BY S. SHELL "Let every Catholic give one-tenth the interest, enthusiasm and support to Social Reform that the typical Comrade gives to Socialism, and the solution of the Social Problem will be a mere matter of time." OUR SUNDAY VISITOR PRESS Huntington, Indiana ^.|.. |ot l, t .» tM^M^Mt .> t '» :" ^ < '»^i a '' l '' ^ '^''^'|i>I " l' ^ «^'^' a ' ^ ■> ^ ' ^ ■^4'' t '4i»'^^ " l^» BY S. SHELL **Let every Catholic give one-tenth the interest, enthusiasm and support to Social Reform that the typical Comrade gives to Socialism, and the solution of the Social Problem will be a mere matter of time." OUR SUNDAY VISITOR PRESS Huntington, Indiana 4> » » » ♦ < ■ » <■ »t . >!■ > t' ' I ' 't' ' I ' >t' ' t ' 'I' ■ ! »|.« | « il .. ! >» l . >| >» t"l ' »4 '» l ' » l' » » l ' a . 4 .. i ,4.» | . ^ .| i . | .4.4i. fr TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page L What Socialism Is Not, The Climax Building Concern — Government Ownership of Public Utilities —Social Reform— A Wolf in Sheep's Clothes 6 II. Socialism Defined, Socialism as an Economic System — A New Basis — Highway Robbers of Capitalism — Frightful Waste — Architects at Loggerheads 7 III. Contractors Non-plussed. Little Details — Getting Control — Concentration of Wealth and Industries — Purchase — Confiscation — Revolution 10 IV. Problem of the Superintendent. Socialism Inevitable? — Working-plan — One Management Throughout — A Tremendous Problem — Height of Folly — Postoffice — Army of Unpro- ductive Laborers 13 V. Problems of the Assistant Superintendents. Present Conditions Intolerable — Decapitation: a Cure for Headache — Regulating Production — Concentration of Dissatisfaction — ^Absolute Necessity of Accurate Estimates— An Arithmetical Problem — ^Socialist Waste — A Miracle 16 VI. Problems of the Foreman. A Catchy Question — Personal Interest — A Beautiful Dream — Assigning Jobs — Dirty Work — Automatic Adjustment — Whole Tendency Down- ward and Backward 19 VII. Problems of the Paymaster. Foolish Questions — Labor-Check — Remuneration of Labor — Legalized Robbery — Labor-Product — Oh! so Simple — Labor the Only Source of Wealth 21 VIII. Socialism and Liberty in the Light of History. Next Step in the Evolution of Human Society — A New Argument — Over One Hundred Socialist Experiments Failures— Blind Faith— Straight- jacket of Socialism — Irresponsible Democracy — Reign of Terror — New Australia — History and Experience 24 IX. Socialism and Liberty in the Light of Theory. Absolutistic Grovernment — Inefficiency and Graft in Government Admin- istration — Well Cared-for Slaves — Greed and Selfishness — Finer In- stincts—Who Join?— Who Shun the Socialist Party? 26 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM, I X. Socialism and Liberty in the Light of Present Day Experience. Review of Socialist Leaders — Gathering Grapes of Thorns — Leaving the Clouds of Theory and Speculation — Socialist Wire Pulling — Socialist Referendums — Socialist Steam Roller and Bossism — Boards of Arbi- tration — Freedom of Press — Legalized Ferocity 28 XL Socialism and the Family. Exaggerations — Ignorance and Gullibility of the Comrades — Free Lust — Socialist Authorities — Garbled Quotations? — John Spargo's Methods.. 31 XIL American Socialists and Free Love. Attitude of Socialist Party — American Socialist Writers — Morris Hillquit's .Strict Monogamy — ^Sexual Promiscuity — "By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them" — A Revoltingly Immoral Movement — Responsibility of the Individual 34 XIII. Socialism and Religion. Why Catholics Oppose Socialism — Is Socialism Merely an Economic System? — Spargo's Deceptive Parallel — The Last Appeal — History of the Plank on Religion — Mendacity and Hypocrisy — Policy and Ex- pediency vs. Truth and Honesty — Q. E. D 37 XIV. The Catholic Church and the Toilers. Why Is a Socialist? — Catholics Lead in the Fight Against Socialism — Socialism the Laborer's Enemy — Disrupts His Unions — Robs His Money — Opposes His Interests — Debases His Nature — Positive Work of the Church for the Laborer — His Greatest Benefactor. 40 XV. Specific Application of Catholic Principles. Social Problem Defined — Catholic Principles and Production — Economy and Efficiency — The Goal — Catholic Principles and Distribution — Justice and Charity — Protecting the Laborer — Curbing the Power of the Rich — Catholic Social Activities — Social Sense — School — Plat- form — Press — Catholic Federation — Individual Responsibility 42 Nihil Obstat RT. REV. MON. OECHTERING, V. G. Censor IMPRIMATUR ^ HERMAN J. ALERDING Bishop of Fort Wayne PREFACE. The dialog on Socialism which is Herewith submitted to the reader, first appeared in "Our Sunday Visitor." It contains nothing new or startling, btit much that is crude and imperfect and would, therefore, not have been given a permanent form had not the writer been urged thereto by the Reverend Editor of "Our Sunday Visitor" and by many readers, both clerical and lay. The writer freely acknowledges his indebtedness to existing works on Socialism and Social Reform, particu- larly to the writings of Rev. Victor Cathrein, S. J., Rev. John A. Ryan, D. D., John Graham Brooks, Richard Ely, etc. He also wishes to express his gratitude to the many readers of "Our Sunday Visitor" who assisted him with their encouraging words and valuable suggestions, especi- ally to the Reverend Pastor of St. Mary's, Granville, New York, Rev. M. L. Merns. S. SHELL. Jones anb ^mitf) J^iscuss 1. What Socialism Is Not. The Climax Building Concern — Government Ownership of Public Utilities — Social Reform — A Wolf in Sheep's Clothes. SOCIALIST. — Jones, yqu're a fool, the biggest fool on the face of the earth. By voting a capitalist ticket, the Republican or Democratic ticket, you're vot.ng for capitalism and that means you're voting for the exploita- tion of the working class; you're voting for the continuance of the unspeak- able misery and suffering * * * CATHOLIC. — Just a minute. Smith. I've heard that sort of talk a good many times. Let me give you my position in the matter. I've got a house down