we read of the Social-Democratic Party in Germany, or in the Scandinavian or Balkan countries, it must be understood that this is the name adopted by the Socialist party whenever a political branch was established. All Social-Democratic or SocialDemocratic Labor parties are Socialist parties. Only very recently, since the rise of the Bolsheviki, have groups of extreme Socialists, in breaking away from the regular party, called themselves Communists. Also practically all the Social-Democrats of Europe are followers of Karl Marx. There is no other system of philosophic and practical Socialism now being followed and applied.

The next and far more important point is that in considering the European situation we cannot pigeon-hole Labor by itself and Socialism by itself, as we can in the United States, in the case of organized labor of the American Federation of Labor type; nor as we also can in the case of Australia, where Labor has always been comparatively free from Marxism or any other form of doctrinaire socialism.

Throughout Europe, and to a large extent in Great Britain, Socialism and Labor must be bracketed. It is easy to study, in the Scandinavian countries, for instance, how the Socialist-Democratic Party fostered the establishment and extension of the trade unions, or vice-versa; and how the responsibility for the movements in the interest of the working classes was harmoniously divided between the two elements. The Social-Democratic Party took charge of the political and the trade unions took charge of the economic side of the struggle, and the campaigns were planned together by the leaders of the two groups.

In other countries like mercurial and individualistic France, there is an ebb and flow of collaboration, according to whether moderates or extremists are in power. The Confédération Genérale du Travail, even though it is Syndicalist, was more in sympathy with the moderate Socialism of Albert Thomas and Renaudel than it now is with the present dominant Bolshevik Party of Loriot, or even with the more moderate Longuet.

In Spain the Syndicalists and Socialists are at odds, but largely because the Spanish people are not yet sufficiently educated to really master the ideas of Socialism. In Italy, on the contrary, the people have had a long education in all these ideas and long practice in handling them, and notwithstanding the outspoken Bolshevism of the official Socialist Party, it has the almost solid backing of the big labor organizations and trade unions of the

country which are largely Syndicalist. They work hand in hand and wait for the time when the economic and political revolutions will be brought about by their common action.

In Germany the interlocking of Labor and Socialism is even more complete and logical because founded on a long history and a thorough education in the theories underlying the alliance. The only obstacle to the dominance of Socialist theories of the revolutionary type over the German laboring man in his inborn thrift and his disinclination to endanger by uncertain experiments the basis of his material well-being.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF SOCIALISM

The evolution of Socialism has depended on the coming of economic crises. Engels, Marx's partner, believed that such crises came "about once every ten years," when over-production threw business out-of-joint. As that great early French Socialist, Fourier, described them, they were crises of plethora; as the present crisis, on the contrary, is a crisis of under-production, of depletion. Far more explanatory than Engels' theory is that which makes our present social upheaval depend on the tremendous concentration of capital and centralization of output through the modern combined development of machinery and invention; a concentration that also brought together great masses of the workers and gave them the idea of united effort and close organization in opposition to the capitalist concentration.

That such conditions led at first to a movement among thinkers and dreamers rather than workers was natural. Professor R. T. Ely says with regard to this early group in his "Socialism and Social Reform" (1894, p. 56): There existed early in the (nineteenth) century a Socialism of a Utopian type in France, England and Germany. France, in particular, had a number of thinkers who gained a great reputation at home and abroad and found followers in many lands. Cabet, Saint-Simon, and Fourier are names which, in this connection, occur to everyone who it at all familiar with the history of Socialism. They had schemes more or less fantastic. England had its Robert Owen, a wealthy manufacturer, who used up a fortune in endeavors to establish communistic villages in England and America. The United States had its wave of Fourieristic Socialism, and its Brook Farm and other settlements. Albert Brisbane, Horace Greeley, and George William Curtis took part in the movement. About 1860

this early Socialism had well-nigh disappeared, or been absorbed by other Socialist movements." It had no roots among the workers, no reality, no practicability. It was very largely a literary Socialism. When the Paris Commune came, in 1871, it may be said that there did not exist any concrete, clearly-conceived Socialist or Labor movement in Europe. But during these years the foundations for one were being laid, by the combined energies of Ferdinand Lassalle and Karl Marx, both of them German Jews. Lassalle was instrumental in interesting the working class in Socialism with his brilliant progaganda and Marx assisted by Engels supplied the steady driving power, system and theory.

