The International Socialist Review (1900-1918)/Volume 1/Number 1/Plutocracy or Democracy?

by William T. Brown

cannot conceive of any combination of circumstances which will bring about an absolute monarchy in this country. The time is hardly likely to come when we shall set up in America an actual and avowed empire. Possibly we shall have for a time—perhaps for a long time—an empire in everything but the name. That may be the drift of things to-day. It may be a drift which nothing can stem. It may be our destiny, as some of our alleged statesmen are saying. But let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that the accident of war is responsible in any important sense for this drift. Let us understand clearly that if imperialism lies in store for this nation, the capture of Manila was in no sense the cause of that policy. The seed of imperialism is in that which has made it seem worth while to keep those islands.

But I do not believe we are going very far along the road toward empire. I believe that none of the forms of human government which have so far existed can reappear, for the simple reason that evolution and education render such a thing impossible. The blossom does not go back into the bud. The direction of evolution is from within outward. And while the life of the material world around us seems to go in cycles, every twelve months repeating the same phenomena of seed-time and harvest, there is no good reason for believing that the evolution of the race proceeds in cycles. It may seem to return now and then upon its path, but such is not the case. Evolution may describe a spiral through the centuries; it does not describe a circle.

In other words, I think it would be fair to say that the particular form of government under which society finds itself at any given is not the choice of the people of that time so much as it is the logical result of the conditions which exist or have prevailed. Will you not agree with me that probably no form of government was ever deliberately chosen, out of hand, by a people? I will not say that a form of government never will be consciously chosen by a people, but I think it is historically true that no form of government ever did result from deliberate choice.

Let us see whether that statement seems to agree with the facts. There have been many changes in the form of human government, but I cannot recall a single one which really marked a very wide departure from that which preceded. We have in the Bible, as you know, two accounts of the formation of the kingdom of Israel. According to one account, a kingdom arose by divine appointment—and was supposed to be a sort of miniature on the earth of the government which Jehovah was supposed to exercise in some other region. The king was the representative of Jehovah. According to the other account, the people of Israel selfishly wanted a king because other nations around them had kings. They wanted to be in the fashion. Now, as a matter of fact, we know perfectly well that neither of these stories is true. They are both simply attempts made long afterward to account for the origin of the institution of the kingdom. One of them—that of the divine origin—was invented by some man who wished to defend the institution when there seemed a danger that it would be abolished. He appealed to the strongest motive men can feel, namely, their superstitions. He declared that it was a divinely appointed affair, and to abolish it or change it would therefore be sacrilege. The other man, speaking from the point of view of one who found the kingdom corrupt and evil, the bulwark of all sorts of injustice, sought to weaken its hold on the minds of the people by declaring that it was a mistake to begin with, that the very establishment of such an institution was an act of direct disobedience to Jehovah, that it arose out of the sinful wish to usurp an authority which belonged alone to God.

Whatever you may think about this interpretation of those old stories, I am sure you will agree with me that the kingdom in Israel grew out of the natural circumstances of the time and age. Any one who is acquainted with the book of Judges knows that Israel had a king long before the time of Saul or Samuel. A kingdom was purely the product of the age. It was an evolution from a more primitive tribal government, made necessary by the warlike character of that time.

That same principle will apply to every government that has existed and to every government that will exist. The great empires of which we read in ancient history—the empires of the Persians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans—were all the perfectly natural product of the age. The greatest military leader became the emperor, the ruler. In an age when ignorance was the lot of the multitude, when the vast majority were slaves, and when war for conquest was the normal state of things, an empire was the only possible form of human government. Given those circumstances, and the same thing would take place again. The career of Napoleon illustrates the point. That he should have achieved the ascendancy over the French nation which he did, was largely due to the prevalence of ignorance and superstition in that country. That his career came so quickly to an end was due simply to the fact that some things were wanting in the equation which had been present in the time of Alexander and Caesar. It is unthinkable that another Napoleon is a possibility on this earth. We have seen within the past six months how fleeting a thing military popularity is. Half the newspapers of the country were urging Admiral Dewey's name for the presidency, and it was thought that with him as a standard bearer any party could sweep the country. To-day his name is not mentioned even for the presidency of a debating club, and nothing would be more certain than the utter defeat of any ticket having his name at the head.

