Produced by Adrian Mastronardi and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
* * * * *
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Transcriber's Note: |
| |
| Bold text is represented =like so=. |
| |
| Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. For |
| a complete list, please see the end of this document. |
| |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
* * * * *
Why I Am
Opposed to Socialism
[Illustration]
Original Papers by
Leading Men and Women
[Illustration]
EDWARD SILVIN
[Illustration]
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
U.S.A.
Copyright, 1913
By EDWARD SILVIN
INDEX TO AUTHORS
Adams, Thomas Sewall 36-37
Allen, Alfred 27
Allen, John Robert 52
Anderson, Rasmus Bjorn 44-45
Andrews, Martin Register 26
Arford, Fremont 31
Barr, Granville Walter 32-33
Barstow, George Eames 41
Baxter, James Phinney 45-46
Beard, Daniel Carter 20-21
Bell, Mackenzie 22
Benington, Arthur 8
Bigelow, Edward Fuller 30
Binney, Charles Chauncey 23-24
Boyd-Carpenter, William B. 11-12
Brazier, Marion Howard 17
Brown, Mrs. M. McClellan 7
Brownscombe, Jennie 42
Burke, John Butler 19-20
Cavanaugh, John 32
Cazalet, Edward Alexander 17-18
Clark, John Bates 8-9
Crowell, John Franklin 34
Cutler, James Elbert 44
Eggert, Charles Augustus 5-6
Ellis, George Washington 46-52
Ellis, Horace 10
Emerson, Samuel Franklin 46
Esenwein, Joseph Berg 13
Ferguson, Charles 45
Field, Walter Taylor 40
Gaines, Clement Carrington 39
Garvin, Lucius Fayette Clark 12
Giering, Eugene T. 53
Hastings, William Granger 20
Heald, G.H. 35
Hovey, Lewis R. 14-16
Jefferys, Upton S. 20
Kelly, Robert Lincoln 35-36
Kizer, Edwin Dicken 17
Krout, Mary Hannah 14
Ladd, George Trumbull 36
Ladd, Horatio Oliver 21-22
Leckie, A.S. 40
Lee, Elmer 41-42
Levermore, Charles Herbert 22
Leveroni, Frank 44
Lightner, Ezra Wilberforce 43
Linn, Walter R. 37
Long, John Luther 12-13
McConnell, Francis J. 7-8
Mencken, Henry Louis 6-7
Nevin, Theodore Williamson 29-30
Owen, Douglas 27-28
Painter, Franklin Verzelius Newton 28-29
Penrose, Stephen Beasley Linnard 16
Post, Louis Freeland 30
Purrington, William Archer 18
Raymond, George Lansing 9-10
Russell, Isaac Franklin 25-26
Scheffauer, Herman 38
Screws, William Wallace 19
Super, Charles William 13-14
Terhune, William Lewis 37-38
Thayer, William Roscoe 29
Tutt, John Calhoun 31
Walker, Albert H. 30-31
White, William Allen 33-34
Wilcox, Lute 34
Wilson, Alonzo Edes 24-25
_The gentle reader, who is inclined to say why he
is opposed to Socialism, is cordially invited to
contribute his thoughts to the future editions of
this little book._
Why I Am Opposed to Socialism
=Eggert, Charles Augustus.= (Author and College Professor.)
I am opposed to Socialism, first, because it is not an inductively
obtained system, but an "ism" that postulates qualities in the
individuality of a nation which no nation, or community even, has yet
developed to a sufficiently high state to make this "ism" fit to be
seriously tried.
Second: Much of what Socialism teaches will be put to the test by
society anyhow, for society is based on interest, on financial
considerations, and it has been found very long ago, that co-operation
cheapens products, while steadying employment.
Third: As a working system Socialism is based on the limited
intellectual powers of a large number of people who will not receive
systematic instruction, or cannot. Any large school shows how large
the proportion of children is who must eventually be, as adults,
members of this number, and, by exercising their right to vote for
their officers and leaders, will make a scientific and economical
management exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. Tried on a
limited scale it amounts only to co-operation--different from
Socialism.
Fourth: The existing system is based on the rewards held out to
individual effort, thus furnishing leaders who, by accumulating
capital through self-denial, great moderation in the pursuit of
pleasure, and strenuous work, will be eventually enabled to establish
large combinations, factories, corporations of all sorts, which, as
history and daily experience prove, pay even the unintelligent
laborers higher wages and furnish them more security than they could
possibly have obtained if left to themselves as Socialistic
organizations. In order to obtain the best results, however, a
protective tariff must keep out undue foreign competition.
Fifth: Differences of opinion on these points can be settled
satisfactorily only by a close and careful study of the history of
business, and the leading Socialists, Marx, etc., have been shown to
be palpably and grievously incapable of such study.
Sixth: Socialism would lead to governmental art, science and
literature, that is to say to the counterfeit of real art, science,
and literature. It would be the rule of the unintelligent and largely
of the demagogues (for such would stand a better chance than the
honest and thoughtful, for election to offices).
