The Present Status of Socialism in the United States

I

As a result of important developments in the Socialist assemblies held in Chicago during the first week of September, 1919, a revolutionary reconstruction of the Socialist movement in the United States is taking place. Each of the Socialist groups which met in convention at that time committed itself definitely to a distinct party, with a specific programme of action. Exclusive of the Socialist Labor Party, which is allied with the Workers’ International Industrial Union, or Detroit I.W.W., the three major divisions of American Socialist forces are the Socialist Party on the Extreme Right, the Communist Labor Party in the Centre Left, and the Communist Party on the Extreme Left. The numerical strength of each of these parties cannot be determined accurately, because the realignment of forces is too recent to permit an authoritative enumeration. Moreover, the migration from one group to the other will doubtless continue at an accelerated rate, until the excitement of the reconstruction is over and the rank and file has found its place. It is estimated by one group, however, that the Socialist Party has at most a membership of 39,000; while the Communist Labor Party, if it can be said to have a membership at all, represents not more than 10,000 members, and the Communist Party a membership of 60,000, of whom one half belong to the foreign-language federations which are predominantly Russian in their constituency. According to another official estimate, the Communist Party has about 30,000 members, of whom 25,000 are connected with foreignlanguage federations, while the Communist Labor Party represents a membership of 30,000, of whom 20,000 belong to English-speaking locals.

The Socialist Party is still under the leadership of Adolph Germer, Victor Berger, Seymour Stedman, Morris Hillquit, and James Oneal. At the helm of the Communist Labor Party are more radical individuals, such as A. C. Wagenknecht, John Reed, John Carney, William Bross Lloyd, and Ben Gitlow. The destinies of the Communist Party — the American Bolshevists — are intrusted to a group of extreme radicals, including C. E. Ruthenberg, Louis C. Fraina, Isaac E. Ferguson, and Karl Brodsky. If some of these names are unfamiliar to us now, there is every probability that they will become familiar in the immediate future; for there is little room to doubt that under these leaders American Socialism is to become a dynamic factor in future political and industrial developments in this country Moreover, it is the avowed intention of the three divisions to spread their propaganda to South America.

The immediate antecedents of the recent disruption in the old structure of American Socialism date back to the months preceding the Emergency Convention in Chicago, August 30 to September 6, 1919; while the more remote causes appeared in the years just before the world-war. Previous to the outbreak of the war in August, 1914, serious differences as to principles and methods were found in the organizations within the Second Socialist International. The dominant element in the Socialist Party in practically every country was the faction which placed major emphasis on the constructive value of participation in the so-called bourgeois parliaments. This faction directed its energy toward gaining a majority in the parliaments of capitalistic states, with a view to securing legislation which would after a time overthrow the régime of modern capitalism and build a new structure of political and industrial life under complete control of the proletariat. Reform measures, therefore, were indorsed as conducive to the ultimate realization of the aims of Socialism — the gradual creation of a proletarian state within the shell of a decayed capitalistic society. Members of this group have long been familiar to us under the name of ‘ Moderate Socialists ’ or ‘ Opportunists.’ The extreme Revolutionary Socialists of the United States denounce them as a party of ‘petty-bourgeois Socialism, of Laborism,’ destined to drift logically with the Labor Party.

Diametrically opposed to the Moderate Socialists in Europe were the Revolutionary Socialists, who rejected the concept that the class-struggle could be waged and won effectively in the bourgeois parliaments, and contended that the emancipation of the proletariat could be achieved only by mass action of the workers. The objective of mass effort was preached unequivocally as consisting in the creation of a new order of society in the form of a dictatorship of the proletariat, for the transformation of capitalism into communism. Between the Moderate Socialists on the one hand and the Revolutionary Socialists on the other, stood a group of vacillating Socialists, commonly known as Centrists, who discountenanced parliamentary action as ineffective, and verbally championed revolutionary tactics, but who failed to divorce themselves entirely from the hope that capitalism might be eliminated via the parliamentary machinery of the bourgeois state.

In considering the more remote antecedents of the recent differentiation in the structure of American Socialism, there is no mistaking the potent influence of the eventful experiences in Russia, Hungary, and Bavaria. Lenin, Trotsky, and the whole fabric of Soviet philosophy have been powerful determinants of the content of the manifestos, constitutions, platforms, and programmes that have issued from recent conventions. Just as German Socialism moulded the thought and action of earlier Socialist groups in this country, so now Russian Bolshevism is the invisible power that is shaping the philosophy and methods of the new Socialism that was formally organized in Chicago during the first week of September.

