Socialists in French Municipalities/Introduction

Ever since Bismarck sought to fight the German Social Democracy by the introduction of what Liebknecht has called "State Capitalism," in which the present class-controlled state assumes directly to undertake the owning function of the capitalist his tactics have been followed by the ruling classes of all nations as soon as socialism began to reach the point where the existence of capitalism is imperiled. With Bismarck there was no deception. He frankly and openly nationalized the railways, telegraphs and telephones and introduced old age and accident insurance, as a means of fighting the socialists. That he failed miserably in his purpose is in no small degree owing to the fact that the German socialists saw at once his intention and were in no way deceived. But in this country and in England we have unfortunately to deal with a mass of people who, while advocating the Bismarckian program, do so under the claim that it is socialism. They allege that industries controlled and operated by our present governments, state and municipal, are "socialistic" and that socialism sim​ply means the ownership of all property in this way.

Hence we have constantly pointed out to us the beauties of Glasgow, Birmingham and Bradford and our ears are filled with the wonderful work of the London County Council. Then when somebody points to the fact that the worst slums of the world are to be found in those very cities, that the laborers of Glasgow are among the worst off in the whole ranks of capitalism and that the East End of London is the nearest approach to a realization of Dante's Inferno that has yet been known, the would-be convert to socialism is apt to refuse with thanks any closer acquaintance with such a Paradise.

But the small capitalist reformer in America never tires of singing the praises of municipal water and gas and telling what marvels could be accomplished by state railways and city owned street cars. Here again the laborer who has about made up his mind to the beauties of state railroads as a first step to socialism and freedom is told by some one who has been in Belgium that the only important result of the extremely low fares on the Belgian roads (and on some commutation tickets they are as low as a tenth of a cent a mile) has been to bring the laborers from sixty miles out in the country into the factory towns to compete with the city ​workers. Then as the country workers have a little plot of ground on which their wives and children can raise enough vegetables to feed them, the wages of all are forced down to the point where they will supply the few things not furnished by the garden. Such news would be apt to cause the prospective convert to draw back from taking any more such "steps."

The reason for this confusion in America and England is largely owing to the fact that in these countries the form of Democracy has covered up the class nature of the modern capitalist state. The average voter has been told so long that he really governs himself that it is hard for him to realize that he is in reality being continually fooled into consenting to his own slavery. Hence he somehow thinks that capitalism differs according to forms of government. He has not yet learned that this capitalism is the most cosmopolitan thing in the world and exploits the worker with equal ease in despotic Russia, imperial Germany, monarchical England or republican America.

The only function of the modern state is that of preserving the rights of private property to the capitalist class. Not to all the capitalist class even, is this protection extended. No effort is made to keep the trust and department store from eating up the private property of the small manufacturer or shop-keeper, while its ​main endeavor is to secure the regular and legal robbery from the laborer of the products of his toil. Such a state is what the Germans call a "Polizei Staat" or police state. It is the one advocated by Herbert Spencer which has been so vividly described as "anarchy plus a policeman." Such a state being organized for such purposes and being wholly controlled by the capitalist class, is in no way fitted for the organization of co-operative industry. If they take industry at all it must be for purposes of exploitation and not co-operation.

This accounts for the fact that the small capitalists are the ones who favor capitalist municipalization. They can no longer hope to enjoy individual ownership in the industries mentioned because of the great amount of capital required. Hence they seek to have them exploited by the capitalist government to the reduction of their taxes. Generally there is an even closer relation than this. We hear much about municipal gas, which is the light of the small shopkeeper but nothing about municipal oil, which is the light of the laborer. That this is not because of any ridiculous distinction about "natural monopolies" is seen by the fact that these same small shopkeepers demand municipal tenements when insanitary hovels and high rents reduce the purchasing power of their customers. To be sure they really derive no ​benefit from these, as wages follow the reduced price of living so closely that the standard of life remains practically the same.

The socialist demands that before advocating further control of industry directly by government, it is necessary that that government should be in the possession of the producing class. He declares that the "first step" is the organization of the workers (including under that title all those who are actual creators of wealth, whether with hand or with brain, as managers or manual laborers, and excluding only those who live by virtue of ownership) into a political party for the capture of those powers of government necessary to the organization and control of industry.

This organization has already been formed and the victory gained in several hundred French cities, and where this has been done there has been no hesitation, no lack of clearness as to plans, no disagreement as to the nature of the "immediate demands" to be made and enforced. It is very significant that the party that did the work described in the following pages is the "Parti Ouvrier" (Labor Party) the most clear-cut and class-conscious of the French socialist parties. This party, commonly known as the Guesdists, from the name of Jules Guesde, one of the ablest workers and propagandists, has always been the subject of much ​attack by those who wanted "something right off." It is now very interesting to note that while those who were seeking to secure "half a loaf" in England and America are still picking up what crumbs are thrown them from the capitalist table, these "uncompromising, impracticable, theoretical" French socialists have already secured several good square meals and bid fair soon to capture the entire bakery.

It is especially noteworthy to see what these French workers really consider as the "first steps" toward socialism. It is not municipal railways or telephones, although these are taken when thought desirable, but it is the feeding of the children, the organizing of the relief of the poor, the assistance of organized labor, the building of sanitariums for the children of the workers, etc. Perhaps one reason for this is that it is rather hard to see what good a municipal telephone would be to a laborer unless it might be of assistance to his boss in waking him up an hour earlier. The average worker out of a job does not call the employers up by his (the laborer's) telephone, to ask if there are any vacancies.

The French socialists are also very particular to inform the visitor to these institutions they have established that they are in no way to be considered as socialism, that they are not little sections of the co-operative common​wealth, or even samples of its operation, but that they are simply and solely some examples of the best that socialists can do under capitalism.

It must also be remembered that in France the central government is most clearly capitalistic and utterly hostile to all the actions of the socialist municipalities. It does all in its power to prevent the carrying out of the plans of the socialists, and as the police force is under the control of the central government, and the cities have in general little autonomy compared with American municipalities, it is able to block many desirable measures. Under these circumstances it is little less than wonderful that the French socialists have been able to do so much for the laborers, and is but a suggestion of what American laborers could do for themselves did they but have the necessary sense to unite with the socialists politically and work with them instead of throwing away their vote for one of the old capitalistic parties.

The following pages are translated from recent official reports by the mayors of the respective cities; that on Roubaix appeared in "Le Mouvement Socialiste;" the others in "Le Socialiste."