Seventh: Socialism could not be established (as an "ism") except by
robbery. Good men would not lend themselves to such business.
* * * * *
=Mencken, Henry Louis.= (Author of "The Philosophy of
Friedrich Nietzsche," editor of The Players' Ibsen,
part-author with Robert Rives LaMonte of "Men vs. the
Man." Member of the editorial staff of the Baltimore
Evening Sun.)
I am opposed to Socialism because, in general, it means a vain and
costly attack upon the immutable natural law that the strong shall
have advantage over the weak. I do not defend that law as perfect, nor
do I even maintain that it is just. If I had the world to make over I
should probably try to find something to take its place, something
measurably less wasteful and cruel. But the world is as it is and the
law is as it is. Say what you will against it, you must at least admit
that it works, that it tends to destroy the botched and useless, that
it places a premium upon enterprise and courage, that it makes for
health and strength, that it is the most powerful of all agents of
human progress. Would brotherhood, supposing it to be achieved, do as
well? I doubt it. Brotherhood would help the soft man, the clinging
man, the stupid man. But would it help the alert and resourceful man?
Answer for yourself. Isn't it a fact that difficulties make daring,
that effort makes efficiency? Do not functions develop by use? Does
the cell act or react?
Meanwhile, I grant all schemes of brotherhood one indubitable merit.
Socialism shares it with Christianity. It is this: that they are
eternally impossible of carrying out, that men cannot actually live
them. The Beatitudes, after 2,000 years, are still mere poetry. No
human fiat will ever repeal the law of natural selection. No rebellion
of slaves will ever break down that great barrier which separates
slaves from masters.
* * * * *
=Brown, Mrs. M. McClellan.= (Lecturer and Reformer.)
I am opposed to Socialism--
First: Because it is unnatural. Men are born free, but far from being
equal in competency mentally, morally, or spiritually to use with
advantage to self or others, the proceeds of earth, or the elements,
or labor; even under the same civil, social, and educational
opportunities (often in the same family) some are incompetent to make
ends meet.
Second: Because it is impracticable, unjust, and detrimental to
development and ennoblement of the human race, which is the manifest
object of human creation.
Third: Because it destroys the ultimate power of individuality, which
is the unit of State organization and social protection. The
individual is the axis of reality in all the objective changes for
human uplift.
Fourth: Because the Spirit of God is the humanizing power in the
world, given to individual spirits as a complete fact, large or small,
but personal in dynamic currents of bodily gifts as varied as the
offices of the human organs.
Fifth: Because civilization is the fruit of developed individual
consciousness in a concrete, unsharable experience of free personality
which makes the vital push for progress in the world; even a social
consciousness so-called, must turn on the axis of the individual.
Sixth: Because the only historic and scientific demonstration of
Socialism is original barbarism. Set the pot in the midst of the group
and let each use his paw.
* * * * *
=McConnell, Francis J.= (Bishop of Methodist Episcopal
Church, Denver, Colorado.)
I am opposed to Socialism because it goes farther than is necessary.
The real reforms for which Socialism stands are very important, but I
think these can be secured without accepting the extreme puttings of
Socialistic doctrine. Within the past twenty-five years we have
reached many of the results of the Socialistic programme and yet
without adopting extreme Socialism.
* * * * *
=Benington, Arthur.= (Journalist.)
I am opposed to Socialism because I believe that the State was made
for man, not man for the State.
Because every one of the infinite number of projects of Socialism
tends to discourage individual effort; hence, in a really Socialistic
State there would be no incentive to achievement in art, literature,
science, discovery, etc. The dull level of mediocrity would prevail;
stagnation would take the place of progress.
Because the leading Socialists and all the Socialist newspapers I have
ever seen attack religion.
Because Socialism would abolish the home and make the State
responsible for the bringing up of children. The result of this would
be to substitute a breeding farm for matrimony. Love--which cannot be
abolished--would have no place in the scheme of things; it would
struggle against institutions, either secretly in spite of them and
contrary to them, or openly in rebellion. This is true not only of sex
love, but of parental and filial love.
Because it is contrary to all the principles upon which the United
States of America have won success in the world. It is an exotic
importation from lands in which liberty is stifled, brought here by
persons who do not understand American institutions, taken up as a fad
by a few dreamers.
Because men always cease to be Socialists as soon as they have won
success in life; suggesting that Socialism is merely a vague
expression of the discontent of some, the disappointment of others.
* * * * *
=Clark, John Bates.= (Professor of political economy and author.)
I am opposed to Socialism because it would soon impoverish workers.
The income to be divided would be smaller than is supposed by
advocates of Socialism, and it would grow smaller per capita as the
number of workers increased.
* * * * *
=Raymond, George Lansing.= (Author and University Professor.)
I am opposed to Socialism because I think it founded on a
misconception of the requirements of human nature; and this, mainly,
for three reasons:
First: A great many people will not practice diligence and thrift,
unless stimulated to do so by a possibility of obtaining, possessing
and using something that they can call their own. This is something
that Socialism theoretically, and so far as it has been applied,
practically, would deny them.