II

With this general statement of the remote causes of disruption in American Socialism clearly in mind, it will be easier to understand its immediate antecedents. These are found in the action of the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in expelling certain foreign-language federations and some three or four state Socialist organizations. To comprehend the significance of the committee’s action, it is necessary to review in some detail the several cases in question.

A few months prior to the Emergency Convention the Executive Committee suspended the Russian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Lettish, Polish, South Slavic, and Hungarian federations for alleged violation of the national constitution. Section 2 of Article XII of the constitution provides that a national language federation shall elect an officer known as the Translator-Secretary, whose duty it shall be to serve as a medium of communication between his federation and the national organization of the Socialist Party. It was found that the translator-secretaries abused this function of communication by frequently reversing the decisions of the National Executive Committee. The alternatives open to the committee were, either to concede that the offending federations were a self-constituted supreme court, with power to veto the decisions of the committee, or to suspend them for violating the constitution. In addition to this offense, the publications of foreign-language federations, openly sympathetic with the extremely radical programme of Russian Bolshevism, had repeatedly denounced the Socialist Party as a party of Scheidemanns and Kolchaks, betrayers of Socialism and the working class. Their sympathy with ultra-radicalism led the language federations to assume relationship with the Left-Wing organization and programme that were developing within the party, and this was interpreted by the committee as a violation of Section 3 (a), Article X of the constitution, which makes the platform of the Socialist Party the supreme declaration, to which state and municipal platforms must conform, and prohibits state and local organizations from fusing, combining, or compromising with any other political party or organization. The insurgent, ultra-radical Left Wing was declared to be a separate organization and in no sense an authoritative representative of the Socialist Party.

Besides the language federations, the state Socialist organizations of Michigan, Massachusetts, and Ohio suffered revocation of their charters. The charter of the Michigan group, representing 6000 members, was revoked because of the action of the State Convention in adopting an amendment to the state constitution which provided that any member — local or branch of a local — advocating legislative reforms or supporting organizations formed for the purpose of advocating such reforms, should be expelled from the Socialist Party and its charter revoked by the State Executive Committee. Clearly this constitutional provision makes it imperative that a member who supports the position of the national party in this regard — a position decidedly favorable to economic and social reform along legislative lines — should be expelled from the party. Not only was the position of the Michigan organization diametrically opposed to the opportunist procedure of American Socialism as expressed through the Socialist Party, but it was also a violation of the constitutional provision that binds members in all their political action to be guided by the constitution and platform of the party, and demands adherence thereto of all state and municipal platforms.

The National Executive Committee’s vigorous defense of political action is also manifest in the case of the Massachusetts Socialist organization. In that state the foreign-language federations dominated the state organization, since among some 5000 party members less than 1000 were English-speaking. Even after suspension by the National Executive Committee, the Left-Wing language federations were retained as integral parts of the state party, being permitted to vote for delegates to the National Emergency Convention which convened in Chicago, August 30, 1919. Moreover, the State Convention, held in June, voted to eliminate from the state Socialist constitution a clause which approved political action and to substitute there for a provision repudiating political action and enunciating the principle of industrial action as the more effective means of overthrowing the capitalistic system. The convention also passed two resolutions, by the large majority of 117 to 40, urging all locals to elect delegates to the National Conference of the Left Wing of the Socialist Party, held in New York on June 21 of this year.

It was clear to the National Executive Committee that these actions were violations of the national constitution, and especially of Section 3 (a) of Article X, cited above, for the LeftWing faction was deemed a rival political organization.

The charter of the Ohio Socialist organization was revoked on account of the adoption of an amendment to the state constitution which sanctioned affiliation with that section of the National Socialist Party which indorse the Left-Wing programme, and openly recognized the suspended foreign-language federations. As in the case of the Massachusetts group, this action was considered by the National Executive Committee as a violation of the national constitution, and conducive to dangerous differentiation and disintegration.