Governments are the product of existing or pre-existing conditions. They are not the result of deliberate choice. You cannot think of a democracy as possible in ancient Israel, or Greece, or Rome, or Egypt, or Babylon. And yet thinkers were not wanting in Greece and Rome who could conceive of such a thing as democracy. Plato dreamed of a republic. Aristotle shows a knowledge of the fundamental principle of democracy. But no sort of government was possible of realization in their day.

One hundred and twenty-four years ago the Declaration of Independence was given to the world, and not long afterward a government was launched on these shores. But any one who has taken the trouble to think about the matter knows that scarcely any approach was made, in fact, toward a democracy. The status of a citizen in the thirteen colonies after the signing of that declaration, or even after the adoption of the constitution, was not materially different from what it was before. In 1775 they were all subjects of the British crown, in 1776 they had declared themselves independent of that authority. A few years later they were citizens of the United States of America. Had there been any great change in government? No. Suffrage was more general, perhaps, than it had been before. But to all intents and purposes the status of citizenship was unchanged. The people of that day could not have established a really revolutionary government, if they had wanted to. And the majority of them had no desire for such a thing. They could not have inaugurated a democracy. They could not have told what a democracy is—with the exception of Jefferson and a few others. Had they all been as intelligent as the writer of the Declaration, it would have made no difference. A whole nation of Thomas Jeffersons could not have inaugurated democracy at that time. The Declaration of Independence was a noble document, the greatest ever penned under such circumstances. But its ideals were as far from the intentions of the founders of this government as were those of Plato's "Republic" or Bellamy's "Equality." This government was not even avowedly based upon that Declaration. it was framed after the pattern of the English constitution. Englishmen framed it, and they framed exactly such a government as the Englishmen of that day might be expected to frame. But it made little difference what they wrote in the constitution. That did not determine and does not show the character of this government. Is is not true that the lawyers who constitute the Supreme Court of the United States are prepared to declare anything constitutional which the policy of the president calls for? If this nation should care to assume all the forms and adopt all the policies of an empire, eminent lawyers would be found to declare that such a course was intended by the framers of the constitution. It would be defended and justified on constitutional grounds. There is no conceivable course having the prospect of profit in it which lawyers cannot be found to advocate.

The truth of the matter is, neither constitutions nor congresses nor Supreme Courts have anything to do in determining the nature of the government. That matter is decided in a totally different way. We are living today as really under a plutocratic form of government, as if our constitution expressly so declared. Indeed, there is far more in the constitution to justify a plutocracy than there is to justify a democracy. The government of the United States is plutocratic and has been so from its inception. What is plutocracy? It is a government of, for, and by the interests of private property. In other words, it is a government which has its actual source in wealth, and knows no other end than to serve the interests of private profit. A democracy would be a government having its origin in the whole people, determined in all its policies by them acting with freedom and intelligence, and having for its purpose the highest welfare of all the people. It is a confusion of language to call the existing government in this country a democracy, or even say that a democracy is possible under the present social and industrial system. We are discovering—or we ought to be—that government is determined absolutely and wholly by economic conditions. I venture to express the opinion that no more enlightening idea can gain access to the minds of American citizens than that idea. I wish I could impress upon the mind of every intelligent citizen of this country the idea that human government is determined solely by economic conditions, and that therefore the only possibility of securing a change in the form of any government is by securing a change in the economic system. You will bear me witness, I am sure, that the drift of thought in this country is in that direction. More and more are we coming to see that the only issues which are worth considering in our political action are economic in their nature. For only as we change the economic system can we effect any change in government.

Let it be freely admitted that the ideal of democracy has some hold of the popular mind in this country. It has found some expression in the Declaration of Independence. But I venture the opinion that it was but vaguely seen by even the framers of that immortal document and is but vaguely seen by men today. We have yet to adequately conceive democracy. We have yet to get that idea clearly and firmly in our minds.

In order that I may better convey to your minds what is in my own, let me suggest three or four questions. You will want to know what the writer means by saying that the present government is a plutocracy. Then we shall want to know whether there are good reasons for desiring a change in the form of our government. We shall want to know what the change from plutocracy to democracy would mean. And, finally, if such a change commends itself to our judgment, we shall want to consider whether it is possible and how we may co-operate in bringing it about.

