You have found an item located in the Kentuckiana Digital Library.
No. 50 "Fabian Socialism in the New Deal" Speech of Demarest Lloyd, July 9, 1935. American Liberty League. 400dpi TIFF G4 page images Digital Library Services, University of Kentucky Libraries Lexington, Kentucky Am_Lib_Leag_50 These pages may freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. No. 50 "Fabian Socialism in the New Deal" Speech of Demarest Lloyd, July 9, 1935. American Liberty League. American Liberty League. Washington, D.C. 1935. This electronic text file was created by Optical Character Recognition (OCR). No corrections have been made to the OCR-ed text and no editing has been done to the content of the original document. Encoding has been done through an automated process using the recommendations for Level 1 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file. Pamphlets Available â˜… Copies of the following pamphlets and other League literature may be obtained upon application to the League's national headquarters: Statement of Principles and Purposes American Liberty League Its Platform An Analysis of the President's Budget Message Analysis of the $4,880,000,000 Emergency Relief Appropriation Act Economic Security The Bonus Inflation The Thirty Hour Week The Pending Banking Bill The Holding Company Bill "What is the Constitution Between Friends?** Speech by James M. Beck Where Are We Going? Speech by James W. Wadsworth Price Control Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow The Labor Relations Bill Government by Experiment Speech by Dr. Neil Carothers How Inflation Affects the Average Family Speech by Dr. Ray Bert Westerfield The AAA Amendments Political Banking Speech by Dr. Walter E. Spahr The Bituminous Coal Bill Regimenting the Farmers Speech by Dr. G. W. Dyer Extension of the NRA Human Rights and the Constitution Speech by R. E. Desvernine The Farmers* Home Bill The TVA Amendments The New Deal, Its Unsound Theories and Irreconcilable Policies Speech by Ralph M. Shaw Is the Constitution for Sale? Speech by Capt. William H. Stayton How to Meet the Issue Speech by William E. Borah The Supreme Court and the New Deal The Duty of the Church to the Social Order Speech by S. Wells Utley An Open Letter to the President By Dr. Neil Carothers The Revised AAA Amendments The Return to Democracy Speech by Jouett Shouse The President's Tax Program The American Bar The Trustee of American Institutions Speech by Albert C. Ritchie AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. Fabian Socialism in the New Deal Speech of DEMAREST LLOYD Member Advisory Council of the American Liberty League in Round Table Discussion of 'The Constitution and the New Deal' Institute of Public Affairs University of Virginia July 9, 1935 AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE National Headquarters NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. â˜… â˜… Document No. 50 now to relieve any possible misapprehensions the foregoing may have aroused, let me assure you at once that I am not going to say anything about deep plots engineered from abroad for revolution by force, accompanied by such strategic strokes as the setting of incendiary fires and the simultaneous paralysis of water supplies, electric light, gas and telephone systems, although I have reason to believe there is noteworthy evidence that such plans exist. I shall deal as exclusively as possible with my topic, Fabian Socialism, and not mention Communism and Communists, except as they are linked up with Fabianism. Well, what is Fabianism? There are various forms and degrees of Socialism of which Red Revolutionary Communism is the most extreme. Fabianism is the mildest but most subtle and furtive form. They all, however, are to all intents and purposes, from the American point of view, "the same kettle of fish," in that they all share the common objective of abolition of the right of ownership of private property in excess of purely personal things (such as small houses, dogs, maybe a small car or bicycle, clothes, etc.) and the abolition of the right to conduct private enterprise and make a profit or suffer a loss! What this really means is that the government, the state, or whatever you call it, governs not only in the political sense, but in every phase of the economic sense. The Communist wants to usher in this millennium by violent and unavoidably Bloody Revolution. The ordinary Socialist wants to do it by political action, frankly in the name of Socialism, but the Fabian, who, so far as possible, studiously avoids mention of Socialism, wants to do it by propaganda and political action in the name of something else of gentle sound, such as "Better Social Order," "Social Justice," (pious phrase that), "Industrial Democracy," "Brotherhood of Man," "More Abundant Life," and by Jove, I almost forgot "New Deal"! And, by the way, where did that expres- sion originate? With Mr. Roosevelt? Oh, no! You remember the so-called Progressive, but largely Socialist Party of the late Senator La-Follette in 1924? After the convention had adjourned, A. A. Berle, Jr., Frederick C. Howe and others now prominent as "Brain Trusters," sent a telegram of congratulations to the Senator in which appeared the phrase, "We believe that the time has come for a New Deal." How do I know all this? Because for years I was a Socialist by conviction, myself, and a Fabian at that! w HY