likely to aggravate the very evils of which they justly complain. The
proposal to confiscate the homes of the farmers and work the former
owners under some boss chosen by the State, as I heard advocated a few
days ago, may be a blessing to the brewers, but not to the great body
of workingmen. (See also "Why I Am in Favor of Socialism.")
* * * * *
=Allen, Alfred.= (Playwright and Author.)
I am opposed to Socialism because of their inhumanity towards the poor
millionaire. In spite of it all, they are our brothers.
* * * * *
=Owen, Douglas.= (Author, Barrister and Lecturer.)
Until Socialists themselves shall have come to some sort of an
agreement as to the aims and objects of the Socialism to be adopted as
their creed, how can one formulate one's objections to Socialism? The
more moderate and reasonable of its advocates profess, indeed,
indignation and abhorrence at the views of the extremists, and to
reply to the extremists is to call forth charges of gross
misrepresentation on the part of the more moderate. But broadly
stated, what Socialism even in its more moderate form appears to aim
at, is the negation and suppression of the greatest and most
beneficent law of nature--law of humanity--which we know as the law of
the survival of the fittest. On this supreme law depends, and always
has depended, and must depend, the uplifting, enlightenment and, in
the end, the highest welfare of mankind. And just as that which is
good for the hive cannot be bad for the bee, so must the welfare of
the hive depend on the independent effort of each individual bee.
The mainspring of the world's upward and forward progress is the
ambition and emulation of the individual worker: the slothful, the
ill-qualified and the weakling being left behind; one and the same
law, beneficent if hard, for all life upon this world, whether animate
or inanimate. The Socialists' aim is to deprive the individual of
stimulus to put forth his best efforts for his own advancement and
therefore for the benefit of the human hive.
When I received your invitation to state my views on this subject, I
chanced to be reading David Hannay's work. "The Sea Trader." At the
conclusion he deals with the subject of convoy, under which all ships,
fast and slow, good and bad, were compelled to voyage under armed
escort. His remarks on the consequences of the system are so apposite
that I quote them here:
"The necessity for keeping together imposed a restriction often of a
highly injurious kind, on the best appointed vessels. Since the whole
must be kept together, it followed that the convoy was condemned to
sail at the rate of speed of the slowest among them. A quick sailing
ship lost the whole advantage of her superiority. She could neither
obtain the advantage of being early in the market, nor make prompt
arrangements to unload or reload. She was brought down to the level of
the most lumbering tub. Of what use was it to build for speed, to be
alert, to seek for better ways, when the law stood over you, fine and
imprisonment in hand, to make you go slow, to force you to follow the
known road!"
Of course, it meant utter stagnation in shipbuilding; it was death to
advance an improvement. The Socialist, in his shortsighted and narrow
view, aims at the same thing over again, on a universal scale, with
all its dire and retrograde results. He would reduce the well-found,
well-equipped and speedy vessel to the level of the most lumbering tub
in the human fleet.
* * * * *
=Painter, Franklin Verzelius Newton.= (Author and College Professor.)
If Socialism is what its friends say it is, it should be commended; if
it is what its enemies say it is, it should be condemned.
In developing a sense of social obligation, Socialism accomplishes a
fine work; but in expecting a thorough human reformation from altered
social conditions, it betrays the weakness of illiterate credulity.
In seeking greater justice and equality in economic conditions,
Socialism rests on a strong moral basis; but in seeking no more than
greater material ease and comfort, it betrays the presence of
mortality.
In demanding individual sacrifice for the common good, Socialism
emphasizes an important duty; but in totally submerging the individual
in society, it is guilty of an ancient wrong.
The truths of Socialism are rapidly finding expression in life and
government; its errors will prove its ultimate destruction.
The fundamental defect of Socialism is its materialism; for there is
that in man which transcends food and raiment.
* * * * *
=Thayer, William Roscoe.= (Historian.)