First of all, what do I mean by saying that the government of the United States is a plutocracy? I mean that the interests of private property in the products of social effort are the supreme concern of government, that for which it exists. I affirm that all the institutions of government, all its departments and policies, are determined in the last analysis by commercial considerations. You will understand, I hope, that when I say that, I am making no criticism on any man or set of men. I am simply trying to state the facts. If I am wrong, I shall hope to be set right. I mean to say that every official of the government is elected by capitalistic interests and for the purpose of serving such interests. The Supreme Court of the United States has for its highest function, practically its sole function, the defense, protection, and maintenance of the institution of private property. The Senate, as we all know, has become a millionaires' club and little else. That is only a symptom of the disease. That fact respecting the Senate is simply indicative of what is universally true. Wealth is the dominating concern, the supreme power, and therefore we should expect that the Congress of the United States would be officered by men representing wealth. We are not disappointed in this expectation. We have representative government, it is true. But it is representative of dollars rather than men. We know perfectly well that no legislation can possibly pass either house or gain the executive approval unless it is plainly intended to serve the interests of wealth. The President is chosen by the influence of money, and he is nothing more—can be nothing more—than the agent of the interests of capital. You do not need to have me tell you that the United States treasury is at the disposal of corporate wealth. I do not think any one would deny it. The whole banking system, the system of currency and the financial policy of the government in the past and in the present, no matter which party holds the offices, are the creation and expression of plutocracy.

The same principle will be found to hold true through the whole list of national and social institutions. Wealth has built all our churches and controls them. It has erected our school edifices and determines what shall be taught in them. It is the one power that holds the world in its hand. If you can think of any political policy that has been seriously broached by public men which does not express the will of money interests, you can do better than I. Much has been said in criticism of Senator Beveridge for his frank speech in the Senate relative to the Philippines. No criticism is justifiable. Indeed, he is the bravest and frankest of the lot. No other member of the upper house stands so squarely upon the fundamental principles of our government as he does. What are the vast armies and navies of the present day? Nothing but police for the protection of the interests of wealth. What are our laws? Nothing but the provisions which plutocracy makes for its own preservation.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. I want you to understand exactly what I mean, because it is of the first importance that we grasp this fundamental truth. Government, let us understand, is not determined by deliberate choice. Its form is not decided in legislative halls—never has been. It is decided rather by the market. It is decided by commercial and industrial interests. Plutocracy is not a national affair. It is international. It is rapidly becoming the government of the world. It is that now, so far as the dominant power is concerned. The interests of wealth decide the final policies of all civilized nations. Of course, there are nations, like Russia and China and Turkey, which have not yet fully emerged from barbarism, and these nations are not so completely plutocratic as Great Britain and the United States. But today it is clear and tomorrow it will be clearer that the real government in the British Empire and in the so-called American Republic is one and the same thing, necessarily so. No bond can unite two nations so powerfully and closely as the interests of wealth. We may cherish the notion that sentiment is the controlling force, but we shall cherish a delusion. No interests of any sort ever successfully compete with the interests of capitalism.

Let us now consider the question whether or not a plutocracy is the most desirable form of government. The question may best be considered in a two-fold form. 1st. Has plutocracy performed a great service to the world? 2nd. Is there good reason for believing that it can no longer serve the best interests of the race? We shall not hesitate to answer the first of these questions in the affirmative. Plutocracy is a part of evolution and as such it must have served a useful purpose. No form of government ever existed which did not serve a useful purpose. I think we shall be able to see how great a debt we owe to plutocracy. The human race has come a long way from the dawn of creation. If we could see all the path it has followed, we should see many things which would shock our sensibilities, but they were all necessary and, measured by what they achieved in human development, they were good. The physical development of man is the sole product of ages and bloody struggle. The path of the race in its animal evolution has been a path of blood. We have been for ages a race of fratricides, and we are by no means yet out of the woods. Our old habits still cling to us. The taste for blood, the passion to mangle and mutilate and kill, is still in our veins. And we manage to keep up the reputation of the family pretty well. But it has all been necessary to the development of the physical organism. While we were animals we had to act out the animal nature. Nothing else was possible for us. We were not responsive to anything higher than the lusts and passions of the animal.

It is by no means certain that we have arrived at the human stage even yet. As a matter of fact, no other impulses or incentives have been very powerful in shaping our action, than the purely animal one of gain. We point to the fact that religion has existed for all these long centuries, but we are obliged to note that further fact than religion has been utterly impotent even to modify the direction of our social and political life.