did I change my views? If I wanted to take the audience's time with personal history, I could doubtless give a reply which would by interesting and instructive, but the whole situation might be covered by the apt truism that "he who is not a Socialist sometime before twenty-five is hard in the heart, and he who is one after thirty-five is soft in the head." The idealistic phases of Socialistic philosophy are very intriguing, especially to the inexperienced. I did not, I am now glad to say, become a member of the Socialist Party. When I came in contact with the gross materialism and the seething hatred which are the predominant notes in Socialist thinking and talking, I was definitely repelled. Nevertheless, still believing in the ideals, I found myself quite intellectually content in the Fabian Club of Boston of which I was an active member and for some time, treasurer. This Boston organization took its name and inspiration from the well-known Fabian Society of England, of which I shall have more to say further along in my remarks. Later, I was even more active as secretary of the Harvard (graduates) Liberal Club. This was a small but very alert, astute and effective organization, which, despite its disarming name, functioned in the Fabian way, which I will also elaborate more fully before I get through. It would be inspiring, indeed, to live in a civilization where all worked unselfishly for the common good and shared the benefits of this collective effort. And would it not be marvelous to have a government which administered the nation's wealth, tangible and intangible lands, forests, mines, water powers, transportation benignly for the benefit of all? Such a state of affairs, however, inexorably requires some very large conditions precedent a population of virtual angels and a government composed of supermen, all wise, impartial, efficient, un-deviatingly conscientious in the national interests, and last but not least, courageous, especially in the disciplining of the masses and the defiance, if necessary, of popular clamor. As to the population, such people in the mass do not exist, and as to the government, a friend of mine quite aptly remarked to me in my Socialist days, "Your ideals are inspiring, but where in time are you going to get your public officials?" The question floored me. With the ideal population and the ideal government in fact as well as form the argument for planned economy and brotherly wealth sharing is powerful, but with our polyglot and emotional population and our rotten politics, to attempt such a thing at this stage would be just silly. Go to a National Convention of either of the major parties and then imagine what would happen to the nation's economic resources if they all were at the mercy of deals put across among themselves by those politicians. My father was a journalist, author, economist, and philosopher. Commenting on the politics of the two major parties in the gay nineties, he wrote: "It is a case of the public being crucified between two thieves who unlike those in the New Testament, are not crucified." Planned economy for us now is putting the cart before the horse. We should first perfect our government in both form and personnel. YOU cannot have economic collectivism and political individualism. Notice that wherever in the world today there is serious dabbling in Socialism those countries end up in dictatorship, either Fascist or Communist. We must choose, but it is my guess that we are not going to give up political individualism, so we had better stick to our economic institutions. You are up against human nature humanity, if you like but in the realistic sense and not in the sentimental sense in which the word is usually employed. Except in times of great religious or patriotic exaltation, people in the mass are selfish in their personal attitudes and apathetic in those pertaining to national welfare. (Nothing short of compulsion, therefore, can convert them into active Utopians.) Thus it is a case of Utopian theories vs. human realities, and in a time of intense stress it is not safe to ignore realities. Socialism as a bundle of theories designed to give expression to mass altruism which is non-existent. Capitalism is a system worked out by long human experience for the expression of human natnre as it is. It seems imperative to recognize this fact and retain in its main features, although with perhaps substantial modifications, a system which can honestly and effectively be applied by the human material at hand. For that reason this wave of subversive agitation and political action with which we are now at grips is a most bewildering mixture of good and evil. Subtle appeal is made to the most contagious and reckless emotions and sentimentalities, and back of it all, upon examination, stands revealed a startling purpose, the scrapping of the American political and industrial systems and the substitution of a thoroughly alien order. In order to understand just what we are up against, let us take a look at what our revolutionary enthusiasts furtively refer to as "the technique of revolution." Now it is one of the outstanding facts of history that as a rule it is not the Reds who start a revolution. They make a lot of noise, but stand safely in the background in the earlier stages. It was not, for example, the "Reds of the Midi" or any other part of France, who started the