The War and the New Era.—The world has spent the years since the war in a condition of political and economic unrest. This is not surprising because this herculean contest rocked the foundations of civilized society. It let loose the primitive passions of men, hurled monarchs from their thrones, turned industry upside down, drew millions of men out of life’s normal routine, and wasted as much wealth as the whole world can create in twenty or thirty years. Small wonder it is that people should ask themselves whether a social order which permitted all this to happen is in reality the best type of organization for the civilized countries of the world. Self-examination usually takes place among men and nations after a great disaster. Things which have been assumed to be true are inspected; old traditions are overhauled, and new proposals receive a more ready welcome than at other times.

---

---

The Growth of Radicalism.—Two working principles have hitherto furnished the basis for political and economic organizations in such countries as the United States, Great Britain, and France. |Democracy and individualism.| Democracy, by which we mean the control of government by the whole people, acting chiefly through their representatives, has been the accepted basis of political institutions. Individualism, by which we mean an economic system founded upon the individual ownership of private property and, through private property, the individual control of industry has been in general the recognized foundation of economic institutions. By the masses of the people in all free countries the principles prefigured by these two words, democracy and individualism, have been tacitly accepted for fifty years or more as the groundwork of political and economic activity. Both were challenged from certain quarters; the socialists, for example, attacked the whole system of economic individualism; but in no country was the policy of individualism overthrown.

During and after the war, however, the demand for a reconstruction of the world’s entire political and economic structure became more insistent. Radical ideas as to what ought to be done, and radical proposals as to how it ought to be done were brought forth and spread. The world found itself, almost in a day, face to face with demands for the complete repudiation of democracy as an ideal and of individualism as a principle of economic organization. Proposals for state socialism, guild socialism, communism, and a dictatorship of the proletariat were put forth aggressively on every hand. No country proved to be immune from this radical movement, although in some it made far greater headway than in others.

The Soviet Plan of Government in Theory.^[307]—Among the various countries, Russia has gone the farthest, of course, in the radical demolition of the old political and economic order. The overthrow of the Czarist empire was presently followed by the establishment of soviet government and a system of economic communism. This action naturally attracted world-wide attention and it has exerted, during the past few years, a profound influence upon the attitude of men toward political and economic problems everywhere. |Why should Americans care to know anything about it?| It has given new inspiration to radicalism in the United States. We ought, therefore, to know something about this extraordinary overturning of the old political and economic structure in Russia; otherwise we cannot grasp the far-reaching significance of radical movements in our own country.

What is the soviet form of government and what is meant by communism as applied to industry?

The soviet form of government is a repudiation of the entire scheme of government which has been described in this book. |Why the Bolshevists object to democracy.| Its supporters regard democracy as a mere weapon of the capitalist by means of which he exploits the worker. The only way in which the workers can obtain their rights, they declare, is by establishing a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, in other words, a government absolutely dominated by themselves to the exclusion of all others. This, in the first instance, must be done by violence; but, eventually, they hold, the people will accept it peaceably.

Soviet government differs from democratic government in two all-important respects. In a democracy all adult citizens, whatever their occupation, are equally entitled to a share in the control of the government. Democracy stands on the principle of universal, direct, and secret suffrage. The soviet form of government repudiates the doctrine of political equality. It asserts that all power must be vested in the hands of the peasants and workers, and that the bourgeoisie (by which they mean capitalists, storekeepers, employers of any kind, including even farmers who employ hired labor) are entitled to no share in the control of the government. Democracy and equal suffrage, the soviet apologists proclaim, are merely instruments by which the strong oppress the weak. For a system of government by the people, they would substitute government by a portion of the people. In Russia this has meant, as a matter of fact, government by a very small fraction of the people.