And when you think of the marvellous material results of the plutocratic principle, which has had sway for more than a century, you cannot question its utility. I think we must admit that under the circumstances no other power could have accomplished the material transformation that has taken place. And when we reflect upon the further fact that plutocracy has so swiftly prepared the way for some sort of universal government, we must recognize its inestimable service.

But the real question is whether plutocracy has not fulfilled its function, whether it does not stand now in the way of those further steps in human progress which seem to be necessary. The time often arrives in the evolution of the race when a principle or a force which has been in operation in a previous stage becomes unnecessary. Evolution is marked by the constant leaving behind of some things which once were useful. Many physical attributes which were of value to man, say twenty-five or fifty thousands years ago, have ceased to exist. The physical appearance of the human race to-day differs widely form that which prevailed in that far distant past. With the dawn of mind and its wonderful development has resulted all that to-day distinguishes the man from his animal companions. The emergence of reason ushered the animal man into a totally new era of existence and brought into play a new set of faculties. His life thenceforward became as different from what it was before as day is unlike night. From that moment the normal development of the physical nature really ceased, and the man of to-day has not a tithe of the physical might which the man of fifty thousand years ago possessed. So when the human race shall have entered into the new era of ethical consciousness, it must be evident that some of the forces potent before will cease to operate. It is my conviction that we have entered or are entering upon a stage of the intellectual progress of thee race and are just on the threshold of an era of ethical consciousness which make desirable and necessary the cessation of some of the processes which have been operative hitherto. Are we not beginning to feel that plutocracy is getting in the way of that progress which seems now to be due? It was doubtless necessary that the animal man should be physically powerful―fleet of foot, strong of arm and jaw, clear and sure of vision―in order to hold his own and survive in the animal struggle for existence. With the dawn of mind these qualities of physical strength became unnecessary. Cunning, strategy, invention took their place. Besides, the physical man had practically reached perfection. It is impossible to suggest any improvements in the physical organism of man. It was likewise necessary that the dawning mind should be stimulated to its greatest possible growth, as mind.

In like manner, it was necessary for the preparation of the earth for man's higher uses that the struggle for material gain should take place. But are we sure that this fierce struggle is any longer necessary? Does it not seem as if something were likely to take its place? Are there not interests at stake which imperatively demand the operation of a totally different set of impulses? I find myself obliged to answer these questions in the affirmative. While plutocracy has been potent in the development of resources of the earth and in sharpening the human mind in certain directions, it is evident that many lines of human development are impossible under a plutocratic regime. I think we are all agreed that scientific progress is a good thing. We believe that the pursuit of the truth respecting the world we live in is a very important factor in civilization. We shall agree that whatever impedes or hampers the freest possible investigation of any and all subjects of thought is hostile to the best interests of the race. We shall also agree that we can discover the truth only as we are perfectly free to investigate and to publish the results of our investigation. Freedom of thinking and freedom of speaking are fundamental to the higher progress of man.

Right here is the severest indictment of plutocracy as a system of government. It is even now doing all in its power to discourage the pursuit of truth, and to stifle freedom of thought and speech. Do you doubt my word? Consider, then, the fact that men are being dismissed from colleges and universities on every side on the ground that their teachings are offensive to the men whose wealth has built and endowed these institutions. It is a well-understood principle in our universities that the economic teaching shall be in harmony with the interests of capitalism. Our faculties are in the absolute power of plutocracy. These institutions cannot exist except by the will of plutocrats. Their support comes entirely from that source. They surely cannot be expected to cut themselves off from their own base of supply. I submit that there may be important principles underlying society which it is of the gravest consequence that men shall know. But so long as the study of economic science is not perfectly free, so long as a man endangers his livelihood by undertaking such study, the system responsible for such a state of affairs is subversive of man's rights. How is it with the churches? You do not need to have me tell you that the man who dares to speak fearlessly and openly the truth as he sees it will soon find himself without support. So long as a religious teacher keeps well within the limits of prescribed creed, he will not be disturbed, for no religious creed was ever written or adopted which antagonized the interests of plutocracy. And you may be sure that none will be any denomination of Christendom. How is it with the legal profession? An old lawyer living New Bedford, Mass., a graduate of Yale University and widely acquainted in this country, told me last summer that if you want to know the politics of the majority of the lawyers in any city or town, you have simply to find out the politics of the wealthiest men or corporations in that city or town. In other words, the whole duty of a lawyer is simply to interpret the law agreeably with the interests of plutocracy. A lawyer who declined to do that could not make a living.