From this brief sketch of the cases that came before the National Executive Committee, it will be seen that the immediate causes of the recent disruption of the Socialist Party and the resultant division of American Socialism into three major parties are: (1) The rapid development of ultra-revolutionary ideas and principles among American Socialists who have found encouragement in the success of their European comrades; (2) the action of these revolutionary insurgents in causing state Socialist organizations and foreign-language federations to abandon political action in favor of industrial mass action; (3) the unconstitutional procedure of state organizations in providing for accredited delegates to the National Conference of the Left Wing of the Socialist Party, which was looked upon by the National Executive Committee as an independent political organization. In addition, there were minor controversies over election procedure and the confiscation by state bodies of the revenue from the sale of assessment stamps.

The action of the National Executive Committee occasioned bitter opposition, particularly because the constitution nowhere expressly delegates power to the committee to suspend organizations and revoke their charters. Regardless of the decisions of the committee, there is every reason to believe that reconstruction of American Socialism was inevitable, for recent years have uncovered an unmistakable growth of ultra-radical, anti-opportunistic philosophy within the ranks of the Socialist Party. Impatience with political reformation and pronounced sympathy with the International Communist — Bolshevist — movement have at last culminated in the organization of the ultra-radical parties — the Communist Labor Party and the Communist Party.

III

The similarities and differences that obtain in the philosophy and methods of the three divisions of American Socialism can be seen by an examination of the manifestos, platforms, constitutions, and programmes that emanated from their recent conventions. It is very clear that the Socialist Party has not ceased to be opportunistic, and has not yet divorced itself from the programme of evolutionary displacement of the bourgeois state by a proletarian régime. To the observer at the Emergency Convention it was evident that the majority of the leaders of the Socialist Party have little sympathy with the ultra-radicalism of the communistic groups that have broken away from the parent organization. The opportunism of the old party is manifested in its indorsement of the coöperative movement, the Plumb Plan idea, and parliamentary action in changing the basis of Congressional representation. Indorsement of the coöperative movement, which is experiencing unprecedented growth in the United States, especially in the Middle West and the Far West, is given on the ground that such a movement furnishes the workers an invaluable training in the conduct of industry, as has been demonstrated in Russia and throughout Europe. The party does not approve of the method by which the Plumb Plan proposes to acquire the railroads, but recognizes in such plan the first concrete evidence of the spread among American workers of the Soviet idea of proletarian control of industry. It is worth noting at this point that the I.W.W. and the Communist Party, in common with the Socialist Party, urge conscious, intensive effort on the part of the workers to familiarize themselves with industrial processes and management as practical preparation for the critical period when the proletariat shall take over the machinery of production. Moreover, the I.W.W. organization is constructing a detailed plan for successful and efficient administration of industry under control of the workers, according to a recent statement made by one of its leaders. One’s conception of the visionary type of mind that directs these radical forces gives way to a conception of decided practicality, as he observes the close attention to the minutiæ of industrial organization and operation.

The recent manifesto of the Socialist Party reveals little that is new in its denunciation of modern capitalism as the cause of monopolized control of industry, the concentration of wealth, the reign of wars fought in defense of commercial interests, and the ‘unspeakable oppression of the proletariat.’ The 1919 manifesto contains a very confident and optimistic note, to the effect that the capitalist class is now making its last stand in history and is practically bankrupt. The same optimism was evident in all the Chicago conventions. The Socialists condemn the League of Nations as the ‘Capitalist Black International,’ designed to defend capitalistic imperialism and to crush the efforts of the proletariat for freedom. The faith of the Socialist Party in the ultimate redemption of the workers by the establishment of an international Socialist régime, composed of free and equal Socialist states, is not destroyed. In fact, the party sees signs of this new order of civilization in the achievements of the proletariat in Russia, Germany, and Hungary, and in the spread of Soviet philosophy in the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, where the temporizing programmes of the pre-war labor reform are said to have been replaced by revolutionary aims and the determination of the workers to control political and industrial machinery.

The Socialists are less optimistic concerning the disintegration of capitalism in the United States. Here, indeed, capitalism is declared to have emerged from the world-war more reactionary and aggressive, more insolent and oppressive than ever, and our government is vilified for having betrayed its democratic purposes in entering the war, by the creation of alliances with the reactionary imperialism of Europe and Asia. But even in the United States the Socialists see symptoms of a rebellious spirit in the ranks of the proletariat, manifested by extensive strikes for better conditions of employment, the demand of two million railway workers for control of their industry, the resolution of the miners calling for nationalization of mines, and the sporadic organization of labor parties.