The soviet system also differs from democracy as respects the way in which the officials of government are chosen. Representation in democracies is based upon areas of territory. |The soviet basis of representation.| All the voters of a town, country, or district join in electing a single representative. The people who live in a given territorial area are assumed to have a common interest by reason of their living close together. Under the soviet system this is considerably changed. Occupation as well as territory is the basis of representation. Groups of voters unite in choosing delegates because they work at the same trade, not because they live in the same neighborhood. For example, all the workers in a particular factory, or all the farmers in a certain district begin by choosing one or more representatives. These representatives come together and form the city workers’ soviet or the township soviet. The city workers’ soviet is made up of one or more delegates from every factory. Each local soviet, moreover, appoints delegates to higher soviets and these, in turn, choose delegates to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which is the supreme governing body. As this congress is too large to do the routine work of government, it delegates this function to a cabinet or Council of Peoples’ Commissars.^[308]

The Soviet Plan of Government in Practice.—This is the theory of soviet government. The supreme political authority is constituted by the workers alone, through a long process of indirect election. The national executive is several steps removed from the control of the people. He is not directly responsible to the people as in the United States. In actual fact, moreover, this elaborate plan of indirect representation has become, in Russia, little more than a scheme on paper. Many of the provincial Soviets have chosen no delegates at all. There is no assurance that those who now hold the reins of power in Russia are the real representatives of the masses of the people. To keep themselves in office the Commissars have throttled all opposition. |Some results of the soviet rule.| They have set at naught all the securities for personal liberty which exist in democratic countries. Arrests have been made without warrants, thousands of them; men and women have been held in prison and put to death without public trial; freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly have been denied. The soviet leaders admit all this but argue that these measures are necessary in order to prevent a counter-revolution.

The Economic Aspects of Communism.—The Russian revolution did not confine itself to political reconstruction alone. It was an economic revolution as well. |Relation of communism to industry.| All private trade, of whatever sort, was, in theory at least, abolished throughout Russia and all industries taken over by the government. The factories, shops, stores, and all other instrumentalities of business were placed in charge of officials to be managed for the benefit of the workers. These workers were assigned to the various industries by the soviet authorities, compulsory labor being decreed by law and a fixed standard of wages established. Trade unions and co-operative societies were put under the ban. Workers received their pay in the form of requisitions or orders on the government stores for food and other supplies. Strikes were forbidden on penalty of imprisonment. All land was declared to be owned by the state, but the peasant farmers were allowed to retain their farms upon giving the government a share in the produce.

Although the government did its best to carry through the foregoing program, economic communism in Russia broke down.^[309] Factories and stores went out of business; the peasants could not be coerced into supplying food for cities; foreign trade stopped almost entirely; the railroads failed to function; everywhere there was misery and starvation. So the soviet authorities in 1921 decided upon a partial return to the system of privately-managed industry. Factories and shops, to some extent, have been reopened under individual ownership; the trade unions have been permitted to reorganize; the rules relating to compulsory labor have been relaxed; and differences in the rate of wages paid to different workers are once more permitted. The country has swung back to a modified form of individualism and capitalistic production.

The great lesson of communism in Russia is that no system of economic organization can long survive unless it succeeds in producing enough to feed, clothe, and shelter the people. When the incentive of private gain is taken away, some equally strong incentive to production must be put in its place; otherwise production will decline and there will not be enough to go around. That is what happened in Russia. Neither compulsion nor appeals to the loyalty of the worker availed to keep production up. Fewer goods were produced and there was less to distribute. Equality of distribution avails nothing when there is too little to be distributed.

The International Aims of the Communists.—Communism is not merely national in its aim; it is international. Its motto is: “Workers of the World, Unite!” Its goal is the violent overturning of the existing political and economic organization in all countries so that soviet governments may be established and all private industry abolished. |Program of the Third International.| This is the program of the Third International, a body made up of communist delegates from all over the world. In order to promote this program the Russian authorities have endeavored to carry on a propaganda in all other countries, sending out literature and agents wherever possible. The communists realize, however, that the prospects for such a revolution are not good in countries like the United States, Great Britain, and France so long as the trade union movement makes progress and gains advantages for organized labor. Hence they aim to secure the destruction of unions, to promote “outlaw” strikes, and to encourage every form of industrial discontent.

Moderate Socialism and Communism Distinguished.—Communism, as it has been exemplified in Russia during the past few years, should be distinguished from socialism as the latter term is commonly understood, although extreme forms of socialism may go substantially as far. Socialists do not propose that all except the workers shall be excluded from a share in government. They do not propose to wipe out the political rights of the individual, or to destroy trade unionism, or to provide for labor conscription. Orthodox socialism does not aim at a “dictatorship” of any kind.

