{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_49854/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_49854","id":"gutenberg_49854","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49854","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Socialism"],"text":"A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM\n\nBy George R. Sims\n\nRead Before The Ruskin Club Of Oakland California,\n\nEdward F. Adams, Paul Elder and Company Publishers, San Francisco\n\n1905\n\n\nWITH THE COMPLIMENTS OF THE AUTHOR TO\n\nTHE RUSKIN CLUB OF OAKLAND\n\nWHOSE MEMBERS LISTENED SO PATIENTLY TO THE READING OF THIS PAPER AND\nDANCED ON IT SO BLITHELY THEREAFTER, AS AN INTIMATION OF HIS FERVENT\nBELIEF THAT NO MORE CHARMING CONVOCATION OF SOCIALISTS, OR ONE MORE\nHOPELESSLY ENTHRALLED BY THEIR DELUSIONS, EXISTS ON EARTH.\n\n\nTO THE RUSKIN CLUB:--\n\nWhen your Mr. Bamford wrote me that the Ruskin Club was out hunting\ntrouble, and that if I would come over here the bad men of the club\nwould \"do me up,\" I confess my first impulse was to excuse myself from\nthe proffered hospitality. In the first place, as I have never posed\nas a social champion I had no reputation at stake and I was horribly\nafraid. Secondly, while my reading of Socialist and Anti-Socialist\nliterature is the reverse of extensive, I am very sure that nothing can\nbe said for or against Socialism which has not already been said\nmany times, and so well said that a fair collection of Anti-Socialist\nliterature would make a punching-bag solid enough to absorb the force of\nthe most energetic of pugilists. Finally, the inutility of such a sally\npresented itself forcibly, since there is, so far as I know, no record\nof the reformation of a Socialist after the habit is once firmly\nestablished. But while at first these considerations were all against\nmy putting on my armor, in the end the instinct of eating and fighting,\nwhich is as forceful in the modern savage, under the veneer of\ncivilization, as in our unpolished progenitors, overcame all\nconsiderations of prudence, and here I am to do battle according to my\nability. I promise to strike no foul blows and not to dodge the most\nportentous of whacks, but to ride straight at you and hit as hard as I\ncan.\n\n\n\n\nCRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM\n\n|WHILE it is doubtless true that no one can live in the world without\nin some degree modifying his environment, it is also true that the\ninfluence of a single person is seldom appreciable or his opinion upon\nsocial questions of sufficient importance to excite curiosity, but I\nconfess that when I listen to an address intended to be thoughtful, I\nenjoy it more or at any rate endure it better, if I have some knowledge\nof the mental attitude of the speaker toward his general subject.\nThinking that possibly those who hear me this evening may have the same\nfeeling, I begin by saying that I earnestly favor a just distribution of\ncomfort. I suppose that if I should analyze the mental processes leading\nto that wish, I should find toward the bottom a conviction that if each\nhad his due I should be better off. The objection to the Socialistic\nprogram is that it would prevent a just distribution of comfort.\n\nSome years ago in a book of which I was guilty, I wrote the following:\n\"There is implied in all Socialistic writing the doctrine that organized\nman can override, and as applied to himself, repeal the fundamental law\nof Nature, that no species can endure except by the production of more\nindividuals than can be supported, of whom the weakest must die, with\nthe corollary of misery before death. Competitive Society tends to the\ndeath of the weakest, Socialistic Society would tend to the preservation\nof the weak. There can be no question of the grandeur of this\nconception. To no man is given nobler aspirations than to him who\nconceives of a just distribution of comfort in an existence not idle,\nbut without struggle. It would be a Nirvana glorious only in the absence\nof sorrow, but still perhaps a happy ending for our race. It may, after\nall, be our destiny. Nor can any right-minded man forbear his tribute to\nthe good which Socialistic agitation has done. No man can tell how much\nmisery it has prevented, or how much it will prevent. So, also, while we\nmay regret the emotionalism which renders even so keen an intellect as\nthat of Karl Marx an unsafe guide, we must, when we read his description\nof conditions for which he sought remedy, confess that he had been\nless a man had he been less emotional. The man whom daily contact with\nremediable misery will not render incompetent to always write logically,\nI would not wish to know. But it is the mission of such men to arouse\naction and not to finally determine its scope. The advocate may not be\nthe judge. My animus is that I heartily desire most if not all the ends\nproposed by abstract Socialism, which I understand to be a perfectly\njust distribution of comfort. If, therefore, I am a critic of Socialism,\nI am a friendly critic, my objections to its program resting mainly on\na conviction that it would not remove, but would intensify, the evils\nwhich it is intended to mitigate.\" That is quite sufficient in regard to\nthe personal equation.\n\nThere appear to be, unfortunately, as many sects of Socialists as of\nChristians, and if \"Capital\" were a more clearly written book I should\nbe of the opinion that it would be as much better for Socialists if all\nother books on Socialism were destroyed as it would be for Christians\nand Jews if all books on Theology were destroyed, except the Bible.\nBy Socialism I mean what some Socialist writers call \"Scientific\nSocialism.\"\n\n\"Marxism,\" it might be called. \"Humanism,\" I think Marx would have\npreferred to call it, and I believe did call it, for he dealt with\nabstract doctrine applicable to men and not to nations, and his\npropaganda was the \"International.\" Incidentally, as we pass on, we may\nnotice in this connection the dilemma of American Socialists which\nthey do not seem to realize. State Socialism has no logical place in\na Socialistic program, for it merely substitutes the more deadly\ncompetition of nations for that of the individual, or even \"trust\"\ncompetition now existing, while Humanism, or Marxism, tends to a uniform\ncondition of humanity which the American proletariat would fight tooth\nand nail because they would rightly believe that for them it would at\npresent be a leveling down instead of leveling up.\n\nKarl Marx was, of course, not the inventor of Socialism, nor was he, so\nfar as I know, the originator of any of its fundamental doctrines,--the\ndoctrine, for example, that all value is derived from labor was part\nof mediaeval clericism,--but he first reduced it to coherent form and\npublished it as a complete and definite system, and upon the issues,\nsubstantially as he formulated and left them, must Socialism stand or\nfall.\n\nI must assume the members of the Ruskin Club to be familiar with the\nMarxian fundamental propositions, which I do not state because I\nshall confine my attack to the three derived propositions about which\ndiscussion mainly centers. We certainly do not want an exercise in\nserious dialectics after dinner, but I will say in passing that I do\nnot think that any of his fundamental propositions are true, or that his\ntheory of value has a single sound leg to stand on, and as for what he\ncalls \"surplus value,\" I doubt whether there be such a thing. At any\nrate he has not proved it, nor can it be proved, without taking into\nconsideration the enormous number of industrial failures, as well as the\nmore limited number of industrial successes--and there are no data for\nthat purpose. I may also mention as what seems to me a fatal flaw\nin Socialistic philosophy, its concentration upon the conditions of\nindustrial society, without adequate conception of a provision for\nthe requirements of agriculture. Industrialism and commercialism are\ndoubtless conveniences essential to our present civilization; but if\nevery factory and all commerce were blotted from the earth the world\nwould go right along, and when the necessary millions had perished\nin the adjustment, those remaining would be as happy as ever. Mankind\nadjusts itself to new environments very readily. We here in cities\ntalking wisely on these things are wholly unnecessary. The farmer\nis essential, because without him we should starve. Nobody else\nis essential. We must not get the big-head. Economical farming on\nSocialistic methods is impossible, and any successful system of Social\nbetterment must be based on the requirements of economical farming.\nFinally, to conclude this preliminary reconnaissance, the attitude of\nSocialism to religion is wholly unjustifiable. I am profoundly convinced\nthat the groveling heathen, who in sincerity bows down to a \"bloomin'\nidol made of mud,\" as Kipling puts it, has in him the propagation of a\nnobler and happier posterity than the most cultured cosmopolitan who\nis destitute of reverence. The church and the synagogue are the only\nexisting institutions of modern society which are engaged in the work of\nupbuilding and strengthening that rugged personal character which is the\nonly sure foundation of any worthy civilization.\n\nI do not discuss the fundamental Marxian propositions for two reasons.\nIn the first place, it would be laborious beyond measure for me, and\ndreary beyond measure for you. For example, the bottom stone in the\nfoundation of the sub-basement of the Marxian edifice is the proposition\nthat the equation=\n\n\n```X commodity A=y commodity B\n\n````essentially differs from the equation\n\n```y Commodity B = X Commodity A.=\n\n\nNow, a discussion whether there is between these two equations a\ndifference which it is socially necessary to take account of, is a thing\nto be put into books where it can be skipped, and not imposed in cold\nblood even on intellectual enemies. Personally I do not believe there\nis, for I do not think that social phenomena can be dealt with by the\nrigorous methods of mathematics. One can never be sure that the\nunknown quantities are all accounted for. But whether this or similar\npropositions are essential to the discussion of the theory of surplus\nvalue or not, I do not describe them because they are of no particular\nimportance.\n\nSocialism is not based upon the Marxian theory of value, but the Marxian\ntheory of value was evolved in an endeavor to fix a scientific basis for\na popular movement already fully under way. Socialism is not based\non reason, but emotion; not on reflection, but desire; it is not\nscientific, but popular. If every Socialist on earth should concede that\nthe Marxian theory of surplus value had been knocked into smithereens,\nit would have no more effect on the progress of Socialism than the\ngentle zephyr of a June day on the hide of a rhinoceros. Socialism must\nbe attacked in the derived propositions about which popular discussion\ncenters, and the assault must be, not to prove that the doctrines are\nscientifically unsound, but that they tend to the impoverishment and\ndebasement of the masses. These propositions are three, and I lay down\nas my thesis--for I abhor defensive warfare--that=\n\n\n`````Rent is rights\n\n`````Interest is rights\n\n`````Profits are right,=\n\n\nand that they are all three ethically and economically justified, and\nare in fact essential to the happiness and progress of the race, and\nmore especially to those who labor with their hands.\n\nNow, first, _rent_: I confess that I have no patience with any one who\nclaims, as an inherent right, the exclusive ownership of any part of the\nearth. He might as well claim ownership in a section of air. In this I\nam very certain that I have the hearty concurrence of every member of\nthis Club. I am so sure of this, in fact, that I am going to make\nthat assumption, in which we all agree, the starting point of a little\ndialogue, in which, after the manner of Plato, I will put Socrates at\none end of the discussion, and some of his friends, whom we will suppose\nto be Ph\u00e6do, and Crito, and Simmias, and the rest at the other, and we\nwill let Socrates and Ph\u00e6do carry on the conversation, which might run\nas follows:\n\n_Socrates_--We are agreed, then, that no man has any right inherent in\nhimself to the ownership of land.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Certainly, we agree to that. Such a thing is absurd, for the\nearth is a gift to the human race, and not to particular men.\n\n_Socrates_--I am glad that you think so, and am sure we shall continue\nto agree. And if no one man has any right to exclusive ownership of\nland, neither have any two men, since it is plain that neither could\nconvey to himself and another any right which he did not possess, nor\ncould two men together by any means get lawful title to what neither was\nentitled to hold.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--You are doubtless right, Socrates. I do not think any man could\ndispute that.\n\n_Socrates_--And if neither one man nor two men can acquire lawful title\nto land, neither for the same reason could any number, no matter how\ngreat, acquire lawful title.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That certainly follows from what we have already agreed to.\n\n_Socrates_--And it makes no difference how small or how great a portion\nof land may be. No man and no number of men can acquire lawful ownership\nof it.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That is also so plainly true that it seems hardly worth while\nto say it. It certainly makes no difference whether the land be a square\nfurlong or a continent.\n\n_Socrates_--As you say, Ph\u00e6do, that is very evident. The earth belongs\nto mankind, and all men are by nature sharers in its benefits.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--I trust that you will understand that I agree with you in that,\nand so make an end of it.\n\n_Socrates_--It is perhaps best that we be very sure that we agree as we\ngo on, so that if we should at any time disagree, we do not need to go\nfar back to find where our difference began. The earth is the property\nof men in common, and each has an undivided share in its possession.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That is another thing too plain to be disputed.\n\n_Socrates_--And when men hold property in common, each has as much right\nto all parts of it as another.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--To be sure. I do not see why we need waste time in mentioning\nthings so plain and so trivial.\n\n_Socrates_--And when men own property they may do with it as they\nplease, and property which men own jointly they may visit and remain\nupon, the one as much as the other.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Unquestionably that is so, and we should do better to go to\nsleep in the shade, somewhere, than to spend time in repeating things so\nsimple.\n\n_Socrates_--Be patient, Ph\u00e6do, and in time we may find somewhat wherein\nwe do not so perfectly agree. But whatever property men have the right\nto visit and remain upon they are always free to use in common with\ntheir fellow owners.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Certainly. Will you never, O Socrates, have done with this?\n\n_Socrates_--And Chinamen, therefore, have full right to come and live in\nCalifornia.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do (and the rest)_--We will all see them in hell first.\n\nAnd I am very certain that every Socialist in California will agree both\nwith the premises and the conclusion.\n\nBut we might try another course of reasoning by which we may perhaps\nmore easily reach the predetermined conclusion, and we will let the\nsame parties carry on the dialogue, which is a most delightful way of\nreasoning when, as in the case of Plato and myself, the same person\nconducts both sides of the discussion. It might run in this way:\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--We have come, Socrates, to discuss with you, if you will permit\nus, the question of the ownership of land. Crito and Hippias and myself\nand others were considering that subject the other day, and we were not\nable to agree. Hippocrates, whom you know, has lately returned from\nthe region of Mount Olympus, and as he was hunting one day on the lower\nslopes of the mountain, he came, haply, upon a beautiful vale, fertile\nand well watered, wherein was no habitation or sign of man. The soft\nbreezes blew gently over the rich green plain whereon the red deer\ngrazed peacefully and turned not at his approach. And when Hippocrates\nreturned from his hunt he found upon inquiry that no man of the region\nknew of that vale or had ever heard thereof. So, as he had marked the\nentrance thereto, he returned thither with the intent to remain there\nfor a space. And remaining there through the warm summer he fenced in\nthe vale and the deer in it, and built him an house, and remained there\na full year. But certain concerns of his family at that time constrained\nHippocrates to return to Athens, and since he can no more live in his\nvale he offered to sell it to Hipparchus for a talent of silver for a\nplace to keep summer boarders. And Hipparchus was content; but when they\nrepaired to the Demosion to exchange the price for the deed, Hippocrates\nwas unable to produce any parchment showing his title to the vale. And\nwhen he was unable to do that, Hipparchus would not pay down his silver,\nuntil he could make further inquiry. The next day, we all, meeting at\nthe house of Phidias, fell to debating whether Hippocrates owned the\nland and could sell it to Hipparchus. And some said one thing and\nsome another, and in the end we agreed that when some of us were next\ntogether, we would go to the house of Socrates, and if he were content,\nwe would discuss the matter with him. And today happening to so meet we\nhave come to you, Socrates, and would be glad to hear whether you think\nHippocrates owns that vale, and may sell it or no.\n\n_Socrates_--You are very welcome, Ph\u00e6do, and your friends, and as for\nthe matter you name, I shall be glad to talk of it with you and see if\nwe can come to some understanding of it. But before we can proceed in\nthe discussion, it will be necessary to find some starting point upon\nwhich we can all agree, because until we agree, at the beginning,\nupon some one thing pertaining to the matter, as certain and not to be\ndoubted, discussion is useless, but if we can find such a thing, which\nnone of us doubt, we may be able to make something of the matter. I\npropose, therefore, O Ph\u00e6do, that you propound some one statement which\nall you who have been discussing the matter believe.