there on Sixth street, and I'm not altogether satisfied with it. It's too cold in winter and too hot in summer; the kitchen is too small, the cellar loo low, there's no bath-room in it, and so on. Now suppose some fine day a gentleman should come along and say to me: "Mr. Jones, I understand you're dissatisfied with your house. Now, I have a proposition for you. I represent the Climax Building Concern, and my firm is willing to tear down your shack, that's really what your "house" is, and replace it with a home that is better equipped and arranged than any in the city. All we ask of you, is to lend us a little help in pulling down your shanty." Smith, what would you advise me to do under those circumstances? SOCIALIST. — Jones, I understand what you're driving at. That Climax Building Concern stands for the Socialist party. I'm the repre- sentative. The shack you're living in is capitalism and when I ask you to vote the Socialist ticket, I am asking you to help us pull down your shanty and in return we promise to build the best arranged and equipped home in history, that is, the Cooperative Commonwealth. Did I get you? CATHOLIC. — Perfectly. But now, how about your advice? SOCIALIST. — Very simple. Investigate the proposition, Jones. In- vestigate! CATHOLIC. — You wouldn't think it strange if I were a little suspicious, if I thought of a gold brick, if I were very cautious, would you? SOCIALIST. — Not at all. We Socialists want you to consider our proposition very carefully; we want you to examine it very closely, and only after you are satisfied that Socialism is all we claim it to be, do we / want you to join our ranks, not a minute sooner. I am here to help you in your investigation. CATHOLIC. — All right. Smith. It won't hurt to investigate. Now, 6 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. will you please tell me, just in a general sort of a way, what that new home of mine is going to look like? What do you mean by Socialism? SOCIALIST. — Jones, put it here! Tm glad to find you so fair-minded. And now for your question. By Socialism I mean municipal ownership of water-works, lighting systems, gas and electric, of the street car lines; I mean government ownership of the railroads, telegraph and telephone lines and of the express services. CATHOLIC. — Now, Smith, don't try to slip one over on me like that. You make me think of the rooster that appropriated the peacock's feathers. Government ownership of public utilities was known and advocated before your party ever came into existence and is no more Socialistic than eating or drinking. When Lueger and his Catholic party obtained a majority In the city council of Vienna they municipalized the lighting and traction systems and built a city slaughter house. SOCIALIST. — Do you mean to say that the Socialist party does not stand for those measures I mentioned? CATHOLIC. — Not at all. What I wish to say and what I mean to insist on is this, that they are not distinctively Socialistic, that they are not Socialism. They are merely a bait to attract ai^d inveigle the workmen into your party. And, believe me. Smith, you Socialists have a big variety and a big supply of bait. I'll only give a few samples: Socialism means economic justice; it stands for a shorter working day and a bigger pay envelope, for clean politics, for sanitary factories, mills and workshops, for the abolition of child-labor; it stands for decent and comfortable homes. ♦ ♦ ♦ SOCIALIST.— And so it does! It stands for all those things. What is there wrong in telling that to the workers? CATHOLIC. — Smith, let me tell you a story. A Protestant minister wa» sent by a missionary society to a village in the Philippine Islands to preach the "unadulterated gospel" to the poor benighted Catholic natives. The pastor of the parish had been killed in the revolution and, in conse- quence, the people were without a shepherd. When the minister arrived in their midst they asked him what religion he professed. "I profess and teach," he answered, "the only true religion — the religion of Jesus Christ. I teach that there is one God, the Creator of the universe. I teach all that is contained in the Holy Bible, the ten commandments, just those things, as you see, which you believe." The simple unsuspecting people, anxious to obtain the ministrations of a priest, were led to believe that the preacher was of their own faith. They took him in, put the church and parsonage at his disposal and flocked together from all sides to hear the word of God. At first, the minister dwelt only on the doctrines common to Catholics and Protestants, but gradually he poisoned the hearts and minds of his hearers with Protestant prejudices, and succeeded so well that the majority were lost completely to the old faith. Smith, tell me candidly, what do you think of such tactics? JONES AND SMITH Discuss SOCIALISM. 7 SOCIALIST.— Why, that minister was a wolf in sheep's clothes. I condemn those tactics absolutely. CATHOLIC— Well, my good man, I*m afraid you'll have to condemn a large number of your comrades; you'll have to condemn yourself. Con- sciously or unconsciously, you Socialists employ the very same, frequently much worse, tactics. You hold back from the unsuspecting inquirer every, feature of your system that might shock his Christian sense of ju&tice and morality and make him believe that Socialism means certain reform measures which are not distinctively Socialistic, which your party in Germany for a long time opposed with tooth and nail. And when you finally succeed in trapping your victim, by fair means or foul, you inoculate him with the poison of discontent, infidelity and hatred of religion. And when the poison has taken effect, he is ready to be instructed in the real meaning of Socialism. Smith, I've seen this done hundreds of times. II- " Socialism Defined. Socialism as an Economic System — A New Basis — Highway Robbers of Capitalism — Frightful Waste — Architects at Loggerheads. SOCIALIST. — Jones, you're judging us altogether too harshly. There is absolutely no reason why we