impracticable form of governmental administration, and therefore must,
if it should ever come to power, fail as a system of government. In
support of this view I suggest the following considerations:
First: A free democratic government, a government by the people in any
form, must necessarily be controlled by parties.
Second: Parties are held together by the interests of the
organization. These interests in the end are opposed to the interests
of the people in that any party must support itself by what its
organizers and promoters can get out of the people, which is another
way of saying that every party is held together by the cohesion of
public plunder, the private interests of its organizers. That policy
is always most popular with the party in power which promises most
profit to its leaders. The leaders are controlled by the policy which
seems to serve their interests best, and not by the principles of
righteousness or altruism.
Third: Hence in the administration of Government by a party the
success and policy of the party must dominate its action rather than
the interests of the people whom the party would govern, because this
success is the thing most necessary to the continuance of the party in
power. The effort to succeed leads to corruption notwithstanding the
apparent purity of its principles or promises of its platform.
Conclusion: Since the three principles enunciated seem to be the
fundamental law of party government, and since the principles of
Socialism are in contravention of this fundamental law, it is believed
that Socialism cannot permanently succeed as a method of party
government. It is further believed that the principles of Socialism
are in contravention of the natural law that no creature may advance
in any direction except by the law of competition of all its vital
forces, principles, and powers. Mr. Darwin calls this "the law of
natural selection and survival of the fittest," and says conclusively
that this natural law governs and directs the development and progress
of the material world, and that it applies with equal force to man's
nature, and to his progress as a member of the moral, social,
industrial, and political world.
* * * * *
=Leckie, A.S.= (Editor, The Joliet Herald, Joliet, Ill.)
We may oppose or improve human legislative enactments, but not natural
laws. Socialism, in its logical perfection, would attempt this.
The species improves and advances only through the struggle for
existence (or preferment). The law of the survival or supremacy of the
fittest is immutable in natural conditions. Remove from the petted
squirrels the necessity of providing their winter's food, and they
become unable to do so when the necessity again arises.
Ambition in competition, carried if you will, to the extreme of
cupidity and greed, are instincts as natural as that of
self-preservation.
Without the incentive of reward in preferment, power or wealth, we
should have no progress. Any enforced leveling of talent or ability
would curb and eventually stop human advancement.
Possibly we are advancing too fast; the advance of Socialism may be a
working of the natural law of compensation, destined to put a brake
upon the wheels of a too rapid progress.
* * * * *
=Field, Walter Taylor.= (Author.)
I am opposed to such Socialism as emphasizes "class-consciousness" and
the entire abolition of private property. True Socialism should make
absolutely no distinction between classes, but should hold mankind as
a common brotherhood. I am opposed to the entire abolition of private
property as removing one of the strongest incentives to labor and
progress. We need social reform badly enough, and a check upon
inheritances and large accumulations of private property, but I
believe the remedy for most of our social evils lies in encouraging
the wage-earners to become small farmers and small artisans and in
protecting them by stringent legislation against the encroachments of
large business.
I am heartily in sympathy with the spirit of Socialism, but not with
its methods.
* * * * *
=Barstow, George Eames.= (Business man.)
I am opposed to Socialism, first, because the All-Wise One in His
inscrutable wisdom in arranging for His people for occupying the
promised land, provided that every man should go and take up the land
alloted to him.
Second: The Creator knew what would best contribute to the social and
economic order of humanity in all time to come.
Third: Socialism means a community of property. I am opposed to such a
social and economic order, believing same to be against the public
welfare. Society has now too many drones, lazy and idle from choice.
Such class would be largely increased under Socialism. The subject's
agitation reveals such product.
Fourth: What is needed in these days is an increase of social justice,
not social injustice.
Fifth: A man should enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
and can only do this as he is at liberty, under wise laws, to exercise
his full capacity for himself; leaving to himself the right to
contribute to others as he may choose.
Sixth: There are some vital questions to be solved for the betterment
of the people at large, concerning social, economic and industrial
order; but, their best solution will not be found in Socialism. Many
noble and patriotic men and women are devoting money and life to these
ends, and will in due time accomplish, through wise laws, the purposes
for which they strive and which will be for the healing and uplifting
of the peoples of the earth.
* * * * *
=Lee, Elmer.= (Physician, Author, Inventor, Lecturer and Editor.)
Life is experimental and whatever man wishes to try in the hope of
bettering his condition will neither hurt him in the long run, and
probably not better him.
