{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37246/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37246","id":"gutenberg_37246","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37246","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Economics","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Socialism"],"text":"+-----------------------------------------------------------+\n | Transcriber's Note: |\n | |\n | Bold text is represented =like so=. |\n | |\n | Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. For |\n | a complete list, please see the end of this document. |\n | |\n +-----------------------------------------------------------+\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n Why I Am\n\n Opposed to Socialism\n\n\n [Illustration]\n\n\n Original Papers by\n\n Leading Men and Women\n\n\n [Illustration]\n\n\n EDWARD SILVIN\n\n\n [Illustration]\n\n\n SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA\n U.S.A.\n\n\n\n\n Copyright, 1913\n By EDWARD SILVIN\n\n\n\n\nINDEX TO AUTHORS\n\n\n Adams, Thomas Sewall 36-37\n\n Allen, Alfred 27\n\n Allen, John Robert 52\n\n Anderson, Rasmus Bjorn 44-45\n\n Andrews, Martin Register 26\n\n Arford, Fremont 31\n\n Barr, Granville Walter 32-33\n\n Barstow, George Eames 41\n\n Baxter, James Phinney 45-46\n\n Beard, Daniel Carter 20-21\n\n Bell, Mackenzie 22\n\n Benington, Arthur 8\n\n Bigelow, Edward Fuller 30\n\n Binney, Charles Chauncey 23-24\n\n Boyd-Carpenter, William B. 11-12\n\n Brazier, Marion Howard 17\n\n Brown, Mrs. M. McClellan 7\n\n Brownscombe, Jennie 42\n\n Burke, John Butler 19-20\n\n Cavanaugh, John 32\n\n Cazalet, Edward Alexander 17-18\n\n Clark, John Bates 8-9\n\n Crowell, John Franklin 34\n\n Cutler, James Elbert 44\n\n Eggert, Charles Augustus 5-6\n\n Ellis, George Washington 46-52\n\n Ellis, Horace 10\n\n Emerson, Samuel Franklin 46\n\n Esenwein, Joseph Berg 13\n\n Ferguson, Charles 45\n\n Field, Walter Taylor 40\n\n Gaines, Clement Carrington 39\n\n Garvin, Lucius Fayette Clark 12\n\n Giering, Eugene T. 53\n\n Hastings, William Granger 20\n\n Heald, G.H. 35\n\n Hovey, Lewis R. 14-16\n\n Jefferys, Upton S. 20\n\n Kelly, Robert Lincoln 35-36\n\n Kizer, Edwin Dicken 17\n\n Krout, Mary Hannah 14\n\n Ladd, George Trumbull 36\n\n Ladd, Horatio Oliver 21-22\n\n Leckie, A.S. 40\n\n Lee, Elmer 41-42\n\n Levermore, Charles Herbert 22\n\n Leveroni, Frank 44\n\n Lightner, Ezra Wilberforce 43\n\n Linn, Walter R. 37\n\n Long, John Luther 12-13\n\n McConnell, Francis J. 7-8\n\n Mencken, Henry Louis 6-7\n\n Nevin, Theodore Williamson 29-30\n\n Owen, Douglas 27-28\n\n Painter, Franklin Verzelius Newton 28-29\n\n Penrose, Stephen Beasley Linnard 16\n\n Post, Louis Freeland 30\n\n Purrington, William Archer 18\n\n Raymond, George Lansing 9-10\n\n Russell, Isaac Franklin 25-26\n\n Scheffauer, Herman 38\n\n Screws, William Wallace 19\n\n Super, Charles William 13-14\n\n Terhune, William Lewis 37-38\n\n Thayer, William Roscoe 29\n\n Tutt, John Calhoun 31\n\n Walker, Albert H. 30-31\n\n White, William Allen 33-34\n\n Wilcox, Lute 34\n\n Wilson, Alonzo Edes 24-25\n\n\n\n\n _The gentle reader, who is inclined to say why he\n is opposed to Socialism, is cordially invited to\n contribute his thoughts to the future editions of\n this little book._\n\n\n\n\nWhy I Am Opposed to Socialism\n\n\n=Eggert, Charles Augustus.= (Author and College Professor.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism, first, because it is not an inductively\nobtained system, but an \"ism\" that postulates qualities in the\nindividuality of a nation which no nation, or community even, has yet\ndeveloped to a sufficiently high state to make this \"ism\" fit to be\nseriously tried.\n\nSecond: Much of what Socialism teaches will be put to the test by\nsociety anyhow, for society is based on interest, on financial\nconsiderations, and it has been found very long ago, that co-operation\ncheapens products, while steadying employment.\n\nThird: As a working system Socialism is based on the limited\nintellectual powers of a large number of people who will not receive\nsystematic instruction, or cannot. Any large school shows how large\nthe proportion of children is who must eventually be, as adults,\nmembers of this number, and, by exercising their right to vote for\ntheir officers and leaders, will make a scientific and economical\nmanagement exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. Tried on a\nlimited scale it amounts only to co-operation--different from\nSocialism.\n\nFourth: The existing system is based on the rewards held out to\nindividual effort, thus furnishing leaders who, by accumulating\ncapital through self-denial, great moderation in the pursuit of\npleasure, and strenuous work, will be eventually enabled to establish\nlarge combinations, factories, corporations of all sorts, which, as\nhistory and daily experience prove, pay even the unintelligent\nlaborers higher wages and furnish them more security than they could\npossibly have obtained if left to themselves as Socialistic\norganizations. In order to obtain the best results, however, a\nprotective tariff must keep out undue foreign competition.\n\nFifth: Differences of opinion on these points can be settled\nsatisfactorily only by a close and careful study of the history of\nbusiness, and the leading Socialists, Marx, etc., have been shown to\nbe palpably and grievously incapable of such study.\n\nSixth: Socialism would lead to governmental art, science and\nliterature, that is to say to the counterfeit of real art, science,\nand literature. It would be the rule of the unintelligent and largely\nof the demagogues (for such would stand a better chance than the\nhonest and thoughtful, for election to offices).\n\nSeventh: Socialism could not be established (as an \"ism\") except by\nrobbery. Good men would not lend themselves to such business.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n =Mencken, Henry Louis.= (Author of \"The Philosophy of\n Friedrich Nietzsche,\" editor of The Players' Ibsen,\n part-author with Robert Rives LaMonte of \"Men vs. the\n Man.\" Member of the editorial staff of the Baltimore\n Evening Sun.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because, in general, it means a vain and\ncostly attack upon the immutable natural law that the strong shall\nhave advantage over the weak. I do not defend that law as perfect, nor\ndo I even maintain that it is just. If I had the world to make over I\nshould probably try to find something to take its place, something\nmeasurably less wasteful and cruel. But the world is as it is and the\nlaw is as it is. Say what you will against it, you must at least admit\nthat it works, that it tends to destroy the botched and useless, that\nit places a premium upon enterprise and courage, that it makes for\nhealth and strength, that it is the most powerful of all agents of\nhuman progress. Would brotherhood, supposing it to be achieved, do as\nwell? I doubt it. Brotherhood would help the soft man, the clinging\nman, the stupid man. But would it help the alert and resourceful man?\nAnswer for yourself. Isn't it a fact that difficulties make daring,\nthat effort makes efficiency? Do not functions develop by use? Does\nthe cell act or react?\n\nMeanwhile, I grant all schemes of brotherhood one indubitable merit.\nSocialism shares it with Christianity. It is this: that they are\neternally impossible of carrying out, that men cannot actually live\nthem. The Beatitudes, after 2,000 years, are still mere poetry. No\nhuman fiat will ever repeal the law of natural selection. No rebellion\nof slaves will ever break down that great barrier which separates\nslaves from masters.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Brown, Mrs. M. McClellan.= (Lecturer and Reformer.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism--\n\nFirst: Because it is unnatural. Men are born free, but far from being\nequal in competency mentally, morally, or spiritually to use with\nadvantage to self or others, the proceeds of earth, or the elements,\nor labor; even under the same civil, social, and educational\nopportunities (often in the same family) some are incompetent to make\nends meet.\n\nSecond: Because it is impracticable, unjust, and detrimental to\ndevelopment and ennoblement of the human race, which is the manifest\nobject of human creation.\n\nThird: Because it destroys the ultimate power of individuality, which\nis the unit of State organization and social protection. The\nindividual is the axis of reality in all the objective changes for\nhuman uplift.\n\nFourth: Because the Spirit of God is the humanizing power in the\nworld, given to individual spirits as a complete fact, large or small,\nbut personal in dynamic currents of bodily gifts as varied as the\noffices of the human organs.\n\nFifth: Because civilization is the fruit of developed individual\nconsciousness in a concrete, unsharable experience of free personality\nwhich makes the vital push for progress in the world; even a social\nconsciousness so-called, must turn on the axis of the individual.\n\nSixth: Because the only historic and scientific demonstration of\nSocialism is original barbarism. Set the pot in the midst of the group\nand let each use his paw.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n =McConnell, Francis J.= (Bishop of Methodist Episcopal\n Church, Denver, Colorado.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because it goes farther than is necessary.\nThe real reforms for which Socialism stands are very important, but I\nthink these can be secured without accepting the extreme puttings of\nSocialistic doctrine. Within the past twenty-five years we have\nreached many of the results of the Socialistic programme and yet\nwithout adopting extreme Socialism.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Benington, Arthur.= (Journalist.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because I believe that the State was made\nfor man, not man for the State.\n\nBecause every one of the infinite number of projects of Socialism\ntends to discourage individual effort; hence, in a really Socialistic\nState there would be no incentive to achievement in art, literature,\nscience, discovery, etc. The dull level of mediocrity would prevail;\nstagnation would take the place of progress.\n\nBecause the leading Socialists and all the Socialist newspapers I have\never seen attack religion.\n\nBecause Socialism would abolish the home and make the State\nresponsible for the bringing up of children. The result of this would\nbe to substitute a breeding farm for matrimony. Love--which cannot be\nabolished--would have no place in the scheme of things; it would\nstruggle against institutions, either secretly in spite of them and\ncontrary to them, or openly in rebellion. This is true not only of sex\nlove, but of parental and filial love.\n\nBecause it is contrary to all the principles upon which the United\nStates of America have won success in the world. It is an exotic\nimportation from lands in which liberty is stifled, brought here by\npersons who do not understand American institutions, taken up as a fad\nby a few dreamers.\n\nBecause men always cease to be Socialists as soon as they have won\nsuccess in life; suggesting that Socialism is merely a vague\nexpression of the discontent of some, the disappointment of others.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Clark, John Bates.= (Professor of political economy and author.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because it would soon impoverish workers.\nThe income to be divided would be smaller than is supposed by\nadvocates of Socialism, and it would grow smaller per capita as the\nnumber of workers increased.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Raymond, George Lansing.= (Author and University Professor.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because I think it founded on a\nmisconception of the requirements of human nature; and this, mainly,\nfor three reasons:\n\nFirst: A great many people will not practice diligence and thrift,\nunless stimulated to do so by a possibility of obtaining, possessing\nand using something that they can call their own. This is something\nthat Socialism theoretically, and so far as it has been applied,\npractically, would deny them.\n\nSecond: A great many will not work at all, when their only inducement\nis that others wish them to work, or need their help. Socialism, if\nestablished, would be obliged--merely to secure support for the\ncommunity--to force such people to work against their own wills. This\nwould inevitably involve the re-establishment of a system of human\nslavery.\n\nThird: All a man's mental and moral development in this world--to say\nnothing of what may come after death--needs training. According to a\nlaw apparently divine, but certainly human, this training, whether in\nhome, school, business or society, is imparted by means of discipline.