The attitude of the Socialist Party toward Bolshevism is not at all clear, and at times seems inconsistent. The party pledges support to the revolutionary workers of Russia in the maintenance of their Soviet government, and indorses the movements toward the Soviet system in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. It goes further, and justifies the violent tactics of the Russian Bolshevists on the ground that the latter, were forced to resort to violence to obtain and hold their freedom. Nevertheless, there is no mistaking the desire of the old Socialist Party to effect the transition from Capitalism to Socialism by evolutionary rather than revolutionary methods. The workers of the United States are urged to endeavor to regain the civil liberties of which they were deprived during the war, to the end that the transition from Capitalism to Socialism may be effected without resort to the drastic measures made necessary by autocratic despotism. Although violent methods are not openly indorsed, the purpose of the Socialist Party is accepted as being fundamentally similar to the aim of all proletarian movements, namely, to wrest the industries and the government from the capitalists, and to place them under the control of those who work with hand or brain, to be administered for the benefit of the whole community.

The attitude of the Socialist Party toward industrial organization of the workers, and the substitution of occupational representation for geographical representation in parliamentary bodies reveals the influence of the programme of Soviet Russia. Mass action is possible only when all the workers are organized both politically and industrially, or industrially alone, into one powerful, harmonious class. In other words, a distinct class-organization must replace craft or trade-unionism, since the latter destroys solidarity. The similarity between this idea and the ‘One Big Union’ doctrine of the I.W.W. is unmistakable, and it is significant that the three major parties of American Socialism have indorsed it. The purpose of this industrial solidarity is declared by the Socialist Party to be to prepare the masses ‘ for cases of emergency, to reinforce the political demands of the working class by industrial action.’ Political action is still to be dominant, and industrial mass action a sort of vis a tergo at the opportune moment.

Here the Socialist Party differs from the Communist Labor Party and the Communist Party — pronounced advocates of Bolshevism. The Communists have declared against parliamentary participation except as a means of spreading propaganda, and have openly espoused industrial action. Declarations in favor of industrial organization are aimed directly at conservative trade-unionism as represented in the American Federation of Labor and the railroad brotherhoods, and are said to be an endeavor ‘to win the American workers from their ineffective and demoralizing leadership, to educate them to an enlightened understanding of their own class-interest, and to train and assist them to organize politically and industrially on class lines, in order to effect their emancipation.’

The substitution of occupational representation for geographical representation in parliamentary assemblies is advocated by the Socialist Party, on the ground that the old system of representation is not truly representative of social and economic interests, and does not, therefore, give adequate representation to the wage-earners as a class. The proposed system of parliamentary representation is the same as that established by the Soviet government of Russia. This is the first step made by the old Socialist Party toward the Soviet plan, and some of the anti-Communists within the party endeavored to soften the action of the majority by proposing a system of both geographic and occupational representation.

In spite of this apparent sympathy with the aims and organization of Bolshevism, the Socialist Party cannot be said to have accepted the complete Soviet programme of action. It is true that the report of the Committee on International Relations to the Emergency Convention, passed by a vote of 56 to 26, declared that the Second International is no more, repudiated the Berne Conference as retrograde because of its failure to act in the interest of the working class, and urged the calling of a reconstituted Socialist International of adherents to the class-struggle, in order that ’Revolutionary proletarian forces of the world may at every critical moment be effectively mobilized for simultaneous and harmonious action.’

But this report contains no open indorsement of the Third (Moscow) International, which was called by Lenin and Trotsky, and to which American Communists have subscribed. Failure to indorse the Communist International was denounced bitterly by the more radical minority report of the Committee, but this did not change the conservative element in the old party.

IV

The Communist Labor Party of America had its genesis in Chicago, after all efforts of the radical faction to gain control of the Socialist Emergency Convention had failed. Although some of the bolting delegates advocated the organization of a new party under the title of the Left Wing Socialist Party, there was a large majority that wanted to abandon completely the term Socialist; and this group, under the leadership of John Reed, who was converted to Bolshevism while a correspondent in Russia, won the day, and the name Communist Labor Party of America was adopted. The new name was accepted as the best means of announcing to the world that the party stands foursquare with the Bolshevists of Russia and the Communists of Hungary. Not all of the members of this new party indorse the entire programme of the Soviets as practicable in the United States, and some of them warned the Convention that the time is not opportune for the adoption of the name Communist, with its implication of a dictatorship of the proletariat, inasmuch as in the United States the struggle is still between Socialists and capitalists, and not, as in Russia, Germany, and Hungary, between the radicals and the Moderate Socialists. Moreover, it is feared by this more conservative faction that the terms Bolshevism and Communism will not attract American workmen, who are not kindly disposed to a dictatorship of the proletariat. This feeble protest failed to move the majority, and not only was the designation Communist accepted, but an emblem which is essentially a copy of the emblem of Bolshevist Russia was endorsed. Brief examination of the platform will make clear the nature of the aims and methods of this Centre-Left group of American Socialists.