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Of a truth, Socrates, we discussed the matter till the sun went\ndown, but I do not remember any one thing to which we all agreed except\nthat there is such a vale at the foot of Mount Olympus, as Hippocrates\ndescribes, and that he lived therein for a year. That we believe because\nHippocrates so told us, and all Athens knows Hippocrates for a truthful\nman.\n\n_Socrates_--That is something, for all truth is useful; but it does not\nseem to me to be such a truth as will well serve for a foundation\nfrom which we may penetrate, as one might say, the very bowels of the\nsubject. I pray you to propound some other.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Truly, Socrates, I cannot, nor can we any of us, for upon\nnothing else pertaining to the matter are we able to agree.\n\n_Socrates_--If it please you, then, I will propound a saying and see if\nyou agree with me.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--We shall be very glad if you will.\n\n_Socrates_--I suggest, then, that we begin by agreeing, if we are able\nto do so, that the gods have given the earth to man for his use.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Surely that seems to be true.\n\n_Socrates_--I am glad that you think favorably of it, but that is not\nsufficient if we are to reason upon it, because that upon which we found\nour argument must be what we accept as absolute truth.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--I think the earth was made for mankind, but if in our\nconversation something should also seem true, and yet contradictory to\nthat, I know not what I should think.\n\n_Socrates_--Let us, then, think of something else: The earth is at any\nrate surely for the use of some beings. The mighty Atlas would never\nsustain it upon his broad shoulders if it did nobody good.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That, at least, is certain, Socrates.\n\n_Socrates_--And it must be for beings who can make use of it and enjoy\nit.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That also is true.\n\n_Socrates_--And beings which can use and enjoy the earth must be living\nbeings.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Nobody will deny that.\n\n_Socrates_--And there are no living things except the gods, mankind, the\nlower animals, and plants.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--I agree to that.\n\n_Socrates_--And it is plain that the gods did not build the earth for\nthemselves, for they do not live upon it, except on Olympus, and nowhere\ndoes the earth produce ambrosia and nectar, which are the food of the\ngods.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That is true, for the gods live in the heavens and in the\nnether world, and not upon the earth.\n\n_Socrates_--And the plants do not use the earth, or enjoy it, although\nthey live upon it, but they are themselves used and enjoyed by man and\nbeasts.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Certainly the earth was not made for the plants.\n\n_Socrates_--And surely as between man and the lower animals, the earth\nwas intended for man.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Certainly, that is what we think, but I do not know what the\nlion and the horse and the ox might say, for they certainly use the\nearth and enjoy it.\n\n_Socrates_--But man is superior to the lower animals, and the superior\ncannot be subordinate to the inferior.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--I do not know how we can tell which is superior. The primordial\ncell in differentiating out of homogeneity into heterogeneity developed\ndifferent qualities in different beings, and of the organs integrated\nfrom the heterogeneous elements each has its use and many are essential\nto life. In man the brain is more powerful than in the ox, but in the\nox the stomach is more powerful than in man, and while both stomach and\nbrain are necessary, yet is one with a weak brain and strong stomach\ndoubtless happier than one with a weak stomach and strong brain. Is it\nnot, then, true that the stomach is nobler than the brain, and if so,\nthen the pig and the lion and the goat, which have strong stomachs,\nnobler than man, whose stomach could in nowise digest carrion, or\nalfalfa, or tin cans, and therefore may it not be that the earth was\nmade for the lower animals, who can use more of its products than man?\n\n_Socrates_--That is a deep thought, O Ph\u00e6do, which shows that you are\nwell up in your Spencer, although shy in your surgery, for it is true\nthat the stomach has been removed from a man who lived happy ever after,\nwhile neither man nor beast ever lived a minute after his brains were\nknocked out; but is it not true that it is by the function of the brain\nthat man makes his powers more effective than those of animals stronger\nthan he, so that he is able to bear rule over all the lower animals and\neither exterminate them from the earth or make them to serve him?