\nThe discipline is mainly derived from the circumstances of life in\nwhich one finds himself placed, and, in such cases, is always\naccompanied by dissatisfaction with one's alloted place, and by actual\nsuffering. The Socialist aims to escape from this dissatisfaction and\nsuffering by making a change in his circumstances--such a change, for\ninstance, as would make a king a servant, or make all men kings or\nservants. But history and experience show that kings, whose friends\ndie, courtiers flatter, and enemies trick, are no more free from the\nsufferings attendant upon discipline than are servants. The truth\nseems to be that to occupy a different position in life means merely\nto be placed in a different part of the same apparently divine and\ncertainly social machine which--as some have faith to believe--is at\nwork grinding out of the coarse grain of humanity what shall, some\nday, prove to be its fine flour. One who has the wisdom to apply this\ntheory to life, will, in no position that a man can fill, feel either\ntoo haughty or too humiliated to sympathize with everybody, and to do\nhis best everywhere to alleviate suffering, lessen oppression,\nequalize opportunity, enthrone justice, and prove himself, in every\nsense of the term, a fellow-man. The result upon individual\nconsciousness and conscience of this attitude of mind is the most\nimportant of any that can be exerted in order to secure human welfare.\nIt differs from Socialism in being derived--as Socialism is not--from\na recognition of the exact and entire truth--a truth that includes,\nboth that which is material and spiritual, philosophical and\nreligious.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Ellis, Horace.= (President Vincennes University.)\n\nSocialism originally meant to become an effective protest against the\ntyrannies of all forms of monarchy. If it had succeeded in its\nambition we all had been Socialists. But it failed utterly. Its\nfailure may be traced to certain fundamental errors as to the means it\nshould employ to realize its purpose. It presumed that most practices\nit found in the economic world were inherently bad because they had\nbeen employed by heartless men in furthering their individual\ninterests. Socialism denies the accepted maxim relating to\ncompetition--in spite of the evidences of history which have fully\nestablished the fact that, in every realm of human activity,\ncompetition has been one of the mightiest factors for individual,\ncommunity, national and racial prestige. Socialism would deny to\nvirile, purposeful, masterful leaders of men the privilege of\nleadership because, forsooth, some such leaders have misused authority\nreposed in them. In lieu of this practice, it would constitute society\nat large the rightful leader in all economic matters--because some\nevidences appear which indicate that society possesses some attributes\nof stability. Fatal--both of these deductions. There are many\nthousands of good Socialists, but few substantial economic contentions\nbehind them.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Boyd-Carpenter, William B., B.A., F.R.G.S.= (Publicist, Address:\nWynstones, Ascot, England.)\n\nThe world has always sighed after novelty. Even St. Paul found that\nthe Athenians of old longed to hear some new thing. The craze for\nnovelty, or an increasing curiosity are the symptoms of the decline of\na philosophic outlook on life. It is the idea that a change means\nreform. Now reform can never be a change in the substance, but rather\nan application, a direct and precise application of a thought-out\nremedy for a particular and authentic grievance. Nor is innovation a\nreal reform--we have to change our clothes because they are wet, but\nthis does not mean we reform ourselves or our clothes. Woman makes an\ninnovation in the shape of her clothes or her hats--she does not\nreform her clothes or her hats. But Socialists and syndicalists demand\nthe immediate alteration of the capitalists' system of production--by\nwhich they mean, if they mean anything, such a reform as will give to\nthem, as a political party within any State, the power of using the\nforces, political and capitalistic within the State on behalf of their\nown section of the community, unless they mean this, they cannot hope\nto benefit wages and employment. If they do not mean this, they are\nhoodwinking workingmen and merely are seeking a change, not a reform.\nChange is impermanent--therefore transitory change is merely the\nexpression of want of tone in the political health of a people. But\nSocialism and syndicalism by seeking the benefit of the many workers\nat the expense of the few capitalists, is creating a form of\ninjustice, which in their main doctrines Socialists assert they are\nhoping to avoid. Injustice to any section of a community is the\ncreation of inequality again in a community. If we cannot reform with\nequity, let us not reform at all. As we put back the hands of the\nclock's progress, so we recreate inequalities. Life at best is a\nmatter of compensation; it is the disturbance of this balance which\nmakes for injustice and inequality.\n\nThen again, Socialism has been tried and has always resulted in the\nre-erection of the capitalist system. The Revolutions of France--1789,\n1832, 1848, 1871--all were to usher in the millennium. But France is\ncapitalistic today and amongst the wealthiest nations on the earth.\nThe German Revolution, 1848, or the Spanish Revolution--all began in\nhigh hopes of republics to be ruled by Democrats. All these countries\nhave gone back to what the world has tried and found stands best the\ntest of time. Nations, like individuals, are impatient and do damage\nin fits of temper for which many years of steady care are required to\neffect the repairs. The world wants more religion in active life and\nmore ostracism of the irreligious. The fear of public disgust is the\nbeginning of ordered honesty. The strength of a public opinion is the\npoor man's friend. \"To complain of the age in which we live; to revile\nthe possessors of power; to lament the past; to conceive wild hopes\nfor the future, are the common dispositions of the vast majority of\nmen.\" They are also the attributes of laziness and the form of a\nvulgar levity. A nation must have all classes--grumblers and saints,\nhappy and querulous, in order to make strong men.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Garvin, Lucius Fayette Clark.= (Ex-Governor of R.I.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because its theory is not proved to my\nsatisfaction. The public ownership of all artificial instruments of\nproduction, means that no interest upon capital should go to\nindividuals. This means that the person who builds a boat to let\nshould not own it, and that the payment made by a borrower for its use\nshould not go to the builder, but into the public treasury.\n\nSocialism asserts that if one person catches fifteen fish, another\nten, and third but five, they are not each entitled to the proceeds of\nthe sale of his fish. This is in violation of the natural law that the\nvalue produced is the just reward of labor.\n\nLand values, being earned by the community, belong to the community;\nand economic rent should be taken by the community (in lieu of\ntaxation) for public purposes.\n\nThe Socialist does not distinguish between the artificial and the\nnatural instruments of production--two things wholly different in\nkind. He confuses the just return to capital with the unjust return to\nmonopoly.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Long, John Luther.= (Author and Playwright.)\n\nI don't know what you mean by mere \"Socialism.\" I wish I did. I wish\nyou did. But, the deuce of it is that no two persons seem to mean the\nsame thing--or else no one knows what any one means. If it means an\nhonest brotherhood, wherein it is recognized that all are not equal,\nto the end that those who are more or have more shall help those who\nare less and have less, I am for it with all my heart. If it means\nthat the vicious shall profit from the just--no. If it means that the\nloafer shall live without work--no. For that means that some one\nelse--many--must be working in his stead. If Socialism means that\ngenius and idiocy must sleep in the same bed and be equals I am very\nmuch against it. We are not all equal. We are not even born equal. No\npronunciamento can make us so. And if Socialism of the McNamara and\nEttor and Giovannitti sort means to make us so, it might as well quit\nnow as later. It is trying to amalgamate unamalgamables.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Esenwein, Joseph Berg.= (Author and Editor Lippincott's Magazine.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because, with all its attendant weaknesses\nin its present unperfected state, competition is the best known\nstimulus to ambition. Human nature can never be essentially altered by\neither legislation or a new social system, therefore we shall always\nneed competitive incentives to make us do what we can. Our present\nsystem needs decided modification, but it does not need the reversal\nthat Socialism proposes.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Super, Charles William.= (Retired College President.)\n\nSocialism is advocated in so many different forms that it is difficult\nto deal with the term intelligently without prefixing a somewhat\nlengthy definition. Every government is at present adopting some of\nthe features of the Socialistic creed.\n\nI am opposed to Socialism in so far as it hinders individual\ninitiative and enterprise. No community ever made a great invention,\nor an important discovery, or created a great work of art, or planned\na great enterprise. The first step forward must always be taken, or at\nleast proposed, by some one person. I believe the State should protect\nthose who cannot take care of themselves, especially children, and\nthose who have proved unable to stand the strain of modern economic\nconditions. Those who are weak should not be left to lie helpless\nalong the path of progress. But I do not believe government has a\nright to dictate how many hours an adult shall labor, or what wages\nhis employer shall pay him. The men who have done and are still doing\ngreat things in the world have not worked a certain number of hours in\ntwenty-four, but all the time. Socialism, to a certain extent at\nleast, puts a premium on inefficiency. It is a serious objection to\nSocialism that it has proved a failure wherever it has been tried. It\nis a return to primitive conditions. The prospect of getting something\nfor nothing is a strong incentive to idleness. Most men are naturally\nlazy. The power of the State to create value is very limited. If it\nprovides an army of officials whose constant and ubiquitous\ninterference with production limits the collective output, they must\nbe paid from the earnings of individuals. This must increase the cost\nof living. Laws should be passed and enforced to help the weak and\nrestrain the wicked, but they should not put too heavy a clog on those\nwho are by nature qualified to succeed. You cannot promote the\nprosperity of a community by taxing the strong for the benefit of the\nweak, either directly or indirectly. The State should be particularly\nvigilant against giving any encouragement to the lazy, the shiftless\nand the willfully inefficient.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Krout, Mary Hannah.= (Author.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because it is impossible and\nun-philosophical. All the measures advocated by Socialists today--or\nmost of them--were advocated by the French in the Revolution of 1785,\nwith disastrous results.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Hovey, Lewis R.= (Editor, The Record, Haverhill, Mass.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because it is unscientific, unwise, and\nwould destroy liberty and progress for the human race.\n\nThe bed-rock theory of Socialism is that under the present system,\nwealth and industry concentrates into fewer and fewer hands, that the\nbig fish eat the little fish, and so on until society is confronted\nwith a great proletarian class on the one hand, with nothing but their\nlabor power, and on the other a few very rich plutocrats who own all\nthe means of production and exchange. That this theory is unsound and\nunscientific is proved in a thousand ways by every blue book of every\nindustrial nation on earth.\n\nThe number of wealth-owners in Europe has increased twice as rapidly\nas population during the past twenty years. In the United States we\nfind that ownership of land, railways, banks, bonds, industrial\nstocks, etc., have actually increased three or four times as rapidly\nas the population. For instance: In 1901, the year of the organization\nof the \"Steel Trust,\" so-called, there were just about fifty-five\nthousand men and women who owned all the iron and steel plants in this\ncountry, and at this time the Steel Company did seventy per cent. of\nthe iron and seventy-five per cent. of the steel production of the\nnation. Today the U.S. Steel Company produces only forty-five per\ncent. of the iron and steel, and in place of fifty-five thousand\nowners of the iron and steel business, there are now over three\nhundred and fifty thousand owners. Seventeen years ago the Great\nNorthern Railway was owned by one hundred and twenty-two stockholders;\ntoday that same railroad has eighteen thousand owners.\n\nAn investigation by the New York Journal of Commerce, a short while\nago, proved that two hundred and thirty-one industrial and railway\ncorporations had ten years ago less than two hundred and thirty\nthousand owners, but those same companies now have eight hundred and\nthirty-five thousand owners (round numbers). Like illustrations could\nbe cited to fill pages of this book. This shows that the so-called\nscientific theory of Marx Socialism is a myth, a dream, an imagination\nfrom the brain of Karl Marx. Socialism would be unwise because it\nwould be an attempt to change human nature by economic and political\nprocesses. This world has progressed in just that proportion as it has\ngot away from things Socialistic. The imperialistic Socialism of\nancient Rome destroyed that greatest of nations; the barbarian\nSocialism of Peru, with thirty million followers, was destroyed by a\nhandful of Spanish adventurers.