Why I am opposed to socialism Part 4

Of course, it meant utter stagnation in s.h.i.+pbuilding; it was death to advance an improvement. The Socialist, in his shortsighted and narrow view, aims at the same thing over again, on a universal scale, with all its dire and retrograde results. He would reduce the well-found, well-equipped and speedy vessel to the level of the most lumbering tub in the human fleet.

=Painter, Franklin Verzelius Newton.= (Author and College Professor.)

If Socialism is what its friends say it is, it should be commended; if it is what its enemies say it is, it should be condemned.

In developing a sense of social obligation, Socialism accomplishes a fine work; but in expecting a thorough human reformation from altered social conditions, it betrays the weakness of illiterate credulity.

In seeking greater justice and equality in economic conditions, Socialism rests on a strong moral basis; but in seeking no more than greater material ease and comfort, it betrays the presence of mortality.

In demanding individual sacrifice for the common good, Socialism emphasizes an important duty; but in totally submerging the individual in society, it is guilty of an ancient wrong.

The truths of Socialism are rapidly finding expression in life and government; its errors will prove its ultimate destruction.

The fundamental defect of Socialism is its materialism; for there is that in man which transcends food and raiment.

=Thayer, William Roscoe.= (Historian.)

I am opposed to Socialism because I have seen no explanation by any of its various, and mutually antagonistic advocates, of the way in which it can safeguard the individual. The purpose of life is to produce individuals, each of whom shall be trained to the highest efficiency--manual, intellectual and moral--of which he is capable.

Socialism, having only the welfare of all (an abstraction) in view, must logically slight or suppress the individual. So, logically, it must destroy the family--the unit of civilization--and reduce mankind in their s.e.xual relations below the level of the beasts. What I desire is not crazy Nietzsche's superman--individualism run mad--nor Socialism which denies the individual.

=Nevin, Theodore Williamson.= (Editor.)

I am opposed to Socialism princ.i.p.ally because of its impracticability.

Theoretically it is beautiful, but until human nature changes radically from what it is at present, the plan will not work out in practice. Go into any of the small Socialistic societies, see the petty wrangling, the striving for domination--bossing by the stronger leaders, the self-seeking efforts of all, weak and strong; and it will at once be seen that the theory is not a success there. If not successful in these smaller experiments, how can it be expected to be in the larger field of a nation?

My fear would be that if the system could ever be fastened on the national government (which I consider an impossibility) it would be disastrous--it would take away ambition, it would have a blighting effect on enterprise, and would result in the production of the most intolerant "bosses," great and small that the world has ever seen.

The resultant slavery of the ma.s.ses would be shocking, compared with which the most a.s.serted, so-called slavery under our modern industrial system would be the perfection of freedom.

After all, isn't Socialism, present day Socialism, simply an effort of those that have not, trying to get a share of the possessions of those that have?

=Bigelow, Edward Fuller.= (Lecturer and Writer.)

I am in favor of Socialism in so far as it contains many good ideals, and am against it in so far as the methods of obtaining those ideals are non-existent, indefinite or impracticable. Many harangues by Socialist orators and many tracts, claiming to set forth Socialistic doctrines are mostly vague with omission of all practical methods. It may do for the poet to rave about sailing away to the moon, but if the poet becomes politician he must show the s.h.i.+p and explain how it will make the journey.

=Post, Louis Freeland.= (Editor, The Public, Chicago, Ill.)

I am opposed to Socialism in its economic program because it proposes to suppress compet.i.tion, and in its tactics because it stands for cla.s.s warfare. As to compet.i.tion, I do not believe that it can be suppressed without subst.i.tuting 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 cla.s.s 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 cla.s.s. (See also "Why I Am in Favor of Socialism.")

=Walker, Albert H.= (Lawyer and Author.)

I am opposed to Socialism because it is contrary to nature. In nature, progress results from evolution; and evolution results from fortuitous differentiation and survival of the fittest. Socialism proposes to try to make the unfittest survive, at the expense of the fittest. That also is the proposition of Christianity. But both those systems are contrary to nature in that respect.

=Tutt, John Calhoun.= (Writer.)

Socialism is not feasible. It is a myth of dreamy minds. It has an idealistic atmosphere and is attractive to those who lag in the struggle of life. Its worst feature is that it deceives the people who conscientiously seek relief in it. Its leaders.h.i.+p 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 dest.i.tute.

If Socialism is a legitimate form of government, why have not the forces of government evolved it? The age of experiment has long since pa.s.sed. We have had repet.i.tion over and over again, but no materialization of Socialism. Government is purely human, and until there is a new creation there will never be anything new in government.

=Arford, Fremont.= (Editor, Western Trade Journal, Chicago.)

I am opposed to Socialism because it does not lead to anything practical or concrete. The theories and plans of the great body of Socialists are largely chimerical and do not appeal to my idea of bettering the conditions of which they, and myself as well, complain.

To accomplish what Socialism is attempting to bring about, necessitates a revolution of all that now goes to make up human nature, and nothing short of omnipotence can do this.

=Cavanaugh, John, C.S.C.= (President University of Notre Dame.)

As a philosophy Socialism is hostile to organized government because organized government stands for restraint. Restraint is necessary wherever people live together. Socialism wants a so-called liberty which, in my judgment, is license.

Socialism is opposed to religion for the same reason. Religion teaches man to be patient and Socialism can thrive only where men are discontented.

Socialism is opposed to the home because husband and father in the nature of things are economically dependent upon employers, and it is characteristic of Socialists that they wish to flaunt offence in the face of employers.

Individual Socialists will deny that these charges against Socialism are true. Such individual Socialists are sometimes honest, a fact which only proves that they don't know the inner meaning of Socialism.

Socialistic papers like the New York Call make no pretense of concealing the true meaning of the Socialist philosophy.

As a matter of fact the vast majority of so-called Socialists think it is merely a political plan that concerns only the question of capital and labor and government owners.h.i.+p.

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."