Socialism Pamphlet from 1910 Echoes in 2014.

I had prepared this post just before I tumbled into the anti-bio-driven underworld. On re-surfacing, looking it over again, I reckon its content fits in even better now:

Tidying my desk of accumulated bits and bobs I found an old pamphlet bought on one of our trips years ago for, according to the ticket, $4. I'd placed it in a pile of "pending" papers to feature in a future post - then forgot about it.
The pamphlet, titled Should Socialism be Crushed? was

published in Chicago by the National Socialist Party, around 1910. A bit of light research indicates that its author was Robert Hunter (here's his Wikipedia page). Hunter was a prominent figure in socialist circles in the USA in the early 1900s, during part of what has become known as the "Robber Baron Era".

"Hunter ran for political office twice on the socialist ticket, first for a seat in the New York State Assembly, and next as a candidate for United States Senator for the State of Connecticut; both campaigns ended in defeat. After the outbreak of the First World War a rift in the socialist movement led to Hunter’s resignation, along with those of a number of other high-profile members, including London and Sinclair. Years later, Hunter would support Republican Wendell Willkie over President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the 1940 presidential campaign." (Wiki)

What a turncoat! Anyway, reading through the aged and frail 31 page pamphlet, it was the final paragraphs which struck a chord or rang a bell. With a few amendments some lines might have been written last week, especially those I have highlighted.

 Back cover of pamphlet. Click to enlarge image.

After discussion of the workers' situation in Europe and Britain:

When they organised trade unions and fought they got at least something. And remember this when the workers of America organise a political union and vote and fight for themselves they will be victorious.

Now brothers, do you think these accomplishments of the Socialists of Europe should be condemned as anarchy, and free love? Do you think any labor men are working in your interest when they fight with Belmont, Low and Carnegie [capitalists of the time] to stamp out Socialism and to disrupt a political movement of the workers?

In fact can you see anything wrong with socialism? Can you honestly oppose political party unity and the political organization of the workers?

Do you wish to fight a workingmen's party, financed by ourselves and administered by ourselves?

Republicans will fight these views because they need our votes to keep them in power. Democrats will fight these views for the same reason. Both those parties are owned, controlled and financed by the very men who own, control and finance the Manufacturers' Association and the Civic Federation. They are the men who come pretty near owning this country and they intend to prevent the growth of organizations hostile to them. They believe this country was made and developed by capitalists to be forever owned and controlled by capitalists.

To preserve their trusts and monopolies organized to rob and exploit the people, they have been forced to buy legislatures and courts. To preserve their political machines they will, if necessary, spend millions to fight a workingmen's party. To convince the people that Socialism is a monstrous doctrine advocated by vicious, immoral agitators, they will even try to buy labor leaders and labor editors. They used to fight Trade Unionism that way. They will fight every new doctrine for welfare of the people in the same way. Belmont and his crowd are simply fighting to maintain THEIR POWER, just as the slave owners of the South fought to maintain their power or the Czar of Russia fights to maintain his power.

Typing the pamphlet's title into Google search box brought up this, from New York Times of June 22 1910:

A SOCIALIST PAMPHLET. "Should Socialism Be Crushed" Makes Strange Use of Statistics,
by F.G.R. GORDON.
(This brief abstract is all that's available without subscription).

To the Editor of The New York Times: The Socialist politicians are up to their old tricks of trying to fool the people, and have now issued through the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party a pamphlet named "Should Socialism Be Crushed?"

What else can I say? There's this: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

ROBBER-BARONITIS

A robber baron, originally, was an unscrupulous and despotic nobleman of medieval Europe. The term is also used to describe wealthy and powerful unscrupulous industrialists of the 19th century who used exploitative practices to amass their wealth. They would exert control over national resources, gain a high level of government influence, pay extremely low wages to their unfortunate employees, quash competition by buying out competitors in order to create monopolies and eventually raise prices and limit services, and devise schemes to sell stock at inflated prices to unsuspecting investors in a manner which would eventually destroy the company for which the stock was issued and impoverish investors. (Wikipedia)

I did a bit of light research on Google's two entrepreneurs, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, then went on to look into that other internet giant, Amazon, and its CEO and founder Jeff Bezos (below). Are these three individuals some of the 21st century's equivalents of 19th century robber barons? They are now certainly among the wealthiest individuals in the USA, multi-billionaires, (allegedly more than 20 billion each, and # 11 and 13 on the Forbes 400 list). All three experienced meteoric rise from the mid 1990s onward, in tandem with mushrooming of the internet.

I am becoming frustrated and annoyed with Google's ongoing shenanigans. Having forced me into using their Chrome browser because Blogger's (now owned by Google) new interface is incompatible with the most up to date version of Internet Explorer my XP pro operating system is compatible with, there then arose an issue with the e mail address associated with my Blogger/Google account. I am to be forced to provide a second e mail address. I don't want to do so. Chrome will not function without my doing so. Firefox to the rescue. What'll happen when Google buys out Firefox?

Google has become way, way too big for its boots with too many tentacles! Much as I admire the skills and talent involved, and the wondrous search engine, I can't help thinking that the interests of users have, latterly, been well and truly sidelined. I don't know how Google treats its staff, but they tend to treat users of their services with deep disdain.

Amazon, on the instruction of their CEO, do put the interests of their customers first at all times, but often to the detriment of their staff members. Staff are badly paid and in some cases expected to work excessive hours in poor conditions with no sick pay should they fall ill. Amazon's undeniable efficiency is achieved at the expense of its workers - in conditions loosely comparable to Walmart's staff treatment.

Admittedly, these examples of 21st century robber baronitis are not nearly as nasty as 19th century counterparts, they are not the worst 21st century examples either, but they are two very familiar to all who spend time online every day. There is, though, potential for even worse to come. Google has access to information on everyone who uses the internet, and on what we do online. If such information were to be only slightly expanded, maybe released to government by mandate, results could prove to have unpleasant consequences - doesn't take much imagination to see that!

Google and Amazon: two examples of how excellent innovative ideas from brilliant minds, with initially good intention, can become corrupted by intoxication of success and then morph, like some unwieldy drunk, into an entity the men may not have originally envisaged. They are now blinded by the size and power of the behemoths they created.