The revolution of 1848 coincided with the publication of the famous Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, one of the chief original documents in the history of modern Socialism. It is based upon his materialistic conception of history as a fatalistic natural evolution determined by economic conditions. If Marx's later and ponderous masterpiece "Das Kapital" is the Bible of present-day Socialism the "Manifesto" is its Ten Commandments, the basis for its bid for world-domination.

The Manifesto did not produce any apparent effect at first. Marx was exiled from Germany and went to live in London, to work and prepare. He saw the conservative reaction after the failure of the Republican wave of 1848. IIe saw the futility of the Utopians. He did not realize how much in the way of suggestion and originality he himself owed to the earlier French thinkers. He was building up the details of his system in "Das Kapital."

And now we come to the first step toward organizing a Socialist movement in the First International.

THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL.

What is meant by the First, Second and Third International of the Socialist Party?

It was in 1864 at St. James' Hall, London, on September 28th, that the First International was founded, largely through the efforts of Karl Marx, as the culmination of the fifteen years of educational work conducted by him and his friends and followers, such as Engels and Lasalle, ever since the Communist Manifesto of 1848. The organization was called "The International Working Men's Association." Its purpose was to unite all the different organizations of revolutionary tendencies in Europe. Hunter

says in "Socialists at work" (p. 302): "It included workingclass leaders, from the extreme anarchist to the moderate republican of the Mazzini type. In England the members were mostly trade unionists; in Germany, Socialists; in France and the Latin countries, anarchists. A few working men's organizations in America allied themselves, and in other countries there were many affiliated groups. Nearly all the leaders, however, were of the middle class, and many able thinkers sympathized with and supported the movement. It started with every promise of success; but it was loosely organized, and it mirrored the chaotic condition of the working class itself . bitter feuds broke out among the leaders, which added to the general confusion, and divided the workers even more grievously than before. The Blanquists were conspirators, hoping to capture by stealth the French government. The Proudhonians were opposed to all parliamentary action center of division

. the International became the storm until finally Marx became a dictator." Marx was a bitter polemist. He condemned the brilliant French Socialists as Utopians; he condemned State Socialists; his own disciple the brilliant Lasalle; Bakunin, the great Russian anarchist leader. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870 was a very serious blow to him. Finally in 1872 Marx wrecked the International in order to destroy the power of the anarchist wing. The Anarchists were growing very powerful. They had practical control of the revolutionary movement in Russia, and were influential in Italy, France and elsewhere. To Marx they were anathema, because they spelled the death of any system; and Marx wished to displace one system completely by another. Therefore, he pulled down the house he himself had built.

A brief survey of the main purposes of Socialism is in order, and an analysis of Karl Marx's Manifesto, the text of which will also be given in full.

Many persons, especially among the intellectuals and philanthropists, call themselves Socialists because they believe that for the selfishness of individual aims there should be substituted the altruism that subordinates the good of the individual to the good of society as a whole. This type of Socialist is as varied in opinion as Joseph's robe of many colors. Such general welfare theory has no connection with Socialism in its scientific and systematic A Socialist in this sense is mainly an opponent of individualism: a constructive believer in this philosophy purposes to sacrifice no class but to improve and elevate all classes.

sense.

Socialism in its exact and scientific sense is based on certain definite principles, and not on various states of mind. It has a theory of both industrial and political society that involves a radical reconstruction of the present world, making its political organization subordinate to its economic or industrial organization. It is based on three main propositions.

The first principle is the common ownership of the material elements of production. It is collective industrialization. It has two forms:

(1) A constructive form, which allows certain kinds of wealth, not designed for further production, to remain private property; and

(2) A radical form, which abolishes all kinds of private property.

The second principle is the common management of production, which it is claimed would insure to the whole community the benefits of the things produced, and insure to all the opportunity and obligation for work under the best conditions.

The third principle relates to the distribution to the entire community of the wealth produced by the collective labor and management, a plan which is supposed to insure the satisfactory utilization of the surplus so produced, and its just distribution among the various classes of producers.

According to this the two principal sources of production, land and capital, must cease to be private property and become the collective property of society as a whole.

In the political sphere socialism aims to:

(1) Denationalize peoples,

(2) Denationalize governments, and

(3) Increase municipal and all local control,

(4) Transfer to economic authorities most powers now assigned to political authorities.

The political state by these means is so reduced in power and scope that it is practically wiped out.

It is a peculiar fact that there exists not a single system of Anglo-Saxon socialism, nor a single system of Latin race socialism. In fact, the only scientific, concrete and perfectly systematic scheme is of German-Jewish origin- the scheme of Karl Marx. This is the basis for the materialism inherent in presentday socialism, for its antagonism to religion, to ethics, and to all