Fifty years in Wall Street

by Henry Clews

Socialism is self-contradictory, and opposed to deep-rooted and ineradicable human instincts. Its origin is, of course, purely selfish; but there are two kinds of selfishness—the enlightened and unenlightened. Unfortunately, Socialism belongs chiefly to the latter. It is often overlooked that the identical love of gain which seeks to equalize the distribution of wealth will not be satisfied with equality. A desire for gain will still remain and seek to acquire. The most commendable object in Socialism is the uplifting of the down-trodden and poor. Yet that great commoner and tribune of the people, William Jennings Bryan, tells us that under Individualism we have seen a constant increase in altruism. That the fact that the individual can select the object of his benevolence and devote his means to the causes that appeal to him has given an additional stimulus to his endeavors. And Mr. Bryan pointedly asks the question: “Would this stimulus be as great under Socialism?” Let it not be forgotten that by means of present tendencies and existing economic laws the poor are constantly growing richer. They were never so prosperous as to-day. Labor has made great strides, and the uplift in the lower walks of life in all Christendom during the past twenty years has been beyond precedent. Give us wise and just legislation, and complaints about the inequitable distribution of wealth will quickly disappear.

The state of society that the Socialists seek to establish may be beneficial to a class which, under any conditions, lacks frugality, thrift, and self-reliance; but just where the general mass of humanity is to be bettered or elevated, socially, morally, or politically, is a point not satisfactorily explained. A society in which all human beings do right, for the simple reason that it is right, cannot exist unless human nature is recast and reconstructed. Human nature must be treated as it is found in the general makeup of man, and, therefore, a society in which all special desires, all ambition, and all self-esteem have been eliminated, precludes development and progress. It reduces everything to utter shiftlessness and stagnation. In such a Society there can be no incentive to great achievements in art, literature, mechanics, and invention. If all are to be placed on an equal footing, the ignorant with the educated, the dullard with the genius, and the profligate with the provident, what encouragement is there for special effort?

If you render accessible to each and every member of the human family the achievements and benefits of civilization, holding “property in common,” why should a man rack his brain or strain his muscles in producing something which he expects to prove remunerative to himself in some way, but which, under the Socialistic state, would go to the equal financial benefit of all?

Just for a moment, stop to think of the effect of bringing all men as near to a dead level as possible, for I recognize that not even Socialism would secure the equality which it seeks. If one physician is more skilful than another, who could insist that he receive no better reward than the less skilful, when many would be willing to offer it? Or how else could he avoid having all the patients in the community upon his hands except by charging more for his services than an inferior physician? If one lawyer shows greater ability than another, is he not entitled to a larger fee for his talent? And how else is he to protect himself from taking all the business from the lawyer of less ability? Again, if the skill of the cabinet maker is higher and rarer and worth more than that of the carpenter, how can the latter expect the same compensation as the former? To put both on the same plane would be unjust, and would lead to one being compelled to work beyond his strength, while the less skilful would probably be insufficiently occupied. Socialism, you thus see, would often place a premium upon laziness and inefficiency.

Socialism would benefit the shiftless and lazy at the expense of the thrifty and industrious. Is that a good system to advocate and follow? Which of you would be willing to share your hard-won provision for your own family with another family, the head of which you knew to be lazy, incapable, and dissipated? What incentive to struggle would remain if the results of that struggle were to be taken away from you and given to others who sat idly by? What would be the effect upon the United States of throttling the ambition to achieve? Take the necessity of struggle out of life, and we should quickly weaken human nature. Civilization would decline and national decay quickly follow. True, the competitive system works harshly upon the weak and incompetent. This, however, opens a channel for development of benevolence, kindness, and patience, without which human nature would be exceedingly one-sided and forbidding. The indigent, unfortunate, and weak will always be a charge upon the stronger, whether in the family, the municipality, or the state. It is folly to think that life can be lived without struggle; and that is one of the chief delusions of Socialism which would quickly impair our national manhood and endurance. Trouble and pain have their part in the plan of nature.

The Socialist is usually an unfortunate or misled individual. He has probably suffered from reverses or unfortunate environment. He has perhaps been roughly or cruelly handled. Perhaps he cannot get on satisfactorily, or his ambitions have been disappointed. He is then in a condition of discontent ready to swallow Socialistic—or any other—sophistries which hold out the delusive promise of relief.

Socialism attaches too little importance to the fact that men are made with an infinite variety of tastes, abilities, and capacities. No two are precisely alike, and it is utter folly for poor, weak man to undertake to equalize these differences. All progress in history has been made through struggle and sacrifice; and Socialism, no matter how beneficent its intentions, cannot change the inscrutable laws of nature or humanity. All natural laws have their reverse side. Gravitation, which keeps us firm on our feet so long as we are on solid ground, knocks us to pieces if we attempt to walk off a housetop or over the opening of a pit. It is not the natural law, but the attempt to ignore it, that gives us trouble.

I most emphatically assert that we cannot get rid of competition, any more than we can get rid of the law of gravitation.

The American inventor, mechanic, farmer, merchant, and financier, and the worker in every profession, are, every one of them, proud, respectively, of their skill, knowledge, and ability. Their ambition is to excel—to produce the most and best. Experience, enterprise, and courage create opportune conditions most favorable to the State and Nation and to themselves. Each vies with his fellow man in producing the best results, and is always willing to tackle any obstacle—no matter how formidable—that stands in the way of success. In his whole compendium and entire makeup, there is no such word as fail. He aids, by his untiring and individual energy and effort, in making his country the greatest in the whole agricultural, industrial, and financial world. He reaps the reward of industry and accomplishment, and his home is blessed with bounty; and he knows that his children have equal opportunity with himself to learn and to achieve.

Shall he be asked to tolerate, or consider, the sacrifice of all these things, so dear to him, for Socialism?