Why I am opposed to socialism

by Unknown

I heartily concur in Professional Socialism, called by Professor Ely, Socialism of the Chair. It repudiates the doctrine of laisser-faire, and in the study of political economy adopts the historical method. It not only repudiates the laisser-faire principle, but it demands the aid of the State to bring about a better distribution of the products of labor and capital. It especially desires that the laborer should have a larger share in the products of his toil, and helps the solution of the labor problems through the assistance of the government in factory acts, sanitary measures, public parks, savings-banks, shortening of the hours of labor, and other similar measures designed to elevate the laboring people. Such a course I think is more than justified by the present economic and social conditions in the United States. The use of machinery has enormously increased the productive capacity of the laborer for his employer, but his wages have not increased in proportion as they should. Invention and machinery have multiplied many times the power of labor, but capital takes practically all of the product, while the lot of labor is little better than in the hand-made era. By this I do not mean to even imply that higher wages would solve the labor problem, and while it would help some, I wish here little more than to call attention to this abnormal phase of the economic situations in the more modern States.

I am opposed to what is known as the Socialism of today which had its beginning in Frederick Engels and Karl Marx during the last century and which is now established in both Europe and America, and whose propaganda has tended to meet with favor and increasing acceptance during recent years. The central fact of this school is that the means of production and distribution should be owned by the community and administered by it. Speaking of Socialism, John Stuart Mill said:

"What is characteristic of Socialism is the joint ownership by all the members of the community of the instruments and means of production; which carries with it the consequence that the division of the produce among the body of owners must be a public act performed according to rules laid down by the community."

In an address by J.W. MacKail, Socialism is defined as having two principal divisions, economic and moral; and he sums them up thus:

"On the economic side, its central idea is the communization, the placing in the hands of the community, under the common control and for the common good, of the wealth which the community has inherited or created, and of the machinery for preserving and increasing that wealth."

"On its moral side, its central idea is the brotherhood of mankind, and the unimpeded exercise by all of the highest functions and faculties of which their nature is capable."

The moral side of Socialism as expressed by MacKail is sound and should be more generally adopted by all enlightened peoples, for it is essentially Christian in its nature and influence. But, I cannot bring myself to accept, under my present information and experience, the economic side of Socialism as defined by either MacKail or Mill. My reasons for its rejection are many, but I will only give one or two of the most important.

In the first place, I think that this school of social propagandists have located what they call the social disease in the wrong portion of the social body, and thus are offering the wrong remedy. The idea of the ownership of the means of production and distribution carries with it too largely the implication that poverty is the chief, if not the principal, cause of all our social and economic ills. I think this is a mistake, and too much emphasis is thus placed on this phase of our social troubles. As a matter of fact, society suffers quite as much, if not more, from ignorance, crime, intemperance, vice, immorality, etc. This is more than confirmed by the students of sociology. And inasmuch as this is the case, the crux of our social problems is much more than economic, and any social program which therefore, is purely economic will hardly meet our social requirements. No doubt poverty is a great source of social misery, but the greatest social wrongs are not confined to the very poor. More money per capita will doubtless register some beneficial effects in most of the other departments of society, and this is likewise true of more per capita intelligence, morality, practical Christianity, culture, etc. My opinion is that these social evils can only be removed finally by the development of the individual on the one hand and society at large on the other, through the intellectual, moral, religious and economic forces of society. All the social forces, in the largest sense, must change and develop human nature, in culture and civilization, and I cannot believe that the mechanical change of private ownership to community ownership of the means of production and distribution, would be sufficient to cure the ills of society or put them on the road to quicker cure, than they are at present.

Moreover, there is danger in the adoption of Socialism in the present state of individual and societary development. In the United States the rise and development of American industry discloses the fact that in most all the lines of business, capital has been organized and so concentrated as not only to crush out competition, but to create such a monopoly as to enable the stockholders and directors to fix such prices to consumers as the big corporations and trusts deem advisable from time to time, not in accord with the laws of supply and demand or the cost of production, but in accord with their desire and ability to command the tribute of the consuming public. The representatives of these large interests, themselves, have combined and through liberal contributions and the influence of their industrial and economic importance have built up a system of political bosses, in complete control of the two dominant old parties, and both the bosses and the interests have united to pervert the local and national governments in the United States from their true functions in the interests of the people to advance and promote the welfare of special interests to the neglect and detriment of the great majority. And thus a few leaders in American industry have secured possession of the great natural resources of the country, have obtained a monopoly of the business opportunities of the great American market, and have utilized the power of the governments to protect their unfair and unjust advantages, in the freest and greatest democracy of the world. The contest to overthrow this sinister and selfish government of the few is exceedingly difficult, because of the minor and supposed divergent and individual interests, social and political divisions of class and party prejudice, and a general intellectual inability of the mass to fully grasp the importance of the problems involved, so essential to that united action on the part of the people, necessary to meet the situation. The people now have the means at their command to have the government administered in their interests and to control those industrial concerns which have proved a menace to the general welfare, but they must be educated as to how to use them. And to place the means of production and distribution into the hands of the community, in the present development of society, is simply to make it easier for the few to exploit the many, and it is especially dangerous because the leaders would have sufficient numbers in their employ and administration to make it next to impossible to dislodge one set when once in power, without a resort to arms and revolution.

The example of the Federal office-holders in the great majority in voting and using their influence to protect their individual positions, without regard to the larger interest of the public, is such as to make all patriotic citizens acquainted with the facts wish and desire that their numbers be not increased to any such extent as would be the case in the community ownership of industry and business. The history of American large cities, shows for the most part, that these urban governments are controlled and administered by one set of selfish political leaders after another, whose power is predicated upon party machinery, held together mainly by party patronage, favoritism and public graft. And thus to put industry and business under the administration of the government is to more than multiply the dangers to the public of those industrial and political leaders, who have made representative government in the United States little more than a mere form.