Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography
confound me with partisans with whose principles I am not in accord.
Moreover, I know that many American Socialists are high-minded and
honorable citizens, who in reality are merely radical social reformers.
They are oppressed by the brutalities and industrial injustices which we
see everywhere about us. When I recall how often I have seen Socialists
and ardent non-Socialists working side by side for some specific measure
of social or industrial reform, and how I have found opposed to them on
the side of privilege many shrill reactionaries who insist on calling
all reformers Socialists, I refuse to be panic-stricken by having this
title mistakenly applied to me.
None the less, without impugning their motives, I do disagree most
emphatically with both the fundamental philosophy and the proposed
remedies of the Marxian Socialists. These Socialists are unalterably
opposed to our whole industrial system. They believe that the payment of
wages means everywhere and inevitably an exploitation of the laborer
by the employer, and that this leads inevitably to a class war between
those two groups, or, as they would say, between the capitalists and the
proletariat. They assert that this class war is already upon us and
can only be ended when capitalism is entirely destroyed and all the
machines, mills, mines, railroads and other private property used in
production are confiscated, expropriated or taken over by the workers.
They do not as a rule claim--although some of the sinister extremists
among them do--that there is and must be a continual struggle between
two great classes, whose interests are opposed and cannot be reconciled.
In this war they insist that the whole government--National, State and
local--is on the side of the employers and is used by them against
the workmen, and that our law and even our common morality are class
weapons, like a policeman's club or a Gatling gun.
I have never believed, and do not to-day believe, that such a class war
is upon us, or need ever be upon us; nor do I believe that the interests
of wage-earners and employers cannot be harmonized, compromised and
adjusted. It would be idle to deny that wage-earners have certain
different economic interests from, let us say, manufacturers or
importers, just as farmers have different interests from sailors, and
fishermen from bankers. There is no reason why any of these economic
groups should not consult their group interests by any legitimate means
and with due regard to the common, overlying interests of all. I do
not even deny that the majority of wage-earners, because they have less
property and less industrial security than others and because they do
not own the machinery with which they work (as does the farmer) are
perhaps in greater need of acting together than are other groups in the
community. But I do insist (and I believe that the great majority of
wage-earners take the same view) that employers and employees have
overwhelming interests in common, both as partners in industry and as
citizens of the republic, and that where these interests are apart they
can be adjusted by so altering our laws and their interpretation as to
secure to all members of the community social and industrial justice.
I have always maintained that our worst revolutionaries to-day are those
reactionaries who do not see and will not admit that there is any need
for change. Such men seem to believe that the four and a half million
Progressive voters, who in 1912 registered their solemn protest against
our social and industrial injustices, are "anarchists," who are not
willing to let ill enough alone. If these reactionaries had lived at an
earlier time in our history, they would have advocated Sedition Laws,
opposed free speech and free assembly, and voted against free schools,
free access by settlers to the public lands, mechanics' lien laws, the
prohibition of truck stores and the abolition of imprisonment for debt;
and they are the men who to-day oppose minimum wage laws, insurance
of workmen against the ills of industrial life and the reform of
our legislators and our courts, which can alone render such measures
possible. Some of these reactionaries are not bad men, but merely
shortsighted and belated. It is these reactionaries, however, who, by
"standing pat" on industrial injustice, incite inevitably to industrial
revolt, and it is only we who advocate political and industrial
democracy who render possible the progress of our American industry
on large constructive lines with a minimum of friction because with a
maximum of justice.
Everything possible should be done to secure the wage-workers fair
treatment. There should be an increased wage for the worker of
increased productiveness. Everything possible should be done against the
capitalist who strives, not to reward special efficiency, but to use
it as an excuse for reducing the reward of moderate efficiency. The
capitalist is an unworthy citizen who pays the efficient man no more
than he has been content to pay the average man, and nevertheless
reduces the wage of the average man; and effort should be made by the
Government to check and punish him. When labor-saving machinery
is introduced, special care should be taken--by the Government if
necessary--to see that the wage-worker gets his share of the benefit,
and that it is not all absorbed by the employer or capitalist. The
following case, which has come to my knowledge, illustrates what I mean.