Now, it must be clear to you that such a state of things is prejudicial to, indeed prohibitive of the moral and ethical progress of mankind. Suppose a professor of geology were to write a book and announce on its first page that he had undertaken an investigation of the story of the earth's buried life with the distinct purpose of making all the facts fit into the theory of a miraculous creation six thousand years ago. How many people would read any farther than that announcement? Of how much use would that kind of investigation be to human knowledge? Suppose that every teacher of political economy were honest and should declare to his pupils: "The things which I propose to teach in my department are such as meet the cordial approval of the men who establish and are supporting this institution." How long would such a man find people foolish enough to attend his lectures? Suppose every minister were equally honest and were to announce at the beginning of every sermon: "I have written this sermon with the distinct idea of not offending or alienating the men whose money is necessary to the maintenance of this church." How long would anybody attend such a church?

The truth is, plutocracy is making us a race of cowards and hypocrites and liars. I do not say that every teacher consciously caters to wealth. I do not say that all preachers shape their teaching with a view to retaining the financial support of the rich. But I do say that freedom of thinking and speaking is impossible for any many who repudiates orthodoxy either in social science or religion and holds himself true to the new facts, and truths which are becoming visible, except at the loss of a living. That is not a personal charge. It is simply a statement of fact. And without censuring any individual, I submit that a condition of things under which that is true is insufferable. I submit that the power to regulate or determine what men shall think or say, whether in the class room or the pulpit or the platform, is a power which cannot be entrusted to any group of men. It is an indication that the human race arrived at a new stage of its evolution and that the dominant forces of the past must be dispensed with; for the future unfolding demands the operation of other forces and the dominance of other principles.

Whatever stands in the way of the natural evolution of the race will be swept away. There can be no doubt about that. The outgrown garment is laid aside. The human body at maturity cannot be confined within the same clothing which answered for its infancy. The same is true of the race. It is all the while growing toward its maturity, and it becomes necessary at various stages to lay aside some things which answered a useful purpose at an earlier period.

I have intimated that we seem to be just now on the threshold of an era to be marked by growing ethical consciousness on the part of humanity. I say "on the threshold" of such an era, because an impartial study of history must reveal the fact that ethics has had little to do hitherto with the life of man on the earth. Ethics finds no place and never has found place on the industrial or political life of the world. That has been and is today distinctly unethical. Probably a few cases can be cited in political life where ethics seems to be a factor, but such cases are rare and inconclusive. One would suppose that if ethics found expression anywhere, it would be in religion. What are the facts? I freely admit that ethical consciousness has frequently appeared in individuals, as was true of the Hebrew prophets, of Jesus, of Buddha, and of other religious leaders. But I can think of no formulated religion which makes room for one single ethical element. The religion of the Hebrews was distinctly unethical, so far as their conceptions of Jehovah were concerned. The religious instutition does not credit the Supreme Being with one ethical attibrute. He was the Omniscient and the Omnipotent—never the Self-forgetting One. Ethical ideals constitute the richest part of the teaching of Jesus, but if we have a correct report of his words, he certainly cherished conceptions of God which are unethical. He seems to imply that God is governed only by his own will, that he can do as he chooses and no one has a right to call in question the right of it. But whatever is true of the teaching of Jesus, I defy any one to put his finger upon an ethical element in the theology of Christendom. It is a scheme based upon an unthinkable philosophy which admits of no ethical principles.

And yet, in the course of our evolutioon, it seems to me that the human race is already in the dawning twilight of an ethical age. Never before has the word "brotherhood" taken such a powerful hold on men's minds as now. The world-wide social movement of our time is a fraternal movement. Men speaking different languages and dwelling at antipodes are calling one another "comrade." The best religious life of the world is feeling the imperative necessity of brotherhood. And yet plutocracy stands squarely across the path to brotherhood. It sets men over against each other in battle array. It creates a line of social cleavage, with a master class on one side and a slave class on the other. No man can live under the plutocratic regime without violating brotherhood every day he lives. He cannot attempt to make the most of his life without making himself the enemy of his fellows. He cannot fulfill his natural ambition except at the cost of other men's lives. He cannot rise in the world except by standing upon a wriggling pyramid of human bodies. Plutocracy ordains that our life shall be one long prostitution. It places the weak at the mercy of the strong. It requires a deference to certain types of men which is in itself degrading and corrupting. It places power in the hands of those least fitted to wield it. It crowns Judas and crucifies Jesus. It puts a premium upon falsehood and makes hypocrisy the price of success. It legalizes robbery, justifies murder, and is the prolific mother of crime. Indeed, it is a conspiracy against all moral and intellectual progress. For these and for other reasons, it seems to me that a change in our system of government is not only desirable but inevitable.