Socialists should resort to those wolf tactics. Socialism a system so grand and so noble that we Comrades can glory in every one of its principles, and in all its aspirations and ideals. CATHOLIC. — Well, then. Smith, why in the name of honest cammon sense don't you Socialists answer our question candidly? Why do you say that Socialism means government ownership of public utilities, that it means social reforms such as the eight-hour working day, abolition of child labor, liability insurance, old age pensions, sanitary workshops, and so on, when these measures are not Socialistic at all? SOCL\LIST. — Come on, Jones, there is no use getting excited. I see now what you're after. You want the fundamental principle, the central dis- tinguishing idea of Socialism. All right. Here it is: common ownership of the means of production and distribution. CATHOLIC. — This definition considers Socialism only as an economic system. Would you please explain your definition? SOCIALIST. — Very gladly. Socialism wants the people at large to own and operate the means of production and distribution. By means of pro- duction we understand all those establishments in which needful things are produced, as factories, mills, mines, quarries, farms, etc.; by means of distribution we understand the establishments that are used in distributing needful things, such as railroads, canals, ships, warehouses, stores, etc. CATHOLIC. — ^And what do you expect from such an arrangement? SOCIALIST. — Why, the solution of all our social problems. The laborer .8 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. ^ill get SL square deal; he will receive the full social value of the wealth he oreates. The Collective Commonwealth will do away with the unspeakable misery and suffering of the working class; it will stamp out poverty, slums, €hild-labor. white slavery, unsanitary living and working conditions, starva- tion wages, in a word — all the wretchedness to which over one-half of us working men are subject. CATHOLIC. — And why would these grand results follow? SOCIALIST. — Simply because all our industries would be run on an altogether different basis. Now they are run for private gain, then they will be run for the common good. You will get a slight idea of the big differ- •ence if you compare the shoe factory in which you are working with the post-office. The shoe factory is run to make money for the capitalist and money can be made only by keeping down wages and keeping up the price of the shoes. You, the working men, are fleeced when you make the shoes and you're fleeced again when you buy the very shoes you made. Now let me take you over to the post-office and show you how that is run. The government is not in business to make money, but simply and solely to help the people. The postmaster-general is not continually planning how to raise the rates of postage and lower the wages of his employees, but he is plan- ning how he can do the very opposite. And he succeeds in satisfying his employees on the one hand and the public on the other, just because he doesn't have to pay millions of dollars tribute to the highway robbers of Capitalism and other millions for frightful waste connected with competition which our privately owned industries must pay. CATHOLIC. — I see the big difference between the Socialist idea of run- ning industries and the one according to which they are run now. But would you kindly explain what you mean by those highway robbers and that fright- ful waste? SOCIALIST. — We Socialists call those men robbers who do not work, either by hand or brain, for the money they get. You have a nicer name for that class of people; you call them capitalists. Well, there is no place for such dead-beats in the Collective Commonwealth. We will tolerate no rob- bery, call it dividends, profit, rent or interest — ^^and now for the frightful waste. When you take up your magazine at home and see those hundreds of advertisements, do you ever ask yourself who pays for them? Do you know that a single soap company (Pears) spends close to $700,000 a year for advertising, that the Postum Cereal Company spends a million dollars a year for the same purpose? These two instances give you a very faint idea of the enormous sums that are spent each year by private industries for advertising. And now if you analyze advertising you will be forced to admit that it represents practically a sheer waste of time, energy and millions upon millions of dollars. In the Collective Commonwealth there will be no such waste, because there will be only one company, and therefore no competition which is the only reason why firms advertise. CATHOLIC. — I must admit that there is a frightful waste in connection with advertising. JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 9 SOCIALIST. — Well, Jones, there are other causes of waste in our present system of planless production, which are even more frightful. Take our army of commercial travelers, drummers, agents and so on, take the upkeep of competing establishments, one-half of which could produce and distribute all the products we need, take the immeasurable amounts of goods produced in excess of our needs which remain unsold and are spoiled — what a shame- less, frightful waste! When I think of the millions upon millions of dollars wasted in these various ways each year and remember that over one-half of our working people do not even get a living wage, Jones, my blood begins to boil. Do you understand now, why I am a Socialist? Do you under- stand now, why we Socialists want to put an end to the present capitalist system with its robbery and waste, and why we want to introduce the Collective Commonwealth with its justice and economy? CATHOLIC. — I understand you thoroughly, but I do not agree with you in all your statements. I admit our working class must bear untold misery, suffering and injustice, but I do not believe that Socialism is the remedy. I cannot allow that interest-taking is robbery, nor do I grant that the waste you refer to is as great as you would have me believe. However, we can discuss these points more profitably some -other time. All I wish to do just now is to examine the rough outline you gave me of the Collective Commonwealth and to ask you a few questions. SOCIALIST. — You're welcome to ask any questions you wish. CATHOLIC. — Very well. Do you want the government to own ALL the means of production and distribution? SOCIALIST.— Yes, all the means. CATHOLIC. — But isn't it true that a large percentage of present-day Socialists do not agree with you on this point? Isn't it true that they want to socialise only the *'large scale industries" as your Indianapolis program puts it? SOCIALIST. — That's true. But a larger percentage of Socialists are opposed to such an arrangement. Such half and half measures are more contemptible than the present organized robbery of capitalism. Such a hybrid Socialism will never remedy existing evils and will defeat its own purpose. Give an inch to capitalism and it will widen into a mile before you know it. CATHOLIC. — And then, Smith, isn't it true, too, that many Socialists want to socialise private property too, I mean houses, furniture, etc.? SOCIALIST. — Those are fools, those aren't Socialists. CATHOLIC. — Say, Smith, the fact that you Socialists are divided on the fundamental principle of your system is surely no recommendation for your plan. To apply the example of the Climax Building Concern to the present sicuation, I would say that the ARCHITECTS CANNOT AGREE. One faction claims that the new house must be three stories high if it is to satisfy the requirements and that no other kind of a structure can possibly foot the bill. A second faction calls the first a pack of fools and assures us that a three-story house would crumble to pieces in a year. The archi- 10 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. tects of this set maintain that the new home must be a two-story structure. Now comes a third faction of architects who boldly tell us that both the three-story and two-story advocates are dreamers and sons of dreamers. They are most emphatic in their assertion that the building-material on hand will not allow you to go beyond the first story. Now, honest. Smith, no matter how inviting and alluring the promises of Socialism may be, when I find that you Socialists are fighting and quarreling among yourselves about your fundamental principle, that you call one another fools and dreamers, do you really think it would be a wise move for me to risk even one dollar or one vote on your party? Must you not admit that I have a very serious reason for suspecting that YOUR PROMISES ARE EMPTY PROMISES, that your plans at best are plans and nothing else? IIL Contractors Non-plussed. Little Details — Getting Control — Concentration of Wealth and Industries — Purchase — Confiscation — Revolution. SOCIALIST. — I must admit, Jones, that you have reasons to be cautious and I want you to be cautious about joining the Socialist Party. But don\ let those little differences which you find among us frighten you too much. It's up to you to examine the merits of the various factions, select the one that seems best, then put your shoulder to the wheel and help us to victory. Yes, I meaa my faction, because we are the only true, genuine Socialists. CATHOLIC. — Smith you're a shrewd fellow, a real Socialist. The greatest difficulties of your system can't bother you in the least. Well, all right, I'll examine your faction. So you want the government to own ALL the means of production, don't you? SOCIALIST.— Yes, all of them. CATHOLIC. — I bought my wife a sewing-machine some time ago. That's a means of production. Would she be allowed to keep it? SOCIALIST. — Ahem — If she doesn't use it to make money, I would let her keep it. CATHOLIC. — So, she wouldn't be allowed to make a dress for any of her neighbors and charge for it? SOCIALIST.— Well, ahem, oh! that's one of those little details which we cannot settle so far ahead. You must remember, Jones, let us control the big industries and the little details will take care of themselves. CATHOLIC. — You've forgotten all about the inch widening into a mile. Well, in regard to the big industries, factories, workshops, etc., let me ask you, how do you intend to get control of them? You don't suppose that the owners will hand them over to the government of their own accord, do you? SOCIALIST. — Now, Jones, that looks to be a mighty big problem to you; but, really, study it a little bit, and you will find that it is a very simple JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 11 one after all. You must know from your own experience that the poor are becoming poorer right along, and that the rich are becoming richer. All the wealth of the country and all the industries are gradually being gobbled up by the capitalists. Now, this process will continue until all the industries are in the hands of just a few persons, when the transfer you asked about will be made without difficulty. CATHOLIC. — Gee, that's as simple as rolling off a log. But look here, Smith, I don't know from experience that the poor are getting poorer. I know that I am a good deal better off now than I ever was before, and that I have ten dollars where my father had one, when he came from the old country. And I know that to be tue case with all my friends and relatives who are steady, sober and willing to work. SOCIALIST. — Well, you may not know it from your experience. It's limited after all. But take statistics. CATHOLIC— Will you show them to me? SOCIALIST.— I haven't got them here. CATHOLIC. — Say, I just happen to remember what one of your own Socialist leaders, his name is Bernstein, said in regard to this matter. As you probably know, he belonged to what is called the revisionist wing of Socialists, and he absolutely denies the truth of your statement which is held by orthodox Marxists. According to Bernstein, "the number of the possessing classes is growing absolutely aad relatively." (Die Voraussetzun- gen des Sozialismus, etc., Stuttgart, 1902, p. 50.) SOCIALIST.