French Revolution. Despite aU their bluster, it was not the Russian Bolsheviks who overthrew the Czar. In each of these cases it was the idealistic aristocrats, the Liberals, and the mild Radicals who overthrew the despotism. The Reds hung back until strong government was broken down, and the Liberals, who in the main are likable, well-meaning but gullible and impractical people, were in power. Then when widespread disorganization prevailed, the Reds struck with decisive force. Such is the technique of revolution as against autocracies. In democratic countries such as ours and Great Britain, an even more masked attack must be managed. Here the game is by indirect means such as graduated discriminatory and confiscatory taxation and other tactics to be indicated later, to confiscate or destroy private wealth and paralyze private industry. GEORGE SOULE, authoritative socialist, in his book, "The Coming Revolution," says, "The critical periods of social revolutions, in which shifts of power are actually registered, are, as we have seen, seldom begun by the accession to power of conscious revolutionists. They are not accomplished by violent revolts or coups d'etat. They begin by reforms undertaken by the ruling powers themselves, and by the coming to power of moderates who often give lip service to the old regime. The role of the extremists is played later in the process, after the old regime has virtually given up because of incompetence, and after the moderates in turn have proved their incapacity to secure the welfare of the people. When a revolutionary crisis is at white heat, a small minority of determined revolutionaries can sometimes achieve the leadership of the mobile masses, as they did in Russia in the fall of 1917. When a shift in power actually occurs, it is usually begun, not with the seizure of power by outsiders, but with reforms by insiders. These reforms are the cracks in the dam which invite the flood." The graduated discriminatory system of taxation is of alien and Socialistic origin. For decades the Socialist Party of America has advo- cated just such taxes. Socialism aims to confiscate all private property. In our country complete confiscation is not permitted under the Constitution, so, as much confiscation as possible is sought under the graduated income and inheritance tax system and how weU the device works! THE Workers (Communist) Platform for 1928 (American Labor Year Book, Vol. X, page 159), under the heading "Tariff and Taxation" recommends in part the following: Abolition of all indirect taxes. Exemption from all kinds of taxation for all wage-earners. Graduated income tax, starting with incomes about $5,000, and increasing gradually, so that all incomes over $25,000 per year are confiscated. Harold J. Laski, in answering his own question: "What should be the next steps in American Socialism?", says the Socialist sees "that the weapon of taxation is at his disposal for his end." Then under the subheading "Taxation for Socialist Purposes," appears this language: "Pressure for higher taxation on large incomes is vital." Franz Longville, in summing up some of the accomplishments of the Socialists in the United States, writes: "They have compelled all Governments to obtain an increasing amount of their total revenue from progressive income and inheritance taxes." Simultaneously it is intended by strikes, labor restrictions and government interference to make the conduct of private enterprise vir-tuaUy, if not entirely impossible. You all remember the Roman general, Fabius, who never risked battle unless he was in shape to win, but relentlessly harassed the enemy with guerilla warfare at other times? Modern revolutionaries, as already indicated, are evidently impressed by his methods for they have adopted both his strategy and name. Hence, Fabian Socialism or Fabianism. The creative genius of the so-called British Labor Party was that group, Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Philip Snowden, and many others, calling themselves the Fabian Society of Great Britain. I. HERE are in addition to those mentioned, other similar organizations in this country, and the demoralizing pressure exercised by them upon the existing order is referred to as "Fabian Socialist tactics." In these efforts, the sentimentalists, Liberals, mild Radicals and wild Radicals, all, consciously or unconsciously, cooperate. There has been an interlocking board of directorates aU the way from the Federal Council of Churches to the most extreme Communists. Chapter and verse were furnished by Major General Amos A. Fries at a hearing before the House Immigration Committee on the Griffin Bill, January 26,1932. The Sentimentalists and Liberals sit in with the mild Radicals and the mild Radicals sit in with the Communists. As a result of this unholy alliance, headed by churchmen, we are weU along with the "ground clearing" or "Fabian" stage in revolutionary strategy. A friend of mine, Richard H. Sanger, graduate of Harvard College and Business School, lived in Russia for one year, June, 1933, to June, 1934. He went there an ardent exponent of Communism, I, as a Harvard graduate, am ashamed to say, because of the unbalanced way in which the Business School had emphasized the virtues of economic planning. For this reason he went, not as a tourist, but as an immigrant to work for his living and become a better communist. He says that in Moscow, where he spent six months, they had a course of lectures in English for members of the staff of the Moscow Daily News, the better to fit them for their supposed future activities as Communist agitators in other countries. Subjects of discussion were current events from the Communist viewpoint in other words, how the revolution was progressing in various parts of the world and what to do about it. AU these lectures were delivered by members of the Communist Party, some American and some Russian. 