Second: A great many will not work at all, when their only inducement
is that others wish them to work, or need their help. Socialism, if
established, would be obliged--merely to secure support for the
community--to force such people to work against their own wills. This
would inevitably involve the re-establishment of a system of human
slavery.
Third: All a man's mental and moral development in this world--to say
nothing of what may come after death--needs training. According to a
law apparently divine, but certainly human, this training, whether in
home, school, business or society, is imparted by means of discipline.
The discipline is mainly derived from the circumstances of life in
which one finds himself placed, and, in such cases, is always
accompanied by dissatisfaction with one's alloted place, and by actual
suffering. The Socialist aims to escape from this dissatisfaction and
suffering by making a change in his circumstances--such a change, for
instance, as would make a king a servant, or make all men kings or
servants. But history and experience show that kings, whose friends
die, courtiers flatter, and enemies trick, are no more free from the
sufferings attendant upon discipline than are servants. The truth
seems to be that to occupy a different position in life means merely
to be placed in a different part of the same apparently divine and
certainly social machine which--as some have faith to believe--is at
work grinding out of the coarse grain of humanity what shall, some
day, prove to be its fine flour. One who has the wisdom to apply this
theory to life, will, in no position that a man can fill, feel either
too haughty or too humiliated to sympathize with everybody, and to do
his best everywhere to alleviate suffering, lessen oppression,
equalize opportunity, enthrone justice, and prove himself, in every
sense of the term, a fellow-man. The result upon individual
consciousness and conscience of this attitude of mind is the most
important of any that can be exerted in order to secure human welfare.
It differs from Socialism in being derived--as Socialism is not--from
a recognition of the exact and entire truth--a truth that includes,
both that which is material and spiritual, philosophical and
religious.
* * * * *
=Ellis, Horace.= (President Vincennes University.)
Socialism originally meant to become an effective protest against the
tyrannies of all forms of monarchy. If it had succeeded in its
ambition we all had been Socialists. But it failed utterly. Its
failure may be traced to certain fundamental errors as to the means it
should employ to realize its purpose. It presumed that most practices
it found in the economic world were inherently bad because they had
been employed by heartless men in furthering their individual
interests. Socialism denies the accepted maxim relating to
competition--in spite of the evidences of history which have fully
established the fact that, in every realm of human activity,
competition has been one of the mightiest factors for individual,
community, national and racial prestige. Socialism would deny to
virile, purposeful, masterful leaders of men the privilege of
leadership because, forsooth, some such leaders have misused authority
reposed in them. In lieu of this practice, it would constitute society
at large the rightful leader in all economic matters--because some
evidences appear which indicate that society possesses some attributes
of stability. Fatal--both of these deductions. There are many
thousands of good Socialists, but few substantial economic contentions
behind them.
* * * * *
=Boyd-Carpenter, William B., B.A., F.R.G.S.= (Publicist, Address:
Wynstones, Ascot, England.)
The world has always sighed after novelty. Even St. Paul found that
the Athenians of old longed to hear some new thing. The craze for
novelty, or an increasing curiosity are the symptoms of the decline of
a philosophic outlook on life. It is the idea that a change means
reform. Now reform can never be a change in the substance, but rather
an application, a direct and precise application of a thought-out
remedy for a particular and authentic grievance. Nor is innovation a
real reform--we have to change our clothes because they are wet, but
this does not mean we reform ourselves or our clothes. Woman makes an
innovation in the shape of her clothes or her hats--she does not
reform her clothes or her hats. But Socialists and syndicalists demand
the immediate alteration of the capitalists' system of production--by
which they mean, if they mean anything, such a reform as will give to
them, as a political party within any State, the power of using the
forces, political and capitalistic within the State on behalf of their
own section of the community, unless they mean this, they cannot hope
to benefit wages and employment. If they do not mean this, they are
hoodwinking workingmen and merely are seeking a change, not a reform.
Change is impermanent--therefore transitory change is merely the
expression of want of tone in the political health of a people. But
Socialism and syndicalism by seeking the benefit of the many workers
at the expense of the few capitalists, is creating a form of
injustice, which in their main doctrines Socialists assert they are
hoping to avoid. Injustice to any section of a community is the
creation of inequality again in a community. If we cannot reform with
equity, let us not reform at all. As we put back the hands of the
clock's progress, so we recreate inequalities. Life at best is a
matter of compensation; it is the disturbance of this balance which
makes for injustice and inequality.
Then again, Socialism has been tried and has always resulted in the
re-erection of the capitalist system. The Revolutions of France--1789,
1832, 1848, 1871--all were to usher in the millennium. But France is
capitalistic today and amongst the wealthiest nations on the earth.
