In other words, they stand for the principle that might makes right, and as you know, John, might doesn’t do anything of the kind. In taking this position, Socialism proposes to violate natural right. A majority might do this; a majority might compel a minority to relinquish the rights that are inherent in natural law; but Socialism has no more right to do this thing than it has to re-establish slavery. Natural right does not depend upon a vote of a majority, but is grounded on primary law, and is eternal, no matter what majorities may say to the contrary.
That the contrary is the position of Socialists upon this question is fully attested by that eminent apostle of Socialism, Eugene V. Debs. In The International Socialist Review (February, 1912), Debs says:
“As a revolutionist, I can have no respect for capitalist property laws, nor the least scruple about violating them. I hold all such laws to have been enacted by chicanery, fraud and corruption, with the sole end in view of dispossessing, robbing and enslaving the working class. But this does not imply that I propose making an individual law-breaker of myself and butting my head against the stone wall of existing property laws. That might be called force, but it would not be that. It would be mere weakness and folly. If I had the force to overthrow these despotic laws, I would use it without an instant’s hesitation or delay, but I haven’t got it, and so I am law-abiding under protest—not from scruple—and bide my time.”
That the great majority of Socialists take the same position upon the question of confiscation will scarcely be denied by those who are at all familiar with the Socialist trend of thought. That they are serious in their effort to incite disrespect for all property laws is shown by the efforts that are made to teach the children in their Sunday schools that all rent, profit and interest are no more than so many forms of robbery. “The Red Catechism,” used in Socialist schools, holds up to execration all those who are supposed to stand in the way of the revolution. They are referred to as the “landlord class” and the “capitalist class,” and in these categories everybody is included who owns anything, however little, or who employs another person for a wage, even though it be but the bellows-boy or a humble dressmaker’s assistant. Thus, “The Red Catechism” asks:
“When would Socialists allow anyone to have a machine?”
“When a person can use a machine for her own use. For instance, Socialists would let a dressmaker have a machine for her own work, but not for the purpose of employing others to exploit and rob them,” is the answer.
How craftily the Socialist school-teachers impart their philosophy of destruction to the boys and girls who are so unfortunate as to come within their sphere of influence is told by a story, the truth of which is vouched for by the special commissioners of the London Standard—a paper which recently conducted a painstaking investigation of the menacing character of Socialism.
A well-known Socialist speaker and writer was addressing a meeting in Islington, attended chiefly by children. A portion of his address ran somewhat as follows:
“The most interesting event of the week has been the train murder, of which most of you have no doubt heard. Two men were seated in a railway carriage. The one was rich; he had a diamond pin in his tie, a thick gold chain across his waistcoat, money jingled in his pockets when he moved. The other was poor, miserably poor; he wanted money for everything—food, clothes, lodging. He asked the rich man to give him of his superfluity; the rich man refused and so the poor man took by force what he could not get by entreaty, and in the use of that force—the only effective argument which the poor possess—the rich man was killed. The shedding of blood is always to be deplored, but there are times when it is warranted. Violence is a legitimate weapon for the righting of social wrongs.”
The address over, the lecturer went about among the children questioning them with the object of finding out whether they had grasped the meaning of his address. To a bright intelligent girl of twelve, he said: