"The political government of to-day, composed of President, Congress, and the courts, with the governments of the various states, is purely a class government. It is the government of the property holding classes. Its purpose is to protect private property and keep the workers, who have no property, in subjection. Its most important laws are laws of oppression. Its most important buildings are court houses and prisons. Its most important servants are policemen, detectives and soldiers" (p. 49).

"Power of the Trusts."

"The trusts control the army, the navy, the police, the political government, the schools, the press, the church, and even the theatres. The industrial empire is a power, with its forces encamped in every city and state of the land, armed not only with the weapons which slay the body, but also with those mightier weapons which destroy the free mind of the working classes" (p. 39).

The attack upon governmental institutions, however, is but incidental to the main purpose of the new socialistic program. Realizing that all civic institutions must be overthrown before the Red Revolution can hope for success, incen

never neglect an opportunity to villify the power which they fear. The real purpose of the book is to undermine the principles of craft unionism and so pave the way for the realization of the ideals of "industrial unionism," the motto of which is "One union of all workers in an industry; all industries in one union" (p. 45).

Debs in Chicago.

In 1905, in a speech delivered at Chicago, Debs laid down the principles that have been largely instrumental in shaping the program of Industrial Socialism. Even then he recognized the fact that the trade union was an antagonist which

must be overthrown before Socialism could come into its own.

"Experience, long, painful, and dearly bought, has taught some of us that craft division is fatal to class unity," he said. "To accomplish its mission the working class must be united. . . . The old craft union has done its work and belongs to the past. Labor unionism, like everything else, must recognize and bow to the inexorable law of evolution.

"The craft union says that the worker shall receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. What is a fair day's pay?

Ask the worker and, if he is intelligent, he will tell you that a fair day's pay for a fair day's work is all the workingman produces. While the craft unionist still talks about a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, implying that the economic interests of the capitalist and the worker can be harmonized upon a basis of equal justice to

both, the Industrial Worker says, 'I want all I produce by my labor.'

"If the worker is not entitled to all he produces, then what share is anybody else entitled to?"

The Worker's Share.

The extent to which this idea-"to the worker belongs all the product"— has been applied in the concrete conception now presented as "Industrial Unionism," is thus summarized by Socialism in one of its foreign organs:

Industrial Unionism accepts the principle that the interests of the working class and of the employing class are irreconcilably opposed. In accepting this principle, the Industrial Unionist gives the lie to the notion which generally dominates the ordinary trade or craft union, namely, that the interests of the two classes are harmonious.

That the poverty of the working class is due to the fact of labor power being a commodity is becoming increasingly evident. The workingman's wage is simply the price of the commodity he MUST sell to the employer in order to LIVE, and this price represents only a very small portion of the wealth produced by him in the service of the capitalist class. Modern society is made up of wage workers, who perform all the necessary labor, and of capitalist owners of the means of life, who appropriate the bulk of Labor's product. The interests of the two sections are NOT the same. The one toils and produces, the other idles and appropriates. The one receives enough to enable it to work, the other pays wages out of previous surplus produce and gets them back again a hundredfold. The one has no means of production, the other has all the means of production. The working class alone is necessary, and should rule society and industry; the capitalists class is unnecessary, and should, therefore, be

abolished. Between the two a class struggle exists continuous and bitter. Capital is organized to maintain and extend its sway, while labor's ranks present the appearance of a disorganized rabble, trade unionism helping the confusion by keeping the workers divided along craft lines. Industrial Unionism seeks to organize and unite all wage earners in order to pursue the class struggle to an end relentlessly.

This is the ideal which Hayward and Bohn emphasize in their new working program. To them an industrial union, to carry out its purpose, must be always fighting. "Action against exploitation requires agitation, publicity, strikes, boycotts, political force-all the elements and expressions of discontent. Discontent is life. It impels to action."

A General Strike Urged.