\n\nThe Socialization of railways, the municipal ownership of a street\nrailway, a gas plant or an electric lighting plant, has, as a rule,\nproved a failure when all the facts are taken into consideration. This\nwild yell of the Socialists, that labor receives but a small part of\nthe wealth it produces, has no foundation in fact and is but the\nuncouth and unintelligent expression of minds who were never made for\nstatistical insight or investigation.\n\nThe promise of the \"full value of your production\" is a false promise\nand known to be such by every intelligent Socialist. The workers today\ndo far less work, with less hours, and yet receive twice as high wages\ncompared fifty years ago. This is due to organization and invention of\nthe few. That is, a small minority of society have organized industry\nand made economic production possible; \"they have made two blades of\ngrass grow where one grew before.\" The Socialists would reverse this,\nfor it is absolutely certain that under the blighting influence of\neconomic Socialism, production would go down.\n\nPolitically, Socialism would destroy liberty. A pure democracy leads\nstraight to despotism. Nothing is more despotic than the bossism of\nthe Socialist parties of the world today, and if ever the nations of\nthe world go to Socialism, they will go to a regime of mob rule\ndirected by a Socialist oligarchy, and then the liberty of man will be\nabsolutely destroyed.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Penrose, Stephen Beasley Linnard.= (President, Whitman College.)\n\nI am not in favor of that very attractive theory, Socialism, first, on\npsychological grounds. It rests upon an unscientific analysis of human\ninterests and motives. It overlooks or undervalues strong tendencies\nof human nature. It may be called a theory for angels, not for men.\n\nSecond, on practical grounds; it cannot work well because it can\nsupply neither sufficient motive nor sufficient machinery to secure\nefficiency, either in production or distribution.\n\nI applaud the moral impulse which is found in many Socialists, but I\ndo not approve their solution for great economic problems.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Kizer, Edwin Dicken.= (College President.)\n\nI am in favor of that which means the correcting of the evils that\nallow one man to prey upon another when that preying is personal or\nenters into the effect of the preyer, in combination with conditions\nto be remedied by economic changes. But the very radical differences\nmanifest among the Socialists themselves, i.e., those who accept Marx,\nand those who deny him in his main statements; the revolutionist, who\ninsists upon a revolution, by blood, if necessary, and the\nevolutionist, who looks for a more gradual development, would make me\nhesitate to cast my lot with such a divided army.\n\nAgain I am not quite certain that I am willing to give first place to\nthe forces that the scientific Socialist places as fundamental in the\naffairs of men. I must also confess to a lingering of the older theory\nof individualism that constrains me to believe that at least a part\n(those for example who by brain or circumstance are leaders) of\nmankind, will be personally regenerated by a high spiritual motive\nbefore the Socialist ideal is possible to think of even.\n\nAlso, radicalism never reaches in practice what it aims to perform. A\nlittle less of the ultimate, with destructive acts that undermine\nman's faith in his present creation, and a little more of the doing\nthe task before us is what is needed. If Socialism is inevitable, as\nsome think it is, we can neither help nor hinder: evolution of moral\nand spiritual forces entirely rule the average man out of the contest.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Brazier, Marion Howard.= (Journalist and Lecturer.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because I do not favor anything likely to\ndevelop anarchy. Socialistic agitation tends to promote unrest and\ndiscord. If granted my divine right to vote, I might look into it more\nclosely and get another point of view.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Cazalet, Edward Alexander.= (President of the Anglo-Russian Literary\nSociety, Imperial Institute, London.)\n\nSocialism has been defined as the name given to schemes for\nregenerating society by a more equal distribution of property and\nespecially by substituting the principle of association for that of\ncompetition.\n\nA great statesman and author, M. de Tocqueville, branded Socialism as\nan energetic and pernicious appeal to the lower passions of mankind;\nas a system of which the basis was a thorough mistrust of liberty, a\nhearty contempt of man individually.\n\nThe shrewd and experienced L.A. Thiers in his treatise \"De la\nPropriete,\" also combats the maxim: \"La propriete c'est le vol.\" He\ndepicted the universal poverty and barbarism that would follow from\nsuch notions being adopted.\n\nRobert Owen, the enthusiastic and practical Socialist, was not\nsuccessful in his colony of New Harmony in United States. The\nimprovement of his workmen's material interests in the New Lanark Mill\nin Scotland, finally proved a disappointment. (See also \"Why I am in\nFavor of Socialism.\")\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Purrington, William Archer.= (Lawyer and Author.)\n\nI do not know of any practicable scheme of Socialism, or of any\nsatisfactory definition of the term upon which Socialists agree; an\naccurate definition is the necessary basis of intelligent expression\nof opinion.\n\nApparently, Socialists in general believe, or at least preach that the\nState should own the material and means of production, to the end that\nall should share what is now enjoyed by the few. I doubt if the\nproposed means would achieve the desired end. At present the United\nStates Government supplies us with postage stamps. The stamps will not\nstick.\n\nSocialism will be practicable, if ever, only when\n\n \"The roughs, as we call them, grown loving and dutiful,\n Worship the true and the good and the beautiful.\n And preying no longer, as tiger and vulture do,\n Read the Atlantic, as persons of culture do.\"\n\nThat day is far distant, and even when it comes the man of brains will\nassert his individualism.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Screws, William Wallace.= (Editor The Montgomery Advertiser.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because I believe in conservatism. We are\ndrifting too far already away from precepts and principles which\nguided us safely as long as they were adhered to. I am opposed to\nSocialism because I believe in individualism. Each man in the\ncommunity should do something for it instead of each man in the\ncommunity expecting the community to do something for him. I could\ngive many other reasons, but these are enough to convince me that\nSocialism engrafted in our laws would be dangerous to government and\nsociety.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Burke, John Butler, M.A.= (Author and Scientist.)\n\nMy sympathies are very much on the side of Socialism, but intense as\nthose sympathies may be, they cannot counteract the convictions, still\nmore strong, that the hope of its realization is futile. A lease for\ncapital is all I can plead for equivalent to that for copyright.\n\nThere cannot be any doubt, in my mind at least, that Socialism, that\nis, the distribution of wealth equally for the benefit of the\nindividuals composing the community, desirable as this might be in\naccordance with the spirit of equality and fraternity, is yet at\nvariance with the principles of freedom and of justice. And unjust as\nthe existing system may be in giving an unequal start in life to\nindividuals, to insist that those who work effectively and those who\ndo not, should share equally the benefits of their combined labors is\nsurely more iniquitous still. Nay, more, that the individual should\nnot possess the power to accumulate and dispose of the fruits of his\nown work, is perhaps still more at variance with the true principles\nof liberty.\n\nA Socialistic state, however perfect ideally, to commence with, would\nbe in an unsteady state of equilibrium, and the inequalities with\nwhich Nature, as distinct from man, has endowed us, would, I fear,\nsooner or later, disturb that unstable state and bring things back to\nthe condition where only the struggle for power and its consequent\nsupremacy would prevail, through the rule of the strong in character\nand intellect. Hence, heredity as a gift or privation of Nature, like\nwealth and penury in the existing state of things, prevents the ideal\nof equality otherwise desirable. Such being inevitable, the\naccumulated effects of industry and talent will ever seek and obtain\nprotection from the hands of the fortunate and the strong.\n\nA lease of the rights of property and capital generally, equivalent to\na copyright, for works of genius is all I ever hope for in the\ninterests of humanity, so that with the lapse of time wealth might be\nredistributed broadcast for the benefit of the State and mankind.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Hastings, William Granger.= (Lawyer.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because like Comte, I am unable to accept\nthe teachings of \"any of the senseless sects who attack those bases of\nthe State, property and the family.\" If we are to have States, we must\nhave families. At best, if we are to have anything like our present\nexisting States. If we are to have families, we must have property,\nand private property if they are to be private families. It is as\ncertain as that we must have public property if we are to have any\nState.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Jefferys, Upton S.= (Editor, Post-Telegram, Camden, N.J.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because I think that in the final analysis\nit palsies individual initiative, attempting to set aside nature's law\nof competition and the survival of the fittest. I cannot agree with\nthe proposition that Socialism is a practical panacea for industrial\nand economic conditions that have existed since man began to acquire\nproperty. While human nature remains as it is, I question whether it\nis possible to successfully apply Socialism to State and nation.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Beard, Daniel Carter.= (Author and Artist.)\n\nI do not believe in Socialism because I am an individualist. I think\nthat the old American idea is broad enough to admit of all the\nnecessary reforms without reverting to the Socialism of Marx. Both\nSocialism and Anarchy are off-springs of monarchial forms of\ngovernment evolved by people under the tyranny class and official\noppression.\n\nAs long as the opportunities in this country were free to all, neither\nthe seed of Socialism nor of Anarchy could take root, but when the\nopportunities were absorbed by a few, it produced a condition similar\nto that of a monarchial form of government, and the seed of these\nexotic plants, Socialism and Anarchy, both found a soil suited to\ntheir growth.\n\nThere is nothing the matter with our form of government. It has\nproduced the greatest success the world has ever witnessed, has\ndeveloped a manhood, a self-reliance and a self-respect to be found on\nno place else on the face of the earth, and I see no reason why we\nshould change that form of government, because some people have\nmonopolized the opportunity for labor and produced an unsatisfactory\ncondition economically. There is but one opportunity to labor, and\nthat is the land. We can free the land without changing our form of\ngovernment, by simply taxing it to its full rental value, and doing\naway with all other forms of taxation. This will immediately take the\nburden off of labor, and while not reducing our present millionaires\nto the ranks of plain, honest men, it will effectually prevent the\ngrowth of any more millionaire monstrosities. (See also \"Why I am in\nFavor of Socialism.\")\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Ladd, Horatio Oliver.= (Clergyman. Author and Educator.)\n\nI do not favor Socialism because it is an effort to reform society\nagainst the nature of man.\n\nNo man is created equal to another, or every other man. He is an\nindividual who makes his place in the world by his special individual\ntraits and powers. By these he uses the powers of others, and material\nand moral instruments and forces around him to accomplish his ends. He\nconcedes to others what he cannot or does not wish to hold or acquire\nfor himself in the influence and possessions of this life.\n\nThe inequality of man in this world is everywhere manifest. The\nadvantages won in this life are the result of effort and character,\nnot of any distribution based upon the principle of equality of man.\n\nThe differences in man's condition, make the interest and the\nincitements of life. Collectivism is an absurd theory of distribution\nof the good of life, because it cannot preserve equal conditions, even\nin one generation. The weak, the lame and the lazy must fall behind\nthe strong, the able, the ambitious. The apples on a tree are of\ndifferent sizes, and soundness, because of the vigor of the buds,\nleaves, branches and location which have contributed to their growth.\nSo it is in all Nature, and in man.\n\nThe prizes of life belong to those who win them by merit of their\npowers, their diligence and their effort.