Bryan Suggests that "Individualism"
Best Defines Limit to Be Set
on Socialistic Tendencies.
A tendency toward factional alignment at present characterizes the radical
movement which has been sweeping over the country. The different elements
of that movement are beginning to offer their individual claims for
recognition. At this juncture William Jennings Bryan contributes to the
_Century_ an important article on "Individualism _versus_ Socialism," in
which he seeks to dispel the fogs which have enveloped the economic
situation. First, he defines the two terms opposed in his title:
For the purpose of this discussion individualism will be
defined as the private ownership of the means of production
and distribution where competition is possible, leaving to
public ownership those means of production and distribution
in which competition is practically impossible; and
socialism will be defined as the collective ownership,
through the state, of all the means of production and
distribution.
Mr. Bryan points out that much of the strength shown by socialism is due
to the fact that "socialists advocate certain reforms which individualists
also advocate."
Take, for illustration, the public ownership of water-works;
it is safe to say that a large majority of the people living
in cities of any considerable size favor their public
ownership--individualists because it is practically
impossible to have more than one water system in a city, and
socialists on the general ground that the government should
own all the means of production and distribution. Then, too,
some of the strength of socialism is due to its condemnation
of abuses which, while existing under individualism, are not
at all necessary to individualism--abuses which the
individualists are as anxious as the socialists to remedy.
It is not only consistent with individualism, but is a
necessary implication of it, that the competing parties
should be placed upon substantially equal footing; for
competition is not worthy of that name if one party is able
arbitrarily to fix the terms of the agreement, leaving the
other with no choice but to submit.
The civil service, says Mr. Bryan, is our nearest approach to ideal
socialism. Does it afford a stimulus to the higher development of the
civil servants?
Justice requires that each individual shall receive from
society a reward proportionate to his contribution to
society. Can the state, acting through officials, make this
apportionment better than it can be made by competition? At
present official favors are not distributed strictly
according to merit, either in republics or in monarchies; it
is certain that socialism would insure a fairer division of
rewards? If the government operates all the factories, all
the farms, and all the stores, there must be superintendents
as well as workmen; there must be different kinds of
employment, some more pleasant, some less pleasant. Is it
likely that any set of men can distribute the work or fix
the compensation to the satisfaction of all?
At present private monopoly is putting upon individualism an
undeserved odium, and it behooves the individualist to
address himself energetically to this problem in order that
the advantages of competition may be restored to industry.
And the duty of immediate action is made more imperative by
the fact that the socialist is inclined to support the
monopoly, in the belief that it will be easier to induce the
government to take over an industry after it has passed into
the hands of a few men.
In the substance of his opinion Mr. Bryan's "individualism" does not seem
to be very far removed from Fabian socialism--or at least not from such
socialism as is expressed, say, by Robert Hunter, who said not long ago,
while speaking about the problems of poverty:
I have been asked if I think socialism is the cure for these
evils. As we do not know what state socialism would bring
about, we cannot say. But I am sure that certain socialistic
measures are necessary. We need municipal tenements, as they
have in Liverpool, Birmingham, and London, where the
children will have healthful surroundings, plenty of places
to play, and there are no landlords to exact profits.
Other places have nationalized the coal fields, and the poor
get coal at cost. At Rochester, in England, the death-rate
has been cut down one-half by the municipalization of the
milk-supply, and the children of the poor, instead of the
pale-blue poison they used to have, get a fine, healthful
food. These are socialistic measures, and every advance we
make is toward socialism.