I am opposed to Socialism because I have seen no explanation by any of
its various, and mutually antagonistic advocates, of the way in which
it can safeguard the individual. The purpose of life is to produce
individuals, each of whom shall be trained to the highest
efficiency--manual, intellectual and moral--of which he is capable.
Socialism, having only the welfare of all (an abstraction) in view,
must logically slight or suppress the individual. So, logically, it
must destroy the family--the unit of civilization--and reduce mankind
in their sexual relations below the level of the beasts. What I desire
is not crazy Nietzsche's superman--individualism run mad--nor
Socialism which denies the individual.
* * * * *
=Nevin, Theodore Williamson.= (Editor.)
I am opposed to Socialism principally because of its impracticability.
Theoretically it is beautiful, but until human nature changes
radically from what it is at present, the plan will not work out in
practice. Go into any of the small Socialistic societies, see the
petty wrangling, the striving for domination--bossing by the stronger
leaders, the self-seeking efforts of all, weak and strong; and it will
at once be seen that the theory is not a success there. If not
successful in these smaller experiments, how can it be expected to be
in the larger field of a nation?
My fear would be that if the system could ever be fastened on the
national government (which I consider an impossibility) it would be
disastrous--it would take away ambition, it would have a blighting
effect on enterprise, and would result in the production of the most
intolerant "bosses," great and small that the world has ever seen.
The resultant slavery of the masses would be shocking, compared with
which the most asserted, so-called slavery under our modern industrial
system would be the perfection of freedom.
After all, isn't Socialism, present day Socialism, simply an effort of
those that have not, trying to get a share of the possessions of those
that have?
* * * * *
=Bigelow, Edward Fuller.= (Lecturer and Writer.)
I am in favor of Socialism in so far as it contains many good ideals,
and am against it in so far as the methods of obtaining those ideals
are non-existent, indefinite or impracticable. Many harangues by
Socialist orators and many tracts, claiming to set forth Socialistic
doctrines are mostly vague with omission of all practical methods. It
may do for the poet to rave about sailing away to the moon, but if the
poet becomes politician he must show the ship and explain how it will
make the journey.
* * * * *
=Post, Louis Freeland.= (Editor, The Public, Chicago, Ill.)
I am opposed to Socialism in its economic program because it proposes
to suppress competition, and in its tactics because it stands for
class warfare. As to competition, I do not believe that it can be
suppressed without substituting an intolerable despotism, and I do
believe it will operate fairly if divested of the law-created
monopolies with which it is now bedeviled. As to class warfare, I
regard the real contest as a contest over economic interests and moral
ideals, which neither are nor can be differentiated by any lines of
personal class. (See also "Why I Am in Favor of Socialism.")
* * * * *
=Walker, Albert H.= (Lawyer and Author.)
I am opposed to Socialism because it is contrary to nature. In nature,
progress results from evolution; and evolution results from
fortuitous differentiation and survival of the fittest. Socialism
proposes to try to make the unfittest survive, at the expense of the
fittest. That also is the proposition of Christianity. But both those
systems are contrary to nature in that respect.
* * * * *
=Tutt, John Calhoun.= (Writer.)
Socialism is not feasible. It is a myth of dreamy minds. It has an
idealistic atmosphere and is attractive to those who lag in the
struggle of life. Its worst feature is that it deceives the people who
conscientiously seek relief in it. Its leadership thrives because its
impracticability prevents the experimental tests that would expose its
sophistry. There is no way to prove by actual demonstration that the
persuasive gospel or philosophy of the men who lead its movements is a
mockery. You can't try out Socialism. It is evasive. No people ever
did or ever will grasp it. There is no equality in either civilization
or barbarism. The men most conspicuous in the Socialist movement do
not exemplify equality. You find Socialists among the most destitute.
If Socialism is a legitimate form of government, why have not the
forces of government evolved it? The age of experiment has long since
passed. We have had repetition over and over again, but no
materialization of Socialism. Government is purely human, and until
there is a new creation there will never be anything new in
government.
