The Project Gutenberg eBook of Why I Am Opposed to Socialism, by Edward Silvin.

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

Why I Am Opposed to Socialism

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 [6]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.

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: [7]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.

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 [8]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.

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.

I am opposed to Socialism because it would soon [9]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.

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 [10]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.

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 [12]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.

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.

I don't know what you mean by mere "Socialism." I wish [13]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.

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.

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 [14]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.

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.

I am opposed to Socialism because it is unscientific, unwise, [15]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 [16]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.

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.

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.

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 [18]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.")

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.

That day is far distant, and even when it comes the man of brains will assert his individualism.

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.

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. [20]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.

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.

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.

I do not believe in Socialism because I am an individualist. I think that the old American idea is broad enough to admit [21]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.")

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 [22]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.

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.")

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.

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 [24]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.

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 [25]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 [26]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.

The machinery of government which the Socialists propose seems to me 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.")

I am opposed to Socialism because of their inhumanity towards the poor millionaire. In spite of it all, they are our brothers.

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:

[28]"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.

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 [29]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.

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.

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 [30]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?

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.

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.")

I am opposed to Socialism because it is contrary to nature. In nature, progress results from evolution; and [31]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.

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.

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.

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."

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. [33]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!

I am opposed to Socialism because I believe that it attempts to do by legislative enactment, what must come through [34]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.

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.

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.

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.

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 [36]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.

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.

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 [37]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.

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.

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 [38]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.

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.

I am opposed to Socialism because I believe that Socialism is an 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[42]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.

I believe in a more rigid enforcement of our existing laws. They are a precious heritage from our forefathers; a resumé 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."

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:"

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.

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.")

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.

I am opposed to Socialism on account of its attitude to Christianity. Its attitude to Christianity manifests itself in [45]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.

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.

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.

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 [46]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.")

I am opposed to Socialism because it is a mechanical reconstruction of society, instead of an organic development.

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 misconceives the social function of war, national rivalry and industrial conflict in the social economy.

In so far as Socialistic theory is concerned, beginning in Plato's "Republic," reasserted in Sir Thomas Moore's [47]"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 [48]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 [49]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.

Moreover, there is danger in the adoption of Socialism in the present state of individual and societary development. In the United States the rise and development of American industry discloses the fact that in most all the lines of business, capital has been organized and so concentrated as not only to crush out competition, but to create such a monopoly as to [50]enable the stockholders and directors to fix such prices to consumers as the big corporations and trusts deem advisable from time to time, not in accord with the laws of supply and demand or the cost of production, but in accord with their desire and ability to command the tribute of the consuming public. The representatives of these large interests, themselves, have combined and through liberal contributions and the influence of their industrial and economic importance have built up a system of political bosses, in complete control of the two dominant old parties, and both the bosses and the interests have united to pervert the local and national governments in the United States from their true functions in the interests of the people to advance and promote the welfare of special interests to the neglect and detriment of the great majority. And thus a few leaders in American industry have secured possession of the great natural resources of the country, have obtained a monopoly of the business opportunities of the great American market, and have utilized the power of the governments to protect their unfair and unjust advantages, in the freest and greatest democracy of the world. The contest to overthrow this sinister and selfish government of the few is exceedingly difficult, because of the minor and supposed divergent and individual interests, social and political divisions of class and party prejudice, and a general intellectual inability of the mass to fully grasp the importance of the problems involved, so essential to that united action on the part of the people, necessary to meet the situation. The people now have the means at their command to have the government administered in their interests and to control those industrial concerns which have proved a menace to the general welfare, but they must be educated as to how to use them. And to place the means of production and distribution into the hands of the community, in the present development of society, is simply to make it easier for the few to exploit the many, and it is especially dangerous because the leaders would have sufficient numbers in their employ and administration to make it next to impossible to dislodge one set when once in power, without a resort to arms and revolution.

