the revolutionary work of the Socialist Party, but which may be essential to the election of our members to local offices. And here in Chicago is the heaviest loss that the party has sustained. Our most notable gain is in the states of Arkansas, Texas and Oklahoma. Here the economic conditions are no more favorable to us than in twenty other states, but a vigorous revolutionary and educational campaign has been carried on continuously, with a view to building up a strong organization. Incidentally, this work has brought the votes. We have large gains in Idaho and Colorado, where the party threw itself unreservedly into the fight of the Western Federation of Miners against organized capital. In most of the north central states, including Wisconsin, we scarcely held our own, but in Michigan and Minnesota, where the "left wing" is in control, our gains are large. In the east, the best record is made in Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania is the one eastern state in which the party organization is circulating Marxian literature on a considerable scale. On the whole, we have every reason to feel encouraged at the general result. The collapse of the Hearst, Watson and DeLeon movements leaves ours the only party likely to attract those who come to see that Republicans and Democrats alike stand for the interests of the employing class. Let us keep to the one issue of the class struggle, and the votes will come. The Party Election. One more National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party has to be elected under the old constitution. Every Local has had a chance to nominate seven candidates. The name of every candidate who has accepted, even though he may have been nominated by but a single Local, appears on the official ballot. There are no less than 204 of these names, out of which each party member must mark seven. The seven who receive the highest number of votes will be declared elected, no matter how small a proportion of the total vote they may receive. Last year, with only two-thirds as many names on the ballot, some of the successful candidates received less than 3,000 votes out of a total of over 20,000. This year, with a membership of over 50,000, the total vote should be much larger, but a minority is still likely to decide the make-up of the committee. The successful minority last year was organized from Milwaukee, and worked in the main through private correspondence. We have no personal reflection to make on any comrade elected through these methods, and we believe that every member of the National Executive Committee has acted for the best interests of the Socialist Party as he sees them. But we should like to see the Committee strengthened. So we suggest that those who agree with us mark on their ballots the names of Thomas Sladden of Oregon. Morris Kaplan of Minnesota, Robert Hunter of Connecticut and Stanley J. Clark of Texas. It has been urged, we believe with reason, that at least one woman should be chosen on the Executive Committee. There is one woman among the candidates who is remarkably well qualified, and that is Lena M. Lewis of California. If every reader of the Review who is a party member votes for the five candidates just named they will be elected, along with the two most popular members of the present board. Remember that if you vote for a local candidate not widely known you are simply letting others decide who shall constitute the Committee when you might decide it for yourself. One word in closing. Not one of the comrades whom we have mentioned knows that this paragraph is to appear. The editor of the Review makes the suggestion solely upon his own responsibility. 1 If our ideas are to adapt themselves to truth, or to reality, instead of reality or truth adapting itself to our notions or thoughts, we must understand that the mutability of that which is right, holy, moral, is a natural, necessary and true fact. And we must grant to an individual the theoretical freedom which can not be taken from it in practice, we must admit that it is as free now as it has ever been, that laws must be adapted to the needs of the social individual and not to vague, unreal and impossible abstractions, such as justice or morality. What is justice? The embodiment of all that is considered right, an individual conception, which assumes different forms in different persons.-Joseph Dietzgen, in "The Positive Outcome of Philosophy." GERMANY. The Social Democracy and the Ministerial Crisis-The German governmental crisis is of far-reaching importance. A person depending upon American newspaper reports would hardly think so, but it is the whole scheme of administration which is at stake. When the present Reichstag was organized a year and a half ago Chancellor Von Bulow and the Junkers saw before them a long stretch of uninterrupted power. The bloc promised a solid majority for the government. The Social Dem. ocrats might make more or less trouble among the people; but the conservative regime stood secure. And now behold what a great flame a little fire has kindled! An interview with the Emperor has appeared in a London daily, and all the face of things is changed. The Social Democrats, who had been got out of the way, suddenly appear as the head and front of a great popular movement. In more than one European country there has been strenuous protest of late against irresponsible foreign policies. It has been pointed out that the great powers might be plunged into war by the action of a small clique, a clique not bound to make explanation before any representative body. But in Germany matters stand worse than in the other countries of western Europe. The government is absolutely irresponsible, both as to internal and external affairs. Ministers are appointed by the Emperor and their tenure of office depends entirely on his favor. Sometimes they deliver formal addresses to the Reichstag, but they are not bound to listen to parliamentary discussions or take heed of parliamentary resolutions. The tribune set aside for governmental representatives is often empty. Oftener it is occupied by ministers, princes or officers who get what amusement they can out of the academic debates held on the floor. The rules of German parliamentary procedure are so autocratic that effective protest can be raised but seldom. So far as actual legislation is concerned the popular assembly can do nothing but discuss measures lail before it by the Bundesrat. The constitution of the Bundesrat is controlled by the Prussian Landtag. And this Landtag, in turn, is elected under the three-class electoral system and is thus in the hands of the landed aristocracy, or Junkers. So Germany has not even a bourgeois government in the modern sense. The Emperor and the Junkers, though willing to sacrifice anything but their own position for national aggrandizement, really represent the governmantal notions of the Middle Ages. To be sure they depend on the Reichstag for their budget and so could be coerced. But the budget has never been denied them. The weapon which the English found so effective three hundred years ago the Germans are afraid to use today. In the ordinary course of events things might have gone on indefinitely without a change. The German people are so thoroughly disciplined and regulated that it takes something spectacular, something dramatic, to stir