What is the sum and substance of the Socialists’ grievance? They see only evil in what is really good government, and none are so blind as those who will not see.

They claim to be dissatisfied with the existing order of things. But what remedies that are not revolutionary do they prescribe for the cure of existing social and political ills? The fact is that many Socialists at heart are anarchists!

In almost every instance you will find among the rabble at a Socialist meeting some honest but mistaken theorists, who plausibly find fault not only with the conduct of our government, but with the very form of our government itself, and picture, under the delusion they cherish, an utterly impossible Utopia where—

“The people all are blessed

And the weary all have rest.”

These visionaries are reinforced by pretended reformers and professional agitators, often of great persuasive powers, who appeal strongly to the passions and prejudices of the ignorant people of various nationalities who are made to imagine that they are still down-trodden. Here, in my opinion, lies a real menace and danger—that of these people being carried away by the power and passion of such appeals, the inflammatory utterances of reckless demagogues and firebrands. They are the public enemies we have most need to guard against.

The path of safety lies in standing ready to discuss every proposition which they advance, and then refute, with cool reasoning and argument, the fallacy and falsity of their position and the destructive doctrines they teach.

It will also be very noticeable that the people comprising the Socialistic audiences at such meetings are mostly foreigners who, seeking better social and political environments, emigrated to America, a large part of them within the past decade or two. As discontented aliens they become as dangerous as the firebrands they listen to, but there is no spirit of self-sacrifice among them. Moreover, they are slaves to what is worst in Socialism and blind followers of a false god!

That this peculiar condition of things should exist in this country seems almost paradoxical. It is something that a patriotic American cannot tolerate, and mainly an outcome of Russian oppression, imported by those who have fled from it, and who fail to understand or appreciate the new conditions under which they live. We can well understand and appreciate how, in a country ruled by a despot, whose heel of oppression and tyranny is ever on the necks of the down-trodden people, the masses, desiring some measure of free action and equality, would revolt against these conditions, and seek a reorganization of society. They would, naturally, look as far away as they could from such a government of despotism—the only one they had ever known—to the other extreme—an imaginary country where the State should own all the land and capital, employ all the people and divide everything, share and share alike, among the community. Such a government will, of course, never exist. It is simply impossible.

But the spirit of revolt, which, in that case, may be patriotism, becomes ridiculous, and open to the charge of insincerity, when its worst doctrines are transplanted and cultivated upon American soil by our foreign population. When it appears here it is really more like Anarchism than Socialism, and I emphasize this.