— But look at the facts! Don't you admit that the trusts are eating up all the smaller companies? CATHOLIC. — In a very few industries, that may be true. But the ex- ception is not the rule. I saw this very point clearly proved in the Bulletin of our Catholic Federation, May, 1913, p. 5. Facts and figures are given which show clearly that wealth is not concentrating, but is being distributed and that the number of industrial plants is not diministing, but increasing. And your opportunist Socialists agree with us on this one point. SOCIALIST. — Can you cite some of those facts and figures? CATHOLIC. — In regard to the concentration of wealth, the example of Pond & Co. was given. That firm controls $26,000,000 in the market, and hence would seem to prove your claim that wealth is gradually being acquired by a few people. But upon a little closer inspection, it proves the very opposite, because the number of stockholders or owners is not diminish- ing, but increasing right along, so that at present there are 4,650. SOCIALIST. — And how about the concentration of industries? CATHOLIC. — ^In thirty years the number of large plants in Germany increased by about 400, while the smaller plants increased by almost 20,000. Does that look like concentration? SOCIALIST. — But how about our own country? How about the United States? CATHOLIC. — The Negros will give you an answer. "Fifty years ago," they will tell you, "we were practically penniless. Today we own 600,000 12 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. farms worth a half billion dollars and besides 200,000,000 dollars worth of personal property." You certainly can't make that fact square with your theory of concentration of wealth. SOCIALIST. — But there surely is concentration of industries in the United States. CATHOLIC— Let us consult the Census for 1910. I find that in 1909 there were 1,000 more establishments producing one million or more dollars worth of goods than in 1904, and that the smaller establishments increased during the same period by more than 50,000. I find, too, that the number of proprietors of industries during those four years increased by 50,000. Could I manufacture better arguments to disprove your theories than a mere statement of plain facts? So you see. Smith, it won't be so very simple after all for the government to get control of the means of production and distribution. SOCIALIST.— Well, as a last resort, it could BUY them up, couldn't it? CATHOLIC— Where is it going to get the money? SOCIALIST.— Why, issue bonds. CATHOLIC— And who'll buy the bonds? SOCIALIST.— The working people, of course. CATHOLIC. — Just before you claimed they had no money. SOCIALIST.— Well, then, let the others buy, too. CATHOLIC — Now, Smith, just see what an awful tangle you are getting into. By far the greater part of the bonds would have to be bought up by the preseni-day capitalists, the very men from whose clutches you wish to escape. The Commonwealth would, therefore, become their debtor and would have to pay an enormous annual tribute to them in the form of in- terest. And interest-taking, you told me, will not be tolerated. No, my good man, neither purchase nor any other form of compensation can be made to agree with Socialistic principles. And that's the reason why very nearly all Socialists have rejected them. Just let me read to you from my note-book what one of your leaders and writers, Jeules Gusde, has to say on this sub- ject: "Instead of being despoiled by the wage system, the worker will be despoiled 'by taxation — and that will be the only difference. Expropriation with indemnity is consequently a dream, quite as much as, an.d even more, than purchase." But, tell me, Smith, why don't you propose the simplest method of acquiring the means of production and distribution, the method that is advocated by practically all thorough-going Socialists, — I mean confiscation? Why don't you propose that? SOCIALIST. — Well, I'll tell you, Jones. I may be a great admirer of Socialism, tut I can see so far ahead that if we try confiscation there is going to be an awful revolution, with the odds against us, for the capitalists and their sympathizers have the powder and the bullets; and there is going to be more bloodshed than in all the wars put together. And, to be honest, I can't get myself to believe that if we do succeed, the Collective Common- wealth will stand on a foundation of blood. CATHOLIC — Ah! there's where you said something, Smith. But let JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 13 me tell you something, too. Just stay another year in the Socialist Party, read Socialist literature and listen to Socialist speeches on confiscation, and that little scruple of yours will disappear. Confiscation will appear to you the only sane, just and plausible means for the Collective Commonwealth to get control of the social tools. For the present, however, I wish to insist on this point, that your Climax Building Concern cannot tell me where and how it is going to get the site and material for that best-equipped and best arranged home it promises me. Your contractors are non-plussed. IV. Problem of the Superintendent. Socialism Inevitable? — Working Plan — One IVIanagement Throughout — A Tremendous Problem — Height of Folly — Postoffice — Army of Unproductive Laborers. SOCIALIST. — Jones, I may not be able to tell you just how we are going to get control of the means of production and distribution; but that we are going to get control of them is plain as daylight to any one that considers the immense progress Socialism is making in all parts of the civilized world. Just think of it: within forty years we have gained about 25,000,000 adherents. No other movement in the whole history of the world can point to such a phenomenal growth. The enormous momentum which Socialism has acquired and which is constantly increasing stamps our movement as inevitable. CATHOLIC. — Beware! Smith, beware! You know how your great leader, Bebel, stultified himself by prophecying that the Industrial Common- wealth would be established in 1895! That