Simons: Lines of Division in American Socialism [August 1902] 1

Lines of Divisionin American Socialism.

by A.M. Simons †

1

Editorial published in The International Socialist Review, v. 3, no. 2 (August 1902), pp. 109-114.

We have often pointed out, in these columnsand elsewhere, the presence of two divergent tenden-cies now in process of amalgamation into a real Ameri-can Socialist movement. Just at the presentmoment the process of union seems tobe arousing a little more frictionthan is actually necessary.

This friction arises largelyfrom the fact of mutual mis-understandings and henceshould yield to intelligentstudy and discussion. Thismisunderstanding is themore easily possible becausethe two phases have suchdifferent origins, are sowidely separated geographi-cally, and are made up ofsuch wholly different indi-viduals. One is located in theWest, is quite largely agrarianin its origin, comes almostwholly from economic develop-ment, and is peculiarly American inits makeup.

The other is almost wholly Eastern(with the exception of some portions of Cali-fornia), is urban, arrived at its conclusions quite largelythrough direct ideological propaganda, and is still(though rapidly losing this phase) formed mainly from

those born in other countries. None of these charac-teristics carry either credit or blame to the parties orpersons concerned, but are nevertheless facts which

must be considered in any adequate com-prehension of the problem before the

Socialists of this country.Until very recently the So-

cialist movement in the UnitedStates was almost wholly madeup of men who had eithergained their knowledge ofSocialism in another coun-try, or of those who hadbeen converted to an un-derstanding of an ideologi-cal system which these Eu-ropean Socialists hadbrought with them. Littleattention was paid by eitherof these classes to American

economic conditions, butmuch to Marxian economic

theories.These facts account for the

almost complete literary barrennessof the American Socialist movement.

While some of the ablest thinkers andwriters of the German Socialists were among thefounders of the movement in this country, there wasnot a single book or pamphlet produced during the

†- Algie Simons (1870-1950) was a grandson of American farmers, a graduate of the University of Wisconsin in 1895. After collegehe worked briefly in Chicago as a social worker. Simons was an important and prolific early 20th Century Socialist writer, specializingon the relationship of the American farmer to the Socialist movement. From 1897 he edited a number of Socialist publications, suchas the International Socialist Review, Chicago Socialist, and The Coming Nation, and worked on the Milwaukee Leader. A social-patriot,Simons left the SPA in 1917 to help found the Social Democratic League. He worked for the Wisconsin Loyalty Legion and theWisconsin Defense League during the war. In the 1920s and 1930s he moved steadily rightward, ending as a Republican.

Simons: Lines of Division in American Socialism [August 1902]2

period in which this element reigned that is today men-tioned in counting up the permanent and valuable lit-erature of the Socialist movement of the world.

The reason for this was that few of these Social-ists thought it worthwhile to learn anything of Ameri-can conditions, or to in any way identify themselveswith the real forces of social revolt. Placing themselvesupon a theoretical and largely dogmatic philosophicalOlympus, they looked with disdain upon those whowere engaged in the real social struggles. But in thuscutting loose from all reality they were dooming them-selves to sterility.

When they wrote of American conditions, asthey often did in European periodicals, they quite fre-quently only showed how little they really knew of thelife in which they found themselves. They wrote ofAmerica as a sort of transplanted England after theIndustrial Revolution, or a Germany in the midst ofcapitalism. Not one of them ever saw any of the greatdynamic facts that were building and creating the eco-nomic structures of this nation. None of these manySocialist theoreticians have ever noted what was reallythe most distinctive and important fact in Americanhistory, at least from the Socialist point of view. Theynever comprehended in the slightest degree the tre-mendous influence upon our whole social life exer-cised by the continual presence of a frontier withinour geographical and governmental boundaries.

Now and then a Socialist writer has seen farenough in this direction to consider the frontier as a“safety valve” and to predict terrible things that wouldhappen when that “safety valve” was closed. Indeed,the “safety valve” idea has been decidedly overworked,for the fact is that with irrigation and a host of othernew movements, there is not the slightest sign of itsdisappearance. In this respect we have also sinned inthe past by talking this same nonsense, for which wenow humbly ask the reader’s pardon. What has hap-pened now, however, is that the frontier, as a geographi-cal expression for a great extent of contiguous terri-tory, has disappeared, and this fact is having someimportant consequences.

But while some Socialists have seen this onephase of the frontier in exaggerated form, none of themhave seemed to think that this fact helped in any wayto determine where the forces of social discontentwould naturally be located. This was because they had

not realized that in this country the element which inother lands was in continuous revolt against social in-justice had here simply moved on to the frontier, andthat therefore it would be where that frontier was lastlocated that social discontent would find its first strongunited native expression.

The consequence of this blindness to actual factsis that while the theoretical Socialist is prepared forthe present increase of Socialist sentiment among theEastern trade unionists, and will make almost any sortof concession to secure their allegiance, he cannot seeany reason why there should be any Socialist senti-ment in the locality where the last great frontier stagewas located, and where even the slightest knowledgeof economic conditions would have taught him wasreally the most prolific ground for Socialist propaganda.This position is accentuated by the facts pointed outabove that the Eastern Socialist is himself generally anurban factory worker, while the dwellers on the fron-tier, whatever may have been their previous occupa-tion, are now mainly small farmers.

So it is that there arises a sharp misunderstand-ing between these two wings of the movement, be-tween the old and the new, the ideological and thematerialistic Socialist; for, strange as it may seem, thefellow with the “clearest cut” materialistic philosophyis very apt to have come to Socialism ideologically,while the Western outcast of capitalism who comes instrict obedience to the working of that philosophy isvery apt to give a sentimental and ideological reasonfor “the faith that is in him.” This fact adds another tothe already large number of misunderstandings andcontradictions that threaten to multiply and grow untilthey menace the solidarity of the American Socialistmovement.

The frontiersman has always had the utmostcontempt for forms and conventionalities of all kinds.He has been sufficiently class-conscious to recognizethat in our present society these forms were not cre-ated in the interest of his class. He has also had butlittle use for the wisdom of books, and in this, too, itis easy to see a blind class-consciousness of the factthat the literature of today is not written from the pointof view of the producing class. It is easy to push thisidea too far and credit the frontiersman with a clearercomprehension of social conditions than he everdreamed of possessing, and, indeed, it is certain that

Simons: Lines of Division in American Socialism [August 1902] 3

he seldom saw more than negatively that the institu-tions and conventions from which he fled were hurt-ful, and hence declared war on all conventionality andall forms, social, legal, or economic. Hence it is today(while most of this spirit has passed away) he does nottake kindly to the efforts which are being made to runhis very revolt against established institutions into fixedforms, especially when his common sense teaches himthat many of those forms were created to meet condi-tions which will never arise in his experience. Thisposition was brought out with startling vividness whenon a recent trip through the Dakotas we saw some ofthe Socialists there trying to fit their organizations toforms whose only reason for existence was the threat-ening proximity of the city labor fakir and ward heeler.

The older Socialist of the cities lays great stresson certain phrases and forms of organization and man-ners of transacting business, and he uses the knowl-edge of these phrases and compliance with these formsand mannerisms as tests of the orthodoxy of his West-ern comrade of the prairies. If the latter does not knowthese phrases and does not conduct his Socialist pro-paganda and form his party organization on the lineslaid down in the catechism and ritual of the city orga-nization, he is a heretic and must be “reorganized.”What has made this situation still more aggravating isthat these tests have been quite generally applied bythose who were not particular conspicuous for theirknowledge of Socialist philosophy. Some comrade, whobecause of his ability as an organizer or agitator hadbeen clothed with a little brief authority, has not hesi-tated to settle offhand questions of policy and tacticson which the ablest minds of the International Social-ist movement have as yet failed to agree.

When the Western farmer, who is in revoltagainst capitalism, is met with a catechism especiallyprepared for the factory wage-worker, his confidencein his examiner and would-be teacher is not increasedby the discovery that the aforesaid teacher is most ri-diculously ignorant of the economic conditions sur-rounding the man whom he is so willing to teach eco-nomic philosophy.

What would the Socialists of Chicago, New York,St. Louis, or San Francisco think if some farmer shouldbe sent among them to give instruction on economicsubjects and lecture them on their general relation toeconomic evolution, and it should happen to appear

in the course of his lecture that he did not know thepurpose of a trade union, had never seen a factory inoperation, and was of the opinion that the chief ex-ploiter of the wage-worker was the pawnbroker andthe local landlord? Yet he would be wisdom personi-fied beside some of those who are setting themselvesup as judges of the Socialist movement on the GreatPlains of America.

Within the last few weeks some of the Socialistpapers that are most willing to assist in the “reorgani-zation” process have published articles assuming thatthe great farm was absorbing the smaller, and that ex-ploitation in the case of farmer was through mortgagesand the growth of a system of tenantry. One such pa-per declared that the forthcoming census would showa most “startling” tendency towards the disappearanceof farm ownership through the growth of mortgagesand landlordism, whereas, if the editor had taken thetrouble to look at the advance bulletins of that census(which may be had for the asking) he would have dis-covered that the number of farm owners has actuallyincreased considerably during the last 10 years, whilethe relative increase of mortgaged and tenant farms isso slow that, save in a few exceptional localities, thefarmers are in about equal danger from the coming ofthe next ice age and from conversion into a race oftenant and mortgaged farmers.

Hand such writers even understood Marxianeconomics this would have shown them that undercapitalism exploitation takes place primarily in theprocess of production, and not through usury and ten-antry, both of which forms of exploitation belong es-sentially to the pre-capitalist stages of society.

But such ignorance of both economic philoso-phy and facts in no way deters such Socialists frompouring out the vials of their wrath on the “muddled”farmers, while they prate in an almost meaninglessmanner of classes and class struggles. Not that thesewords do not have a very clear and proper meaning inreference to Socialist doctrines and tactics. We haveno desire to join those who are seeking for a little cheapnotoriety by pretending to reform the Socialist vocabu-lary and who are going through lexicographical con-tortions to demonstrate that such words as “revolu-tionary” and “scientific” do not belong in the Socialistdictionary. But we do wish to insist that when thesewords are used they should, like all other words, be

Simons: Lines of Division in American Socialism [August 1902]4

used intelligently and in their proper place.The fact is that there is really much less tendency

towards compromise among the farmers who are justnow entering the Socialist movement than there isamong the trade unionists who are just beginning tosee the truth of the Socialist philosophy. The latterhave long been accustomed to cringing and crawlingbefore capitalist politicians to beg for legislative favors,and the Socialist platforms formulated by some of thosemost anxious to “reform” the farmer Socialist reflectthis tendency in strings of “immediate demands” madeof capitalist governments, all of which demands, bythe way, are aimed to improve the condition of theworking class by perpetuating wage-slavery. Nothingmore could have been said of the most foolish planksin the Populist platform. In our opinion no conces-sions to capitalism are necessary in either case. Butthis is “another story” on which it is unnecessary toenter at the present time.

It chanced to be our good fortune during thepast month to be present at the State Convention ofthe Socialist Party of North Dakota, one of the states,by the way, in which the clearness of the Socialismhad been objected to by the “reorganizers.” Yet duringthat whole convention there was not even a sugges-tion of a proposal that involved any compromise withcapitalism or the capitalist system. This is something,by the way, whether it be good or bad, that we havenever yet seen in any of the many other Socialist con-ventions that we have attended.

These farmers have learned long ago that theyhave nothing to expect from capitalist governments.They are now determined on independent politicalaction, with the object of securing collective owner-ship of the means of production and distribution, and,this may arouse a smile in some of our readers, one ofthe things of which many of them expressed a fear wasthat the city wage-working Socialists would sell out or“fuse” with some other party. And it must be said intheir defense that their previous experience with theKnights of Labor and similar organizations has notbeen of a character to insure confidence in this direc-tion.

It must not be thought, however, that all thewrong and ignorance in this dispute is to be found onany one side. If our criticisms appear to be somewhatmore severe on the older, city dwelling Socialist, it is

partly because he has such a multitude of capable plead-ers ready to defend him, while the farmer, on the otherhand, has been somewhat unfortunate in those whohave taken up his case. Indeed, there has been a ten-dency in some quarters to exploit this division to se-cure other factional ends. Those who have found them-selves in any way at variance with the policy and tac-tics of the official powers of the Socialist Party havesometimes sought rather to add to this antagonism,hoping thereby to fish out of the troubled waters some-thing in which they were personally interested. Ouronly purpose in entering into this controversy at all isthat some of the mutual misunderstanding and mis-trust may be removed, and thus the possibility be cratedfor a stronger and more thoroughly united Socialistmovement.

Again, just at the present time, the “reorganiz-ers” chance to be in a position where their real impor-tance is greatly magnified by the official pedestals uponwhich they stand, which enables them to make muchmore trouble than the farmers, who, as yet, have littlepower for good or evil. But the latter are rapidly grow-ing in our numbers and influence, and unless some-thing is done to stop the criminally foolish and igno-rant attacks that are being made upon them, we maypossibly be confronted with a large and energetic splitin the Socialist Party. Not that this would be fatal toSocialism. Economic progress would continue andsocial evolution would not stand still. We would bethe last to seek to prevent such a split if there reallyexisted any defection from the principles of Socialismby any body of persons within the Socialist Party. But,as we have endeavored to show, no such defection fromthose principles exists among those who are beingdriven to separate political action, and we can todayill afford the costly delay that such a useless divisionwould entail.

Far be it from us to object to criticism or con-troversy. Such things are to be invited and are but signsof healthy growth. But hostile criticism, or even per-sonal abuse, is something wholly different from igno-rance clothed with official power to correct and disci-pline.

Indeed, there are many points on which the so-cialist of the prairie states needs severe criticism. He isby no means wholly free from that very American char-acteristic — self-conceit. He is apt to look down upon

Simons: Lines of Division in American Socialism [August 1902] 5

technical economics as of no use. He feels himself ca-pable of settling the most intricate problems of eco-nomics from the limited knowledge gained throughhis own personal experience. He has yet to learn thatin the wide field of sociology no one man’s experienceis of sufficient breadth to enable him to draw any valu-able conclusions. He has a very pressing need of fa-miliarity with the great classics of Socialism. He gen-erally knows little or nothing of the works of Marx,Engels, Liebknecht, and the great body of writers andthinkers who have made Socialism a philosophy wor-thy of the study of the best minds of the world. Didhe know these things he would be the better able toshow the shallowness of many of the phrase-mongerswho are now hurling their paper darts in his direction.

There is an intense need of good, “clear-cut,scientific” Socialist literature in the West, but if it is tobe read at all it must be written by someone who knowssomething of the application of the philosophy of So-cialism to American economic conditions, and notconsist simply of intellectual gymnastics with Social-ist phrases.

Again, the frontiersman is apt to fail to appreci-ate the importance of national and international orga-nization, or, indeed, of any organization whatsoever.Accustomed to rely upon his own resources he doesnot at first see the need of widespread cooperation,although the history of the last 50 years in Americahas shown that when once the need of organization isimpressed upon him he joins with his fellows with fargreater readiness than even the trade unionism of thecity.

There are at the present moment two great fieldsin which Socialistic propaganda can reap rich harvests.One of these is the trade union field. Here we haveplenty of trained workers. Her the propaganda is inthe hands of men who understand every phase of thework, and the results which are being attained are asplendid tribute to the excellent work that is beingdone in this field.

Another, and equally rich, if not richer, field isto be found in the locality where the frontier has justpassed away. Here the producing class — the prole-tariat — is largely a farming class. These men are ripefor social revolt at the present moment. Indeed, sincetheir individual initiative is much greater than that ofthe wage-workers, they are going to revolt politicallywhether the Socialists have the sagacity to work withthem or not. But if the Socialist Party will see to it thatmen are sent among them as organizers who will notlook upon themselves in the light of divinely appointedcensors to correct the errors of those who often are farwiser than their teaches, then there is no reason whywe should not lay the ground of a powerful unitedAmerican Socialist movement.

When once the Western Socialists learn to knowsomething more of the great classics of Socialism andthe need of organization, while the Eastern comradeslearn something of the facts upon which the philoso-phy which they so glibly repeat is based, the groundwill have been laid for a common understanding, andall necessity of a bitter internal fight will have passedaway.

Published by 1000 Flowers Publishing, Corvallis, OR, 2006. • Non-commercial reproduction permitted.

http://www.marxisthistory.org

Edited with a footnote by Tim Davenport.Photo of Algie Simons from The Comrade, August 1902.