\n\nA common opportunity is the highest condition Nature and society can\noffer to the individual.\n\nLife is rich in and through its varieties. Religion and common sense\nstand for these principles of individualism in the development and\nconduct of human life and government.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Levermore, Charles Herbert.= (Educator and Author.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because I believe that any plan thus far\nproposed for the reorganization of society upon a Socialist basis\nwould result in a tyranny of a majority, or of a bureaucratic clique\nor \"ring,\" representing that majority, which would be meaner and more\nunendurable than any corporation-ridden party-machine or any Tammany\nHall that we have ever known. (See also \"Why I Am in Favor of\nSocialism.\")\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Bell, Mackenzie.= (Poet, Critic and Lecturer.)\n\nThough a collectivist I am not a Socialist in the Marxian sense,\nbecause I think the private ownership of capital has never until now,\nhad a fair chance in the work of civilization. Throughout the world\nthe people are dimly awaking to insist that property has its duties as\nwell as its rights, and to insist likewise that property pays its due\ntoll to the commonwealth.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Binney, Charles Chauncey.= (Lawyer and Author.)\n\nI cannot pretend to much familiarity with Socialist writings, but I\nhave read with some care the platform of the Socialist Party for the\nrecent election. Some few of the planks have nothing to do with\nSocialism in itself, and some (that in regard to child labor, for\ninstance) express the views of men of all parties; but the\ndistinctively Socialist part of the platform impressed me as\nco-operation run mad. People seemed to be regarded as masses only, not\nas individuals, although the individualist feeling is one of the\nstrongest in human nature, and is of the utmost importance in the\nprogress of civilization.\n\nIf a Socialist administration of government be possible as a permanent\ninstitution (which I doubt) it would be impossible under the\nconditions demanded by this platform, because no man's life or\nproperty (if any individual property be permitted) would be safe under\nit. For instance, the legislative power is to be vested in a Congress\nand legislatures composed of one chamber only, subject to no veto and\ncontrolled by no constitution, for the courts are to be forbidden to\nquestion the constitutionality of laws. This would make the\nlegislature all-powerful, but the fact that no one branch of the\ngovernment is all-powerful is an important guarantee of our present\nliberties. Worse than this, although the experience of ages has shown\nthat the greatest safeguard of liberty is the administration of law by\nan independent and fearless judiciary--that is, by judges who cannot\nbe dismissed except for official wrongdoing, and who therefore are not\nmerely free to do right in every case, but have the strongest\nincentives to do so--yet the platform proposes to destroy judicial\ntenure during good behavior wherever it exists, and to cause all\njudges to be elected for short terms. If you ask any man of\nintelligence, who wants only justice, whether he would feel more sure\nof a just decision in a United States Court before a judge holding\noffice during good behavior, or in a State Court, before a judge\nelected by the voters of a political party for a short term only, I am\nconfident that he would express much greater confidence in the former.\n\nThe Socialist platform asserts that the \"capitalist class\" controls\nthe judiciary. This broad assertion is ridiculously false. What is\ntrue is that the judiciary is not composed of Socialists, that the\njudges are as yet unwilling to disregard the law, and to decide in\naccordance with the wishes of Socialists. If, however, the \"capitalist\nclass\" sought to control the judiciary, it could do so much more\neasily in the case of judges elected for short terms than in that of\njudges holding office during good behavior. Evidently the Socialists\nwant a chance to \"control\" the judiciary themselves, whereas what the\ncountry needs is a judiciary uncontrolled by any class, capitalist or\nSocialist.\n\nThe platform declares for collective ownership of all railroads,\ntelegraph and telephone lines, etc. The word \"confiscation\" is\navoided, but confiscation must be intended, for surely the Socialists\ndo not wish to enrich the \"capitalist class\" by buying out their\ninterests in public service corporations at a fair valuation.\n\nI could criticise the Socialist platform in many other respects,\nespecially the tone of violence and hatred that pervades it. There is\nnot a suggestion of Christianity about it. I shall conclude, however,\nby stating my own experience of local government under the Socialist\nParty. Being in ill health last winter, I stayed at Bordighera in\nItaly. The Socialists controlled the town government, and were anxious\nto continue in office, and therefore not to offend the rank and file\nof their party. The drunkenness and noise at night were often\nintolerable, but all protests were useless, as the drinkers and\nshouters had votes, and the foreign visitors had none. Gambling was\ncarried on as openly as at Monte Carlo, without any regard to the\nwell-being of the community. After this slight experience, I was able\nto understand better what took place under the Socialist commune of\nParis in 1871, which I am old enough to remember well.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Wilson, Alonzo Edes.= (Editor and Lecturer.)\n\nThere are many good things about the theory of Socialism, but I do not\nbelieve in the remedy as proposed through the Socialist Party. The\nbattle can never be won that way. I also believe that our hardest\nfight and the first thing to be done is the killing of our greatest\ncommon enemy, the liquor traffic and the business of drunkard making,\nby the Government. The settlement of this problem will solve many of\nour ills and then we can take up some of these other questions.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Russell, Isaac Franklin, LL., D.C.L.= (Chief Justice of the Court of\nSpecial Sessions of the City of New York.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because of its erroneous attitude to labor.\nLabor is not a thing to be avoided, but rather to be welcomed and\nencouraged. The only real happiness we ever experience in this world\nis the intelligent exercise of our faculties. A perpetual motion\nmachine or some fanciful device for saving us from labor, so far from\nbeing a blessing, would paralyze our noblest powers.\n\nI charge Socialism with economic error and heresy for its attacks on\ncapital and capitalists. Capital is indispensable to enterprise. It is\nthe source and mainspring of wages. The laborer cannot pay himself his\nwages out of the finished product of his toil, else he would have no\nquarrel with his master. Even public credit, on which we are building\nthe Panama Canal and our city schools, rests on visible resources in\nlands, franchises and personal property.\n\nI charge Socialism with economic error in advocating a rate of wages\ndetermined by arbitrary authority, irrespective of demand and supply.\nNo producer of merchandise for any appreciable length of time can\ncontinue to pay more than the market rate of wages and keep out of\nbankruptcy.\n\nThe manhood wage--a plan by which we accord to each laborer enough\nmoney to support himself, his wife and as many children as God sends\nto his home--is a delusion and a snare. It directly encourages\nimprovidence and stimulates the growth of population by diverting\nnature's stern but benignant discipline from the unworthy to the\nworthy. It paralyzes thrift and temperance, and puts a premium on\nrecklessness and vicious self-indulgence.\n\nI charge Socialism with fundamental error in preaching the doctrine of\nhuman equality. Nature abhors equality. Men vary infinitely, from the\nmeanest degenerates to the tallest of the sons of God. They can be\nequal only before the law, or in the eye of the law, or as suppliants\nfor justice. Intellectually we need patricians and noblemen to\nencourage us by precept and example and point out the path of progress\nto better things. A dollar a day, or one thousand dollars a day, never\nwill remunerate men like Edison and Harriman for their services to a\nworld of workers.\n\nSocialism trifles with the principles that underlie the institution of\nproperty. Even animal and sub-human ethics regard the right of the\nindividual to his accumulated store and the home he has builded.\n\nThe attitude of Socialists toward the courts of law is undemocratic.\nIn America we must reverence the law. It is our only hope. To teach\nthe multitude that justice is bought and sold in this country and that\nthe judgments of our judicial tribunals are knocked down to the\nhighest bidder is to accuse a whole nation of crime.\n\nSocialism represses individual development. It substitutes for\nself-direction the authority of the many.\n\nBut it is in constructive Socialism that we find the greatest peril\nand the most monumental folly. Utopias innumerable have been conceived\nby the heated imagination of dreamers of all ages. The monotony of\nUtopia would be maddening. No moral crisis can arise in a perfect\nsociety. Charity and philanthropy, sympathy, courage and all the human\nvirtues can have no play in such a spot.\n\nCompetition is not to be decried as vicious. It is really a benignant\nprinciple. It is the supreme divine law. To competition among\nemployers the workman looks for high wages; on competition among\nsellers he relies to buy what he needs at the lowest figure.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Andrews, Martin Register.= (College Professor and Editor.)\n\nThe machinery of government which the Socialists propose seems to me\nlikely to aggravate the very evils of which they justly complain. The\nproposal to confiscate the homes of the farmers and work the former\nowners under some boss chosen by the State, as I heard advocated a few\ndays ago, may be a blessing to the brewers, but not to the great body\nof workingmen. (See also \"Why I Am in Favor of Socialism.\")\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Allen, Alfred.= (Playwright and Author.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because of their inhumanity towards the poor\nmillionaire. In spite of it all, they are our brothers.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Owen, Douglas.= (Author, Barrister and Lecturer.)\n\nUntil Socialists themselves shall have come to some sort of an\nagreement as to the aims and objects of the Socialism to be adopted as\ntheir creed, how can one formulate one's objections to Socialism? The\nmore moderate and reasonable of its advocates profess, indeed,\nindignation and abhorrence at the views of the extremists, and to\nreply to the extremists is to call forth charges of gross\nmisrepresentation on the part of the more moderate. But broadly\nstated, what Socialism even in its more moderate form appears to aim\nat, is the negation and suppression of the greatest and most\nbeneficent law of nature--law of humanity--which we know as the law of\nthe survival of the fittest. On this supreme law depends, and always\nhas depended, and must depend, the uplifting, enlightenment and, in\nthe end, the highest welfare of mankind. And just as that which is\ngood for the hive cannot be bad for the bee, so must the welfare of\nthe hive depend on the independent effort of each individual bee.\n\nThe mainspring of the world's upward and forward progress is the\nambition and emulation of the individual worker: the slothful, the\nill-qualified and the weakling being left behind; one and the same\nlaw, beneficent if hard, for all life upon this world, whether animate\nor inanimate. The Socialists' aim is to deprive the individual of\nstimulus to put forth his best efforts for his own advancement and\ntherefore for the benefit of the human hive.\n\nWhen I received your invitation to state my views on this subject, I\nchanced to be reading David Hannay's work. \"The Sea Trader.\" At the\nconclusion he deals with the subject of convoy, under which all ships,\nfast and slow, good and bad, were compelled to voyage under armed\nescort. His remarks on the consequences of the system are so apposite\nthat I quote them here:\n\n\"The necessity for keeping together imposed a restriction often of a\nhighly injurious kind, on the best appointed vessels. Since the whole\nmust be kept together, it followed that the convoy was condemned to\nsail at the rate of speed of the slowest among them. A quick sailing\nship lost the whole advantage of her superiority. She could neither\nobtain the advantage of being early in the market, nor make prompt\narrangements to unload or reload. She was brought down to the level of\nthe most lumbering tub. Of what use was it to build for speed, to be\nalert, to seek for better ways, when the law stood over you, fine and\nimprisonment in hand, to make you go slow, to force you to follow the\nknown road!\"\n\nOf course, it meant utter stagnation in shipbuilding; it was death to\nadvance an improvement. The Socialist, in his shortsighted and narrow\nview, aims at the same thing over again, on a universal scale, with\nall its dire and retrograde results. He would reduce the well-found,\nwell-equipped and speedy vessel to the level of the most lumbering tub\nin the human fleet.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Painter, Franklin Verzelius Newton.= (Author and College Professor.)\n\nIf Socialism is what its friends say it is, it should be commended; if\nit is what its enemies say it is, it should be condemned.\n\nIn developing a sense of social obligation, Socialism accomplishes a\nfine work; but in expecting a thorough human reformation from altered\nsocial conditions, it betrays the weakness of illiterate credulity.\n\nIn seeking greater justice and equality in economic conditions,\nSocialism rests on a strong moral basis; but in seeking no more than\ngreater material ease and comfort, it betrays the presence of\nmortality.\n\nIn demanding individual sacrifice for the common good, Socialism\nemphasizes an important duty; but in totally submerging the individual\nin society, it is guilty of an ancient wrong.\n\nThe truths of Socialism are rapidly finding expression in life and\ngovernment; its errors will prove its ultimate destruction.\n\nThe fundamental defect of Socialism is its materialism; for there is\nthat in man which transcends food and raiment.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Thayer, William Roscoe.= (Historian.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because I have seen no explanation by any of\nits various, and mutually antagonistic advocates, of the way in which\nit can safeguard the individual. The purpose of life is to produce\nindividuals, each of whom shall be trained to the highest\nefficiency--manual, intellectual and moral--of which he is capable.\nSocialism, having only the welfare of all (an abstraction) in view,\nmust logically slight or suppress the individual. So, logically, it\nmust destroy the family--the unit of civilization--and reduce mankind\nin their sexual relations below the level of the beasts. What I desire\nis not crazy Nietzsche's superman--individualism run mad--nor\nSocialism which denies the individual.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Nevin, Theodore Williamson.= (Editor.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism principally because of its impracticability.\nTheoretically it is beautiful, but until human nature changes\nradically from what it is at present, the plan will not work out in\npractice. Go into any of the small Socialistic societies, see the\npetty wrangling, the striving for domination--bossing by the stronger\nleaders, the self-seeking efforts of all, weak and strong; and it will\nat once be seen that the theory is not a success there. If not\nsuccessful in these smaller experiments, how can it be expected to be\nin the larger field of a nation?\n\nMy fear would be that if the system could ever be fastened on the\nnational government (which I consider an impossibility) it would be\ndisastrous--it would take away ambition, it would have a blighting\neffect on enterprise, and would result in the production of the most\nintolerant \"bosses,\" great and small that the world has ever seen.\nThe resultant slavery of the masses would be shocking, compared with\nwhich the most asserted, so-called slavery under our modern industrial\nsystem would be the perfection of freedom.\n\nAfter all, isn't Socialism, present day Socialism, simply an effort of\nthose that have not, trying to get a share of the possessions of those\nthat have?\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Bigelow, Edward Fuller.= (Lecturer and Writer.)\n\nI am in favor of Socialism in so far as it contains many good ideals,\nand am against it in so far as the methods of obtaining those ideals\nare non-existent, indefinite or impracticable. Many harangues by\nSocialist orators and many tracts, claiming to set forth Socialistic\ndoctrines are mostly vague with omission of all practical methods. It\nmay do for the poet to rave about sailing away to the moon, but if the\npoet becomes politician he must show the ship and explain how it will\nmake the journey.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Post, Louis Freeland.= (Editor, The Public, Chicago, Ill.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism in its economic program because it proposes\nto suppress competition, and in its tactics because it stands for\nclass warfare. As to competition, I do not believe that it can be\nsuppressed without substituting an intolerable despotism, and I do\nbelieve it will operate fairly if divested of the law-created\nmonopolies with which it is now bedeviled. As to class warfare, I\nregard the real contest as a contest over economic interests and moral\nideals, which neither are nor can be differentiated by any lines of\npersonal class. (See also \"Why I Am in Favor of Socialism.\")\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Walker, Albert H.= (Lawyer and Author.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because it is contrary to nature. In nature,\nprogress results from evolution; and evolution results from\nfortuitous differentiation and survival of the fittest. Socialism\nproposes to try to make the unfittest survive, at the expense of the\nfittest. That also is the proposition of Christianity. But both those\nsystems are contrary to nature in that respect.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Tutt, John Calhoun.= (Writer.)\n\nSocialism is not feasible. It is a myth of dreamy minds. It has an\nidealistic atmosphere and is attractive to those who lag in the\nstruggle of life. Its worst feature is that it deceives the people who\nconscientiously seek relief in it. Its leadership thrives because its\nimpracticability prevents the experimental tests that would expose its\nsophistry. There is no way to prove by actual demonstration that the\npersuasive gospel or philosophy of the men who lead its movements is a\nmockery. You can't try out Socialism. It is evasive. No people ever\ndid or ever will grasp it. There is no equality in either civilization\nor barbarism. The men most conspicuous in the Socialist movement do\nnot exemplify equality. You find Socialists among the most destitute.\nIf Socialism is a legitimate form of government, why have not the\nforces of government evolved it? The age of experiment has long since\npassed. We have had repetition over and over again, but no\nmaterialization of Socialism. Government is purely human, and until\nthere is a new creation there will never be anything new in\ngovernment.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Arford, Fremont.= (Editor, Western Trade Journal, Chicago.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because it does not lead to anything\npractical or concrete. The theories and plans of the great body of\nSocialists are largely chimerical and do not appeal to my idea of\nbettering the conditions of which they, and myself as well, complain.\nTo accomplish what Socialism is attempting to bring about,\nnecessitates a revolution of all that now goes to make up human\nnature, and nothing short of omnipotence can do this.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Cavanaugh, John, C.S.C.= (President University of Notre Dame.)\n\nAs a philosophy Socialism is hostile to organized government because\norganized government stands for restraint. Restraint is necessary\nwherever people live together. Socialism wants a so-called liberty\nwhich, in my judgment, is license.\n\nSocialism is opposed to religion for the same reason. Religion teaches\nman to be patient and Socialism can thrive only where men are\ndiscontented.\n\nSocialism is opposed to the home because husband and father in the\nnature of things are economically dependent upon employers, and it is\ncharacteristic of Socialists that they wish to flaunt offence in the\nface of employers.\n\nIndividual Socialists will deny that these charges against Socialism\nare true. Such individual Socialists are sometimes honest, a fact\nwhich only proves that they don't know the inner meaning of Socialism.\nSocialistic papers like the New York Call make no pretense of\nconcealing the true meaning of the Socialist philosophy.\n\nAs a matter of fact the vast majority of so-called Socialists think it\nis merely a political plan that concerns only the question of capital\nand labor and government ownership.\n\nEven as a matter of political policy Socialism is not convincing; it\ncould not cure the ills of society which are due to inequalities of\ntalent, strength, wisdom and industry rather than to political\npolicies.\n\nI am not willing to close this brief statement without adding that\ncapitalists should take care so to deal with labor as to deprive\nagitators of all excuse and valid argument for Socialism, while to the\nworking man I say: \"Be wise, thrifty, virtuous and industrious so that\nyou may improve your condition.\" I say with equal earnestness to the\ncapitalist: \"Stop making Socialists. Treat your laboring people like\nequals rather than inferiors, and as brothers, not as aliens.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Barr, Granville Walter.= (Writer.)\n\nThe accomplishment of ethics by the enactment of laws always fails,\nand always will fail, except in those cases where there is a strong\ntrend of public opinion to the same end. There are places where\nmurder is not punished, and other places where only certain forms of\nmurder are punished; as there are places where the sale of alcoholic\nliquors and gambling are utterly prevented by the punishment of all\nwho commit these acts contrary to law. Socialism is a program of law\nfar ahead of the public opinion of today in this country. Therefore it\ncannot effect itself here and now. There may be in the future a time\nand place where it will be effective, and then its laws will be\nbeneficent.\n\nBut only under the conditions stated, will it be harmless. The\ngreatest evil in America today is the non-enforcement of laws. Any law\nnot enforced, because contrary to public opinion in the governmental\nunit involved, becomes malevolent in its effects. In one city whose\npeople believe liquors should be sold, saloons flourish in spite of a\nState statute prohibiting them, because conviction of saloon keepers\nis impossible in that bailiwick; thirty years of this state of affairs\nhas produced a generation of young men who firmly believe that laws\nare made to be enforced or disregarded at will--who are germinating\nthe seeds of anarchy. To enact a mass of law which cannot be enforced\nuntil the millennium is nearer its dawn, is to weaken all law. Hence,\nSocialism as a political factor is malevolent--as a propaganda, it is\nof course beneficent and to be encouraged academically, exactly as one\nshould encourage the growth of Methodism or Presbyterianism while\nkeeping them both out of political matters. Socialism seems determined\nto intrude into politics--is essentially political, indeed--and its\nmost active writers sneer at the American constitution and\ninstitutions while they have nothing practicable to substitute except\nthe Golden Rule--which excellent rule of action never has been\nenforced upon any nation, nor any large group of people, and which\ncannot be enforced soon. When it can be enforced, Socialism will have\narrived. In the meantime, human nature must be made over--God speed\nthe day!\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=White, William Allen.= (Editor and Author.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because I believe that it attempts to do by\nlegislative enactment, what must come through an evolutionary\nprocess. I believe that we are now ready for a long evolutionary jump,\nbut not so far forward as some of our Socialist brethren would like to\njump.\n\nI desire to go as far toward human justice and good will toward men,\nas anyone, but I do not feel that we should start and stop, because we\nare not ready to go the whole distance. I would start and go but one\nday's journey at a time.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Crowell, John Franklin.= (Economist.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism--\n\nFirst: Because it fails to provide for the requisites of progress, and\nthis threatens to cause a stationary civilization.\n\nSecond: Because it seems to me to misplace the emphasis by putting the\nmaterial before the spiritual in human happiness.\n\nThird: Because it is anti-national in its attitude toward liberty and\nself-government. By means of national citizenship modernity has gained\nmost of its rights and privileges. To show utter contempt for the\nnational flag, by referring to it as \"an old rag,\" exhibits a personal\nquality wholly incompatible with true human brotherhood.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Wilcox, Lute.= (Editor, Field and Farm, Denver, Colo.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism upon the broad ground that we already have\ntoo many loafers in America for the future good of the nation. All\nmankind is Socialistic to a certain degree. The most of us are\ninclined to double shoot the turn and ride a free horse to death. We\nmake Socialism a sort of excuse to shift responsibilities that\ncertainly belong to each and every individual living under a\ndemocratic form of government. We are always dodging the little duties\nthat go to make up the ground work of life. Socialism seems to\ninculcate that spirit of inactivity which might be more properly\ncalled loaferism and no country can become great with such a dominant\nspirit prevailing among its people.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Heald, G.H.= (Editor, Life and Health)\n\nI am both in favor of, and opposed to Socialism, because Socialism\nmeans very many different things. As one man said: Christian Socialism\nmeans \"all mine is yours,\" and the other kind means, \"all yours is\nmine.