There is some difference of opinion within the ranks of the Communist Labor Party regarding the amount of emphasis that should be placed upon mass industrial action as opposed to political action. By liberal construction, however, the party has defined political activity and industrial action as one and the same thing for all practical purposes. This elastic interpretation has been made with a view to ready readjustment to that mode of party tactics which circumstances may indicate to be most expedient in the social revolution which the party declares to be inevitable. Although members like William Bross Lloyd, the millionaire Socialist, have warned against the use of violence, the party’s platform is openly revolutionary, and emphasis is placed on industrial mass action. In common with the conservative Socialist Party, the Communist Labor Party recognizes that there is need of immediate changes in the political and industrial structure of the world, and that the vital question is whether all power shall remain in the hands of the capitalists or shall be transferred to the working class. The ultimate purpose of the party is, therefore, similar to that of its more conservative contemporary, namely, the organization of the workers into a class, the overthrow of capitalistic rule, and the conquest of political power by the proletariat. The workers, organized as the ruling class, are, through the government, to make and enforce the laws, own and control land, factories, mills, mines, transportation-systems, and financial institutions. In brief, all power is to be vested in the hands of the workers, for whom the socialization of the instruments of production and the machinery of the distribution of wealth must be effected, with the ultimate objective of guaranteeing to all the proletariat the full social value of their toil.

Unlike the old Socialist Party, the Communist Labor Party frankly affirms its identity with Bolshevism and indorses without qualification revolutionary methods of attacking the capitalistic order. It differs from the old party also in relegating to the background all parliamentary action, which, if ever resorted to, must be used for purposes of propaganda only. The programme — an elaboration of the principles laid down in the platform — states expressly that the most important means of capturing state power for the workers is direct action of the masses, proceeding from the places where the workers are gathered together — the shops, factories, mills, and mines. The use of bourgeois parliaments for this purpose must ever be incidental. Mass action functions readily and forcibly through strikes; and while the Communist Labor Party does not openly advocate violence, the voice of its first convention frequently intimated the necessity and justification of force at the opportune moment. In fact, delegates on the floor declared that the gun and the strike are both political weapons in Communist parlance.

In spite of its revolutionary phrases and its frank sympathy with the Soviet system, the Communist Labor Party is manifestly a vacillating group of Centre-Left Socialists who are too radical to feel comfortable in the Socialist Party and not sufficiently communistic and revolutionary to gain admission to the Communist Party. The inadequacy of its organization and the uncertainty of its position bespeak the possibility of an early demise, when its members will affiliate with the conservative Right Wing or the Extreme Left Wing.

Just as the German element has dominated the policies of the Socialist Party since its inception, and the American faction controls the Communist Labor Party, so the Russians have played the major part in the organization of the Communist Party. The solidarity of the Russian-language federations is so well effected as to guarantee domination of the Communist Party for some time to come. The party’s first convention might well have been carried on in the Russian language. This large Russian constituency accounts for the pronounced influence of Lenin and Trotsky in the formulation of the philosophy and the programme of action enunciated by the convention. The Communist Party is truly the party of Revolutionary Socialism in America, and its members are self-declared disciples of Bolshevism. Any doubt that one might have entertained relative to the teaching of Bolshevism in this country was dispelled completely by the sentiment of the first convention of this party, held in Chicago last September. The English element of the party is represented by members of the Left Wing National Council who deserted the old Socialist Party and immediately accepted the Soviet programme, and by the Michigan Socialists who were expelled from the Socialist Party.

Of all the programmes ever advanced by radical thinkers in the United States, that of the Communist Party forms the most unequivocal challenge to defenders of the existing order of society. It is difficult to conceive a more definitely formulated plan for the revolutionary demolition of accepted political and economic institutions. The communistic diagnostician pronounces immediate death for the present order and deplores all reformative attempts to effect a cure. To the Communist mind, moderate, opportunistic Socialism is directly and manifestly counter-revolutionary, and the Centrists, who organized the Communist Labor Party, are revolutionary in phrases, but in action are betrayers of the class-struggle and the Third (Moscow) International. Failure to apply the principles and methods of Marxian Socialism to present-day conditions, as they were applied by Lenin and Trotsky, is the basis of this condemnation.