* * * * *
=Arford, Fremont.= (Editor, Western Trade Journal, Chicago.)
I am opposed to Socialism because it does not lead to anything
practical or concrete. The theories and plans of the great body of
Socialists are largely chimerical and do not appeal to my idea of
bettering the conditions of which they, and myself as well, complain.
To accomplish what Socialism is attempting to bring about,
necessitates a revolution of all that now goes to make up human
nature, and nothing short of omnipotence can do this.
* * * * *
=Cavanaugh, John, C.S.C.= (President University of Notre Dame.)
As a philosophy Socialism is hostile to organized government because
organized government stands for restraint. Restraint is necessary
wherever people live together. Socialism wants a so-called liberty
which, in my judgment, is license.
Socialism is opposed to religion for the same reason. Religion teaches
man to be patient and Socialism can thrive only where men are
discontented.
Socialism is opposed to the home because husband and father in the
nature of things are economically dependent upon employers, and it is
characteristic of Socialists that they wish to flaunt offence in the
face of employers.
Individual Socialists will deny that these charges against Socialism
are true. Such individual Socialists are sometimes honest, a fact
which only proves that they don't know the inner meaning of Socialism.
Socialistic papers like the New York Call make no pretense of
concealing the true meaning of the Socialist philosophy.
As a matter of fact the vast majority of so-called Socialists think it
is merely a political plan that concerns only the question of capital
and labor and government ownership.
Even as a matter of political policy Socialism is not convincing; it
could not cure the ills of society which are due to inequalities of
talent, strength, wisdom and industry rather than to political
policies.
I am not willing to close this brief statement without adding that
capitalists should take care so to deal with labor as to deprive
agitators of all excuse and valid argument for Socialism, while to the
working man I say: "Be wise, thrifty, virtuous and industrious so that
you may improve your condition." I say with equal earnestness to the
capitalist: "Stop making Socialists. Treat your laboring people like
equals rather than inferiors, and as brothers, not as aliens."
* * * * *
=Barr, Granville Walter.= (Writer.)
The accomplishment of ethics by the enactment of laws always fails,
and always will fail, except in those cases where there is a strong
trend of public opinion to the same end. There are places where
murder is not punished, and other places where only certain forms of
murder are punished; as there are places where the sale of alcoholic
liquors and gambling are utterly prevented by the punishment of all
who commit these acts contrary to law. Socialism is a program of law
far ahead of the public opinion of today in this country. Therefore it
cannot effect itself here and now. There may be in the future a time
and place where it will be effective, and then its laws will be
beneficent.
But only under the conditions stated, will it be harmless. The
greatest evil in America today is the non-enforcement of laws. Any law
not enforced, because contrary to public opinion in the governmental
unit involved, becomes malevolent in its effects. In one city whose
people believe liquors should be sold, saloons flourish in spite of a
State statute prohibiting them, because conviction of saloon keepers
is impossible in that bailiwick; thirty years of this state of affairs
has produced a generation of young men who firmly believe that laws
are made to be enforced or disregarded at will--who are germinating
the seeds of anarchy. To enact a mass of law which cannot be enforced
until the millennium is nearer its dawn, is to weaken all law. Hence,
Socialism as a political factor is malevolent--as a propaganda, it is
of course beneficent and to be encouraged academically, exactly as one
should encourage the growth of Methodism or Presbyterianism while
keeping them both out of political matters. Socialism seems determined
to intrude into politics--is essentially political, indeed--and its
most active writers sneer at the American constitution and
institutions while they have nothing practicable to substitute except
the Golden Rule--which excellent rule of action never has been
enforced upon any nation, nor any large group of people, and which
cannot be enforced soon. When it can be enforced, Socialism will have
arrived. In the meantime, human nature must be made over--God speed
the day!
* * * * *
=White, William Allen.= (Editor and Author.)
I am opposed to Socialism because I believe that it attempts to do by
legislative enactment, what must come through an evolutionary
process. I believe that we are now ready for a long evolutionary jump,
but not so far forward as some of our Socialist brethren would like to
jump.
I desire to go as far toward human justice and good will toward men,
as anyone, but I do not feel that we should start and stop, because we
are not ready to go the whole distance. I would start and go but one
day's journey at a time.
* * * * *
=Crowell, John Franklin.= (Economist.)
I am opposed to Socialism--
First: Because it fails to provide for the requisites of progress, and
this threatens to cause a stationary civilization.
Second: Because it seems to me to misplace the emphasis by putting the
material before the spiritual in human happiness.
Third: Because it is anti-national in its attitude toward liberty and
self-government. By means of national citizenship modernity has gained
most of its rights and privileges. To show utter contempt for the
national flag, by referring to it as "an old rag," exhibits a personal
quality wholly incompatible with true human brotherhood.
* * * * *
=Wilcox, Lute.= (Editor, Field and Farm, Denver, Colo.)
I am opposed to Socialism upon the broad ground that we already have
too many loafers in America for the future good of the nation. All
mankind is Socialistic to a certain degree. The most of us are
inclined to double shoot the turn and ride a free horse to death. We
make Socialism a sort of excuse to shift responsibilities that
certainly belong to each and every individual living under a
democratic form of government. We are always dodging the little duties
that go to make up the ground work of life. Socialism seems to
inculcate that spirit of inactivity which might be more properly
called loaferism and no country can become great with such a dominant
spirit prevailing among its people.
* * * * *
=Heald, G.H.= (Editor, Life and Health)
I am both in favor of, and opposed to Socialism, because Socialism
means very many different things. As one man said: Christian Socialism
means "all mine is yours," and the other kind means, "all yours is
mine."
Our present government is partially Socialistic; our public schools,
our public roads, our postoffice department, and more and more of our
public work is becoming socialized.
Another form of Socialism, although not political, is the co-operative
bodies seen in the garden suburbs of the cities of England, and the
co-operative stores, etc.
It seems to me that the cry against capital is not well taken. Turn
ten thousand anti-capitalists into a new undeveloped country and let
them develop it! The first thing they will require is capital. And
after a while if a few of the more energetic ones begin to do things
it will be because they have accumulated a little capital. However, I
can understand that this capital might be held co-operatively by the
laborers as it is in some institutions, rather than by a few. But the
present conditions which get a monopoly of franchise on public
utilities or a monopoly of natural wealth of the country, whether of
mines or forests or water power, is all wrong. We need more of public
ownership, less of larger corporations fattening their stockholders by
squeezing the prices to the highest limit and wages to the lowest
limit.
* * * * *
=Kelly, Robert Lincoln.= (President, Earlham College.)
I feel that the tendency in our country is toward a more Socialistic
form of government and with this movement I am in entire sympathy.
This means, however, that these tendencies will be incorporated in our
government by the process of evolution and not by that of revolution.
In other words, that we will hammer these questions out one at a time
and adopt them only as they are proven to be practicable in every-day
experience. Since Socialism presumably stands for an extensive program
which is to be adopted in toto and without due deliberation and
tentative experience I cannot become a member of that party. Let those
who wish to advocate the cause in this wholesale way, have every
possible opportunity of doing so, but recognize that as a matter of
fact, forms of government and even public opinion are changed very
slowly with the process of the sun.
* * * * *
=Ladd, George Trumbull.= (University Professor.)
I believe in the spiritual unity of the race, and in the duty of
nations and individuals to treat each other like brothers, and sons of
a common father. I detest all class hatred and all arrangements,
political and social, for securing and promoting class interests at
the expense of the public welfare. I am the enemy of all systems of
"bossism," or monopoly, or control by other than natural laws and
moral principles, of the opportunities of the individual to labor, to
enjoy the fruits of labor, and to develop himself and help others.
Thus far I am a Socialist.