The German Revolution, 1848, or the Spanish Revolution--all began in
high hopes of republics to be ruled by Democrats. All these countries
have gone back to what the world has tried and found stands best the
test of time. Nations, like individuals, are impatient and do damage
in fits of temper for which many years of steady care are required to
effect the repairs. The world wants more religion in active life and
more ostracism of the irreligious. The fear of public disgust is the
beginning of ordered honesty. The strength of a public opinion is the
poor man's friend. "To complain of the age in which we live; to revile
the possessors of power; to lament the past; to conceive wild hopes
for the future, are the common dispositions of the vast majority of
men." They are also the attributes of laziness and the form of a
vulgar levity. A nation must have all classes--grumblers and saints,
happy and querulous, in order to make strong men.
* * * * *
=Garvin, Lucius Fayette Clark.= (Ex-Governor of R.I.)
I am opposed to Socialism because its theory is not proved to my
satisfaction. The public ownership of all artificial instruments of
production, means that no interest upon capital should go to
individuals. This means that the person who builds a boat to let
should not own it, and that the payment made by a borrower for its use
should not go to the builder, but into the public treasury.
Socialism asserts that if one person catches fifteen fish, another
ten, and third but five, they are not each entitled to the proceeds of
the sale of his fish. This is in violation of the natural law that the
value produced is the just reward of labor.
Land values, being earned by the community, belong to the community;
and economic rent should be taken by the community (in lieu of
taxation) for public purposes.
The Socialist does not distinguish between the artificial and the
natural instruments of production--two things wholly different in
kind. He confuses the just return to capital with the unjust return to
monopoly.
* * * * *
=Long, John Luther.= (Author and Playwright.)
I don't know what you mean by mere "Socialism." I wish I did. I wish
you did. But, the deuce of it is that no two persons seem to mean the
same thing--or else no one knows what any one means. If it means an
honest brotherhood, wherein it is recognized that all are not equal,
to the end that those who are more or have more shall help those who
are less and have less, I am for it with all my heart. If it means
that the vicious shall profit from the just--no. If it means that the
loafer shall live without work--no. For that means that some one
else--many--must be working in his stead. If Socialism means that
genius and idiocy must sleep in the same bed and be equals I am very
much against it. We are not all equal. We are not even born equal. No
pronunciamento can make us so. And if Socialism of the McNamara and
Ettor and Giovannitti sort means to make us so, it might as well quit
now as later. It is trying to amalgamate unamalgamables.
* * * * *
=Esenwein, Joseph Berg.= (Author and Editor Lippincott's Magazine.)
I am opposed to Socialism because, with all its attendant weaknesses
in its present unperfected state, competition is the best known
stimulus to ambition. Human nature can never be essentially altered by
either legislation or a new social system, therefore we shall always
need competitive incentives to make us do what we can. Our present
system needs decided modification, but it does not need the reversal
that Socialism proposes.
* * * * *
=Super, Charles William.= (Retired College President.)
Socialism is advocated in so many different forms that it is difficult
to deal with the term intelligently without prefixing a somewhat
lengthy definition. Every government is at present adopting some of
the features of the Socialistic creed.
I am opposed to Socialism in so far as it hinders individual
initiative and enterprise. No community ever made a great invention,
or an important discovery, or created a great work of art, or planned
a great enterprise. The first step forward must always be taken, or at
least proposed, by some one person. I believe the State should protect
those who cannot take care of themselves, especially children, and
those who have proved unable to stand the strain of modern economic
conditions. Those who are weak should not be left to lie helpless
along the path of progress. But I do not believe government has a
right to dictate how many hours an adult shall labor, or what wages
his employer shall pay him. The men who have done and are still doing
great things in the world have not worked a certain number of hours in
twenty-four, but all the time. Socialism, to a certain extent at
least, puts a premium on inefficiency. It is a serious objection to
Socialism that it has proved a failure wherever it has been tried. It
is a return to primitive conditions. The prospect of getting something
for nothing is a strong incentive to idleness. Most men are naturally
lazy. The power of the State to create value is very limited. If it
provides an army of officials whose constant and ubiquitous
interference with production limits the collective output, they must
be paid from the earnings of individuals. This must increase the cost
of living. Laws should be passed and enforced to help the weak and
restrain the wicked, but they should not put too heavy a clog on those
who are by nature qualified to succeed. You cannot promote the
prosperity of a community by taxing the strong for the benefit of the
weak, either directly or indirectly. The State should be particularly
vigilant against giving any encouragement to the lazy, the shiftless
and the willfully inefficient.
* * * * *
=Krout, Mary Hannah.= (Author.)
I am opposed to Socialism because it is impossible and
un-philosophical. All the measures advocated by Socialists today--or
most of them--were advocated by the French in the Revolution of 1785,
with disastrous results.
* * * * *
=Hovey, Lewis R.= (Editor, The Record, Haverhill, Mass.)
I am opposed to Socialism because it is unscientific, unwise, and
would destroy liberty and progress for the human race.
