On Reconstruction 1919

“Reconstruction”—And Other Things

Reconstruction is a very popular word these days. It is mouthed with great frequency by statesmen big and statesmen small; “reconstruction” committees and organizations galore are springing up throughout the land; preachers preach about it and platform acrobats unctuously orate of the splendid possibilities behind it that will no doubt blossom in due course, but about all the satisfaction to be derived as yet from all this talk may be found in the tacit admission made by its sponsors and advocates that there is a necessity for it. That is an admission that would have been unthinkable five years ago.

In the opinion of the noisy gang now so lustily prating about “reconstruction,” everything was all right to the breaking out of the war, but for some inscrutable reason they have evidently changed their minds. Something has happened that has altered their view of things and impressed upon them the necessity of what they term “reconstruction.” Just what that something is is difficult to determine.

Things are now just the same as they were before the war, only more so. Being more so it should be apparent that nothing in the shape of “reconstruction” will save this civilization that has already been plunged over the precipice of its own destruction. And besides that there is no logical reason why it should be saved. It is a slave civilization at best and it has not yet been recorded in history that any civilization or empire based upon that infamy ever was saved from eventually dying by its own hand. Babylon, Carthage, Egypt, Greece, Rome all travelled the same route and met the same fate. The present empire of rule and robbery differs from its equally worthy predecessors only in the fact of being of greater territorial extent and correspondingly more terrible in its brutality and infamy.

What plan has yet been suggested by our disciples of “reconstruction” that would in any manner alter the relationship existing between employer and employee, capitalist and laborer, master and slave? What has yet been offered that will do away with, or in any degree lessen the power of the master to rob and torture the slave? Can any “reconstruction” be suggested that will tend to remove from the slaves the stigma of being property and the ignominy of being compelled to produce wealth for nothing for their owners?

The fact is that all this pretence of “reconstruction” is pure buncombe. It is right in line with that startling innovation, the establishment of government employment offices for the purpose of aiding slaves to find jobs that do not exist. And all such reform and “reconstruction” schemes are equally as silly and futile attempts to stem the rising tide of revolution as was the memorable attempt of Mrs. Partington to sweep back the tide with her broom.1

Within the camp of organized labor are to be found some ardent “reconstructionists.” Doughty champions of reaction like Gompers loudly proclaim the necessity of labor obtaining a voice in the management and conduct of industry. Very pleasing pictures are shown of typical specimens of the working tribe, quite appropriately clad in overalls and dignity, sitting at the council table along with the capitalist directors of industry and right nobly sharing in the burden and responsibility of successfully skinning slaves and converting their hides into great profit and glory for their owners and masters. These pictures are shown as indicative of what is to come under the oleaginous dispensation of the “reconstruction” era that lies just ahead of us. All that there is in that sort of nonsense is that a few fat billets will be provided for more of the S. Gompers type, an ample supply of which the slave camp of capitalism holds in embryo within its womb ready to come forth when occasion affords the opportunity for proper sustenance. But with workers upon boards of directors and other managing bodies of capitalist industry and business, the production of wealth for the profit owners will continue; the burden of producing the really essential things of life will still be thrust upon the shoulders of less than half of the working class, while the balance will still be driven in the production of those things essential only to the ruling class and the up-building and maintenance of its empire, an empire whose grandeur and magnificence has always been and can only be written in letters of blood and whose highest eulogy has been expressed in the awful slaughter of the last few years.

Pensions for disabled soldiers, homes and sustenance for cripples, soup kitchens for unemployed slaves, the inauguration of “public works” in order to absorb the out-of-works, will undoubtedly be the chief line of “reconstruction,” but it will settle nothing, it will change nothing. The same old root cause of all the trouble, the misery, the agony, the turmoil, the strife, the periodical wholesale slaughter and devastation will still remain, undisturbed and unimpaired. The slaves will still be slaves and the masters will still be masters, in spite of all “reconstruction” that stops short of revolution: the complete sweeping away of the right and power of one man or set of men to rule and rob the rest of their kind. Though that may smack of “Bolshevism” it may nevertheless be true.