I do not believe, however, in any of the definite schemes for
equalizing the rewards of labor, irrespective of the merits of the
laborer and the excellence of his work. I do not believe in communism,
either in the sharing by compulsion, of goods; and certainly not, in
the sharing of the privileges of the family life. Nor do I think that
the control of government, whether of city, State or Nation, by any
Socialistic Party, would, in the large and the long run, improve
matters. I fear it would make bad matters even worse. The only way to
improve society is to make the men and women who compose society,
intellectually, morally, and religiously, better men and better women.
I want, first of all, to be improved in all these ways myself; and
next, to help the next fellow to improve himself.
* * * * *
=Adams, Thomas Sewall.= (Professor Political Economy.)
If Socialism means primarily the ownership and operation by the State
of the principal industries, I am opposed to it because a long
experience in State and public work convinces me that public work is,
comparatively speaking, inefficient work. The cause of this
inefficiency lies deep in the nature of democratic government and will
never, I think, be removed. The individual public servant is neither
lazy nor inferior, but the conditions of his work make it impossible
to get the same results as he could in private employment. The spirit
of public work is more equitable. Greater consideration is given to
the humane factors. More of this spirit will have to be injected into
private industry. The result will be not public industry, but private
industry animated by a new ideal and conducted under the guardianship
of the State rather than by the State. Industrial life is not simple;
it is very complex, and no simple solution is to be looked for. The
quasi-public industry managed by private individuals, deeply impressed
with the feeling of their public trusteeship, is the ultimate ideal.
With the deeper and better spirit of Socialism I am altogether in
accord. Most Socialists think that the strength of the movement lies
in their tactics; their specific provisions for government ownership;
their philosophical doctrines; but the contrary is the truth and the
one enduring thing in Socialism is the religious zeal and high ideals
of its best exponents.
* * * * *
=Linn, Walter R.= (Editor Harrisburg Telegraph, Harrisburg, Pa.)
I am opposed to Socialism because the progress of the world has been
made under individualism. Any system which has a tendency to
discourage or repress personal initiative is a system which can
produce no good to the country.
* * * * *
=Terhune, William Lewis.= (Publisher.)
Socialism, to my mind, means the overthrow of all the advancements of
the past one hundred years or more. The man of brains and energy would
stand but little show or encouragement under a government controlled
by Socialism or Socialistic ideas. I believe that, the man who is
capable of making his way in this world, is smart and energetic enough
to build up a business and with it a fortune, is entitled to all he
can possess through honest efforts. I do not believe in government
ownership of public utilities, but I do believe in a controlling power
of the government to in some way supervise these corporations so they
will be obliged to keep in the path of honesty in all their
transactions with the public. Individual freedom is the watchword of
our great country. When we lose that, we lose ourselves.
* * * * *
=Scheffauer, Herman.= (Author.)
I am opposed to theoretical Socialism wherever it threatens to
interfere with the full and unhampered development of the individual
or to lower his worth. Being a mass philosophy, Socialism must
logically strive to sacrifice the individual to that mass. I hold that
it is only through the channels of a free, noble, self-restrained
individualism that man may naturally attain to his supreme development
in happiness, culture and power.
Theoretical Socialism is a splendid fallacy that shines like a truth
when contemplated beneath the skies of the future already reddened by
the sanguine color of the creed. But it is a fallacy based upon
another fallacy, that of the virtue in the sovereign mass or
democracy, which in turn is based upon certain fallacies of
Christianity.
These systems of the multitude amount to mob rule, and will never
evolve the highest type of men--the intellectual and moral samurai of
whom H.C. Wells has written, the rulers by nature, training and
fitness, the men who, in Nietzsche's phrase, are to surpass men.
In practical matters Socialism may be said to be already operative,
and largely operative for good. It is correcting many ancient evils
and bringing a certain degree of order and balance into the world.
That is its chief value--an industrial and economic one. It is a means
and not an end. For in the last analysis of human things it will be
undone by that iron fiat which decrees that every man must be an end
in himself and unto himself.
* * * * *
=Gaines, Clement Carrington.= (President Eastman College.)