Why I am opposed to socialism Part 5

=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 ma.s.s 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 const.i.tution and inst.i.tutions while they have nothing practicable to subst.i.tute 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--G.o.d 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 att.i.tude toward liberty and self-government. By means of national citizens.h.i.+p 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.

=Wilc.o.x, 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 s.h.i.+ft 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 acc.u.mulated a little capital. However, I can understand that this capital might be held co-operatively by the laborers as it is in some inst.i.tutions, 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 owners.h.i.+p, 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 cla.s.s hatred and all arrangements, political and social, for securing and promoting cla.s.s 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 owners.h.i.+p and operation by the State of the princ.i.p.al 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 guardians.h.i.+p 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 trustees.h.i.+p, 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 owners.h.i.+p; 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 ent.i.tled to all he can possess through honest efforts. I do not believe in government owners.h.i.+p 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 ma.s.s philosophy, Socialism must logically strive to sacrifice the individual to that ma.s.s. I hold that it is only through the channels of a free, n.o.ble, self-restrained individualism that man may naturally attain to his supreme development in happiness, culture and power.

Theoretical Socialism is a splendid fallacy that s.h.i.+nes 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 ma.s.s or democracy, which in turn is based upon certain fallacies of Christianity.