The bed-rock theory of Socialism is that under the present system,
wealth and industry concentrates into fewer and fewer hands, that the
big fish eat the little fish, and so on until society is confronted
with a great proletarian class on the one hand, with nothing but their
labor power, and on the other a few very rich plutocrats who own all
the means of production and exchange. That this theory is unsound and
unscientific is proved in a thousand ways by every blue book of every
industrial nation on earth.
The number of wealth-owners in Europe has increased twice as rapidly
as population during the past twenty years. In the United States we
find that ownership of land, railways, banks, bonds, industrial
stocks, etc., have actually increased three or four times as rapidly
as the population. For instance: In 1901, the year of the organization
of the "Steel Trust," so-called, there were just about fifty-five
thousand men and women who owned all the iron and steel plants in this
country, and at this time the Steel Company did seventy per cent. of
the iron and seventy-five per cent. of the steel production of the
nation. Today the U.S. Steel Company produces only forty-five per
cent. of the iron and steel, and in place of fifty-five thousand
owners of the iron and steel business, there are now over three
hundred and fifty thousand owners. Seventeen years ago the Great
Northern Railway was owned by one hundred and twenty-two stockholders;
today that same railroad has eighteen thousand owners.
An investigation by the New York Journal of Commerce, a short while
ago, proved that two hundred and thirty-one industrial and railway
corporations had ten years ago less than two hundred and thirty
thousand owners, but those same companies now have eight hundred and
thirty-five thousand owners (round numbers). Like illustrations could
be cited to fill pages of this book. This shows that the so-called
scientific theory of Marx Socialism is a myth, a dream, an imagination
from the brain of Karl Marx. Socialism would be unwise because it
would be an attempt to change human nature by economic and political
processes. This world has progressed in just that proportion as it has
got away from things Socialistic. The imperialistic Socialism of
ancient Rome destroyed that greatest of nations; the barbarian
Socialism of Peru, with thirty million followers, was destroyed by a
handful of Spanish adventurers.
The Socialization of railways, the municipal ownership of a street
railway, a gas plant or an electric lighting plant, has, as a rule,
proved a failure when all the facts are taken into consideration. This
wild yell of the Socialists, that labor receives but a small part of
the wealth it produces, has no foundation in fact and is but the
uncouth and unintelligent expression of minds who were never made for
statistical insight or investigation.
The promise of the "full value of your production" is a false promise
and known to be such by every intelligent Socialist. The workers today
do far less work, with less hours, and yet receive twice as high wages
compared fifty years ago. This is due to organization and invention of
the few. That is, a small minority of society have organized industry
and made economic production possible; "they have made two blades of
grass grow where one grew before." The Socialists would reverse this,
for it is absolutely certain that under the blighting influence of
economic Socialism, production would go down.
Politically, Socialism would destroy liberty. A pure democracy leads
straight to despotism. Nothing is more despotic than the bossism of
the Socialist parties of the world today, and if ever the nations of
the world go to Socialism, they will go to a regime of mob rule
directed by a Socialist oligarchy, and then the liberty of man will be
absolutely destroyed.
* * * * *
=Penrose, Stephen Beasley Linnard.= (President, Whitman College.)
I am not in favor of that very attractive theory, Socialism, first, on
psychological grounds. It rests upon an unscientific analysis of human
interests and motives. It overlooks or undervalues strong tendencies
of human nature. It may be called a theory for angels, not for men.
Second, on practical grounds; it cannot work well because it can
supply neither sufficient motive nor sufficient machinery to secure
efficiency, either in production or distribution.
I applaud the moral impulse which is found in many Socialists, but I
do not approve their solution for great economic problems.
* * * * *
=Kizer, Edwin Dicken.= (College President.)
I am in favor of that which means the correcting of the evils that
allow one man to prey upon another when that preying is personal or
enters into the effect of the preyer, in combination with conditions
to be remedied by economic changes. But the very radical differences
manifest among the Socialists themselves, i.e., those who accept Marx,
and those who deny him in his main statements; the revolutionist, who
insists upon a revolution, by blood, if necessary, and the
evolutionist, who looks for a more gradual development, would make me
hesitate to cast my lot with such a divided army.
Again I am not quite certain that I am willing to give first place to
the forces that the scientific Socialist places as fundamental in the
affairs of men. I must also confess to a lingering of the older theory
of individualism that constrains me to believe that at least a part
(those for example who by brain or circumstance are leaders) of
mankind, will be personally regenerated by a high spiritual motive
before the Socialist ideal is possible to think of even.
Also, radicalism never reaches in practice what it aims to perform. A
little less of the ultimate, with destructive acts that undermine
man's faith in his present creation, and a little more of the doing
the task before us is what is needed. If Socialism is inevitable, as
some think it is, we can neither help nor hinder: evolution of moral
and spiritual forces entirely rule the average man out of the contest.
* * * * *
=Brazier, Marion Howard.= (Journalist and Lecturer.)
I am opposed to Socialism because I do not favor anything likely to
develop anarchy. Socialistic agitation tends to promote unrest and
discord. If granted my divine right to vote, I might look into it more
closely and get another point of view.
* * * * *
=Cazalet, Edward Alexander.= (President of the Anglo-Russian Literary
Society, Imperial Institute, London.)
Socialism has been defined as the name given to schemes for
regenerating society by a more equal distribution of property and
especially by substituting the principle of association for that of
competition.
A great statesman and author, M. de Tocqueville, branded Socialism as
an energetic and pernicious appeal to the lower passions of mankind;
as a system of which the basis was a thorough mistrust of liberty, a
hearty contempt of man individually.
The shrewd and experienced L.A. Thiers in his treatise "De la
Propriete," also combats the maxim: "La propriete c'est le vol." He
depicted the universal poverty and barbarism that would follow from
such notions being adopted.
Robert Owen, the enthusiastic and practical Socialist, was not
successful in his colony of New Harmony in United States. The
improvement of his workmen's material interests in the New Lanark Mill
in Scotland, finally proved a disappointment. (See also "Why I am in
Favor of Socialism.")
* * * * *
=Purrington, William Archer.= (Lawyer and Author.)
I do not know of any practicable scheme of Socialism, or of any
satisfactory definition of the term upon which Socialists agree; an
accurate definition is the necessary basis of intelligent expression
of opinion.
Apparently, Socialists in general believe, or at least preach that the
State should own the material and means of production, to the end that
all should share what is now enjoyed by the few. I doubt if the
proposed means would achieve the desired end. At present the United
States Government supplies us with postage stamps. The stamps will not
stick.
Socialism will be practicable, if ever, only when
"The roughs, as we call them, grown loving and dutiful,
Worship the true and the good and the beautiful.
And preying no longer, as tiger and vulture do,
Read the Atlantic, as persons of culture do."
That day is far distant, and even when it comes the man of brains will
assert his individualism.
* * * * *
=Screws, William Wallace.= (Editor The Montgomery Advertiser.)
I am opposed to Socialism because I believe in conservatism. We are
drifting too far already away from precepts and principles which
guided us safely as long as they were adhered to. I am opposed to
Socialism because I believe in individualism. Each man in the
community should do something for it instead of each man in the
community expecting the community to do something for him. I could
give many other reasons, but these are enough to convince me that
Socialism engrafted in our laws would be dangerous to government and
society.
* * * * *
=Burke, John Butler, M.A.= (Author and Scientist.)
My sympathies are very much on the side of Socialism, but intense as
those sympathies may be, they cannot counteract the convictions, still
more strong, that the hope of its realization is futile. A lease for
capital is all I can plead for equivalent to that for copyright.
There cannot be any doubt, in my mind at least, that Socialism, that
is, the distribution of wealth equally for the benefit of the
individuals composing the community, desirable as this might be in
accordance with the spirit of equality and fraternity, is yet at
variance with the principles of freedom and of justice. And unjust as
the existing system may be in giving an unequal start in life to
individuals, to insist that those who work effectively and those who
do not, should share equally the benefits of their combined labors is
surely more iniquitous still. Nay, more, that the individual should
not possess the power to accumulate and dispose of the fruits of his
own work, is perhaps still more at variance with the true principles
of liberty.
A Socialistic state, however perfect ideally, to commence with, would
be in an unsteady state of equilibrium, and the inequalities with
which Nature, as distinct from man, has endowed us, would, I fear,
sooner or later, disturb that unstable state and bring things back to
the condition where only the struggle for power and its consequent
supremacy would prevail, through the rule of the strong in character
and intellect. Hence, heredity as a gift or privation of Nature, like
wealth and penury in the existing state of things, prevents the ideal
of equality otherwise desirable. Such being inevitable, the
accumulated effects of industry and talent will ever seek and obtain
protection from the hands of the fortunate and the strong.
A lease of the rights of property and capital generally, equivalent to
a copyright, for works of genius is all I ever hope for in the
interests of humanity, so that with the lapse of time wealth might be
redistributed broadcast for the benefit of the State and mankind.
* * * * *
=Hastings, William Granger.= (Lawyer.)
I am opposed to Socialism because like Comte, I am unable to accept
the teachings of "any of the senseless sects who attack those bases of
the State, property and the family." If we are to have States, we must
have families. At best, if we are to have anything like our present
existing States. If we are to have families, we must have property,
and private property if they are to be private families. It is as
certain as that we must have public property if we are to have any
State.
* * * * *
=Jefferys, Upton S.= (Editor, Post-Telegram, Camden, N.J.)
I am opposed to Socialism because I think that in the final analysis
it palsies individual initiative, attempting to set aside nature's law
of competition and the survival of the fittest. I cannot agree with
the proposition that Socialism is a practical panacea for industrial
and economic conditions that have existed since man began to acquire
property. While human nature remains as it is, I question whether it
is possible to successfully apply Socialism to State and nation.
* * * * *
=Beard, Daniel Carter.= (Author and Artist.)
I do not believe in Socialism because I am an individualist. I think
that the old American idea is broad enough to admit of all the
necessary reforms without reverting to the Socialism of Marx. Both
Socialism and Anarchy are off-springs of monarchial forms of
government evolved by people under the tyranny class and official
oppression.
As long as the opportunities in this country were free to all, neither
the seed of Socialism nor of Anarchy could take root, but when the
opportunities were absorbed by a few, it produced a condition similar
to that of a monarchial form of government, and the seed of these
exotic plants, Socialism and Anarchy, both found a soil suited to
their growth.
There is nothing the matter with our form of government. It has
produced the greatest success the world has ever witnessed, has
developed a manhood, a self-reliance and a self-respect to be found on
no place else on the face of the earth, and I see no reason why we
should change that form of government, because some people have
monopolized the opportunity for labor and produced an unsatisfactory
condition economically. There is but one opportunity to labor, and
that is the land. We can free the land without changing our form of
government, by simply taxing it to its full rental value, and doing
away with all other forms of taxation. This will immediately take the
burden off of labor, and while not reducing our present millionaires
to the ranks of plain, honest men, it will effectually prevent the
growth of any more millionaire monstrosities. (See also "Why I am in
Favor of Socialism.")
* * * * *
=Ladd, Horatio Oliver.= (Clergyman. Author and Educator.)
I do not favor Socialism because it is an effort to reform society
against the nature of man.
No man is created equal to another, or every other man. He is an
individual who makes his place in the world by his special individual
traits and powers. By these he uses the powers of others, and material
and moral instruments and forces around him to accomplish his ends. He
concedes to others what he cannot or does not wish to hold or acquire
for himself in the influence and possessions of this life.
The inequality of man in this world is everywhere manifest. The
advantages won in this life are the result of effort and character,
not of any distribution based upon the principle of equality of man.
The differences in man's condition, make the interest and the
incitements of life. Collectivism is an absurd theory of distribution
of the good of life, because it cannot preserve equal conditions, even
in one generation. The weak, the lame and the lazy must fall behind
the strong, the able, the ambitious. The apples on a tree are of
different sizes, and soundness, because of the vigor of the buds,
leaves, branches and location which have contributed to their growth.
So it is in all Nature, and in man.
The prizes of life belong to those who win them by merit of their
powers, their diligence and their effort.
A common opportunity is the highest condition Nature and society can
offer to the individual.
Life is rich in and through its varieties. Religion and common sense
stand for these principles of individualism in the development and
conduct of human life and government.
* * * * *
=Levermore, Charles Herbert.= (Educator and Author.)
I am opposed to Socialism because I believe that any plan thus far
proposed for the reorganization of society upon a Socialist basis
would result in a tyranny of a majority, or of a bureaucratic clique
or "ring," representing that majority, which would be meaner and more
unendurable than any corporation-ridden party-machine or any Tammany
Hall that we have ever known. (See also "Why I Am in Favor of
Socialism.")
* * * * *
=Bell, Mackenzie.= (Poet, Critic and Lecturer.)
Though a collectivist I am not a Socialist in the Marxian sense,
because I think the private ownership of capital has never until now,
had a fair chance in the work of civilization. Throughout the world
the people are dimly awaking to insist that property has its duties as
well as its rights, and to insist likewise that property pays its due
toll to the commonwealth.
* * * * *
=Binney, Charles Chauncey.= (Lawyer and Author.)
I cannot pretend to much familiarity with Socialist writings, but I
have read with some care the platform of the Socialist Party for the
recent election. Some few of the planks have nothing to do with
Socialism in itself, and some (that in regard to child labor, for
instance) express the views of men of all parties; but the
distinctively Socialist part of the platform impressed me as
co-operation run mad. People seemed to be regarded as masses only, not
as individuals, although the individualist feeling is one of the
strongest in human nature, and is of the utmost importance in the
progress of civilization.
If a Socialist administration of government be possible as a permanent
institution (which I doubt) it would be impossible under the
conditions demanded by this platform, because no man's life or
property (if any individual property be permitted) would be safe under
it. For instance, the legislative power is to be vested in a Congress
and legislatures composed of one chamber only, subject to no veto and
controlled by no constitution, for the courts are to be forbidden to
question the constitutionality of laws. This would make the
legislature all-powerful, but the fact that no one branch of the
government is all-powerful is an important guarantee of our present
liberties. Worse than this, although the experience of ages has shown
that the greatest safeguard of liberty is the administration of law by
an independent and fearless judiciary--that is, by judges who cannot
be dismissed except for official wrongdoing, and who therefore are not
merely free to do right in every case, but have the strongest
incentives to do so--yet the platform proposes to destroy judicial
tenure during good behavior wherever it exists, and to cause all
judges to be elected for short terms. If you ask any man of
intelligence, who wants only justice, whether he would feel more sure
of a just decision in a United States Court before a judge holding
office during good behavior, or in a State Court, before a judge
elected by the voters of a political party for a short term only, I am
confident that he would express much greater confidence in the former.