Each new generation of men is largely unmindful of the experiments of
men in the past, and feels that it has a solution for human trial, and
disappointment, only to find when it is put to the test that, after
all, it will not accomplish what was expected from it.
Man banded together for a common interest, will not go far before he
meets reverse and disappointment; he will fall out with his associate
and quarrel with him; differences will arise which will lead to
dissatisfaction and dissolution of the plan.
Man is primarily selfish and imaginative, and seeks to operate
independently and erect for himself, his family and his affairs. Man
has so much power and invention that he will not long consent to
remain within any set limitation; he will break out and will prefer to
fight his own battle.
Anything like common interest and division of labor, under Socialism
or whatever name, will become unsatisfactory, if not to the generation
which starts it, certainly to its children.
Any system will suffice, were man always in health, intelligent in the
selection of food and in the care of his body. Were man willing and
able to practice self-control, to avoid self-debasing habits, to
abstain from tobacco, liquor, drugs and venery, it would not much
matter what form of government prevailed.
Social form is less important than individual conduct. It will always
be a struggle for man to survive the perils of life, such as
temptation, indulgence, weakness, accident and disease. The test is
personal and continuous, and cannot be shifted to the shoulder of
society.
* * * * *
=Brownscombe, Jennie.= (Artist.)
I believe in a more rigid enforcement of our existing laws. They are a
precious heritage from our forefathers; a resume of the wisdom of the
ages. Where time and altered conditions have made it desirable to
amend them, they should be amended by the wisest and purest statesmen
of our land, guided by the trend of public thought.
I believe that the great need of this time and of all times, is not
Socialism, better laws or absence of law, but capable, industrious and
honest men and women, who strive to abide by and enforce the Golden
Rule in all matters of character and conduct. "Our duties are of more
consequence to us than are our rights."
* * * * *
=Lightner, Ezra Wilberforce.= (Journalist)
Some of the most profound of thinkers, some of the grandest of men and
women, have written in regard to Socialism; some on the one side and
some on the other. If in the mind of the majority of the most earnest
and thoughtful and reasoning men and women the majority shall one day
say that what is called Socialism is a stride in the process of slow
evolution which has brought us to the measure of civilization now
recognized, then whether or not we are yet living when that time
comes, we must accept that condition as one of the processes of
evolution and try the experiment.
I don't believe that at this time anybody can say clearly whether he
or she is a Socialist except in vague theory. There are too many bases
for doubt, as there are in regard to the finality of the political
systems in active operation today. One thing that can't be doubted is
that from the date of the Republic of Plato, the Utopia of Moore, the
writing of Jean Jacques Rousseau, the "Voyage of Icaria" of Etienne
Capet, the essays of Proudhon, St. Simon, Fourier, "Das Kapital" of
Karl Marx, the tremendous labor of Liebknecht, Bebel, Lassalle,
Singer, William Morris, the English artist, poet and philosopher, John
Ruskin, and a host of others, the increase in numbers of the
supporters of the Socialist ideal has been one of the most remarkable
of economical evangels.
Yet with all this I think that a long process of educational work
would be necessary to prepare mankind for the experiment, if it be
possible to make it a success. William Morris, before he had declared
outright for Socialism, wrote his "Earthly Paradise:"
"Dreamer of dreams, born out of my due time.
Why should I strive to set the crooked straight?"
Every thoughtful person recognizes the crooked, even though he may
himself be a crook: and even many of the crooks, and certainly all the
rest of us, desire with our might to make the crooked straight and to
have an "Earthly Paradise," and to hope that "At last, far off, some
good will come to all." We are groping, and to grope earnestly and
vigorously is to find. We shall find; we must find; or chaos will come
again. It must not be the invention of mere dreamers, however. In this
age it is the practical business man who builds for permanency.
* * * * *
=Cutler, James Elbert.= (University Professor.)
I am opposed to Socialism as a method or system because of the
impracticability of any particular program thus far formulated by
Socialists. In the formulation of a Socialist program of action some
important principle of social progress is invariably either wholly
disregarded or treated superficially by general statements which lack
point and application. The inability of the Socialists to agree among
themselves as regards a program or plan of action plainly indicates
the limitations under which Socialism labors in this respect. (See
also "Why I am in Favor of Socialism.")
* * * * *
=Leveroni, Frank.= (Counsellor at Law.)
I am opposed to Socialism because--
First: It is pure theory.
Second: It is impractical.
Third: It leads to nowhere.
Fourth: It tends to destroy and it does not supply anything in the
place of that which it destroys.
Fifth: It is opposed to Christianity and to Christian marriage and to
settled economic theory.
Sixth: Its theory of distribution of property is fallacious as it
overlooks human nature, it takes away the initiative in man, it
compels the community to provide for the laggard and drone.
Seventh: It aims to destroy the family which is the center of
civilization, it aims to place the education and training of children
directly in the care of the State, which would be detrimental to the
home life and love that ought to exist between parent and child.
* * * * *
=Anderson, Rasmus Bjorn.= (Editor, College Professor and Translator.)
I am opposed to Socialism on account of its attitude to Christianity.
Its attitude to Christianity manifests itself in the fact that it is
not only a political party, but also a theory or philosophy of life.
Its principles and aims are wholly materialistic. It makes earthly
happiness the main purpose and highest ideal to be attained.
I have in mind Socialism as taught by its great promotor, Karl Marx.
Socialism refuses to consider anything beyond the grave It deals
exclusively with things pertaining to this life. It refuses to answer,
nay, it insists that it is not necessary to answer the great question
to every soul: If a man dies, shall he still live? It says we do not
know and it is not worth while investigating. Denying all connection
between morals and religion, it builds its moral life on a weaker
foundation than that built on Christianity. Socialism is selfish.
* * * * *
=Ferguson, Charles.= (Author, Editorial Staff, New York American.)
I am not in favor of Socialism because Socialism is a state of mind in
which men are absorbed in the problem of the division of goods. The
true and wholesome preoccupation of mankind should be the creation of
goods. It is of course important to divide right, but the right
division cannot possibly be worked out until the problem is envisaged
from the engineering point of view. The tools must belong to those who
can use them. And the genius of our redemption requires that all
wealth shall be made fecund or reproductive--that there shall no
longer be any dead wealth--that there shall be nothing but capital and
tools.
* * * * *
=Baxter, James Phinney.= (Author and Ex-Mayor of Portland, Me.)
There is an unchristian Socialism which embodies the spirit of an
utterance all too familiar: "Do to thy neighbor as he does unto you."
It is impatient and intolerant of restraint, and, ignoring individual
freedom, would resort to force to compel men to obey its arbitrary
commands; indeed, it would destroy the fabric of society in the vain
hope of rebuilding a perfect structure upon its ruins. What this
spirit would do for the world may be read in the pages of history. To
achieve its ends, it would employ cruel agencies, and the structure it
would rear would partake of its own imperfections, for the
unchangeable law is, men are known by their works.
May God deliver us from this kind of Socialism, and, in His good time,
establish that, the beauty of which He sent Christ to reveal to men.
(See also "Why I am in Favor of Socialism.")
* * * * *
=Emerson, Samuel Franklin.= (College Professor.)
I am opposed to Socialism because it is a mechanical reconstruction of
society, instead of an organic development.
Because it is an economic readjustment of society instead of morals.
Because it is based upon the essential antagonism of social classes
instead of essential co-operation.
Because it is a passing reaction against the present transitional
system of industry.
Because it fails to recognize the importance of the individual in all
social movements.
Because it would result in a dead social uniformity, instead of a rich
social variety.
Because its ideal is in reality drawn from the mediaeval and
superseded social past, instead of evaluating the forces of the
present.
Because it is saturated with a false and vicious economic philosophy.
Because it misconceives the social function of war, national rivalry
and industrial conflict in the social economy.
Because it fails to evaluate the spiritual forces of society.
* * * * *
=Ellis, George Washington.= (Lawyer and Writer.)
In so far as Socialistic theory is concerned, beginning in Plato's
"Republic," reasserted in Sir Thomas Moore's "Utopia," embraced in
the latter part of the eighteenth century in Europe by Fourier,
Baboeuf, Saint Simon and Cabet, and later in the United States by
Greeley, Dana and Hawthorne, I regard as important contributions to
literature, whose chief value is inspirational rather than practical.
These theories involve such complete reconstruction and reorganization
of society that their attainment are placed far into the indefinite
future, yet their value as social and intellectual ideals serve a very
useful purpose in human progress.