them. Well, early in November the something dramatic oc curred. The interview published in the London Daily Telegraph suddenly presented the Emperor to them as both knave and fool. Way back in 1898, it appears, he played false to the Boers, and at the present time his lack of discretion makes him the laughing-stock of all Europe. The national pride was hurt by the revelation. And the Emperor's conduct while under fire served to widen still further the gulf between him and the people. While they were wrought up to the highest pitch he was hunting in the Schwartzwald and witnessing balloon ascensions. The press of an entire nation was calling for explanations-and for all the attention it got it might as well have been a sparrow on the wall. This was the break-down of the German governmental system. No one could deny that, so far as expressing the national will was concerned, it had proved a complete failure. A German, just an ordinary respectable German not at all in sympathy with socialism, told me recently that the Social Democratic Party is the only progressive force in German politics. This opinion, already pretty generally held, has been visibly strengthened by the parliamentary discussion of the ministerial crisis. When practically the whole nation cried out for change innocent bystanders expected determined action on the part of the Reichstag. But Socialists were not surprised at the disappointment of innocent by-standers. The parliamentary Junkers and Clericals naturally grew frantic at the very suggestion of change. "We don't want your help," cried Herr Weimer to the Socialists. As for the Liberals, the representatives of the modern bourgeoisie, they are in such a tight place that not much is to be expected of them. The autocratic government does not always serve their purposes, but a new constitution with responsible ministry and modern electoral system would be sure sooner or later to throw power into the hands of the Socialists. So what were they to do? They protested vigorously against the Emperor's behavior, but that was all. They were concerned for the present system; they did not want it made unpopular by the behavior of its representatives. So it remained for the Socialists to represent the popular will. That they did not fail in the discharge of their duty even the American press dispatches bear witness. Comrade Ledebour has become the leader of the Socialist faction on the floor. With overpowering eloquence and biting sarcasm he pictured the failure of the German system and taunted the assembled statesmen with their own evident weakness. Of course the discussion has achieved no constitutional result. The Emperor is understood to have promised to be good. That is all. The editor of the Liberal Freisinnige Zeitung writes that if the effect on His Majesty does not prove lasting neither he (the editor) nor any of his successors "will wish to be held responsible for the results." That is, there has been no governmental change; the Emperor has merely had a chance to learn a lesson. But in the popular consciousness there has been a great change. The Liberals now stand revealed in their true character. In the future the proletarians will know the Social Democrats as their only representatives. And when the time for another election comes round the results of this change may take very definite form. ENGLAND. Socialists and LaboritesThese are critical days for English socialism. In the midst of active propaganda our English comrades are examining the framework of their organization and carefully considering their relation to the other wings of the labor movement. Last month I recorded the fact that the International Socialist Bureau gave full recognition to the English Labor party. Union between this organization and the Social Democratic party has long been a subject of speculation. Interest in this matter was heightened recently by the action of the Miners' Federation. This union numbers 500,000 men and is at present represented in Parliament by a small group of Labor-Liberals. At a recent conference the Federation came into the Labor party and adopted at the same time a socialistic objective. It went so far as to demand that future miners' candidates be required to pledge themselves to socialism. Of course this strengthens the socialist element in the Labor party and thus brings nearer the possibility of union. Thus far the leaders of the Social Democratic party have steadily resisted the temptation to join with the Labor party. They maintain that within this organization, and especially within the Independent Labor party, there are those who wish to lead it "bag and baggage into the Liberal camp." They are willing to work with the Laborites at election time, but do not wish to be bound to support all candidates the latter may put up. Of course the situation must clear itself before long. As was remarked recently in Justice, the Labor party must go one way or the other-either to Liberalism or Socialism." In the mind of anyone who has given any attention to the English labor movement there can be little doubt as to which direction it will be. The English workingmen are no great theorists; their political expression takes form but slowly. If they move slowly, however, it is with the greater sureness, for they move in solid phalanx. That their movement is in the direction of socialism is proved by the resolutions of the great labor federations. Surely the Labor party cannot long remain behind the unions which support it. And herein lies the great hope of English socialism. Edinburgh and other cities come tales of mob and riot. Will Thorne has been bound over to keep the peace for addressing a crowd of unemployed. The House of Commons dawdles along preparing middle-class reform measures, which the House of Lords promptly rejects. The papers talk wise of the administration of charity. And all the time 10,000,000 persons live constantly on the brink of starvation. Quite characteristically the Liberal government has issued a yellowbook to prove that English workingmen are better off than their German comrades. It is shown by means of endless statistics that the Englishmen who have employment get a little higher pay and work shorter hours than laborers of the same class in Germany. And this is supposed to comfort the unemployed! Incidentally a controversy has arisen between Comrades Blatchford and the editors of Justice. The former, in The Clarion has suggested a plan for the distribution of charity. Justice cries out, "Curse their charity!" and demands that the government recognize the obligation of the nation to care for its poor. Nothing seems certain but that the poor are to go on starving. FRANCE. Socialism, Syndicalism and the Government-Last month the Review reported two great conventions of the French proletariat, that of the Socialist party at Toulouse and of the Confederation General de Travail at Marseilles. During the weeks just past the actions of these two gatherings have been a storm center of discussion, As to the compromise resolution adopted by the Socialists there seems to be little difference of opinion: In the papers and at public meetings it has been received with unbounded enthusiasm. One who remembers how but a few years ago the Socialists were torn by dissensions, how one group was sitting in parliament cheek by jowl with the radicals, how the |