10 ll WAS the consensus of opinion of these technicians that until comparatively recently there was no revolutionary progress in the United States due to the well-being and conservatism of the middle class and employed workmen. Lately, according to Sanger (you wiU recall he returned just a little over a year ago), the outlook was said to be very encouraging, due to growing discontent, uncertainty and insecurity, states of mind which feed revolution. What these Bolsheviks hoped for for us, he says, was a series of short, sharp booms with long-drawn-out depressions. Spreading discontent among negroes and any and all potentially inflammable minorities was regarded as most important. But, you may be beginning to wonder, what has all this to do with the New Deal? I will tell you. The real objective was to get the American people proletarian minded, and that could best be done by their wholesale impoverishment. Their capitalistic economic bulwarks must be destroyed. These were generaUy classified as the "savings of the people" and covered not only savings bank accounts but life insurance policies and bonds, both government and corporate in fact, those investments usually regarded as safe and sound for the small investor. All these values, it was pointed out, would largely, if not entirely, be wiped out by inflation, so, for our own good, as mother used to say about our childhood spankings, there was exultation in Moscow over such inflation as we had had so far and even more at that which was deemed inevitably in store as a result of the reckless expenditures of the Roosevelt administration and the increase in the national debt. all this is perfectly consistent from the viewpoint of the world revolution enthusiasts. According to J. Maynard Keynes in "Economic Consequences of Peace," pages 235-236, Lenin is said to have declared that: "The best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments 11 can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become 'profiteers,' who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflation has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery." Look at what Mr. Roosevelt and his "Brain Trust" have already done to our currency! See how they have jeopardized the national credit and the solvency of all banks by unprecedented extravagance and borrowings from private banks threatened into absorbing government bonds to finance these borrowings. In addition, there are the attacks actually made, unconstitutionally attempted, or defiantly threatened by NRA, AAA, The Banking BiU, The Confiscatory Tax Bin, The Public Utilities Holding Company Bill and all the other brutally or insidiously destructive measures. Is it any wonder that, as Lenin hoped, confidence has been paralyzed and the functioning of the Capitalistic System is in danger of degenerating into a "gamble and a lottery?" Mr. Roosevelt made a good start with the bank holiday, the gesture to cut out hundreds of millions of dollars of unjustifiable payments to veterans for non-service connected disabilities, his appointment of Lew Douglas, since removed, as "watch-dog of the Treasury" and his comprehensive attack on the prohibition law. All this now appears as "eye wash" for those who expected to see the Democratic Plat-12 form put into effect. But ever since the late spring of 1933 he has, with the exception of a few feeble gestures rightward, been going left, and now he has gone so far that the "hide and seek" game is up. His recent "share the wealth" tax proposals, whether he realizes it or not, are part and parcel of the program of alien-minded revolutionaries for the destruction of all private wealth, the wholesale impoverishment of our people to the Russian level and the summary changing of our political and industrial systems. In THIS present emergency he has in the main surrounded himself with Reds and Pinks. My magazine, Affairs, Inc., Washington's Weekly-Review, in its May 27th, 1932, issue, called attention to the implications involved in his preelection inflammatory appeals to class prejudice. Walter Lippmann, reviewing him criticaUy from another angle in the New York Herald-Tribune of January 8, 1932, could not avoid the conclusion that he had mastered the political trick of "carrying water on both shoulders," succeeded in a studied attempt to straddle the country, was "a highly impressionable person without a firm grasp of public affairs and without very strong convictions," a "cautious politician" who worked along with Tammany and did not proceed against that institution until his hand was forced by "the fact that an investigation of Tammany had to be undertaken." In fact, Mr. Roosevelt was "a pleasant man, who, without any important qualifications for the office, would like very much to be President." Thus spontaneously wrote Mr. Lippmann before the Roosevelt nomination. Later, when the decision lay