A number of new machines were installed in a certain shoe factory, and
as a result there was a heavy increase in production even though there
was no increase in the labor force. Some of the workmen were instructed
in the use of these machines by special demonstrators sent out by the
makers of the machines. These men, by reason of their special aptitudes
and the fact that they were not called upon to operate the machines
continuously nine hours every day, week in and week out, but only for an
hour or so at special times, were naturally able to run the machines at
their maximum capacity. When these demonstrators had left the factory,
and the company's own employees had become used to operating the
machines at a fair rate of speed, the foreman of the establishment
gradually speeded the machines and demanded a larger and still larger
output, constantly endeavoring to drive the men on to greater exertions.
Even with a slightly less maximum capacity, the introduction of this
machinery resulted in a great increase over former production with the
same amount of labor; and so great were the profits from the business in
the following two years as to equal the total capitalized stock of the
company. But not a cent got into the pay envelope of the workmen beyond
what they had formerly been receiving before the introduction of this
new machinery, notwithstanding that it had meant an added strain,
physical and mental, upon their energies, and that they were forced
to work harder than ever before. The whole of the increased profits
remained with the company. Now this represented an "increase of
efficiency," with a positive decrease of social and industrial justice.
The increase of prosperity which came from increase of production in no
way benefited the wage-workers. I hold that they were treated with gross
injustice; and that society, acting if necessary through the Government,
in such a case should bend its energies to remedy such injustice; and
I will support any proper legislation that will aid in securing the
desired end.
The wage-worker should not only receive fair treatment; he should give
fair treatment. In order that prosperity may be passed around it is
necessary that the prosperity exist. In order that labor shall receive
its fair share in the division of reward it is necessary that there be
a reward to divide. Any proposal to reduce efficiency by insisting that
the most efficient shall be limited in their output to what the least
efficient can do, is a proposal to limit by so much production, and
therefore to impoverish by so much the public, and specifically to
reduce the amount that can be divided among the producers. This is all
wrong. Our protest must be against unfair division of the reward for
production. Every encouragement should be given the business man, the
employer, to make his business prosperous, and therefore to earn more
money for himself; and in like fashion every encouragement should be
given the efficient workman. We must always keep in mind that to reduce
the amount of production serves merely to reduce the amount that is
to be divided, is in no way permanently efficient as a protest against
unequal distribution and is permanently detrimental to the entire
community. But increased productiveness is not secured by excessive
labor amid unhealthy surroundings. The contrary is true. Shorter hours,
and healthful conditions, and opportunity for the wage-worker to make
more money, and the chance for enjoyment as well as work, all add to
efficiency. My contention is that there should be no penalization of
efficient productiveness, brought about under healthy conditions;
but that every increase of production brought about by an increase in
efficiency should benefit all the parties to it, including wage-workers
as well as employers or capitalists, men who work with their hands as
well as men who work with their heads.
With the Western Federation of Miners I more than once had serious
trouble. The leaders of this organization had preached anarchy, and
certain of them were indicted for having practiced murder in the case of
Governor Steunenberg, of Idaho. On one occasion in a letter or speech I
coupled condemnation of these labor leaders and condemnation of certain
big capitalists, describing them all alike as "undesirable citizens."
This gave great offense to both sides. The open attack upon me was made
for the most part either by the New York newspapers which were frankly
representatives of Wall Street, or else by those so-called--and
miscalled--Socialists who had anarchistic leanings. Many of the latter
sent me open letters of denunciation, and to one of them I responded as
follows:
THE WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON, April 22, 1907.
Dear Sir:
I have received your letter of the 19th instant, in which you enclose
the draft of the formal letter which is to follow. I have been notified
that several delegations, bearing similar requests, are on the way
hither. In the letter you, on behalf of the Cook County, Moyer-Haywood
conference, protest against certain language I used in a recent letter
which you assert to be designed to influence the course of justice
in the case of the trial for murder of Messrs. Moyer and Haywood. I
entirely agree with you that it is improper to endeavor to influence the
course of justice, whether by threats or in any similar manner. For this
reason I have regretted most deeply the actions of such organizations as
your own in undertaking to accomplish this very result in the very case
of which you speak. For instance, your letter is headed "Cook
County Moyer-Haywood-Pettibone Conference," with the headlines:
"_Death_--cannot--will not--and shall not claim our brothers!" This
shows that you and your associates are not demanding a fair trial, or
working for a fair trial, but are announcing in advance that the verdict
shall only be one way and that you will not tolerate any other verdict.
Such action is flagrant in its impropriety, and I join heartily in
condemning it.
But it is a simple absurdity to suppose that because any man is on trial
for a given offense he is therefore to be freed from all criticism upon
his general conduct and manner of life. In my letter to which you object
I referred to a certain prominent financier, Mr. Harriman, on the one