\"\n\nOur present government is partially Socialistic; our public schools,\nour public roads, our postoffice department, and more and more of our\npublic work is becoming socialized.\n\nAnother form of Socialism, although not political, is the co-operative\nbodies seen in the garden suburbs of the cities of England, and the\nco-operative stores, etc.\n\nIt seems to me that the cry against capital is not well taken. Turn\nten thousand anti-capitalists into a new undeveloped country and let\nthem develop it! The first thing they will require is capital. And\nafter a while if a few of the more energetic ones begin to do things\nit will be because they have accumulated a little capital. However, I\ncan understand that this capital might be held co-operatively by the\nlaborers as it is in some institutions, rather than by a few. But the\npresent conditions which get a monopoly of franchise on public\nutilities or a monopoly of natural wealth of the country, whether of\nmines or forests or water power, is all wrong. We need more of public\nownership, less of larger corporations fattening their stockholders by\nsqueezing the prices to the highest limit and wages to the lowest\nlimit.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Kelly, Robert Lincoln.= (President, Earlham College.)\n\nI feel that the tendency in our country is toward a more Socialistic\nform of government and with this movement I am in entire sympathy.\nThis means, however, that these tendencies will be incorporated in our\ngovernment by the process of evolution and not by that of revolution.\nIn other words, that we will hammer these questions out one at a time\nand adopt them only as they are proven to be practicable in every-day\nexperience. Since Socialism presumably stands for an extensive program\nwhich is to be adopted in toto and without due deliberation and\ntentative experience I cannot become a member of that party. Let those\nwho wish to advocate the cause in this wholesale way, have every\npossible opportunity of doing so, but recognize that as a matter of\nfact, forms of government and even public opinion are changed very\nslowly with the process of the sun.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Ladd, George Trumbull.= (University Professor.)\n\nI believe in the spiritual unity of the race, and in the duty of\nnations and individuals to treat each other like brothers, and sons of\na common father. I detest all class hatred and all arrangements,\npolitical and social, for securing and promoting class interests at\nthe expense of the public welfare. I am the enemy of all systems of\n\"bossism,\" or monopoly, or control by other than natural laws and\nmoral principles, of the opportunities of the individual to labor, to\nenjoy the fruits of labor, and to develop himself and help others.\nThus far I am a Socialist.\n\nI do not believe, however, in any of the definite schemes for\nequalizing the rewards of labor, irrespective of the merits of the\nlaborer and the excellence of his work. I do not believe in communism,\neither in the sharing by compulsion, of goods; and certainly not, in\nthe sharing of the privileges of the family life. Nor do I think that\nthe control of government, whether of city, State or Nation, by any\nSocialistic Party, would, in the large and the long run, improve\nmatters. I fear it would make bad matters even worse. The only way to\nimprove society is to make the men and women who compose society,\nintellectually, morally, and religiously, better men and better women.\nI want, first of all, to be improved in all these ways myself; and\nnext, to help the next fellow to improve himself.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Adams, Thomas Sewall.= (Professor Political Economy.)\n\nIf Socialism means primarily the ownership and operation by the State\nof the principal industries, I am opposed to it because a long\nexperience in State and public work convinces me that public work is,\ncomparatively speaking, inefficient work. The cause of this\ninefficiency lies deep in the nature of democratic government and will\nnever, I think, be removed. The individual public servant is neither\nlazy nor inferior, but the conditions of his work make it impossible\nto get the same results as he could in private employment. The spirit\nof public work is more equitable. Greater consideration is given to\nthe humane factors. More of this spirit will have to be injected into\nprivate industry. The result will be not public industry, but private\nindustry animated by a new ideal and conducted under the guardianship\nof the State rather than by the State. Industrial life is not simple;\nit is very complex, and no simple solution is to be looked for. The\nquasi-public industry managed by private individuals, deeply impressed\nwith the feeling of their public trusteeship, is the ultimate ideal.\nWith the deeper and better spirit of Socialism I am altogether in\naccord. Most Socialists think that the strength of the movement lies\nin their tactics; their specific provisions for government ownership;\ntheir philosophical doctrines; but the contrary is the truth and the\none enduring thing in Socialism is the religious zeal and high ideals\nof its best exponents.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Linn, Walter R.= (Editor Harrisburg Telegraph, Harrisburg, Pa.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because the progress of the world has been\nmade under individualism. Any system which has a tendency to\ndiscourage or repress personal initiative is a system which can\nproduce no good to the country.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Terhune, William Lewis.= (Publisher.)\n\nSocialism, to my mind, means the overthrow of all the advancements of\nthe past one hundred years or more. The man of brains and energy would\nstand but little show or encouragement under a government controlled\nby Socialism or Socialistic ideas. I believe that, the man who is\ncapable of making his way in this world, is smart and energetic enough\nto build up a business and with it a fortune, is entitled to all he\ncan possess through honest efforts. I do not believe in government\nownership of public utilities, but I do believe in a controlling power\nof the government to in some way supervise these corporations so they\nwill be obliged to keep in the path of honesty in all their\ntransactions with the public. Individual freedom is the watchword of\nour great country. When we lose that, we lose ourselves.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Scheffauer, Herman.= (Author.)\n\nI am opposed to theoretical Socialism wherever it threatens to\ninterfere with the full and unhampered development of the individual\nor to lower his worth. Being a mass philosophy, Socialism must\nlogically strive to sacrifice the individual to that mass. I hold that\nit is only through the channels of a free, noble, self-restrained\nindividualism that man may naturally attain to his supreme development\nin happiness, culture and power.\n\nTheoretical Socialism is a splendid fallacy that shines like a truth\nwhen contemplated beneath the skies of the future already reddened by\nthe sanguine color of the creed. But it is a fallacy based upon\nanother fallacy, that of the virtue in the sovereign mass or\ndemocracy, which in turn is based upon certain fallacies of\nChristianity.\n\nThese systems of the multitude amount to mob rule, and will never\nevolve the highest type of men--the intellectual and moral samurai of\nwhom H.C. Wells has written, the rulers by nature, training and\nfitness, the men who, in Nietzsche's phrase, are to surpass men.\n\nIn practical matters Socialism may be said to be already operative,\nand largely operative for good. It is correcting many ancient evils\nand bringing a certain degree of order and balance into the world.\nThat is its chief value--an industrial and economic one. It is a means\nand not an end. For in the last analysis of human things it will be\nundone by that iron fiat which decrees that every man must be an end\nin himself and unto himself.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Gaines, Clement Carrington.= (President Eastman College.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because I believe that Socialism is an\nimpracticable form of governmental administration, and therefore must,\nif it should ever come to power, fail as a system of government. In\nsupport of this view I suggest the following considerations:\n\nFirst: A free democratic government, a government by the people in any\nform, must necessarily be controlled by parties.\n\nSecond: Parties are held together by the interests of the\norganization. These interests in the end are opposed to the interests\nof the people in that any party must support itself by what its\norganizers and promoters can get out of the people, which is another\nway of saying that every party is held together by the cohesion of\npublic plunder, the private interests of its organizers. That policy\nis always most popular with the party in power which promises most\nprofit to its leaders. The leaders are controlled by the policy which\nseems to serve their interests best, and not by the principles of\nrighteousness or altruism.\n\nThird: Hence in the administration of Government by a party the\nsuccess and policy of the party must dominate its action rather than\nthe interests of the people whom the party would govern, because this\nsuccess is the thing most necessary to the continuance of the party in\npower. The effort to succeed leads to corruption notwithstanding the\napparent purity of its principles or promises of its platform.\n\nConclusion: Since the three principles enunciated seem to be the\nfundamental law of party government, and since the principles of\nSocialism are in contravention of this fundamental law, it is believed\nthat Socialism cannot permanently succeed as a method of party\ngovernment. It is further believed that the principles of Socialism\nare in contravention of the natural law that no creature may advance\nin any direction except by the law of competition of all its vital\nforces, principles, and powers. Mr. Darwin calls this \"the law of\nnatural selection and survival of the fittest,\" and says conclusively\nthat this natural law governs and directs the development and progress\nof the material world, and that it applies with equal force to man's\nnature, and to his progress as a member of the moral, social,\nindustrial, and political world.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Leckie, A.S.= (Editor, The Joliet Herald, Joliet, Ill.)\n\nWe may oppose or improve human legislative enactments, but not natural\nlaws. Socialism, in its logical perfection, would attempt this.\n\nThe species improves and advances only through the struggle for\nexistence (or preferment). The law of the survival or supremacy of the\nfittest is immutable in natural conditions. Remove from the petted\nsquirrels the necessity of providing their winter's food, and they\nbecome unable to do so when the necessity again arises.\n\nAmbition in competition, carried if you will, to the extreme of\ncupidity and greed, are instincts as natural as that of\nself-preservation.\n\nWithout the incentive of reward in preferment, power or wealth, we\nshould have no progress. Any enforced leveling of talent or ability\nwould curb and eventually stop human advancement.\n\nPossibly we are advancing too fast; the advance of Socialism may be a\nworking of the natural law of compensation, destined to put a brake\nupon the wheels of a too rapid progress.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Field, Walter Taylor.= (Author.)\n\nI am opposed to such Socialism as emphasizes \"class-consciousness\" and\nthe entire abolition of private property. True Socialism should make\nabsolutely no distinction between classes, but should hold mankind as\na common brotherhood. I am opposed to the entire abolition of private\nproperty as removing one of the strongest incentives to labor and\nprogress. We need social reform badly enough, and a check upon\ninheritances and large accumulations of private property, but I\nbelieve the remedy for most of our social evils lies in encouraging\nthe wage-earners to become small farmers and small artisans and in\nprotecting them by stringent legislation against the encroachments of\nlarge business.\n\nI am heartily in sympathy with the spirit of Socialism, but not with\nits methods.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Barstow, George Eames.= (Business man.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism, first, because the All-Wise One in His\ninscrutable wisdom in arranging for His people for occupying the\npromised land, provided that every man should go and take up the land\nalloted to him.\n\nSecond: The Creator knew what would best contribute to the social and\neconomic order of humanity in all time to come.\n\nThird: Socialism means a community of property. I am opposed to such a\nsocial and economic order, believing same to be against the public\nwelfare. Society has now too many drones, lazy and idle from choice.\nSuch class would be largely increased under Socialism. The subject's\nagitation reveals such product.\n\nFourth: What is needed in these days is an increase of social justice,\nnot social injustice.\n\nFifth: A man should enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,\nand can only do this as he is at liberty, under wise laws, to exercise\nhis full capacity for himself; leaving to himself the right to\ncontribute to others as he may choose.