Now, what would the change from plutocracy to democracy mean? And how, if at all, may it be brought about? If there is any truth in what I have been saying up to this point, this ought to be the uppermost question in the minds of our people in all their political and social action. No political leader is trustworthy who does not betray a firm grasp on this question. Here is the political problem of the twentieth century, a problem which that century must bring to solution. I believe we shall realize democracy in the twentieth century. I do not say that democracy is final. Indeed, I am confident that it is not. But I feel sure that it is the next step. We have passed through several forms of government. First, there was no government—anarchy. Then came various forms of monarchy—the rule of one. Then came oligarchy—the rule of a few. And then, with the commercial and industrial age, came plutocracy, which flourishes to-day—the rule of the dollar. The next must be democracy—the rule of the people conscious of themselves and of their higher right and destiny. But beyond democracy lies autarchy—the self-government of each individual—the absence of formal government—the era of absolute freedom—the dream of the individualist. That time lies very far away in the future, a long way farther than many seem to think. For it is simply unthinkable until after a long period of democracy shall have fitted the race to do without formal government. It is the fatal weakness of all individualists that they seem to want to avoid democracy. They want to jump clear across the gap which that form of government is meant to fill. Indeed, there are several classes of individualists, and they are all a unit in not wanting to give democracy a chance. They say: "We shall lose our freedom if you inaugurate a government in which all the people have to be considered." Individualists have no faith in the people. Moreover, they fail to take into account the fact that the only chance people have of becoming fit for ideal self-government is by the experience of democracy. That a democratic government would make mistakes is doubtless true, but the mistakes of democracy are of more value than the successes of plutocracy. And there is no sign of fitness for the era of individualism unless and until there is manifest a determination to secure for the whole people by united collective action the rights and privileges of the weakest and lowest. The very desire for an individualistic regime at once is in itself evidence of the absence of fitness for such a regime.

Now, the change from plutocratic to democratic government will mean, in my judgment, a complete and radical revolution. I can conceive of no change more radical than that would be. Plutocracy and democracy can no more mix than oil and water. They have nothing in common. The complete triumph of plutocracy would mean the obliteration of democracy, and vice versa. The change to democracy involves the greatest moral and ethical change that is conceivable. Under a democracy the interests of wealth cannot be considered. The pursuit of profit, which is the very soul of our present system, will not exist—cannot exist in a democracy. Under the latter the interests of men will be supreme. Under the former the interests of the dollar everywhere and always outweigh those of the man. Under a democracy everything would be changed. Strikingly true would that be in the sphere of education. Plutocracy has ordained that education shall proceed from the motive of fitting the individual to gain a living, to accumulate and manage private property. Practically everything is made to bend to that purpose. By common consent, reading, writing and arithmetic are now regarded as the fundamentals of an education. To be sure, we are trying to break away from that idea, but we do not succeed, and we can never hope to succeed so long as we maintain a system of things under which obviously those three subjects are of greatest importance. At present these are indispensable to the pursuit of private wealth. No man can hope to succeed in the commercial world—in a plutocracy—unless he can count money, compute interest, reckon profit and loss, read the market quotations, and write his name on checks and other commercial documents. Under a democracy for the first time in human history education will be free to follow the natural lines which the real needs of men would dictate. The man will be the chief concern, and therefore he will not be a money counter nor a money getter. That will no longer be an aim of life. It will be possible then for men to live a true and ennobling life. Those words of the immortal declaration will then have some meaning: "All men are created free and equal and have certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Neither life, nor liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness has any real meaning under a plutocratic government.