Socialism has increased by leaps and bounds I must admit, but that its past phenomenal growth argues for Its future establishment, I deny. You know the lesson which the quickest growing plant, the mushroom, teaches us. I am fully convinced that So- cialism, at least as an economic system, has seen its day. SOCIALIST. — Now, Jones, don't close your eyes ro plain and evident facts. CATHOLIC. — Facts? Don't you know that here in the United States your party Jost 50,000 dues-paying members during the past year? that within the same period your organs, "The Chicago Daily Socialist," "The Coming Nation" and "The Cleveland Socialist," went bankrupt? Don't you know that even Ir the great stronghold of Socialism, in Germany, your party is losing ground continually? At the Socialist Convention, held this summer i / in Jena, your leaders were forced to admit that, in spite of the desperate K efforts of the Comrades, the subscription lists of their publications were I melting away at the rate of over 1,000 each month. And in the October I elections your party lost very heavily all along the line; in one state alone, \ 12,000 votes. No, Smith, Socialism is not a winning movement. By holding 14 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. out the most alluring promises of economic justice, comfort and luxury you Socialists succeeded in gaining the confidence of thousands of oppressed and dissatisfied workmen. Now, however, they are beginning to realize that your promises were but promises, nothing else. SOCIALIST —I beg to differ from you. CATHOLIC. — Now, Smith, don't you close your eyes to plain and evident facts. You had to admit that the architects of your Building Concern are" at loggerheads and that your contractors do not know where nor how to get the material needed for the construction of that magnificent home you promised me. In my opinion, that is suflacient evidence to prove that your promises are empty promises, and I would be a consummate fool were I to bank on them and begin tearing down my house, as you bid me Well, I know it's very, very hard to give up pet notions and to forsake long-cherished plans. Let us continue our investigation. Supposing that a contractor has received a definite building-plan from his architect, what does he do with it? SOCIALIST. — Very often, at least, he hands it over to his superintendent who divides up the work required in the construction of the building among the cement-workers, structural iron-workers, masons, bricklayers, electricians, carpenters, and so on. It's the superintendent's duty to draw up a working- plan; that is, he must figure out exactly what each trade must do and he must determine the time when the respective jobs are to be done. Unless you have a working-plan made out beforehand, your building can't possibly go up. CATHOLIC. — And now. Smith, who in your Co-operative Commonwealth corresponds to the superintendent? Who divides up the vast amount of work that is to be done, co-ordinates it and regulates it and controls it? SOCIALIST. — Why, the President. Of course he'll be assisted by a cabinet, which will be composed of the heads of the various departments. CATHOLIC. — Will you have such a President with a cabinet in each State of the Union? SOCIALIST. — Oh, no! Industries will be organized very much in the same way as our postal service is, — one management throughout. If the social tools were left to the individual States so that they could produce what they chose and as much as they pleased, competition between these various units would necessarily spring up. In its train would follow all the evils of the present competitive system: waste, robbery, oppression, swind- ling, fluctuation, etc. No, we will have a very highly centralized organization. CATHOLIC. — Your President and his cabinet will have a good deal to attend to, won't they? SOCIALIST.— They certainly will. CATHOLIC. — Did you Socialists ever try to draw up a working-plan for the superintendent of your Commonwealth? SOCIALIST.— Not that I know of. CATHOLIC. — Just a minute ago you told me an ordinary building can- not be erected without a very definite working-plan. How, then, can you JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 15 expect your vast Industrial Commonwealth to be established and to run on smoothly without one? SOCIALIST— Oh, it won't be so difficult to devise a working-plan. You see the government will be assisted by experts. CATHOLIC— Well, Smith, I can't agree with you there. I think it will not only be extremely difficult, but simply impossible to devise a practical working-plan. Just let me read a few numbers to you from my note-book Uhey are taken from the last census) and we will get a faint, a very faint, idea of the tremendous problem confronting your central authority which the working-plan should solve. In our country 93,402,151 inhabitants are to be fed, clothed, housed, educated, etc.; 46,701,076 must be employed; 3,026,789 square miles of land must be looked after; 6,361,502 farms must be operated, representing an area of 878,798,325 acres; they are valued at $34,801,125,697 and yield crops to the amount of $5,487,000,000 and live stock worth $4,925,- 600,000; 268,491 factories must be run; they employ 7,678,578 persons, repre- sent a capital of $18,428,270 and produce manufactures worth $20,672,052; 166,320 wells and 18,164 mines and quarries must be worked; they have 1,139,332 employees, a capital of $3,380,525,841 and yield products valued at $1,238,410,^22; 241,004 miles of railroads and 219,219 miles of telephone lines must be operated; $1,653,354,934 worth of goods must be imported; $2,204,- 322,409 worth of goods must be exported. Smith, let that be enough for the present. T'l say nothing about the 3,000,000 dwellings that must be erected, about the stores, warehouses, elevators, steamship lines, and so on and so on. And I'll overlook entirely the immense amount of work our government has even now. I only wish to state that it seems to me to be the height of folly on the part of you Socialists to dream of handling