I accept in part what is called Christian Socialism in so far as it
desires to bring more and more the Christ-spirit to bear in the
commercial and business world, but I am opposed to the substitution of
co-operation for competition in the present state of human
development. Co-operation may be all right when society has slowly
developed by evolution up to the point where competition is not needed
to keep economic and social conditions on a natural and normal basis,
but under present conditions it leads to economic monopoly and social
poverty, as a few selfish and commanding industrial spirits get
control of the whole plan of co-operation to the detriment of the
great masses. To prevent this situation competition is the greatest
natural check on monopoly and one of the best protections of the
people. The advocates of this phase of Socialism I think are correct
in their contention that Socialistic schemes will not solve the labor
problems without that inner development through education and applied
Christianity, yet I submit that they are in error when they insist
that the powers of the government should not be invoked except to
remove hostile legislation.
I heartily concur in Professional Socialism, called by Professor Ely,
Socialism of the Chair. It repudiates the doctrine of laisser-faire,
and in the study of political economy adopts the historical method. It
not only repudiates the laisser-faire principle, but it demands the
aid of the State to bring about a better distribution of the products
of labor and capital. It especially desires that the laborer should
have a larger share in the products of his toil, and helps the
solution of the labor problems through the assistance of the
government in factory acts, sanitary measures, public parks,
savings-banks, shortening of the hours of labor, and other similar
measures designed to elevate the laboring people. Such a course I
think is more than justified by the present economic and social
conditions in the United States. The use of machinery has enormously
increased the productive capacity of the laborer for his employer, but
his wages have not increased in proportion as they should. Invention
and machinery have multiplied many times the power of labor, but
capital takes practically all of the product, while the lot of labor
is little better than in the hand-made era. By this I do not mean to
even imply that higher wages would solve the labor problem, and while
it would help some, I wish here little more than to call attention to
this abnormal phase of the economic situations in the more modern
States.
I am opposed to what is known as the Socialism of today which had its
beginning in Frederick Engels and Karl Marx during the last century
and which is now established in both Europe and America, and whose
propaganda has tended to meet with favor and increasing acceptance
during recent years. The central fact of this school is that the means
of production and distribution should be owned by the community and
administered by it. Speaking of Socialism, John Stuart Mill said:
"What is characteristic of Socialism is the joint ownership by all the
members of the community of the instruments and means of production;
which carries with it the consequence that the division of the produce
among the body of owners must be a public act performed according to
rules laid down by the community."
In an address by J.W. MacKail, Socialism is defined as having two
principal divisions, economic and moral; and he sums them up thus:
"On the economic side, its central idea is the communization, the
placing in the hands of the community, under the common control and
for the common good, of the wealth which the community has inherited
or created, and of the machinery for preserving and increasing that
wealth."
"On its moral side, its central idea is the brotherhood of mankind,
and the unimpeded exercise by all of the highest functions and
faculties of which their nature is capable."
The moral side of Socialism as expressed by MacKail is sound and
should be more generally adopted by all enlightened peoples, for it is
essentially Christian in its nature and influence. But, I cannot
bring myself to accept, under my present information and experience,
the economic side of Socialism as defined by either MacKail or Mill.
My reasons for its rejection are many, but I will only give one or two
of the most important.
In the first place, I think that this school of social propagandists
have located what they call the social disease in the wrong portion of
the social body, and thus are offering the wrong remedy. The idea of
the ownership of the means of production and distribution carries with
it too largely the implication that poverty is the chief, if not the
principal, cause of all our social and economic ills. I think this is
a mistake, and too much emphasis is thus placed on this phase of our
social troubles. As a matter of fact, society suffers quite as much,
if not more, from ignorance, crime, intemperance, vice, immorality,
etc. This is more than confirmed by the students of sociology. And
inasmuch as this is the case, the crux of our social problems is much
more than economic, and any social program which therefore, is purely
economic will hardly meet our social requirements. No doubt poverty is
a great source of social misery, but the greatest social wrongs are
not confined to the very poor. More money per capita will doubtless
register some beneficial effects in most of the other departments of
society, and this is likewise true of more per capita intelligence,
morality, practical Christianity, culture, etc. My opinion is that
these social evils can only be removed finally by the development of
the individual on the one hand and society at large on the other,
through the intellectual, moral, religious and economic forces of
society. All the social forces, in the largest sense, must change and
develop human nature, in culture and civilization, and I cannot
believe that the mechanical change of private ownership to community
ownership of the means of production and distribution, would be
sufficient to cure the ills of society or put them on the road to
quicker cure, than they are at present.