between Roosevelt and Hoover, Mr. Lippmann, making what he must have regarded as a sorry choice of evils, came out for Roosevelt. But now, even Mr. Lippmann may be sorry. How, then, did such a man get elected to the Presidency? Answer: By the voters relying upon his specific promises and those contained in the Platform upon which he ran. But if people like Mr. Lippmann felt as they did in the winter and spring of 1932, how did 13 Mr. Roosevelt obtain the nomination? Technically, lie was nominated by a convention of delegates, but it is now quite universally recognized, as it was at the time by those who went there as delegates or spectators, that it was not a free convention. The delegates were not at liberty to deliberate and choose. Had they been so, they would not have nominated Mr. Roosevelt, but they were all sewed up before they got there. Many persons are under the impression that the sewing up process was exclusively the work of the industrious, genial and ingenious Mr. Farley. That is only a part, much less than half of the story. In order to get the answer as to the other and major portion we must, since time is limited, jump through a very significant and somewhat complicated period of modern history. For a more comprehensive development of the case than we have time for here, I recommend the pamphlet issued by the League For Constitutional Government, 18 East 48th Street, New York City, entitled "The System of 'Stealing' Party Nominations." The Socialist Party, the open-and-above-board organization to bring about Socialism by political means, has been with us since before many of us can remember. It never has gotten anywhere. So, for a time, the intelligentsia fringe of the movement, seeking to bring about the so-callcd "cooperative commonwealth" in the Fabian way, were split into two camps: those believing in the non-partisan Anti-Saloon League method, and the Third Party advocates. There was the Farmers Non-Partisan League, and in 1924, the so-called but really Fabian Socialist Party of the late Senator Robert M. LaFoRette, with bis demands for the government ownership of public utilities "every one." After the 1924 election, in which the LaFoRette Party made an insignificant showing, the counsels of the advocates of the non-partison method prevailed and since that time this element has been in the saddle. Their scheme, as disclosed by their literature and the utterances of their leaders, was to "bore from 14 within" in the organizations of the two major parties. By concentrating attention upon the direct primary, a device for which the demand originated in Socialist headquarters, they could control delegates to conventions, platforms and candidates. Since experience has demonstrated that only a small fraction of eligible voters go to the primary poRs, a well-organized minority, by stampeding into the primary of either Party, could in that way "capture," or, in effect, steal the control of a Party. A. C. Townlcy, who had been a Socialist organizer, is quoted as saying that if Socialism could be sugar-coated with another name, he would not only make the farmers swallow the pill but would make them pay for it. That this method was employed with telling effect in 1932 primaries is obvious from the results. Under our scheme of politics, men are not appointed to high public office except as a reward for political favor. H. E. Gaston, one-time publicity representative of the Non-Partisan League, who wrote a book in which he several times referred to "capturing" the Republican Party, was appointed as assistant to Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., and is said to be in charge of publicity for that department. SENATOR Burton K. Wheeler of Montana, who has been an effective New Deal aRy, was Vice President on the ticket with the late Senator Robert M. LaFoRette. Others, who were LaFoRette supporters during the 1924 campaign and who have been holding key positions in a so-called Democratic administration are the following: Basil M. Manley, member of the Federal Power Commission; J. A. Franklin, Leo Wolman, Sidney Hilhnan, Rose Schneiderman, made members of Labor Advisory Board of the NRA; Fred C. Howe, special appointee in the Department of Labor; Frank P. Walsh, prominent in the present administration, was an elector for LaFoRette in New York; Donald Richberg, who needs no sketch for a present-day audience; A. A. Rerle, Jr.; Professor Tug-15 well, who perhaps has had more than his share of the limelight, was a LaFollette supporter. Getting even more precisely down to cases, what has happened could not better be stated than by Mr. Fred H. Clutton, Secretary of the Chicago Board of Trade, as reported in the National Grain Journal for July, 1934. To quote from the Journals account: "Those who voted for President Roosevelt because they did not approve of Mr. Hoover's farm "relieF' activities, and who, also, consented to the Democratic platform by conviction, besides thinking it to be the lesser of two evils, awaken now to find the Roosevelt administration has virtually tricked them, and substituted the Socialist Party platform instead. To prove this point, Mr. Clutton read the Socialist Party 1932 platform." Let us examine this platform alongside major features of the New Deal program. Again, for convenience, and to save time, I shall make use of a leaflet issued by the League for Constitutional