the business expressed by those staggering figures and to trust to luck for success. And if you think that a practical working-plan based on Socialistic principles can be devised whereby ail those industries with their incomprehensible volume of business and all it implies can be systematized, regulated, co-ordinated, without hitch or failure, to the entire satisfaction of all concerned, well, then, you are welcome tu think so. I for one do not and cannot believe it. SOCIALIST. — But, Jones, doesn't the postoffice take care of an immense amount of business? CATHOLIC. — Ah, Smith; common sense should suggest that there is absolutely no comparison. In the first place, the postoffice is run along capitalistic lines. Then, its work of collecting and distributing mail and parcels is after all not such a very complex problem, if the government had to write each letter, print each separate periodical or book and make up each indiv.-dual parcel, there would be a slight comparison possible. SOCIALIST. — You seem to forget altogether that our central authority will have tne assistance of a large force of help. There will be boards, com- /mittees, sub-committees, statisticians, clerks, experts, and so on. ^ CATHOLIC— No, I don't forget them at all. They are all to be brought into your working-plan, and I am afraid that far from diminishing your diffi- culties, they are going to multiply them. They represent the machinery of 16 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. your Industrial Commonwealth and all machinery implies waste; in point of fact, some machinery consumes more energy than it transmits, and there- fore leads to failure and bankruptcy. That the enormous army of unpro- ductive laborers (your machinery) in your Commonwealth will not bring on failure ts for you to prove. V. Problems of the Assistant Superintendent. Present Conditions Intolerable — Decapitation: a Cure for Headache — Regulat- ing Production — Concentration of Dissatisfaction — Absolute Necessity of Accurate Estimates — An Arithmetical Problem — Socialist Waste — A Miracle. SOCIALIST. — Working-plan or no working plan, Jones, present condi- tions are simply Intolerable and we laborers won't stand for them much longer. Were not free, we're slaves; we're the wage slaves of a brood of robbers and tyrants, subject to their every beck and call. In order that these licentious, immoral dead-beats may live in luxury and plenty, we, the producers of wealth, must sacrifice our health, our limbs, our lives, our morals, our wives, our children. Look at the human scrap-heap piling up in our public institutions; go to our hospitals, visit our homes, if you think I am exaggerating. CATHOLIC. — Smith, I'll let you in on a little secret of mine. I am just about as much dissatisfied with present conditions as you are and I feel the cruel injustice that is done us workmen as keenly so, you do. I realize fully that our much-boasted liberty is a hollow mockery for a large propor- tion of the working-class. And, to be candid, when I feel the galling chains with which capitalism has enslaved us, I sometimes nibble at Socialism — it looks so Inviting and promising. But, thank Grod, I always feel the hook before it is too late. SOCIALIST.— Well, what are you going to do about it? CATHOLIC. — Let us discuss that some other time. I do not think it wise to cut a man's head off in order to cure his headache, no matter how severe it may be; nor do I think that a fish has obtained liberty when it is dangling in space on a hook, no matter how confining ;>ho jar in which it had been imprisoned. Now, it seems to me that Socialism implies such opinions and leads to such conclusions. I hope to be able to show you this as we go on with our discussion. SOCIALIST. — I am open to conviction, but you'll have to *'show me." CATHOLIC. — Very well. Let us continue our investigation of your Building Concern. The material that is needed in the construction of a building is figured out beforehand, isn't? SOCIALIST. — Most assurredly. Certain men, whom we may call assistant superintendents, figure out almost to an inch or a pound the amount of JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 17 structural iron, cement, stone, brick, sand, and so on that will be needed. They know approximately when and in what quantities the various materials will be needed and have contracts for their delivery drawn up accordingly. This must be done in order to save time, keep the working force together, avoid waste and, in general, to keep down expenses. CATHOLIC. — Now, Smith, something similar will have to be done by officials of your commonwealth. They will have to figure out how much of every needed article must be procured, when and where it is to be delivered and so on. Isn't that right? SOCIALIST. — It surely is. That's one oi tue strong pomxs ui Socialism. By making estimates in advance and regulating production accordingly, we will eliminate the frightful waste of our present plajiless, haphazard system of production. Of course, we realize fully that these estimates will play an important role in our future State; in fact, the success or failure of the one is bound up with the success or failure of the other. Under our present system we are dissatisfied with a good many things, with work, with pay, food, furniture, service, and so on. But, since this immense dissatisfaction comes from so many different quarters, we still manage to bear up under it. In the Co-operative Commonwealth, however, dissatisfaction will come from one quarter only, from the government, which will be our milkman, butcher, grocer, tailor, druggist, etc. CATHOLIC— Yes, I see the great danger of concentration of dissatis- faction and the absolute necessity of accurate estimates.. But won't that be a big problem! SOCIALIST. — Surely. But, remember, we are a big people too. You see we shall have a large force of expert statisticians in our service. CATHOLIC. — Have you any idea how these statisticians are going to make their estimates. Are they going to issue peremptory orders and