\n\nSixth: There are some vital questions to be solved for the betterment\nof the people at large, concerning social, economic and industrial\norder; but, their best solution will not be found in Socialism. Many\nnoble and patriotic men and women are devoting money and life to these\nends, and will in due time accomplish, through wise laws, the purposes\nfor which they strive and which will be for the healing and uplifting\nof the peoples of the earth.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Lee, Elmer.= (Physician, Author, Inventor, Lecturer and Editor.)\n\nLife is experimental and whatever man wishes to try in the hope of\nbettering his condition will neither hurt him in the long run, and\nprobably not better him.\n\nEach new generation of men is largely unmindful of the experiments of\nmen in the past, and feels that it has a solution for human trial, and\ndisappointment, only to find when it is put to the test that, after\nall, it will not accomplish what was expected from it.\n\nMan banded together for a common interest, will not go far before he\nmeets reverse and disappointment; he will fall out with his associate\nand quarrel with him; differences will arise which will lead to\ndissatisfaction and dissolution of the plan.\n\nMan is primarily selfish and imaginative, and seeks to operate\nindependently and erect for himself, his family and his affairs. Man\nhas so much power and invention that he will not long consent to\nremain within any set limitation; he will break out and will prefer to\nfight his own battle.\n\nAnything like common interest and division of labor, under Socialism\nor whatever name, will become unsatisfactory, if not to the generation\nwhich starts it, certainly to its children.\n\nAny system will suffice, were man always in health, intelligent in the\nselection of food and in the care of his body. Were man willing and\nable to practice self-control, to avoid self-debasing habits, to\nabstain from tobacco, liquor, drugs and venery, it would not much\nmatter what form of government prevailed.\n\nSocial form is less important than individual conduct. It will always\nbe a struggle for man to survive the perils of life, such as\ntemptation, indulgence, weakness, accident and disease. The test is\npersonal and continuous, and cannot be shifted to the shoulder of\nsociety.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Brownscombe, Jennie.= (Artist.)\n\nI believe in a more rigid enforcement of our existing laws. They are a\nprecious heritage from our forefathers; a resume of the wisdom of the\nages. Where time and altered conditions have made it desirable to\namend them, they should be amended by the wisest and purest statesmen\nof our land, guided by the trend of public thought.\n\nI believe that the great need of this time and of all times, is not\nSocialism, better laws or absence of law, but capable, industrious and\nhonest men and women, who strive to abide by and enforce the Golden\nRule in all matters of character and conduct. \"Our duties are of more\nconsequence to us than are our rights.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Lightner, Ezra Wilberforce.= (Journalist)\n\nSome of the most profound of thinkers, some of the grandest of men and\nwomen, have written in regard to Socialism; some on the one side and\nsome on the other. If in the mind of the majority of the most earnest\nand thoughtful and reasoning men and women the majority shall one day\nsay that what is called Socialism is a stride in the process of slow\nevolution which has brought us to the measure of civilization now\nrecognized, then whether or not we are yet living when that time\ncomes, we must accept that condition as one of the processes of\nevolution and try the experiment.\n\nI don't believe that at this time anybody can say clearly whether he\nor she is a Socialist except in vague theory. There are too many bases\nfor doubt, as there are in regard to the finality of the political\nsystems in active operation today. One thing that can't be doubted is\nthat from the date of the Republic of Plato, the Utopia of Moore, the\nwriting of Jean Jacques Rousseau, the \"Voyage of Icaria\" of Etienne\nCapet, the essays of Proudhon, St. Simon, Fourier, \"Das Kapital\" of\nKarl Marx, the tremendous labor of Liebknecht, Bebel, Lassalle,\nSinger, William Morris, the English artist, poet and philosopher, John\nRuskin, and a host of others, the increase in numbers of the\nsupporters of the Socialist ideal has been one of the most remarkable\nof economical evangels.\n\nYet with all this I think that a long process of educational work\nwould be necessary to prepare mankind for the experiment, if it be\npossible to make it a success. William Morris, before he had declared\noutright for Socialism, wrote his \"Earthly Paradise:\"\n\n \"Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time.\n Why should I strive to set the crooked straight?\"\n\nEvery thoughtful person recognizes the crooked, even though he may\nhimself be a crook: and even many of the crooks, and certainly all the\nrest of us, desire with our might to make the crooked straight and to\nhave an \"Earthly Paradise,\" and to hope that \"At last, far off, some\ngood will come to all.\" We are groping, and to grope earnestly and\nvigorously is to find. We shall find; we must find; or chaos will come\nagain. It must not be the invention of mere dreamers, however. In this\nage it is the practical business man who builds for permanency.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Cutler, James Elbert.= (University Professor.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism as a method or system because of the\nimpracticability of any particular program thus far formulated by\nSocialists. In the formulation of a Socialist program of action some\nimportant principle of social progress is invariably either wholly\ndisregarded or treated superficially by general statements which lack\npoint and application. The inability of the Socialists to agree among\nthemselves as regards a program or plan of action plainly indicates\nthe limitations under which Socialism labors in this respect. (See\nalso \"Why I am in Favor of Socialism.\")\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Leveroni, Frank.= (Counsellor at Law.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because--\n\nFirst: It is pure theory.\n\nSecond: It is impractical.\n\nThird: It leads to nowhere.\n\nFourth: It tends to destroy and it does not supply anything in the\nplace of that which it destroys.\n\nFifth: It is opposed to Christianity and to Christian marriage and to\nsettled economic theory.\n\nSixth: Its theory of distribution of property is fallacious as it\noverlooks human nature, it takes away the initiative in man, it\ncompels the community to provide for the laggard and drone.\n\nSeventh: It aims to destroy the family which is the center of\ncivilization, it aims to place the education and training of children\ndirectly in the care of the State, which would be detrimental to the\nhome life and love that ought to exist between parent and child.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Anderson, Rasmus Bjorn.= (Editor, College Professor and Translator.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism on account of its attitude to Christianity.\nIts attitude to Christianity manifests itself in the fact that it is\nnot only a political party, but also a theory or philosophy of life.\nIts principles and aims are wholly materialistic. It makes earthly\nhappiness the main purpose and highest ideal to be attained.\n\nI have in mind Socialism as taught by its great promotor, Karl Marx.\n\nSocialism refuses to consider anything beyond the grave It deals\nexclusively with things pertaining to this life. It refuses to answer,\nnay, it insists that it is not necessary to answer the great question\nto every soul: If a man dies, shall he still live? It says we do not\nknow and it is not worth while investigating. Denying all connection\nbetween morals and religion, it builds its moral life on a weaker\nfoundation than that built on Christianity. Socialism is selfish.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Ferguson, Charles.= (Author, Editorial Staff, New York American.)\n\nI am not in favor of Socialism because Socialism is a state of mind in\nwhich men are absorbed in the problem of the division of goods. The\ntrue and wholesome preoccupation of mankind should be the creation of\ngoods. It is of course important to divide right, but the right\ndivision cannot possibly be worked out until the problem is envisaged\nfrom the engineering point of view. The tools must belong to those who\ncan use them. And the genius of our redemption requires that all\nwealth shall be made fecund or reproductive--that there shall no\nlonger be any dead wealth--that there shall be nothing but capital and\ntools.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Baxter, James Phinney.= (Author and Ex-Mayor of Portland, Me.)\n\nThere is an unchristian Socialism which embodies the spirit of an\nutterance all too familiar: \"Do to thy neighbor as he does unto you.\"\nIt is impatient and intolerant of restraint, and, ignoring individual\nfreedom, would resort to force to compel men to obey its arbitrary\ncommands; indeed, it would destroy the fabric of society in the vain\nhope of rebuilding a perfect structure upon its ruins. What this\nspirit would do for the world may be read in the pages of history. To\nachieve its ends, it would employ cruel agencies, and the structure it\nwould rear would partake of its own imperfections, for the\nunchangeable law is, men are known by their works.\n\nMay God deliver us from this kind of Socialism, and, in His good time,\nestablish that, the beauty of which He sent Christ to reveal to men.\n(See also \"Why I am in Favor of Socialism.\")\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Emerson, Samuel Franklin.= (College Professor.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because it is a mechanical reconstruction of\nsociety, instead of an organic development.\n\nBecause it is an economic readjustment of society instead of morals.\n\nBecause it is based upon the essential antagonism of social classes\ninstead of essential co-operation.\n\nBecause it is a passing reaction against the present transitional\nsystem of industry.\n\nBecause it fails to recognize the importance of the individual in all\nsocial movements.\n\nBecause it would result in a dead social uniformity, instead of a rich\nsocial variety.\n\nBecause its ideal is in reality drawn from the mediaeval and\nsuperseded social past, instead of evaluating the forces of the\npresent.\n\nBecause it is saturated with a false and vicious economic philosophy.\n\nBecause it misconceives the social function of war, national rivalry\nand industrial conflict in the social economy.\n\nBecause it fails to evaluate the spiritual forces of society.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Ellis, George Washington.= (Lawyer and Writer.)\n\nIn so far as Socialistic theory is concerned, beginning in Plato's\n\"Republic,\" reasserted in Sir Thomas Moore's \"Utopia,\" embraced in\nthe latter part of the eighteenth century in Europe by Fourier,\nBaboeuf, Saint Simon and Cabet, and later in the United States by\nGreeley, Dana and Hawthorne, I regard as important contributions to\nliterature, whose chief value is inspirational rather than practical.\nThese theories involve such complete reconstruction and reorganization\nof society that their attainment are placed far into the indefinite\nfuture, yet their value as social and intellectual ideals serve a very\nuseful purpose in human progress.\n\nI accept in part what is called Christian Socialism in so far as it\ndesires to bring more and more the Christ-spirit to bear in the\ncommercial and business world, but I am opposed to the substitution of\nco-operation for competition in the present state of human\ndevelopment. Co-operation may be all right when society has slowly\ndeveloped by evolution up to the point where competition is not needed\nto keep economic and social conditions on a natural and normal basis,\nbut under present conditions it leads to economic monopoly and social\npoverty, as a few selfish and commanding industrial spirits get\ncontrol of the whole plan of co-operation to the detriment of the\ngreat masses. To prevent this situation competition is the greatest\nnatural check on monopoly and one of the best protections of the\npeople. The advocates of this phase of Socialism I think are correct\nin their contention that Socialistic schemes will not solve the labor\nproblems without that inner development through education and applied\nChristianity, yet I submit that they are in error when they insist\nthat the powers of the government should not be invoked except to\nremove hostile legislation.\n\nI heartily concur in Professional Socialism, called by Professor Ely,\nSocialism of the Chair. It repudiates the doctrine of laisser-faire,\nand in the study of political economy adopts the historical method. It\nnot only repudiates the laisser-faire principle, but it demands the\naid of the State to bring about a better distribution of the products\nof labor and capital. It especially desires that the laborer should\nhave a larger share in the products of his toil, and helps the\nsolution of the labor problems through the assistance of the\ngovernment in factory acts, sanitary measures, public parks,\nsavings-banks, shortening of the hours of labor, and other similar\nmeasures designed to elevate the laboring people. Such a course I\nthink is more than justified by the present economic and social\nconditions in the United States. The use of machinery has enormously\nincreased the productive capacity of the laborer for his employer, but\nhis wages have not increased in proportion as they should. Invention\nand machinery have multiplied many times the power of labor, but\ncapital takes practically all of the product, while the lot of labor\nis little better than in the hand-made era. By this I do not mean to\neven imply that higher wages would solve the labor problem, and while\nit would help some, I wish here little more than to call attention to\nthis abnormal phase of the economic situations in the more modern\nStates.