Socialists and the United Labor Party

Henry George

[Reprinted from The Standard, 3 September, 1887]

P. H. Burns , declaring himself a "socialist," writes from Iron Mountain, Mich., to deplore "the unfriendly feeling that has arisen between the united labor party and the socialists," and to protest against "the unfriendly criticism of the socialists by some of the members of the united labor party."

Mr. Burns is a man who has done good work, and deserves attention. He organized the first labor association in the upper peninsula of Michigan; is president of the Iron Mountain land and labor club., and has been active in spreading antipoverty literature in that part of the state. What he has to say is sensible. He deprecates such cries as, "We want no foreign ideas!" "We want a purely American party!" which, he very truly observes, is suggestive of that class "who do not want alien landlords, but are willing to be blackmailed by American landlords for all eternity." And he says that if the socialists proposed something impracticable, thinking it would better the condition of the people, that is no reason why they should be shunned, sneered at and abused. All this is true.

But while, as is only natural in such cases, there has been some hot and sweeping language used, Mr. Burns is wrong in supposing that it has been directed against such men as himself, or that there has been any split between the united labor party and such men. This misapprehension comes from the looseness with which the term socialist is used. The truth is that Mr. Burns seems to be no more of a socialist than I am, and that so far from there being any departure on the side of the united labor party from the principles and programme which are advocated by such men as himself, the rupture between the united labor party and those who are here called socialists is due entirely to the determination of the great body of the united labor party to adhere to those principles and that programme.

Mr. Burns, in defining his own position, says:

I, as a socialist, am willing to confine the work for the present to securing those reforms sought for by the united labor party, a single land tax, government control of railroads, telegraphs, etc. After we have accomplished this, it will be time to lay hold of something else, and then we shall be better able to judge us to how far it is practicable to have government control of production and distribution, and I believe this idea is shared by the majority of the socialists throughout the country.

With the substitution of the word "needful" for the word "practicable" in the above declaration, a change to which Mr. Burns would doubtless assent, this represents the position of the united labor party.

The difference between this position, which was the position of the socialists of this city who last year supported the Clarendon hall platform, and is, I am inclined to think with Mr. Burns, yet the position of the majority of the men throughout the country who have been accustomed to call themselves socialists, and the position of the ultra socialistic faction which has recently been endeavoring to force its views on the united labor party, may be seen from the following extract from a pamphlet by Laurence Gronlund, which was distributed by the socialists at the Syracuse convention:

It is curious that George has not long ago seen, and that he apparently does not yet see, the wide divergence which this position on the wage system which we hold and which George emphatically denies must cause between us. But no, he seems yet to think that our aims are at this stage practically the same and would remain so for some time. He has a favorite illustration which he now puts in this form: '' I and my friend both want to reach the Pacific ocean. I think we shall reach it at San Francisco; he is firmly of opinion that it will be necessary to keep on until we get to China. So long as we are willing to travel westward in one car we can well postpone disputes.

No, no, no, George, we are not willing both to travel westward. We dispute from the very start about the direction we should take. And we socialists do not think that there can be too much clearness on this subject which you have shown yourself disposed to slur over. We say, since we fundamentally disagree, let us know it, let us know all about it; let us have our positions clearly defined, whether we come to an agreement or not.

It is the insistence by the ultra socialists upon this fundamental divergence which has caused the split between them and the united labor party. I agree fully with Mr. Burns in all he says about the duties of harmony, but it is utterly impossible that there should be harmony between people who are not going in the same but in different directions.

Among the facts which Mr. Burns cites as showing that there is no necessity for any division between the united labor party and the socialists, and how well the socialists have worked for the dissemination of united labor principles is this:

The first socialist I ever had the pleasure of meeting was young Vrooman. The first copy of "Progress and Poverty" I ever saw was with Vrooman, and to my knowledge he distributed hundreds of them where there had been none before, nor is Mr. Vrooman the only socialist who has done this.

If Mr. Burns will consider the difference between Mr. Vrooman' s position then and the position which he avowedly occupies now, he will see that it is the socialistic labor party and not the united labor party which has abandoned the broad platform on which members of both were formerly enabled to work together, and on which Mr. Burns himself still stands.

The term socialist has been applied in a general way to all who desire change in existing social conditions, and especially to all who would in any way extend the co-operative functions of government. I, for instance, ever since the publication of "Progress and Poverty," have been by many termed a socialist, and in many of the catalogues of economic works my writings have been classed as socialistic. For myself, I have neither accepted nor repudiated the name, for either course would lead to misapprehension. There are many men, however, throughout the country, of whom I take Mr. Burns to be a representative, who, holding substantially the same views that I do, and believing that the changes to be made in our institutions and laws should be in one direction individualistic and in another socialistic, yet being constantly called socialists, have accepted the name, and called themselves socialists. But the men who, by attempting to force their own narrow views and impracticable programme upon the united labor party in New York, have compelled that party to repudiate them, are socialists in a quite different sense. They are the doctrinaires of one peculiar school of socialism. They are the followers of Lassalle and Marx, and from the fact that they would ignore individualism and place everything under control of the state, are sometimes distinguished as state socialists, and sometimes, from the country in which their theories originated and have taken the deepest root, as German socialists. But since they constantly proclaim themselves simply as "socialists," and since, in popular usage, there is a constant disposition to drop any qualifying word in a title, they have come to be spoken of by others simply as socialists. It is in this sense, and in this sense alone, that there has been any repudiation of socialism by the united labor party, and any denunciation of socialism by its members. And since names are not worth disputing about so long as they convey a fixed meaning, and since the term socialist has become in the popular mind firmly identified with the doctrines of the extreme school, it would be well for such men as Mr. Burns to consider whether it is worth while for them to longer continue to call themselves socialists.

And since it has been widely stated that I have desired to bring about a split between the united labor party and the socialists as a matter of policy, hoping thereby the easier to gain the farmers, it may be worth while for me to explicitly deny ever having expressed, either in public or in private, any sentiment of this kind. I have been not only willing, but desirous, of uniting all who are in favor of any social improvement upon the broad principles laid down in the first platform of the united labor party and reasserted. at Syracuse - the same principles declared by Mr. Burns as those upon which he is willing to work with all others. And I think it is true, as Mr. Burns states, that this is the disposition of the majority of the men throughout the United States who have called themselves socialists. Whatever split has occurred has been caused by the rule or ruin faction of doctrinaires, who made up their minds to impose their thoroughgoing state socialism upon the party. That their principles and programme are essentially opposed to those of such men as Mr. Burns may be seen from a comparison of the declarations they are now making in opposition to the concentration of taxes upon land values, with his declaration in favor of it.

The split, however, is not to be regretted. It will lead to the clearing away of many misconceptions, and to the fuller and more thorough discussion of vital principles. And the great means by which the emancipation of labor is to be attained is not the carrying of elections, but the stimulation of thought.

Sylvanus H. Sweet, the nominee of the Syracuse convention for state engineer, has not yet signified his acceptance. Since his public utterances and private conversation indicate that this delay is caused by a desire on his part to secure the democratic nomination, it seems to me that it is the duty of the state central committee to consider his neglect to accept the nomination as a declination, and to place some other man upon the ticket as candidate for state engineer.