State Socialism.—The program of the moderate socialists is commonly known as state socialism. Briefly stated, it proposes that all the land, the mines, the forests, the factories, the railroads, and every other instrumentality of production or distribution should be managed in the interests of the whole people. Under the system of individualism, according to the socialist argument, these things are now managed primarily in the interest of private owners. The worker creates values in far greater proportion than the wages he receives. This surplus value goes to the employer in the form of profits. The socialist would abolish profits. The entire net earnings would go to the worker. The basis of government would not, however, be revolutionized. With some changes to make democracy more effective (for example, the wider use of the initiative and referendum), state socialism would leave government about as it is. The workers, being in the majority, would control government through their numerical superiority at the polls; they would not deny the suffrage to non-socialists. State socialism proposes the doing of all this through the ballot-box, not by violence or armed revolution.

The Case for Socialism.—Many books have been written in advocacy of state socialism and many arguments advanced in its behalf. The case for socialism rests largely upon certain propositions which may be briefly stated as follows: |The present industrial injustice.| Wealth is largely the product of labor, yet labor does not get its rightful share in the product. Capital and management, on the other hand, get more than their rightful share. Hence the rich are growing richer, and the poor are growing poorer. The control of industry, and with it the well-being of many million workers, is passing steadily into the hands of a very few men. Inequalities of wealth lead to discontent; the present organization of industry results in unemployment; and men are engaged in a perpetual class war with one another. Great wastes, moreover, result from the system of competition. Several milkmen, for instance, go up and down the same street, each serving a few families. Think of what the postage rates would be if we had a similar state of affairs under free competition in furnishing postal service! Socialism, it is claimed, would unify production and distribution, thus preventing waste.

Now the remedy for this is to abolish private capitalism, to have the government take over the industries, divide the earnings fairly, giving every worker his rightful share, thus securing a more nearly equal distribution of wealth and happiness. By this means, also, poverty and unemployment would be abolished. If all the products of labor were given to the worker (rent, interest, and profits being abolished), there would be enough to give everybody a reasonable day’s work and a comfortable living. There would be steady employment for all. The great majority of the people are workers. Their welfare should be the first care of organized society; but their welfare can never be secured so long as practically complete power over the conditions under which the workers labor and live is exercised by the private owners of industry. Socialists also claim that a moral gain would result, inasmuch as the present class conflict would give way to a recognition of human brotherhood. Co-operation, not conflict, would be the watchword of industrial society.

The Case Against Socialism.—The advocates of socialism, in their arguments, frequently assume something which they have not been able to prove. |Are the poor growing poorer?| They proclaim that the rich are growing richer and the poor are growing poorer, that the middle class is being crushed out, and that soon there will be only two groups, the very rich and the very poor. It is true that wealth is increasing and that there are more rich men today than ever before in the history of the world; but it is also true that the middle class is more numerous and the worker much better off than at any previous time. The standard of living among American wage-earners today is higher than it was among well-to-do people a hundred years ago. The average worker is better housed, better clothed, better fed, and has more of the comforts of life than the employer of a century ago.

But apart from this the crucial question concerns the way in which production would be maintained and how the earnings would be distributed under a socialist system. Today the main incentive to work is the expectation of reward. Most men work because they expect to be paid for it. Cut down their pay and they will usually stop work and try to persuade other people from working. There are exceptions to the rule, of course; but when men and women work hard and try to do their best it is because they hope to get promoted, to get their wages raised, to secure an easier job at higher pay.^[310] Socialism would abolish this exact relation between skill and wages. Everyone would work at whatever task he was best fitted to perform and would be given enough to live on comfortably. Or, as the socialists put it, everyone would produce according to his ability and be paid according to his needs.

This, however, begs some very important questions of a practical nature. Who would determine the work that you or I should do? Who would determine that you must labor in the coal mines while I go abroad, as a foreign ambassador? Who will determine your needs and mine, so that we may be rewarded accordingly?

The answer is that authorities would have to be established with power to settle these things and to apply compulsion where necessary. We would have industrial autocracy. Men and women would have no complete freedom to choose their own occupations. The socialists say that if the existing wage system were abolished everyone would do his best to increase production in order to make the new plan a success; but where socialistic experiments have been tried the contrary is true; the workers do less and produce less. Let us remember, also, the increased danger of corruption which would come if the authorities were given so great an increase in power. The whole resources of the country would be placed in the control of an official class; the entire labor-force of the nation would be put at their disposal. The socialist answers that if officials proved arbitrary or corrupt the people would turn them out of office. Does our experience with other forms of government warrant any such expectation?

