solidarity of those members with the Socialists in respect to the demand for permission to affiliate the labor unions. Various resolutions have been passed in the Reichstag in favor of this extension of liberty to the workmen, but these resolutions have availed nothing. A delegation from the Frankfort congress presented their views in a petition to Count von Bülow, who promised to “take it into benevolent consideration.”
There is a class of politicians in Germany, members of the two conservative parties and the National Labor party, who are called in the political jargon of the day the “Scharfmacher.” They are men who want sharp, repressive measures against labor agitators, strikers, and particularly against Socialists. They are the stalwarts, the men of firm hand and implicit belief in relentless governmental authority. The “Scharfmacher” defend the excessively vigorous discipline in the army, and they approve of the action of the courts in their frequent punishment of lese-majesty.
The Socialist movement is thus seen to be a live political force in Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, and Austria, while in England, although it holds no position in national politics, it has accomplished more in the direction of municipal activities than has been done elsewhere. The general tendency is toward moderation. The revolutionary Socialists are everywhere in the minority in their party, and the tendency is further to reduce their influence. In general, the whole Socialist movement is becoming more opportunist, there is a growing disposition to be more practical, to endeavor to obtain such concessions as they can, and not hold out too strongly for the adoption of an entire programme and a general overturning of the present social order. The theoretical and academic socialism is giving way in some measure to a socialism which takes note of practical politics.
Beyond all question, many of the things which the Socialists are striving for are economically sound, ethically just, and politically desirable. They are fighting class privilege and the traditions of caste; they are struggling for a fairer franchise and more truly representative government. They are everywhere the party which upholds the rights of the weak, and more earnestly than any other party they seek to secure to every citizen political equality and individual liberty.
With such objects and aims, there is no wonder that the movement grows. But all that is not socialism; it is only liberalism at its best. Unfortunately, the Socialist parties are not made up altogether of moderate and fair liberals. While it is true that some of their demands will, when secured, mean that Europe has taken steps toward distinctly better government, those moderate and sensible measures form only part of their programmes. Other phases of their demands represent the spirit of unrest, of dissatisfaction with existing conditions, of class envy, of faith in those fallacies which lead men to believe that they can substitute legislation for thrift and industry, that a comfortable old age is a right to be demanded wholly from the state and without any contribution of economy and present sacrifice from the individual.
The whole Socialist movement is largely a class movement; it draws a line between property and poverty, and is constantly running the danger of listening to demagogue leaders who appeal to envy and passion, and under a guise of justice and equality propose measures that are unjust and inequitable. It is antagonistic to religion, not only contesting the power of the Church but openly avowing atheistic views. The movement has in it the promise of good and the danger of evil. The good is pretty certain to be accomplished, for in the end it will appeal to the fair-minded of all parties; the evil may be great or small in proportion to the fairness of the Socialists’ opponents. All European government is certain to make ultimate progress toward an equality of rights for all citizens. If the conservatives, the agrarians, and the clericals raise in the way of that progress obstacles which will not give way, they may call into play some of the high explosives that are to be found in the programmes of the revolutionary branches of the Socialist parties. On the whole, however, I doubt if the Socialist movement is likely to do much permanent political harm to Europe, while it already has done and will continue to do considerable good.
It has seemed worth while going somewhat fully into the socialist movement, because the socialist parties of Europe present about the only political tendencies toward change which there are there. They are opposed by parties of reaction or parties anxious to maintain the status quo. The success of the socialist parties will in the main, for the present at least, mean the success of liberalism. Such success will not be likely to affect greatly commercial relations between Europe and America. Success in some of their endeavors will undoubtedly tend to raise the cost of production in Europe, but such tendency would probably be counteracted by the greater industrial efficiency which improved social conditions would bring.
One of the most striking differences between Europe and America is the persistence of racial type there and here the tendency to amalgamate all races into the American. Time seems to bring only increased bitterness to racial antagonisms in Europe, while with us the third generation, at the outside, is completely merged into the American type. I never have been able to understand just what it is that keeps the rancor of races at such a virulent pitch among near neighbors in Europe, when those same races will here renounce language, flag, and racial aspirations, and joyfully and completely merge into the American—all patriotic, all loyal to the Government, all in a generation more anxious to cover every trace of foreign characteristics with the mantle of sovereign American citizenship than they are to perpetuate a single one of those racial prejudices which for generations made enemies of their fathers.