Government. The 1932 Socialist Party of America Platform proposes to transfer principal industries and natural resources, public utilities of the country from private to public ownership; calls for a federal appropriation of five biUion dollars for relief and five billion dollars public works, and also for legislation providing for the acquisition of land and equipment for the unemployed; the six-hour day, the five-day week, public employment agencies, unemployment insurance, old age pensions, workmen's compensation, government aid to farmers and small home owners; socialization of credit and currency, steeply increased income and inheritance taxes; creation of federal market agency, acquisition by cooperative societies of grain elevators, stock yards, packing houses, etc.; encouragement of farmers cooperative societies; an amendment to make constitutional amendments less cumbersome; abolition of the power of the Supreme Court. So much for the Socialist Party Platform, by itself. Now, following the New Deal measures in 16 similar order, you have Redistribution of Wealth; increase of government bureaucracy and serious encroachment or threatening destruction of the right of private property. You have the FERA, with its biUions for relief and the President's four billion, eight hundred and eighty million for public works. The FHSC and the ECW take care of the proposal for the acquisition of land and equipment for the unemployed; the NBA attempted to take care of the six-hour day and the five-day week; and the social security bill provides for unemployment insurance, old age pensions, etc. SOCIALIZATION of banking is attempted in the Eccles Banking Law and Mr. Roosevelt's "Soak-the-Rich," "Share-the-Wealth" tax proposals must be just what Socialists want. The socialistic agricultural program is covered by the tax program, processing taxes, FERA Schools, FSRC, AAA and Amendments. Perhaps most striking of all is the similarity of attitude between the Socialist Party Platform and that of Mr. Roosevelt and his "Brain Trusters" regarding the Supreme Court. The Socialists and other radicals have for decades, chafed at constitutional restraint exercised by the Supreme Court. Mr. Roosevelt and the "Brain Trusters" rendered lip service to our complete form of government as long as they had things their own way. When the Supreme Court stepped in and upset the NRA applecart and some others, they showed their real attitude, which was that the Supreme Court is a nuisance. So much for the 1932 Socialist Platform and the New Deal, but one can go further and show that Karl Marx, the founder of international Socialism, advocated a program which is strikingly identical with the present program of the Roosevelt New Deal, as evidenced by the list of measures which were urged by Marx in his "Communist Manifesto" as the preliminary steps to the proletarian revolution. The "Communist Manifesto" has been regarded by three generations of Socialists as the 17 handbook of the Socialist creed. It is sold everywhere today by the Communist and Socialist Parties as official propaganda. It was written by Marx and Engels in 1848 as a textbook of the technique of Socialist revolution. DESCRIBING the first steps which must be taken by the proletariat (the propertyless workers) to gain power for their eventual revolution, Marx writes: "The proletariat wiR use its poUtical supremacy to wrest, by degrees, aR capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize aR instruments of production in the hands of the state. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production." The kinship of such program with the attacks made by Mr. Roosevelt upon the profit system is seen clearly when we examine the specific measures which Marx urged that revolutionists should support, in the different countries. For purposes of comparison, I have selected 7 of the 10 Marx proposals, omitting only those which are obviously outdated: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. The New Deal, through its AAA program, and through the Bankhead Act, has substantially weakened the rights of land owners by empowering the state to prescribe production quotas and fix prices. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Such a system is the foundation of the New Deal tax system. 3. Abolition of aR right of inheritance. Mr. Roosevelt, in his June 19th message to Congress foreshadows this objective in 18 urging the imposition of crushingly heavy inheritance and gift taxes. 4. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. Centralization of credit is proposed in the Eccles Bill, now before Congress, and Secretary Morgenthau has indicated his support of a program for a central bank. 5. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. Mr. Roosevelt in his recent special message to Congress urged that all forms of transportation be brought under the control of a Federal commission. 6. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state: the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generaRy in accordance with a common plan. Mr. Hopkins, through the FERA has subsidized the establishment of 7,650 state-owned workshops for the unemployed. Dr. Tugwell, as head of the Rural Rehabilitation Service has been granted $100,000,000, and will receive $850,000,000 additional, under the Works Relief budget to carry on a government program for "the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 7. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. The CCC has established a state-directed army of 600,000 men to carry out a social program of reforestation, and general agricultural work. ElGHTY-SEVEN years ago, Marx proclaimed it as his opinion that the foregoing programs would bring about the necessary conditions for revolutionary Socialist success. It is extraordinary that 70 per cent of this Marxian program of immediate demands is in process of realization through the policies of the Roosevelt New Deal. In the light of this analogy, it is not difficult to understand why Abraham Cahan, 19 editor of the Socialist daily, Forward, and for years the theoretical leader of the New York Socialists, declared at a mass meeting of garment workers at Madison Square Garden in October, 1933, that Roosevelt was qualified to become a full-fledged member of the Socialist Party. Were Karl Marx Rving today, it is difficult to see how he could be anything else but an ardent partisan of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Thus you see that aR this alleged New Deal is nothing more nor less than a lot of "old stuff" brought in Trojan Horse fashion without a word about socialism, class war, dictatorship, Karl Marx, but under cover of an assortment of bromidic slogans about ushering in the New Heaven on Earth. This is a case of putting over Socialism by sleight of hand and that is a pure example of Fabian Socialism or Fabianism. Some of our alien-minded reformers, or misguided citizens may say, "WeR, what's the difference?" What's the difference? In the first place, socialism is not only of alien inspiration, geographically speaking, hut spirituaUy, it is totaRy inconsistent with and abhorrent to American traditions, principles and ideals. In the second place, the voters not only did not vote for it at the 1932 election, but for over a long period of years have consistently voted against it every time they have had a chance. How, then, did they get it? They were tricked into voting for an administration, which under cover of a beguiling personality and profuse utilization of appealing slogans, proceeded to put it over. And that is where we are today! I SUBMIT that the case against the present administration for foisting Socialism on the country by Fabian tactics is unanswerable. In closing I should like to put just one question, and I defy anyone to answer it in a way which does not reflect discredit upon the present administration. The 1932 Democratic Platform was a thoroughly American and very statesmanlike document, which provided, among other things, for reducing governmental expenditures 20 by 25 per cent, or about one biRion dollars; keeping the currency sound; getting the government out of competition with private business; abolition of bureaucracy; having the tariff con-troUed by a non-partisan board of experts, free from executive interference, etc., etc. In accepting the nomination, Roosevelt gave assurance that he accepted it "100 per cent." Since his inauguration he has violated practicaRy every important provision in it. 1. "I accuse the present Administration of being the greatest spending administration in peace times, in all our history one which has piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and has failed to anticipate the dire needs of reduced earning power of the people." 2. "I regard reduction in Federal spending as one of the most important issues of this campaign. In my opinion, it is the most direct and effective contribution that Government can make to business." Are the two above statements my language? They are not! They were made by Franklin D. Roosevelt; the first at Sioux City, Iowa, September 29, 1932; and the second, at Pittsburgh, Pa., October 19, 1932. It is to laugh, the cost of Federal Government from the time of Washington to that of Wilson, 1789 to 1913 a total of 124 years was $24,521,-846,000. Expenditures of Roosevelt Administration, as estimated by the President, actual 1934 and estimated 1935 and 1936, total $24,206,-533,000. Another quotation: "Remember weU, that attitude and method, the way we do things, not just the way we say things, is nearly always the measure of our sincerity." From a speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt at Rutte, Montana, September 19, 1932. The question, rather the questions which we must in aU conscience pose to ourselves and answer for our children are these: Why hasn't the President kept his own election promises? Why has he foisted policies upon us which the entire American electorate has so often rejected 21 when presented in their pristine Socialistic form? Why has our chief magistrate turned over so many important posts in the governance of our Commonwealth, even perhaps the destiny of future generations, to a dubious personnel of proven adventurers, Radicals and rainbow chasers? Why, indeed, has Franklin Roosevelt, instead of carrying out his own party's program, covertly and blandly put over the 1932 Socialist Party Platform upon a trusting, hopeful public? How will his apologists and sycophants explain away in the dark hour of reckoning, which is now close at hand, the fact that the Roosevelt policies have actuaUy, demonstrably put into process of realization in our free land seventy per cent of that classical product of foreign tyranny, the Communist Manifesto ? 22