Two methods of getting work done have been tried by the world at one time or another. In ancient and mediæval times most of the work was done by slaves. The slave got no wages; he did his work because he was compelled to do it. In modern times, since slavery and serfdom no longer exist among civilized people, most of the work is done by free men who do it because they expect to be paid for doing it. And since there are differences in the abilities of different men, some get more pay than others, even though the opportunities be the same for all. If the capable worker were not paid more than the less competent, he would not exert himself to do his best. To get the best out of any free man he must be given the hope of a reward in proportion to his efficiency, and for the great majority of people this means a reward in dollars and cents. That is human nature.

It is sometimes said that human nature may change and that, in a new environment, men might work unselfishly for the common welfare without reference to their rate of wages or profits. True enough the motives of men may and do change somewhat; but when we trace the course of human history through twenty centuries we find that the dominant traits of mankind have altered very little in all that time. Human nature itself affords the greatest obstacle to the success of a socialist system.

Socialism and Liberty.—Liberty does not include political freedom alone. It comprises the right of the individual to choose his own career, to make his own bargains, and to become his own employer if he can. An industrial system in which all men are compelled to do as some higher authority dictates would establish the very negation of liberty. Under socialism the complete control of all economic life would be vested in some supreme authority. It matters little how that authority might be chosen; the concentration of such vast powers anywhere, in the hands of any group of men, would make individual liberty a meaningless expression. It may be replied that under our present system of private industry the worker has in fact very little liberty; that many employers are despots and that the worker is subjected to tyranny. That is to a certain extent true. But in so far as there is an undue and needless restriction under present conditions of industry the remedy is to promote the liberty of the worker through the power of his own organizations and by the laws of the land.

Socialism and Democracy.—Socialism and democracy can never be good friends. Democracy is government by the people; in other words it is government by amateurs. It is not government by a professional class. The government of the German Empire before the war was largely in the hands of a professional class, a bureaucracy it was called. Now a democratic government, being managed by the rank and file of the people, is often wasteful and clumsy in its handling of business affairs. We have had some notable examples of this in the United States; for example, the building of airplanes and ships during the war, the operation of the railroads during 1918-1920, and the construction of public buildings. A bureaucratic government, conducted by professional administrators, is much more efficient. |Socialism would professionalize the government.| It is not improbable, therefore, that socialism, by placing upon the public authorities the entire management of every form of industry, including factories and shops as well as railroads and telegraphs, would mean the breakdown of the democratic ideal and the professionalizing of government. The entire industrial system of the country could not be successfully managed by amateurs. To save it from collapse under socialism the government would have to be reorganized on bureaucratic lines.

Can Democracy Solve Its Problems?—But if not socialism, what then? Certain it is that we are facing great problems both at home and abroad today; and these problems must be solved in the interest of human happiness. We cannot close our eyes to them and trust that somehow or other they will work out their own solution. Can democracy and our present system of private industry master them? Well, democracy and our present industrial system have overcome a great many obstacles in the past and it is only by studying the past that we can make any forecast of the future. The land surveyor, when he wants to project a straight line from a given point, walks back some distance so that he may align his pickets in the ground. Let us for a moment pursue the same plan, walk back a dozen decades in American history and take a sight along the great landmarks to the present time. What have democracy and individualism contributed to the well-being and happiness of the American people?

What America Has Done.—In the past one hundred and twenty years the people of the United States have increased their territories ten-fold, their numbers twenty-fold, and their wealth at least a thousand-fold. They have, with one great exception, composed their internal quarrels peaceably during the whole of this long period. They have developed a government based upon the consent of the governed and have placed the capstone upon it by the grant of universal suffrage. They have kept the various branches of government within their own respective fields and have thus prevented the growth of despotic power anywhere. The people’s direct control over the policy of the government, moreover, has been greatly augmented during the past generation. It is indeed doubtful whether Washington, Hamilton, and Madison, if they were to arise from their graves, would recognize the present government of the United States as their own handiwork, so far has it moved along lines of greater democracy. In the states and the cities this steady drift to more direct popular control has been very marked. One need only mention such things as the initiative, referendum and recall, direct primaries, popular election of senators, the short ballot, the commission and city-manager forms of government, and the extension of suffrage to women—all of which are the product of the last twenty-five years—to indicate how strong has been the tide of popular control.