In the case of races that are living side by side, that are occupied with the same general problems of life, and that would enjoy the same measure of benefit or endure the same degree of hardship as legislation is economically good or bad, one would suppose that time would soften the asperities of racial dislikes. In Europe it is not so. There are some nine races in Austria, for example, and the most beneficent piece of legislation that could be devised for the benefit of the whole country would be coldly received compared with the delight with which eight of these races might for a moment unite to bring discom-fort to the ninth. They never unite for the common good—it is only that they may at the moment feel a common hatred for some third race strong enough to bring them together in an attempt to harass the common enemy.
The economic importance of these racial antagonisms is enormous. With our homogeneous population it is hard for us to understand what a drag and a block an efficient government must follow when sentiment instead of sense must be appealed to in the legislative chambers. The government machinery of Hungary was practically paralyzed for a year because there was a deadlock over the question of whether the army should march to the command of “Vorwärts, marsch,” or “Elöre, indulj,” whether the word of command should be in the Magyar tongue or in the German.
The language question in itself is of enormous importance, and there seems no tendency toward it becoming less so. The most earnest efforts are made to continue separate schools for all the varied tongues that confuse and make difficult the life of Europe. The persistence of each type of language is in itself of great economic moment, for it is a most difficult barrier against that free commercial intercourse—intercourse where there is mutual understanding and confidence—which does so much to permit the rapid expansion of trade. A Europe with one language and without the barrier of internal tariff walls, a Europe which offered such a field for the free and natural expansion of commerce as does the United States, would be a Europe whose economic force was so increased that no one could say how vast the gain would have been.
The struggle between the two races in Bohemia—that is, between the Czechs and the Germans—is probably the most acute and typical example of the racial difficulties throughout Austria. There are in Bohemia 9,300,000 inhabitants, who are divided into 5,800,000 Czechs, 3,300,000 Germans, and 200,000 Poles. According to the budget of 1901, German Bohemia pays 250,542,000 crowns for taxes to the state; that is, 66 per cent. of the total for Bohemia; but the state expends only 32,992,000 crowns in the German districts, while it expends 104,945,000 crowns in the Czech part of the country, which pays only 128,494,000 crowns of taxes. The figures are so juggled, both by the Germans and the Czechs, that it is almost impossible to get a fair estimate of the real number of each in the country, of the amount they pay in taxes, or what they receive.
The Czechs say that the language struggle in Bohemia was provoked by the Germans, who placed over their shops and restaurants inscriptions such as “Forbidden to talk Czech” or “Entrance is Forbidden to Beggars, Dogs, and Czechs”; whereas the Germans say that although Prague is the capital of a bilingual country, the town councils do not allow German names to be used in the streets; and an amusing feature of the struggle is that the Slav Congress held in 1898 at Prague was obliged to use German as the official language of debate, as it was the only tongue which all the delegates understood.
Throughout Austria the struggle between Czechs and Germans is particularly keen over the schools. Two rival school associations, one German and the other Czech, use every means in their power, the one to Germanize the Czech children, and the other to teach them the cult of the Czech language and nationality.
Austria-Hungary and the Balkan countries we recognize as the home of racial antagonisms. Such a great percentage of the political life there is absorbed in these controversies that commercial and social interests have but scant recognition. But we are not so apt to remember that in Germany one of the fundamental problems of government, and one of the most perplexing and important, has to do with the discontent of the fragments of the nationalities which are still unreconciled to the Imperial Government. These are the people of Alsace-Lorraine, the Danes of North Schleswig, the Hanoverians, and the Poles. In the conquered French provinces there has been some real headway in breaking down the old antipathies, but nowhere else is there much progress. The discontent along the Danish border is gaining in importance, thriving on the unwise policy of the Prussian Government in guarding too zealously against all petty demonstrations of Danish sympathy. The Government acted with great harshness a few years ago in expelling Danish house servants, farm laborers, and other humble folk because they sang Danish songs, and in other simple ways proclaimed their Danish sentiments, and only recently the Minister of the Interior has implied threats that such expulsions may be resumed. The Hanoverians have never been reconciled to the union of the old kingdom of Hanover with Prussia, and the Guelph party still elects half a dozen members of the Reichstag. In the last session of the Diet, Herr von Hammerstein, the Prussian Minister of the Interior, declared that the Guelphs, next to the Socialists, were the element most dangerous to the existence of the state.