\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Yes, that is true.\n\n_Socrates_--And we cannot say that the earth was made for beasts which\nthemselves are made to serve the purpose of man, for as plants are\nconsumed by beasts, so beasts are consumed by man who acquires for his\nown use and enjoyment whatever power is generated by the organs of all\nother living things.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That is true, and I can now see that the earth was not made by\nthe gods for themselves, or for plants or beasts.\n\n_Socrates_--Therefore it appears to me that it must have been made for\nman.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That is true, and I now agree that the earth was made for man.\n\n_Socrates_--Then, since we have found a common starting point, we may\ngo on with our conversation. We have proved that the earth was made for\nman, because man, by powers inherent in himself, can overcome all other\nliving things on the earth and subject them to his uses.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Yes, we have proved that.\n\n_Socrates_--And the real source of his kingship is power.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That must be true.\n\n_Socrates_--And force is power applied to some object, so that power and\nforce may be spoken of as the same thing.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Certainly.\n\n_Socrates_--And where power lies, there and there only is sovereignty,\nand where power ends sovereignty finds its limit. So that, for example,\nif the lion could subdue man and the other animals, the earth would be\nfor the use of the lion.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That is plain.\n\n_Socrates_--And if a company of men should find an island and go and\nlive upon it and be strong enough to subdue the wild animals and keep\nout other men, that island would be for their use.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That follows, because sovereignty goes with power exercised in\nforce.\n\n_Socrates_--And so if one man should find a vacant space and take\npossession, it would be his.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That is true.\n\n_Socrates_--And what belongs to man, man may dispose of as he will.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--All men agree to that.\n\n_Socrates_--And, therefore, since Hippocrates has found a vacant space\non the earth and taken possession thereof, and no man disputes his\npossession, it is his and he may sell it.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That is certainly true, and I do not doubt that Hipparchus will\nnow pay down his talent of silver and take over the vale in the Olympian\nforest.\n\n_Socrates_--And if instead of finding an island the company of men had\nfound an entire continent it would be theirs if they were strong enough\nto keep it.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Surely that is so, for power is but concentrated ability to\nenjoy, and where most power lies, there lies most ability to enjoy,\nand therefore the highest possible aggregate of human happiness, in the\nattainment of which the will of the gods shall be done.\n\n_Socrates_--And if a company can take part of a continent, but not the\nwhole, whatever they are able to take is theirs.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Undoubtedly.\n\n_Socrates_--And what is theirs is not the property of others.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--By no means.\n\n_Socrates_--And if it does not belong to others, others may not lawfully\nuse it.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Surely not.\n\n_Socrates_--And they who do own it may prevent others from entering it.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--Surely, for hath not the poet said:=\n\n\n```\"That they shall take who have the power,\n\n```And they may keep who can.\"=\n\n\n_Socrates_--Therefore it is plain that the United States may keep\nChinamen out of America.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--There can be no doubt of it whatever.\n\n_Socrates_--And Chinese may keep Americans out of China.\n\n_Ph\u00e6do_--That is another story. One must never let his logic get the\nbetter of him.\n\nAnd so we might play with these great subjects forever, with reasoning\nas leaky as a sieve, but good enough to catch the careless or the\nuntrained.\n\nOne of the most interesting lectures which I ever listened to was\none before the Economic League of San Francisco on the \"Dialectics of\nSocialism.