The example of the Federal office-holders in the great majority in voting and using their influence to protect their individual positions, without regard to the larger interest of the [51]public, is such as to make all patriotic citizens acquainted with the facts wish and desire that their numbers be not increased to any such extent as would be the case in the community ownership of industry and business. The history of American large cities, shows for the most part, that these urban governments are controlled and administered by one set of selfish political leaders after another, whose power is predicated upon party machinery, held together mainly by party patronage, favoritism and public graft. And thus to put industry and business under the administration of the government is to more than multiply the dangers to the public of those industrial and political leaders, who have made representative government in the United States little more than a mere form.

Economic Socialism would not only place too large a machine at the disposal of political leaders to be used against the people, but it would stifle initiation and tend too much to hold society in a static condition. Under individual ownership of industry and business, under the laws of legitimate competition, initiation is encouraged by offering increasing rewards to those who adopt new methods and invent new things to advance human welfare by lightening the burdens of life and labor. The spirit of rivalry and competition maintains a constant and steady demand for the best that can be produced for the people in all lines of industry and business, which is among the strongest incentives to new thought and invention. Man is naturally a conservative being and without some stimulant will be content with conditions as they came down to him from the past. It is true that in spite of economic incentives there will appear now and then an individual who is inspired by higher motives for the advancement of the race, but the great masses of the people still require the power and pleasure of possession, individual ownership, and the more material rewards of industry and business. And so it appears to me that Socialism would tend to bring society to a stagnant condition, arrest human progress most seriously, and discourage in the future those human benefactors, who, in the past have blazed the way for the marvelous development and advancement of modern society.

Finally, after waiving many other objections to Socialism, it might be well to observe that in the present state of society, if we were to inaugurate the industrial Socialistic regime, we [52]would have still with us all the great social problems to be solved, perhaps in different form, with some additional ones with entirely new features and surrounded with new conditions. To my mind the different social problems constitute the problem of civilization and through the coming ages must be worked out together. All devices and schemes which do not include the individual development and social progress at large are so much wasted efforts that might be better spent. The final and ultimate solution of all human problems is necessarily educational and will have the best results if society is permitted to evolve in its natural and normal way. All the uplifting forces of society must be utilized to develop the social wants and economic demands of the masses, through increased social and industrial opportunities. The people must be brought into contact with an increasing variety of economic and social phenomena, carrying with the process an ever growing demand for the consumption of the best there is in life and mind. And until the perfection of human nature, every age will have its problems and its vices, in spite of what we think and do.

I am opposed to Socialism because I believe it will have an injurious effect upon the development of individual power and character; since it will withdraw the stimulus to achievement by destroying its rewards, and since it will weaken the attractiveness of virtue by trying to destroy the pains that follow vice. I do not believe that Socialism will develop great individuals like the present conditions even, unjust as many things now are.

I am opposed to Socialism on the other hand because I believe it will be deleterious to society as a whole, because it will eliminate the entrepreneur at the top, and I can conceive of no way whereby at the bottom of the social ladder it can have the disgusting and unpleasant work done, which, however, must be done for the well-being of the race.

I am for "applied Christianity," which in common with Socialism denies the right to use property merely for personal aggrandizement and pleasure.

I am opposed to Socialism because I believe the discontent which it represents can be very appreciably lessened, if not altogether removed, by other means that have not yet been given sufficient trial. Socialism appears to be striving after something unattainable under such a form of government as we deem to be the safest and best. It cannot be made to work out satisfactorily until human nature has changed, and we are not yet near the millennium. Theoretically it is appealing. Practically it is hampered by limitations that suggest economic destruction, both of that which is good and of that which is bad. We are now in the midst of an evolution. The higher moral standards now in the process of establishment should suffice.

Why I Am
Opposed to Socialism

Leading Men and Women

EDWARD SILVIN

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
U.S.A.

Copyright, 1913
By EDWARD SILVIN

INDEX TO AUTHORS

Why I Am Opposed to Socialism

Why I Am Opposed to Socialism

Leading Men and Women

EDWARD SILVIN

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA U.S.A.

Copyright, 1913 By EDWARD SILVIN

INDEX TO AUTHORS

Why I Am Opposed to Socialism

Why I Am
Opposed to Socialism

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
U.S.A.

Copyright, 1913
By EDWARD SILVIN