Most striking of all American achievements, however, has been the wide diffusion of material comforts among the masses of the people. In no other country is there anything approaching it. The standard of living among wage-earners is higher than it is anywhere else, much higher. The average American worker is better housed and better provided with food than is the typical workman in any other country. He and his children get better educational opportunities and a better chance to rise in the world. The way in which immigrants have been flocking to our shores during the past hundred years is a proof that millions of men and women have looked upon America as a land of opportunity. This is not to imply, by any means, that there are no slums in American cities, no poverty, no misery, and no industrial oppression. We have, in truth, far too much of all these things. But it is also the truth that we have relatively less of them than any of the other great industrial lands.

Not all of this progress and prosperity is due, of course, to the political and economic system which America has maintained during the past century. The rich natural resources of the country and the steady industry of its people have been fundamental factors. But no matter how vast their resources or how unremitting their industry a people cannot achieve lasting prosperity and contentment unless they possess a political system and an economic organization which is well suited to their needs.

What Democracy Has Failed to Do.—It would be idle to regard democratic government everywhere as an unqualified success. No scheme of political organization will of itself secure a government which is both efficient and popular. The active efforts of the people are required to achieve this end. Not merely the consent of the governed but the participation of the governed is essential. By reason of popular indifference the institutions of democracy in America have frequently been perverted and abused by men whom the people have placed in power. |Some examples.| What passes for public opinion is at times nothing but propaganda, organized to promote some selfish interest. Democracy has not yet succeeded, moreover, in preventing wars or inducing all nations to deal justly with one another. It has not prevented the rise of opposing classes among the people, or kept groups of individuals from setting themselves in antagonism to each other. Democracy has not reconciled labor and capital; it has not carried its principles very far into our industrial organization. These are serious failings, no doubt; but the friends of democracy can fairly say, “Would any other system have done better?” Democracy is what the people make it, and its faults point to the defects of human nature.

The Citizen’s Duty in a Democracy.—No form of government gives the citizen so much as democracy, and none makes greater demands upon him in return. We are far too much concerned about the rights of men and women; far too little concerned about their obligations to society, to the state, and to their fellow-men. Voting at elections is but a small part of the citizen’s duty. His share in the forming of a sound and enlightened public opinion constitutes an obligation upon him every day in the year. When public opinion takes an unwise course it is because the people make up their minds hastily, without careful thought, and without the guidance which should be provided by the educated men and women of the land. Every individual is a unit in the forming of public sentiment; he can be a helpful factor if he will. Education is the chief corner-stone of democratic government, and it must also be the chief prop to any plan of industrial democracy which hopes to be successful and permanent. Education makes men and women tolerant of other people’s opinions, gives them confidence in mankind, and faith in what mankind can accomplish.

Democracy has passed through many raging storms. In the dark days of the Civil War there were many who feared that in America it was about to perish utterly. But it survived and grew stronger than before. Without the faith of the people in it, and the work which is the exemplification of faith, democracy can accomplish nothing; with these things there is no problem that it need fear to face.

E. M. Friedman, American Problems of Reconstruction, pp. 45-55;

Bertrand Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, pp. 186-212;

R. C. K. Ensor (editor), Modern Socialism, pp. 65-89;

N. P. Gilman, Socialism and the American Spirit, pp. 46-89;

H. G. Wells, What is Coming, pp. 96-124;

O. D. Skelton, Socialism: A Critical Analysis, pp. 16-61;

John Spargo, Social Democracy Explained, pp. 1-49;

C. J. Bullock, Selected Readings in Economics, pp. 668-705;

J. R. Commons, Industrial Government, pp. 110-134;

F. A. Cleveland and Joseph Schafer, Democracy in Reconstruction, pp. 165-192;

Sidney and Beatrice Webb, A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain, passim;

William Macdonald, A New Constitution for a New America, pp. 127-139.