Like the other two Socialist groups, the Communist Party is convinced that ‘Capitalism is in collapse.’ The manifesto and the programme of the party are patterned after the declarations of the Third International, held at Moscow, March 2 to 6, 1919, the declarations of which were signed by Lenin and Trotsky. The Communists are waging relentless war against Socialism, tradeunionism, and Capitalism. They do not accept the conception of the state which Moderate Socialism holds, namely, that the bourgeois parliamentary state is the basis for the introduction of Socialism. Such a conception is denounced as directly counter-revolutionary. The Communist Party believes that the class-struggle is essentially a political struggle, in the sense that its objective is political, which means that the political organization upon which Capitalism depends must be destroyed and in its stead a proletarian state power established. Proletarian dictatorship is looked upon as a recognition of the fact that it is necessary for the proletariat to organize its own state for the coercion and suppression of the bourgeoisie. Such dictatorship, however, is expected, not only to perform the negative task of crushing the old order, but also to fulfil the function of constructing a new régime. ‘Out of the workers’ control of industry, introduced by the proletarian dictatorship, there develops the complete structure of Communist Socialism — industrial self-government of the communistically organized producers.’ These tasks performed, the dictatorship will end, in its place coming the ‘full free social and individual autonomy of the Communist order.’

The ultimate aim of the Communist Party is the creation of a Communist order, with the proletariat as the only class. To achieve this end mass industrial and political action is to be used, but participation in parliamentary campaigns is to be merely for purposes of propaganda. The general strike is accepted as the most forcible expression of mass action; and to guarantee such a strike at the opportune time, the party is agitating the construction of a general industrial union organization embracing the I.W.W., the W.I.I.U., independent and secession unions, militant unions of the A.F.L., and the unorganized workers, on the basis of the revolutionary class-struggle. The struggle in the United States is expected to be more bitter than in Europe, for the war is stated to have strengthened American capitalism. For this reason the Communists warn that the problem is not one of immediate revolution, but rather the maintenance of revolutionary action that may last for years and tens of years, until the final collapse of Capitalism and the creation of the structure of Communist Socialism, with complete expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the liberation of the proletariat, who will then become the owners of the instruments of production and the rulers of the world.

In this brief survey of contemporary Socialism in America, space allows only a suggestion of its salient doctrines and methods of action. Sufficient has been said, however, to show that the recent schism in American Socialistic forces was due to a fundamental difference in the conception of the most expeditious method of destroying modern capitalism. The three parties are in perfect agreement regarding the necessity of overthrowing the present order. There are several points of disagreement, especially between the Socialist Party and the Communist Party, the chief of which is the attitude of each group toward parliamentary action. The conservative Right Wing is convinced that bourgeois parliaments constitute the most suitable channels for the introduction of Socialism within the archaic structure of Capitalism, and is, therefore, kindly disposed toward parliamentary participation and opportunistic social reforms. The Centre-Left and the Extreme Left, especially the latter, repudiate parliamentary action in bourgeois states as a reactionary compromise, and maintain that, although parliamentary participation may be used for propaganda purposes, ultimate reliance must be placed on mass action and revolutionary efforts, expressed through a general industrial organization of the workers using the general strike.

Another important difference is revealed in the attitudes of the Socialist and Communist parties toward the church and religion. The former holds religion to be a private matter and has looked upon the church with indifference, an attitude also manifested by the I.W.W. The Communist Party, however, interprets religion as a social phenomenon and explains the church in the light of the materialistic conception of history — an institution that ‘befuddles the minds of the masses, and defends the capitalistic order.’ The three Socialist groups agree in the condemnation of trade-unionism, in the endorsement of the general industrial union, and in the enlistment of the negro in the class-struggle.

It is quite probable that the near future will find American Socialism divided into two major parties, the Socialist Party absorbing all of the moderates and the Communist Party enlisting the revolutionists. The conflict is between these two groups. There is an unmistakable tendency toward revolutionary doctrines and Bolshevistic philosophy, and the ready capitalization of this tendency by Leninists in America contains ominous signs of a concentrated, revolutionary attack upon the economic and political foundations of the present order of society.