All these racial discontents are nothing, however, compared with the race problem in the Polish provinces. In the province of Posen, some parts of East Prussia, and in the mining districts of Silesia, the Government meets one of the most serious of all its difficulties, and one that seems to become more serious with time. The Poles have lately been growing more radical, and instead of working in political harmony with the Clerical party, as they once did, they have drawn political lines strictly in accordance with their racial aims, and have even put candidates in the field against their old allies, the Clericals, and that with occasional success. Even the Polish Socialists, unlike the Socialists elsewhere in Germany, show a strong disposition to pursue paths of their own, rather than act with the Social-Democratic organization.
The pacification of the Poles has called forth enormous effort from the Prussian Government, and astonishing expenditures, but all, apparently, to little purpose. The scheme in which the Prussian Government put greatest faith, and for which it has made unstinted appropriations, has been the purchase of large estates in the Polish provinces for the purpose of dividing them into small holdings and settling Germans upon them, with the hope of thus Germanizing the country. Bismarck started the policy in 1866 with a fund of 100,000,000 marks; in 1898 that was increased to 200,000,000 marks, and in 1902, the appropriation being nearly exhausted, a further vote of 150,000,000 marks was made, with an additional grant of 100,000,000 marks for the purpose of acquiring Polish estates to be turned into state domains and forests. There has thus been an authorized expenditure of $112,000,000, with results that leave the population to-day as antagonistic to the Government as it was when Bismarck conceived the scheme.
The Poles are by no means poor, and they met this policy of “pacification by Reichsmarks” with a private organization. A great Landbank, provided with ample capital, has been established with the purpose of undoing the work of the Government. The Landbank buys land from the thrifty German settlers and returns the native Poles to till it. The Settlement Commission, which has charge of the Government’s scheme for settling Germans on these Polish lands, meets with the greatest difficulty in buying land from Poles, but on the other hand, it is forced to buy out every German holder who wishes to sell, else his land will again fall into Polish hands. The commission bought more than 100,000 acres of land last year, and only about 7,000 acres of that was acquired from Polish owners, while well over 90,000 acres were taken over at high prices from Germans who wanted to leave the country or wished to abandon the farm for the town.
The Government has settled about 50,000 Germans upon these Polish lands since the policy was inaugurated. This artificial competition for land which has been going on between the Government Settlement Commission and the Polish Landbanks has resulted in absurd advances in prices. For some years after the Settlement Commission began its operation, land was bought at an average of $54 an acre. By 1902 the price had risen to $87 per acre, and last year to $111.
The two races have come to a deadlock in their relations with each other. Every year there is a great Polish debate in the Reichstag, but it only serves to bring out in bold relief the irreconcilable antagonism. between German and Pole.
The significance of the language question is well understood by the European monarchs. In the Park Club in Budapest, the club of the Magyar aristocrats, which cannot be matched for artistic beauty of furnishing by any of the marble halls of our gaudy American clubs, there hang two portraits, and only two. One, of course, is that of the Emperor Franz Josef; the other is William II.
I asked how it happened that the German Emperor was so honored.
“He has had his second son taught the Magyar language,’ answered my host. “That boy may sometime wear the crown of the Magyar kings.”
And there might be stranger things.
Russia has her full share of racial difficulties, and in her conflict with Poles, Finns, and Jews has been led into injustice and barbarity of the sort that makes two enemies of the Government where there was one before.
Comparisons of the problems which beset the European governments with the difficulties that are met with in our own institutions cannot help but make us better satisfied with American citizenship.
We find there implacable racial differences, varied degrees of political development which it is vainly sought to unite into harmonious empires, relics of feudal authority, hereditary distinctions, and class prerogative quite out of line with a modern conception of representative government. There are diametrically opposed interests of agriculture and industry which can never be reconciled. We see a drawing of class lines in political life, and appeals to the passions of envy and greed, and to the prejudices of caste and ignorance. It is startling to note what enormous factors in the situation are the personalities of half a dozen hereditary sovereigns, and what significance and possibilities lie in the mere chance readjustment of a crown. We see the growing strength of the parties of protest, the vitality of the Socialist movement, the difficulties of government finance, the weight of taxes, the load of the military and naval establishments, the menace of war, the ever-living danger in close national neighbors who misunderstand motives and lack sympathy for the trials and ambitions of the others—and then, when we turn to our own political situation, we see a nation greater in numbers and vastly greater in resources than any of the nations of Europe, with a single language, and with but a single problem of race, and with a common patriotism that everyone knows is far above party differences. When the political conditions of Europe and America are so compared, the study can but make us thankful that we have such a sound foundation upon which to grow, and so few complications to intefere with our right development.