The way of the transgressor is indeed hard. The German bourgeoisie failed to break the rule of feudalism in the revolution of 1848. It did not subsequently thereto develop sufficient spirit and stamina to go to it again and complete the job if possible. The result was that Germany remained politically feudal, alongside of western neighbors who had become, both industrially and politically, capitalist nations. Being thus held politically feudal and backward, it became certain just the very cataclysm of blood and horror should eventually ensue that was pulled off in 1914.

Out of the feudal ruin resulting from the war the German bourgeoisie is now desperately trying to set up that which it failed to realize in 1848 viz., a bourgeois state, after the pattern of France, Britain or the United States. But the failure of 1848 has so prolonged the job that a new factor, and a very disturbing one at that, has developed and is rudely butting into the arrangements.

A revolutionary proletariat has appeared upon the scene. It seems to be of such proportions as to seriously threaten the success of the bourgeois schemers in completing their revolution against their feudal rulers. This proletariat has no confidence evidently in the state that is to be in the hands of the Scheidemann-Eberts gang.2 They have probably drawn inspiration from observing the felicitous condition of the workers under the regime of “democratic” states of that type, such as Britain, France, U.S., etc., and want none of it. And who can blame them? Who among the workers and real democrats of all lands can wish them anything but success in ousting the Scheidemann-Eberts government and setting up the regime of the revolutionary proletariat, as the Russian workers and peasants have already done? And lucky indeed is the working class of any country that is wise enough to avoid the experience of slavery and suffering under a bourgeois regime of plunder and trade. The feudal infamy was certainly bad enough, but that of the bourgeois has all previous infamies in the slavery line beaten out of sight. Small wonder that a large section of the German working class are averse to allowing it to be forced upon them. All success to the revolutionary proletariat of the world, including Germany.

It should not be forgotten that in 1871 the German authorities kindly placed their armies then on French soil, at the disposal of the Versaillese government to aid in crushing the Parisian proletariat which had risen against the vicious and incompetent government of France and established the Commune of Paris. The German armies were placed upon the north and east side of Paris, thus completing the circumvallation of the city, the French forces holding the south and west sides. Not only that but the Germans, out of kindly feelings towards their ruling class cousins thus threatened by the rebellious Parisian workmen, also returned captured arms and other munitions that had been taken from the defeated French during the war of 1870, thereby enabling the latter to butcher the rebels. And it was done to a complete nicety especially appreciated by not only the French bourgeoisie but of all other Christian lands as well. They were butchered almost to a man.

Now take note of what is happening in Germany during these days when the Spartacans and other evolutionary workmen are struggling against the attempt to foist upon the country a bourgeois republic like the French one. The dispatches tell us that “Marshal Foch is allowing them (German authorities) to use German forces to defeat the Proletariat.” The German armies under the armistice are to be demobilized, etc., but the great “Marshall” is allowing them to be used for the purpose of crushing the proletariat. He is evidently returning the favor extended to the French bourgeois by their German cousins in 1871. It would be interesting to know how much farther the French general is going in aiding his erstwhile enemies in putting their slaves right.

All of this “enemy” business that so much noise is made about, vanishes into thin, exceedingly thin air once a common danger rises in the offing of class rule and class robbery. Once a class interest is threatened by the workers, erstwhile deadly enemies within the ranks of the ruling class rush to arms together in common defense of the common right to rule and rob.

It might be well to note that the hymn of hate is no longer sung against the Kaiser by those deadly enemies of his known as the entente allies and the U.S. The Bolsheviki and the Spartacans have now the centre of the stage and the Kaiser has been pushed to the wings. He is practically forgotten. His reign of terror in Belgium and elsewhere has been made to look like thirty cents by the Bolsheviki “reign of terror” in Russia and which threatens to sweep the earth. Fame is indeed fleeting. The kaiser must feel sore at thus being relegated to the background by hitherto unheard of terrorists. He who was once a master terrorist is now forgotten. Novices and amateurs have now become past masters of the art. But the bourgeoisie is still on top in most countries and labor skimming, and its aftermath of trade, commerce and glory still prevails. Glory be!

E. T. Kingsley