1. What industrial democracy means. The traditional organization of industry. Relations of employer and employee. The representation of the workers in the management of industry. Methods of securing this representation. Shop councils. Merits and defects of the plan. Other proposals. Effects of industrial democracy upon production. References: G. D. H. Cole, Guild Socialism Re-stated, pp. 42-77; Ibid., Self-Government in Industry, pp. 24-47; R. W. Sellars, The Next Step in Democracy, pp. 246-272; J. R. Commons, Industrial Government, pp. 77-109; Ida M. Tarbell, New Ideals in Business, pp. 134-162; Sidney and Beatrice Webb, A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain, pp. 147-167.

2. The worker in the socialist state. References: Hartley Withers, The Case for Capitalism, pp. 138-168; H. G. Wells and others, Socialism and the Great State, pp. 69-119; R. W. Sellars, The Next Step in Democracy, pp. 135-156; O. D. Skelton, Socialism: A Critical Analysis, pp. 177-219; John Spargo, Social Democracy Explained, pp. 50-84.

3. The newer problems of democracy. References: F. A. Cleveland and Joseph Schafer, Democracy in Reconstruction, pp. 25-66; E. M. Friedman, American Problems of Reconstruction, pp. 447-464; F. J. C. Hearnshaw, Democracy at the Crossways, pp. 11-78; Graham Wallas, Our Social Heritage, pp. 158-186; L. T. Hobhouse, Democracy and Reaction, pp. 167-187; H. F. Ward, The New Social Order, pp. 35-75; J. H. Tufts, Our Democracy; its Origins and its Tasks, pp. 268-298.

1. How the workers manage business enterprises. C. R. Fay, Cooperation at Home and Abroad, pp. 222-237.

2. Anarchism: its teachings and methods. Bertrand Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, pp. 32-55; F. J. C. Hearnshaw, Democracy at the Crossways, pp. 262-287.

3. Syndicalism: its organization and aims. John Spargo, Social Democracy Explained, pp. 244-277; J. G. Brooks, American Syndicalism, pp. 73-105.

4. Communism. Leo Pasvolsky, The Economics of Communism, pp. 1-17; 48-83.

5. Bolshevism. R. W. Postgate, The Bolshevik Theory, pp. 13-41; Bertrand Russell, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, pp. 119-156; John Spargo, Bolshevism, pp. 262-323.

6. The soviet experiment in Russia. H. N. Brailsford, The Russian Workers’ Republic, pp. 37-79; Frank Comerford, The New World, pp. 118-169; 281-305.

7. Guild socialism. G. D. H. Cole, Guild Socialism Re-Stated, pp. 9-41; Hartley Withers, The Case for Capitalism, pp. 189-235; Graham Wallas, Our Social Heritage, pp. 102-121.

8. Marxian socialism. B. L. Brasol, Socialism vs. Civilization, pp. 61-110; John Spargo, Socialism Explained, pp. 123-157.

9. State socialism: the arguments for and against. Hartley Withers, The Case for Capitalism, pp. 138-168; A. E. Davies, The Case for Nationalization, pp. 12-29.

10. The individual and the new society. A. B. Hart (editor), Problems of Readjustment After the War, pp. 98-128.

11. Women in the new social order. H. G. Wells, What is Coming, pp. 159-188; H. A. Hollister, The Woman Citizen, pp. 142-178.

12. Fiscal reconstruction. E. M. Friedman, American Problems of Reconstruction, pp. 427-446.

1. Why has the movement for political and social reconstruction become stronger in recent years?

2. Explain how “the soviet form of government is a repudiation of the entire scheme of government which has been described in this book”.

3. Make a diagram showing the organization of the soviet government in Russia. Show how much more direct is the control of the people over their government in the United States.

4. What is the lesson of the economic breakdown in Russia?

5. Explain what is meant by the International. What are its aims?

6. State any arguments for socialism which are not given in the text. Any arguments against socialism. Is it true that “as a general rule there are only two ways of getting work done in this world”? In a socialist state what would be the incentive to work? Would it be sufficient?

7. Would the establishment of socialism necessarily involve the abandonment of democracy? Argue the point.

8. Name the principal achievements of American democracy during the past hundred years. Which of them do you regard as the most important and why?

9. Name some present-day political and economic injustices which you would like to see set right. Suggest what might be done about them.

10. Are you a more earnest or a less earnest believer in democracy by reason of your having studied Social Civics?

1. Representation in government should be based on occupations rather than on territorial divisions.

2. The laborers should be given a voice in the management of their respective industries.

3. The condition of the laborer is better under private capitalism than it would be under socialism.