The Socialist platform asserts that the "capitalist class" controls
the judiciary. This broad assertion is ridiculously false. What is
true is that the judiciary is not composed of Socialists, that the
judges are as yet unwilling to disregard the law, and to decide in
accordance with the wishes of Socialists. If, however, the "capitalist
class" sought to control the judiciary, it could do so much more
easily in the case of judges elected for short terms than in that of
judges holding office during good behavior. Evidently the Socialists
want a chance to "control" the judiciary themselves, whereas what the
country needs is a judiciary uncontrolled by any class, capitalist or
Socialist.
The platform declares for collective ownership of all railroads,
telegraph and telephone lines, etc. The word "confiscation" is
avoided, but confiscation must be intended, for surely the Socialists
do not wish to enrich the "capitalist class" by buying out their
interests in public service corporations at a fair valuation.
I could criticise the Socialist platform in many other respects,
especially the tone of violence and hatred that pervades it. There is
not a suggestion of Christianity about it. I shall conclude, however,
by stating my own experience of local government under the Socialist
Party. Being in ill health last winter, I stayed at Bordighera in
Italy. The Socialists controlled the town government, and were anxious
to continue in office, and therefore not to offend the rank and file
of their party. The drunkenness and noise at night were often
intolerable, but all protests were useless, as the drinkers and
shouters had votes, and the foreign visitors had none. Gambling was
carried on as openly as at Monte Carlo, without any regard to the
well-being of the community. After this slight experience, I was able
to understand better what took place under the Socialist commune of
Paris in 1871, which I am old enough to remember well.
* * * * *
=Wilson, Alonzo Edes.= (Editor and Lecturer.)
There are many good things about the theory of Socialism, but I do not
believe in the remedy as proposed through the Socialist Party. The
battle can never be won that way. I also believe that our hardest
fight and the first thing to be done is the killing of our greatest
common enemy, the liquor traffic and the business of drunkard making,
by the Government. The settlement of this problem will solve many of
our ills and then we can take up some of these other questions.
* * * * *
=Russell, Isaac Franklin, LL., D.C.L.= (Chief Justice of the Court of
Special Sessions of the City of New York.)
I am opposed to Socialism because of its erroneous attitude to labor.
Labor is not a thing to be avoided, but rather to be welcomed and
encouraged. The only real happiness we ever experience in this world
is the intelligent exercise of our faculties. A perpetual motion
machine or some fanciful device for saving us from labor, so far from
being a blessing, would paralyze our noblest powers.
I charge Socialism with economic error and heresy for its attacks on
capital and capitalists. Capital is indispensable to enterprise. It is
the source and mainspring of wages. The laborer cannot pay himself his
wages out of the finished product of his toil, else he would have no
quarrel with his master. Even public credit, on which we are building
the Panama Canal and our city schools, rests on visible resources in
lands, franchises and personal property.
I charge Socialism with economic error in advocating a rate of wages
determined by arbitrary authority, irrespective of demand and supply.
No producer of merchandise for any appreciable length of time can
continue to pay more than the market rate of wages and keep out of
bankruptcy.
The manhood wage--a plan by which we accord to each laborer enough
money to support himself, his wife and as many children as God sends
to his home--is a delusion and a snare. It directly encourages
improvidence and stimulates the growth of population by diverting
nature's stern but benignant discipline from the unworthy to the
worthy. It paralyzes thrift and temperance, and puts a premium on
recklessness and vicious self-indulgence.
I charge Socialism with fundamental error in preaching the doctrine of
human equality. Nature abhors equality. Men vary infinitely, from the
meanest degenerates to the tallest of the sons of God. They can be
equal only before the law, or in the eye of the law, or as suppliants
for justice. Intellectually we need patricians and noblemen to
encourage us by precept and example and point out the path of progress
to better things. A dollar a day, or one thousand dollars a day, never
will remunerate men like Edison and Harriman for their services to a
world of workers.
Socialism trifles with the principles that underlie the institution of
property. Even animal and sub-human ethics regard the right of the
individual to his accumulated store and the home he has builded.
The attitude of Socialists toward the courts of law is undemocratic.
In America we must reverence the law. It is our only hope. To teach
the multitude that justice is bought and sold in this country and that
the judgments of our judicial tribunals are knocked down to the
highest bidder is to accuse a whole nation of crime.
Socialism represses individual development. It substitutes for
self-direction the authority of the many.
But it is in constructive Socialism that we find the greatest peril
and the most monumental folly. Utopias innumerable have been conceived
by the heated imagination of dreamers of all ages. The monotony of
Utopia would be maddening. No moral crisis can arise in a perfect
society. Charity and philanthropy, sympathy, courage and all the human
virtues can have no play in such a spot.
Competition is not to be decried as vicious. It is really a benignant
principle. It is the supreme divine law. To competition among
employers the workman looks for high wages; on competition among
sellers he relies to buy what he needs at the lowest figure.
* * * * *
=Andrews, Martin Register.= (College Professor and Editor.)