\" The lecturer was a very acute man, who would not for one\nmoment be deceived by the sophistry of my Socrates and Ph\u00e6do, but who,\nhimself, made willing captives of his hearers by similar methods. I was\nunable to hear all his address, but when I reluctantly left, it appeared\nto me that he was expecting to prove that Socialism must be sound\nphilosophy because it was contradictory to all human observation,\nexperience, judgment and the dictates of sound common sense--and his\nlarge audience was plainly enough with him.\n\nThe dialectics of the schoolmen or their equivalent are useless in\nSocial discussion. Social phenomena do not lend themselves to the\nrigorous formulas of mathematics and logic, for the human intellect is\nunable to discern and grasp all the factors of these problems. My\ntravesty of Plato was intended to illustrate the difficulty of close\nreasoning on such topics.\n\nNeither, on the other hand, are we to blindly follow the impulses of\nemotion which lead us to jump at a conclusion, support it with what\nreason we can, but reach it in any event. Emotion is the source of\nsocial power, but power unrestrained and undirected is dangerous. Energy\ncreated by the sight of distress must be controlled by reason or it will\nnot relieve distress. And by reason I do not mean social syllogisms,\nof whose premises we are always uncertain, but conclusions half\nunconsciously formed in the mind as the result of human experience\noperating on human feeling--the practical wisdom which we call common\nsense. Human conduct, individual and aggregate, must be regulated and\ndetermined by the consensus of the judgment of the wisest made effective\nthrough its gradual acceptance as the judgment of the majority. Private\nownership of land, with its accompanying rent, is justified, not by an\nimaginary inherent right in the individual, which has no real existence\nand so cannot be conveyed, but because _the interests of society require\nthe stimulus to effort which private ownership and private ownership\nonly can give_. And here I shall leave this point without the further\nillustration and elaboration with which I could torment you longer\nthan you could keep awake. And with the other two points I will confine\nmyself to the most condensed forms of statement.\n\n_INTEREST_--Socialists and Non-Socialists agree that what a man makes is\nhis. Socialists and I agree that every man is entitled to his just share\nof the Social dividend. I believe, and in this I suppose that Socialists\nwould agree with me, that when a man gets his annual dividend he may use\nit, or keep it for future use. If, while he does not use his dividend,\nor the product of his labor, he permits others to use it to their\nprofit, it seems to me that he is entitled to some satisfaction in\ncompensation for his sacrifice. I believe it to the interest of society\nthat he have it. It is by individual thrift that society accumulates,\nand it is wise to encourage thrift.\n\nIf I build a mill and, falling sick, cannot use it, it is fair that\nhe who does use it shall pay me for my sacrifice in building it. If I\nforego possible satisfactions of any kind, those whom I permit to enjoy\nthem should recompense me. And that is interest. Its foundation as a\nright rests not only on those natural sentiments of justice with which\nthe normal man everywhere is endowed and behind which we cannot go, but\non the interest of society to encourage the creation of savings funds to\nbe employed for the benefit of society.\n\n_PROFITS_--Private profit is far less a private right than a public\nnecessity. Its absence would involve a waste which society could not\nendure. With individual operations controlled by fallible men enormous\nwaste is inevitable. It is essential to society that this waste be\nminimized. No industrial or commercial enterprise can go on without\nrisk. _Profit is the compensation for risk_. One of the things which I\nbelieve, but which cannot be proved, is that from the dawn of history\nlosses to individuals by which society gained have exceeded profits to\nindividuals, and the excess of these losses is the social accumulation,\nincreased, of course, by residues left after individuals have got what\nthey could. Whitney died poor, but mankind has the cotton-gin. Bell\ndied rich, but there is a profit to mankind in the telephone. Socialists\npropose to assume risks and absorb profits. I do not believe society\ncould afford this. I am profoundly convinced that under the Socialist\nprogram the inevitable waste would be so enormously increased as to\nresult in disaster approaching a social cataclysm. This is an old\nargument whose validity Socialists scout. Nevertheless I believe it\nsound. The number of these whose intellectual and physical strength is\nsufficient for the wisest direction of great enterprises is very small.