Penrose, Stephen Beasley Linnard.(President, Whitman College.)
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.
Kizer, Edwin Dicken.(College President.)
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.
Brazier, Marion Howard.(Journalist and Lecturer.)
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 schemesfor 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.")
Purrington, William Archer.(Lawyer and Author.)
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.
Socialism will be practicable, if ever, only when
"The roughs, as we call them, grown loving and dutiful,Worship the true and the good and the beautiful.And preying no longer, as tiger and vulture do,Read the Atlantic, as persons of culture do."
"The roughs, as we call them, grown loving and dutiful,Worship the true and the good and the beautiful.And preying no longer, as tiger and vulture do,Read the Atlantic, as persons of culture do."
That day is far distant, and even when it comes the man of brains will assert his individualism.
Screws, William Wallace.(Editor The Montgomery Advertiser.)
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.
Burke, John Butler, M.A.(Author and Scientist.)
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.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.
Hastings, William Granger.(Lawyer.)
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.
Jefferys, Upton S.(Editor, Post-Telegram, Camden, N.J.)
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.
Beard, Daniel Carter.(Author and Artist.)
I do not believe in Socialism because I am an individualist. I think that the old American idea is broad enough to admitof 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.")
Ladd, Horatio Oliver.(Clergyman. Author and Educator.)
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 effortand 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.
Levermore, Charles Herbert.(Educator and Author.)
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.")
Bell, Mackenzie.(Poet, Critic and Lecturer.)
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.
Binney, Charles Chauncey.(Lawyer and Author.)
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 ofSocialists, 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.
Wilson, Alonzo Edes.(Editor and Lecturer.)
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 liquortraffic 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 inthe 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.
Andrews, Martin Register.(College Professor and Editor.)
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.")
Allen, Alfred.(Playwright and Author.)
I am opposed to Socialism because of their inhumanity towards the poor millionaire. In spite of it all, they are our brothers.
Owen, Douglas.(Author, Barrister and Lecturer.)
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:
"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.
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 inlife 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 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.
Nevin, Theodore Williamson.(Editor.)
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 andsmall 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?
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 ship 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 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.")
Walker, Albert H.(Lawyer and Author.)
I am opposed to Socialism because it is contrary to nature. In nature, progress results from evolution; andevolution 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 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.
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 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."
Barr, Granville Walter.(Writer.)
The accomplishment of ethics by the enactment of laws always fails, and always will fail, except in those cases where there is a strong trend of public opinion to the same end.There are places where murder is not punished, and other places where only certain forms of murder are punished; as there are places where the sale of alcoholic liquors and gambling are utterly prevented by the punishment of all who commit these acts contrary to law. Socialism is a program of law far ahead of the public opinion of today in this country. Therefore it cannot effect itself here and now. There may be in the future a time and place where it will be effective, and then its laws will be beneficent.
But only under the conditions stated, will it be harmless. The greatest evil in America today is the non-enforcement of laws. Any law not enforced, because contrary to public opinion in the governmental unit involved, becomes malevolent in its effects. In one city whose people believe liquors should be sold, saloons flourish in spite of a State statute prohibiting them, because conviction of saloon keepers is impossible in that bailiwick; thirty years of this state of affairs has produced a generation of young men who firmly believe that laws are made to be enforced or disregarded at will—who are germinating the seeds of anarchy. To enact a 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!