To obtain action, the industrial union would go to any extreme, even to the General Strike. "No one can logically take the position that a general strike would not be effective and not be good tactics for the working class," they assert. "A general strike would ignore the capitalist's interests and concern itself with the workers' interests only" (p. 47).

Undoubtedly, you have seen the end toward which the latest socialistic plan is tending. Having discovered that their efforts to corrupt the trade unions. from within have met with scant success, and despairing of accomplishing their purpose by this form of attack, Socialists have at last come out into the open and admit frankly that their present hope is in the substitution of "Industrial Unionism" for Trade Unionism. This alone would give them the power

they require. Without the worker to pull the chestnuts out of the fire, the Socialist will have to go without the coveted nuts.

But, let us see what would happen if the workingmen in the trade unions. were willing that Socialism should make catspaw of them. Hayward & Bohn tell us on page 50:

"The Socialist Party and the labor union will come closer and closer together. The labor union will come to stand for for Socialism. The Socialist Party will thus become a mere phase of the labor movement."

Then what will happen?

The Question Answered.

"The workers' government of the future will realize Socialism. . . . This government is now developing-in the workshops, of course. . . . With the growth of the organized industrial and political power of the workers, the class struggle will become ever keener. The government of the capitalists will make war on the workers. The battle will rage throughout the land, in every city and town, in every shop and mine. It will continue until the workers are strong enough to gain complete control of the nation's industries" (pp. 52, 53).

As to the weapons to be used, Haywood & Bohn are in no sense "conservative," for they state, on page 57:

"When the worker, either through experience or a study of Socialism, comes to know this truth (economic de

A Working Program.

There you have the working program of Socialism-unveiled - undisguisedfreed from all its tactical trappings. Primarily, it means The Red Revolution, with all its attendant horrors. To succeed in carrying out such a program, however, the Socialists must first win the active support of the trade unions, and this it will never accomplish, for Trade Unionism is built too firmly upon the sane philosophy of mutual aid to ever consent to become the tail to the Socialist Party's kite.

But, in the mean time, the HaywoodBohn pamphlet, with its gospel of lawlessness and disorder, is being circulated by the tens of thousands. Before the year has passed, hundreds of thousands of them may have been distributed throughout the United States. It is by such means that the social unrest is intensified. Eliminate the agitator of THE RED REVOLUTION and the greatest obstacle to the progress of our sorely-needed social reforms will he removed.

M

AYOR Samuel Lewis Shank of Indianapolis, Ind., one of the most talked of men in this country, owes his popularity to the common Irish potato. He is a man with ideas and courage, and, single handed and alone, he has done more to reduce the high cost of living and to bring the subject more forcibly to the minds of the people, than all other agencies combined. Briefly, the mayor's plan is to buy from the producers and sell direct to the consumers, and, having tried it out successfuly in his home city, he has started a movement that is expected to sweep over the entire country. He is the first city official to take any practical steps along this line, and many students of social economy believe that his produce sales in Indianapolis have paved the way for the solution of a problem that touches the purse. strings of every person in the land.

Mayor Shank became interested in the high-cost-of-living problem several months ago and immediately set about to discover some method of solving it, at least so far as his home city was con

cerned.

He appointed a committee of five men, all prominently identified with the city's interests, to take up the matter, and this committee visited the city market, and talked with the wholesaler, the retailer, the middleman and the producer, so obtaining all the information possible. A report, which contained a number of valuable suggestions, was then submitted to the mayor. Utilizing much of the information obtained in this way, and incorporating a number of ideas of his own, the mayor addressed a letter to the city council recommending that an ordinance, providing for a separation of the wholesalers and retailers, the middlemen and the producers, be passed.

Urges Agents Appointment.

He especially urged the appointment of a municipal purchasing agent whose duty it would be to keep in touch with producers and see that the market was well supplied with all commodities at all times.

"Place this agent in the city market," he wrote. "and when there is a scarcity