\nSome who are interested in our great industrial trusts carry heavy\ninsurance on the life of Mr. Morgan, lest he die and leave no successor.\nIf the natural ability is found its possessor will necessarily lack the\nknowledge which Mr. Morgan has accumulated, and in the light of which he\ndirects his operations. It is essential that great operations--and the\nbusiness of the future will be conducted on a great scale--be directed\nby great wisdom and power. The possessors of high qualities we now\ndiscover by the trying-out process. They can be discovered in no other\nway, and great effort can be secured only by the hope of great reward.\nUntil human nature changes we can expect nothing different. Socialism\nimplies popular selection of industrial leadership. Wherever tried thus\nfar in the world's history there has usually been abject failure. The\nmass can choose leaders in emotion but not directors of industry. The\nselection of experts by the non-expert can be wise only by accident. If\nthe selection is not popular, then Socialism is tyranny, as its enemies\ncharge. If it be popular, or in so far as it is popular, direction is\nlikely to fall to the great persuaders and not to the great directors.\nNever did a \"people's party\" yet escape the control of the unscrupulous.\n_No political movements result in so much political and social rascality\nas so-called popular movements originated by earnest and honest men_.\nI see no reason to suppose that the Socialistic direction of industrial\naffairs in any city would be directed from any other source than the\nback rooms of the saloons where political movements are now shaped. If\nthe Socialistic program were to go into effect tomorrow morning there\nwould be here tonight neither lecturer nor audience. The good dinner\nwould remain untasted in the ovens. Every mortal soul of us would be\nscooting from one social magnate to another to assure that we were on\nthe slate for the soft jobs and that nobody was crowding us off. I have\nno faith in human nature except as it is constantly strengthened\nand purified by struggle. That struggle is an irrepressible conflict\nexisting in all nature, and from which man cannot escape. It is better\nfor mankind that it go on openly and in more or less accord with known\nrules of warfare than in the secret conspiring chambers of the class\nwhich in the end controls popular movement. All serious conflict\ninvolves evil, but it is also strengthening to the race. I wish misery\ncould be banished from the world, but I fear that it cannot be so\nbanished. I have little confidence in human ability to so thoroughly\ncomprehend the structure and functions of the social body as\nto correctly foretell the steps in its evolution, or prescribe\nconstitutional remedies which will banish social disease. If I were a\nsocial reformer--and were I with my present knowledge still an ingenuous\nyouth in the fulness of strength with my life before me I do not know\nthat I would not be a social reformer--I would profess myself a social\nagnostic, and prosecute my mission by the methods of the opportunist. I\nwould endeavor to direct the social ax to the most obvious and obtrusive\nroots of the social evil, and having removed them and watched the\nresult, would then determine what to do next. Possibly I would endeavor\nto begin with the abolition of wills and collateral inheritance, and so\nlimiting direct inheritance that no man able to work should escape its\nnecessity by reason of the labor of his forefathers. I might say that\nI recognized the vested rights of the Astors to the soil on Manhattan\nIsland, but that I recognized no right as vested in beings yet unborn.\nI might say that it was sufficient stimulation and reward for the most\neminent social endeavor to select, within reason, the objects of public\nutility to which resulting accumulations should be applied and to\nsuperintend during one's lifetime their application to those purposes.\nI might think in this way, and might not, were I an enthusiastic social\nreformer in the heyday of youth, but it appears to me now that at any\nrate we shall make most progress toward ultimate universal happiness if\nwe recognize that out of the increasing strenuousness of our conflict\nthere is coming constantly increasing comfort and better division\nthereof, and if we direct that portion of our energies which we devote\nto the service of mankind toward such changes in the direction of\nthe social impulse as can be made without impairing the force of the\nevolutionary movement, rather than to those which involve the reversal\nof the direction of the force with the resulting danger of explosion and\ncollapse.","title":"A Critique of Socialism: Read Before The Ruskin Club of Oakland California, 1905","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":6170}