I fancy the objection will be raised that in a democracy you may have any sort of conditions that the people by majority vote shall prescribe. If it is the will of the people that the present system of education continue, such will be the law. If it is their will to perpetuate the present industrial system, that system will go on. There may be people who are still laboring under the delusion that we have democracy to-day. In answer to these and other objections I would simply say that democracy can be inaugurated only by a revolution in the character of our economic system. No body of people anywhere can introduce democracy by passing a resolution to that effect. A democracy is the joint product of economic and political evolution. Political action cannot produce democracy until the industrial evolution is finished. And the transition cannot finally be made except by the utter destruction of the profit system. Democracy is a matter of education. No people is capable of ushering it in until the necessary process of enlightenment has been undergone. Democracy and special privilege, or, in other words, the profit system cannot coexist, no matter what a nation's action might be. They are mutually exclusive. So long as it is possible for one man to exploit his fellows, exploitation will go on. Environment is the one factor which men have the power to determine. With the dawn of reason, man began the process of changing his environment. The possession of that power has been one of the important and determining factors in his career. A vegetable has no power to change its environment, and so no great change in a vegetable is possible—no change at all except by the aid of man. Animals have some power to change their environment, and therefore greater changes in their structure and development have been possible. Man alone has practically unlimited power to change his environment, especially the collective man. To-day he is beginning to see that he has the power to change his social and political environment. That was the one thing which the thirteen colonies accomplished. They did not establish democracy, but they put themselves within a somewhat different environment from what they had known before. It is impossible to estimate the value of that act. And yet we ought not to lose sight of the fact that other forces were potent in it. In England it would have been impossible. So would it have been anywhere in Europe. It would have been impossible a hundred years earlier even on this continent. But the time was ripe for it then, and its influence upon the past century has been great. Then we were caught in the sweep of the great industrial era and carried along into the plutocratic state. But the power has been developing which will enable us soon to determine our industrial and social environment. How are we to take that step? It is here that we differ among ourselves. Some men believe that we shall do so by trying to get the single tax adopted as the law of the land. Plausible arguments are advanced in support of that belief. The one supreme defect in that program, to my mind, is that it does not belong in the line of economic evolution. It does not seem to me to be adequate to the situation. I cannot devote sufficient time to stating all the difficulties which that scheme suggests to me, but I am thoroughly convinced that it is not the road that humanity will take out of the present iniquitous system. I can understand perfectly well that the land is the source of all the material out of which our industrial life is fed and sustained. I can understand how, if the land could become the possession of the nation, monopoly would cease. I can see all that. But I think I can see a lot more. I cannot agree with my single tax friends that what we most need is the abolition of all monopoly. I do not believe we are ready or shall be ready for a long time for the individual freedom for which we all hope. I believe that this proposition, when it is sifted down to the bottom, will be seen to be anti-social. That is to say, it fails to take note of the fact that humanity is the unit. The individual is not the unit. I insist that it is the task of society to fit large portions of its membership to survive. I insist that there is no social or political salvation for the individual unless the salvation of the mass is secured. I believe that the whole evolution of the race points to that as the legitimate end to be aimed at. We are brothers. We are not strangers, and we cannot be, however much we mav wish to be. We cannot go apart by ourselves and erect our little personal paradise. Whatever paradise is possible for anv soul lies in the establishment of a paradise for the whole family.

There are other people who think we are to accomplish the transition to democracy by transforming the democratic party. I am free to say that if that party could be transformed and saturated with the social spirit, could become conscious of the end to be achieved, that surely would prove the wisest step to take. The important thing to be kept in view, it seems to me, is that nothing can make this transition save that which shall completely change the economic system. We cannot have democracy so long as we retain any vestige of plutocracy. For myself, I believe there must be united political action. Plutocracy, though the very opposite of democracy, has served a useful purpose in preparing the way. It has wiped out national lines. It has become international. Democracy must also be international. We cannot have democracy in spots. It must be the dominant system of the world. And it can become so only as it rests upon an economic basis which knows no national lines. When you deal with economics you touch the universal life, you come face to face with universal interests. The industrial evolution has been as wide as civilization. In the path of that evolution lies democracy, and nowhere else. And therein lies the wisdom and strength of the Socialist movement. It is the only political movement to-day that is international, the only one that binds together into one the people of every race and clime for industrial and political emancipation. Is it not a fact that the only political party in Europe that aims at democracy is the Social Democratic Party? the party of Socialism? Nay, is there any other party in any country on the face of the earth which either believes in or is actually working for democracy? If there is, I have never heard of it. It is the only movement I know anything about which really believes in democracy, which has any real faith in the people, which combines sense and sympathy in such proportions as to be effective to that end. I cannot therefore resist the conviction that only through a Socialist political movement in this country, co-operant with the world-wide movement, can we hope to gain the ends of our desire and solve the problem of the twentieth century. Our choice must be between plutocracy and socialism.

William T. Brown.