\n\nI am opposed to what is known as the Socialism of today which had its\nbeginning in Frederick Engels and Karl Marx during the last century\nand which is now established in both Europe and America, and whose\npropaganda has tended to meet with favor and increasing acceptance\nduring recent years. The central fact of this school is that the means\nof production and distribution should be owned by the community and\nadministered by it. Speaking of Socialism, John Stuart Mill said:\n\n\"What is characteristic of Socialism is the joint ownership by all the\nmembers of the community of the instruments and means of production;\nwhich carries with it the consequence that the division of the produce\namong the body of owners must be a public act performed according to\nrules laid down by the community.\"\n\nIn an address by J.W. MacKail, Socialism is defined as having two\nprincipal divisions, economic and moral; and he sums them up thus:\n\n\"On the economic side, its central idea is the communization, the\nplacing in the hands of the community, under the common control and\nfor the common good, of the wealth which the community has inherited\nor created, and of the machinery for preserving and increasing that\nwealth.\"\n\n\"On its moral side, its central idea is the brotherhood of mankind,\nand the unimpeded exercise by all of the highest functions and\nfaculties of which their nature is capable.\"\n\nThe moral side of Socialism as expressed by MacKail is sound and\nshould be more generally adopted by all enlightened peoples, for it is\nessentially Christian in its nature and influence. But, I cannot\nbring myself to accept, under my present information and experience,\nthe economic side of Socialism as defined by either MacKail or Mill.\nMy reasons for its rejection are many, but I will only give one or two\nof the most important.\n\nIn the first place, I think that this school of social propagandists\nhave located what they call the social disease in the wrong portion of\nthe social body, and thus are offering the wrong remedy. The idea of\nthe ownership of the means of production and distribution carries with\nit too largely the implication that poverty is the chief, if not the\nprincipal, cause of all our social and economic ills. I think this is\na mistake, and too much emphasis is thus placed on this phase of our\nsocial troubles. As a matter of fact, society suffers quite as much,\nif not more, from ignorance, crime, intemperance, vice, immorality,\netc. This is more than confirmed by the students of sociology. And\ninasmuch as this is the case, the crux of our social problems is much\nmore than economic, and any social program which therefore, is purely\neconomic will hardly meet our social requirements. No doubt poverty is\na great source of social misery, but the greatest social wrongs are\nnot confined to the very poor. More money per capita will doubtless\nregister some beneficial effects in most of the other departments of\nsociety, and this is likewise true of more per capita intelligence,\nmorality, practical Christianity, culture, etc. My opinion is that\nthese social evils can only be removed finally by the development of\nthe individual on the one hand and society at large on the other,\nthrough the intellectual, moral, religious and economic forces of\nsociety. All the social forces, in the largest sense, must change and\ndevelop human nature, in culture and civilization, and I cannot\nbelieve that the mechanical change of private ownership to community\nownership of the means of production and distribution, would be\nsufficient to cure the ills of society or put them on the road to\nquicker cure, than they are at present.\n\nMoreover, there is danger in the adoption of Socialism in the present\nstate of individual and societary development. In the United States\nthe rise and development of American industry discloses the fact that\nin most all the lines of business, capital has been organized and so\nconcentrated as not only to crush out competition, but to create such\na monopoly as to enable the stockholders and directors to fix such\nprices to consumers as the big corporations and trusts deem advisable\nfrom time to time, not in accord with the laws of supply and demand or\nthe cost of production, but in accord with their desire and ability to\ncommand the tribute of the consuming public. The representatives of\nthese large interests, themselves, have combined and through liberal\ncontributions and the influence of their industrial and economic\nimportance have built up a system of political bosses, in complete\ncontrol of the two dominant old parties, and both the bosses and the\ninterests have united to pervert the local and national governments in\nthe United States from their true functions in the interests of the\npeople to advance and promote the welfare of special interests to the\nneglect and detriment of the great majority. And thus a few leaders in\nAmerican industry have secured possession of the great natural\nresources of the country, have obtained a monopoly of the business\nopportunities of the great American market, and have utilized the\npower of the governments to protect their unfair and unjust\nadvantages, in the freest and greatest democracy of the world. The\ncontest to overthrow this sinister and selfish government of the few\nis exceedingly difficult, because of the minor and supposed divergent\nand individual interests, social and political divisions of class and\nparty prejudice, and a general intellectual inability of the mass to\nfully grasp the importance of the problems involved, so essential to\nthat united action on the part of the people, necessary to meet the\nsituation. The people now have the means at their command to have the\ngovernment administered in their interests and to control those\nindustrial concerns which have proved a menace to the general welfare,\nbut they must be educated as to how to use them. And to place the\nmeans of production and distribution into the hands of the community,\nin the present development of society, is simply to make it easier for\nthe few to exploit the many, and it is especially dangerous because\nthe leaders would have sufficient numbers in their employ and\nadministration to make it next to impossible to dislodge one set when\nonce in power, without a resort to arms and revolution.\n\nThe example of the Federal office-holders in the great majority in\nvoting and using their influence to protect their individual\npositions, without regard to the larger interest of the public, is\nsuch as to make all patriotic citizens acquainted with the facts wish\nand desire that their numbers be not increased to any such extent as\nwould be the case in the community ownership of industry and business.\nThe history of American large cities, shows for the most part, that\nthese urban governments are controlled and administered by one set of\nselfish political leaders after another, whose power is predicated\nupon party machinery, held together mainly by party patronage,\nfavoritism and public graft. And thus to put industry and business\nunder the administration of the government is to more than multiply\nthe dangers to the public of those industrial and political leaders,\nwho have made representative government in the United States little\nmore than a mere form.\n\nEconomic Socialism would not only place too large a machine at the\ndisposal of political leaders to be used against the people, but it\nwould stifle initiation and tend too much to hold society in a static\ncondition. Under individual ownership of industry and business, under\nthe laws of legitimate competition, initiation is encouraged by\noffering increasing rewards to those who adopt new methods and invent\nnew things to advance human welfare by lightening the burdens of life\nand labor. The spirit of rivalry and competition maintains a constant\nand steady demand for the best that can be produced for the people in\nall lines of industry and business, which is among the strongest\nincentives to new thought and invention. Man is naturally a\nconservative being and without some stimulant will be content with\nconditions as they came down to him from the past. It is true that in\nspite of economic incentives there will appear now and then an\nindividual who is inspired by higher motives for the advancement of\nthe race, but the great masses of the people still require the power\nand pleasure of possession, individual ownership, and the more\nmaterial rewards of industry and business. And so it appears to me\nthat Socialism would tend to bring society to a stagnant condition,\narrest human progress most seriously, and discourage in the future\nthose human benefactors, who, in the past have blazed the way for the\nmarvelous development and advancement of modern society.\n\nFinally, after waiving many other objections to Socialism, it might be\nwell to observe that in the present state of society, if we were to\ninaugurate the industrial Socialistic regime, we would have still\nwith us all the great social problems to be solved, perhaps in\ndifferent form, with some additional ones with entirely new features\nand surrounded with new conditions. To my mind the different social\nproblems constitute the problem of civilization and through the coming\nages must be worked out together. All devices and schemes which do not\ninclude the individual development and social progress at large are so\nmuch wasted efforts that might be better spent. The final and ultimate\nsolution of all human problems is necessarily educational and will\nhave the best results if society is permitted to evolve in its natural\nand normal way. All the uplifting forces of society must be utilized\nto develop the social wants and economic demands of the masses,\nthrough increased social and industrial opportunities. The people must\nbe brought into contact with an increasing variety of economic and\nsocial phenomena, carrying with the process an ever growing demand for\nthe consumption of the best there is in life and mind. And until the\nperfection of human nature, every age will have its problems and its\nvices, in spite of what we think and do.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Allen, John Robert.= (University Professor, Minister and Author.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because I believe it will have an injurious\neffect upon the development of individual power and character; since\nit will withdraw the stimulus to achievement by destroying its\nrewards, and since it will weaken the attractiveness of virtue by\ntrying to destroy the pains that follow vice. I do not believe that\nSocialism will develop great individuals like the present conditions\neven, unjust as many things now are.\n\nI am opposed to Socialism on the other hand because I believe it will\nbe deleterious to society as a whole, because it will eliminate the\nentrepreneur at the top, and I can conceive of no way whereby at the\nbottom of the social ladder it can have the disgusting and unpleasant\nwork done, which, however, must be done for the well-being of the\nrace.\n\nI am for \"applied Christianity,\" which in common with Socialism denies\nthe right to use property merely for personal aggrandizement and\npleasure.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n=Giering, Eugene T.= (Editor, The Wilkesbarre, Pa., Record.)\n\nI am opposed to Socialism because I believe the discontent which it\nrepresents can be very appreciably lessened, if not altogether\nremoved, by other means that have not yet been given sufficient trial.\nSocialism appears to be striving after something unattainable under\nsuch a form of government as we deem to be the safest and best. It\ncannot be made to work out satisfactorily until human nature has\nchanged, and we are not yet near the millennium. Theoretically it is\nappealing. Practically it is hampered by limitations that suggest\neconomic destruction, both of that which is good and of that which is\nbad. We are now in the midst of an evolution. The higher moral\nstandards now in the process of establishment should suffice.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n \"_Why I Am in Favor of Socialism_\" _is a publication\n similar to this, and the price is also the same:\n paper, fifty cents; cloth, seventy-five cents. It\n will be sent to any address on receipt of the above\n mentioned price. Address: Edward Silvin, Sacramento,\n California._\n\n\n * * * * *\n\n +-----------------------------------------------------------+\n | Typographical errors corrected in text: |\n | |\n | Page 12: advoted replaced with advocated |\n | Page 21: monarchal replaced with monarchial |\n | Page 43: Jean Jacque Rousseau replaced with |\n | Jean Jacques Rousseau |\n | |\n +-----------------------------------------------------------+\n\n * * * * *","title":"Why I am opposed to socialism","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":17437}