What's What in America

by Eugene V. Brewster

PART III.

FALLACY OF THE GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP IDEA.

The doctrine of socialism, which may be defined as government ownership and operation of the means of production, is attractive. Some of our ablest men are numbered among its exponents, and the political parties which advocate socialism, in whole or in part, are growing rapidly.

The theory of socialism is so beautiful and may be so cleverly stated that very few indeed have the acumen to withstand its assaults upon the reason, particularly when only one side of the question is heard. The great mass of our people have refused to accept it, not because they believe it unsound, but because they either do not understand it or are prejudiced and believe it to be some destructive, lawless scheme of the discontented.

The recent coal and railroad strikes, had they long continued and assumed really alarming proportions, would have furnished an almost unanswerable argument in favor of the government ownership idea; and a repetition in these or in some other important industry would perhaps so drive home the conviction that socialism was the only remedy, that for all we could do the elections would be carried by the party advocating those measures, and our present form of government overthrown.

The superficial thinker, upon reading the foregoing pages, will probably arrive at one or two conclusions as to the Trust; either it must be destroyed or it must be taken over by the government. The more thoughtful will conclude that it would not be wise or expedient, even if possible, to destroy the Trust, and his next thought will be in the direction of public ownership. He will say that if the government can operate the Post Office system so successfully it ought to be able to operate the coal mines, the oil fields, the factories and the railroads, just as the cities operate their water works, police department, and in many cases their railroads and gas plants. If he be not too thorough in his reasoning he will conclude that if the government operated the Trusts, all their evil qualities would be eliminated and their good qualities saved. It is a convenient conclusion, yet it is unsound as I shall presently proceed briefly to show.

COMPETITION.

Some writer has said, "Competition gluts our markets, enables the rich to take advantage of the necessities of the poor, makes each man snatch the bread out of his neighbor's mouth, converts a nation of brethren into a mass of hostile, isolated units, and finally involves capital and labor in one common ruin."

Successful competition denies competition, because the successful competitor must destroy his rival, before he can be successful. Competition is the antithesis of co-operation. The one means isolated units, the other an organized combination of units. The Trust method of co-operation, however, while it destroys competition among industries, does not destroy competition among men. Here lies an important distinction which will develop as we proceed.

INSTINCTS.

Contest and rivalry are inherent instincts in all living things,—in vegetable and animal life alike, and this struggle for existence determines which shall survive. The law of survival of the fittest determines which plant, which animal and which man shall succeed. All these are struggling among themselves for supremacy and nature is the supreme arbitrator of the contest. The law of natural selection cannot be overcome. It is as fixed and immutable as the law of gravitation. Men are not born equal. Nature never duplicates, and never creates two things alike. Men are unequal and different in nature, in stature, intellect, frugality, desire, industry, perseverance, hardiness and strength. A wise Creator hath made it so.

Were all men alike they would all want the same thing—to do the same thing, to create the same thing, and to consume the same thing—which would result in chaotic confusion. Again, the inequality of conditions has been one of Nature's greatest and most useful expedients in developing and perfecting the race. To assume an equality among men is to assume that which is impossible and that which would be unwise. It has ever been the struggle for existence which has urged men to move onward with vigorous, earnest and persistent effort. The desire to surpass, to outshine, his fellows has always been and will ever be a potent factor in his development, and when this rivalry is exerted in the struggle for the means of sustenance then does this desire develop into the power that moves the world. Emulation, that milder form of competition, is that which may be said to have for its object of attainment the applause and approval of our fellows. It has no influence in the struggle for bread. The primary desire to sustain life and perpetuate the species is the inherent instinct that gives power to the secondary desire to excel or emulate a rival, and hence bread is the one great objective point. Take away the necessity to struggle for food, clothing and shelter, and you destroy that dynamic power that moves the world.

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP.

If contest and rivalry are inherent instincts, and if the struggle for existence brings out men's best efforts, then, any system which destroys the opportunity for the free exercise of these instincts in such a struggle is at cross purposes with the basic principles of human nature, and is therefore unsound and unscientific.

Socialism presupposes the government's taking over and operating of every farm, factory, railroad, mine, telegraph, trade and industry. The Goulds, the Rockefellers, the Morgans and the Schwabs must then seek government positions with a fixed wage not to exceed the wages of their inferior officers and workmen. If they were then to exercise their marvellous organizing powers, it would no longer be the fear of poverty which now inspires them. They would know that they could no longer aspire to excel their fellows in wealth and social position, and there would no longer be a struggle for existence.

Existence would be for everybody alike who is willing to labor a few hours a day. Food, clothes and shelter would be in abundance for the rich and poor, regardless of one's abilities or attainments. The one great incentive that has always moved men to labor with energy, enthusiasm and persistence will have vanished. The world would soon go to sleep.

OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM.

1. It would create an enormous and dangerous power for the party in control, and would probably perpetuate its control over every industry in the land.

2. It would destroy the instincts of rivalry, contest and competition for the necessaries of life, and that desire to excel and surpass our fellows, which instincts now move the world.

3. It removes the incentives to progress by eliminating the opportunities to acquire individual affluence and social superiority.

4. It would result in stagnation of business.

5. It would cause deterioration in human character because of the removal of the incentive which makes men strive to better themselves mentally, morally and intellectually.

6. It is unscientific in that it does not comprehend the great inequality of men and the necessity for the inequality of conditions.

7. It does not rest upon the fundamental law of natural selection, because it diverts men from their natural callings, since it is the struggle for existence only that determines which is fit to survive, and which is best fitted for certain work.

8. It is impossible of attainment except by confiscation without just compensation to the owners of the enterprises confiscated, and to this, modern civilization would never consent.

9. It would create an industrial machine so colossal, so complicated and so complex that it would be entirely unmanageable.

10. It would result in chaos and confusion because of the assumed equality of very great inequalities.

ARGUMENTS FOR SOCIALISM.

There is much in socialism that is good and true. In fact, it may be that it is nine-tenths true; but the other one-tenth is fatal—it outweighs the other nine-tenths.

I have heretofore in my public life, and could now, set forth many convincing arguments in favor of the government ownership idea. If I did so now it would necessitate answering them by repeating and enlarging upon that which I have just set forth, which is not the purpose of this essay. In my opinion there has been no argument for socialism yet produced that can overcome the force of the foregoing truths.

As times and conditions change, so do opinions, and thus has it been with the writer. Change is the only thing that is constant—strange paradox—and mutability is the one immutable law of the universe.