assign to all of us a certain amount and kind of food, clothing, furniture, utensils and so on? SOCIALIST. — By no manner of means. Why that would be the height of tyranny. Every man will be allowed to choose for himself. CATHOLIC. — But your statisticians must figure out in advance whajt each man is going to choose for himself. And how are they going to figure that out? SOCIALIST. — Our experts will take the present consumption as a basis, make allowances for shortage, waste or surplus, and in this way they will be able to calculate the future demand quite exactly. CATHOLIC— Oh, no! Smith, that won't work. You forget altogether that conditions in the Socialist State will be entirely different from what they are now. We are all supposed to be equal and have equal buyiug power, which certainly is not the case at present. SOCIALIST. — ^Well, we can ask each inhabitant to draw up a list of his needs for the coming year and hand that in to our statisticians. CATHOLIC. — Smith, will you try that scheme on yourself for one year? Write out for me such a list of things( that you want — the kind and amoimt 18 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. of clothing (hats, caps, shoes, stockings, shirts, underwear, coats, etc.), of food (meat, bread, cakes, potatoes, cabbage, carrots, beans, and so on), of furniture (chairs, tables, beds, bedding, carpets, rugs, and so on), of the thousand little incidentals that are used or needed in every household, (thread, buttons, needles, blacking, tooth powder, tooth brushes, chewing gum, candy, and so on, and so on). I would advise you to consult the catalog of one of our mammoth mail-order houses so that there won't be much danger of forgetting anything. You know we must prevent all dis- satisfaction. Incidentally, you will learn what a colossal task you are : expecting your statisticians to perform. SOCIALIST. — I didn't deny that they would have a big problem to solve. They're solving big problems for us every day. For example let me ; call your attention to the census which required the help of about 70,000 enumerators and an office force of Over 3,000 clerks. CATHOLIC. — I'm glad you mentioned the census, Smith, because it suggests a little arithmetical problem which will throw some light on the . matter in question. You must keep in mind the fact that our ordinary! census concerns itself with about ten items, (color, nativity, parentage, sex, age and marital conditions, etc.), whilst your census would have to take j account of over 40,000 items. I take the number 40,^00 because so many t items are listed in the catalog of one of Chicago's great mail-order houses. — ■ And now for the problem. If 70,000 enumerators and 3,000 clerks are neces- \ siary to collect and tabulate the data of a census of ten items, how many \ enumerators and clerks will be necessary to collect and tabulate the data j; of a census of over 40,000 items? And if it takes two to four years to finish j off the one census, how many years will it take to finish off the other? SOCIALIST. — I confess, I never looked at the problem of forecasting the demands for commodities in that way. CATHOLIC. — Well, I am not done with you yet. You must remember that the vast army of enumerators and clerks represent so much unpro- ductive labor, a waste from the Socialist point of view. Then I want to call your attention to a stupendous miracle which you expect your statisticians j to perform. You expect them to increase our present supply of commodities \ almost indefinitely and at the same time to decrease production! SOCIALIST.— How do you make that out? CATHOLIC. — On the one hand you promise us workmen a greater share \ in the goods of this world and on the other you also promise us shorter : 1 hours. — Oh, Smith, even if you had a working-plan for your Concern it ; would not work; if you could devise a governmental machinery for your \ s Industrial Commonwealth it would not run. The only solution of the problem • fl under discussion is the one I suggested at the outset and which obtains in . ji the army: issue peremptory orders and assign to all a certain amount and i a kind of food, clothing, furniture, utensils, etc. Don't you feel the mailed j D hand under the Socialist kid glove? 1 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 19 VI. Problems of the Foreman. A Catchy Question— Personal Interest — A Beautiful Dream — Assigning Jobs — Dirty Worl< — Automatic Adjustment — Whole Tendency Downward and Backward. SOCIALIST. — Jones, there's a flaw somewhere in your reasoning which escaped mv^. You say that we Socialists cannot devise a working-plan for our Cooperative-Commonwealth and that even if we did devise one it would not work. CATHOLIC— That's what I said, and I think I proved it, too. SOCIALIST. — Well, now, isn't it true that all the industries are run at the present time? CATHOLIC. — Yes, they're run to a certain fashion. SOCIALIST. — Why, then, should they come to a standstill just because owners have changed hands, just because they will be run for the benefit of all the people instead of for the enrichment of a few? CATHOLIC. — That's a catchy Socialist question, I admit. It's like this conundrum: Why can't a man raise himself from the floor by pulling at his bootstraps? The answer to both is the same: because you can't, spend your money and keep it at the same time. SOCIALIST. — I don't see the point. Where is the connection? CATHOLIC— Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was a man who suffered from headache, stomachache and many other aches. When he learned from his doctor that all his troubles were due to an irregular and unequal distribution of blood he prayed most fervently to Jupiter, the highest of the gods: "O Father Jupiter, you were kind enough to give me control over my hands and feet but you did not give me the power to control the circulation of my blood. And see the consequence: my head is overfed and the rest of my body is underfed; I am suffering terribly from one disease or another all my life. Oh! allow ME to regulate the flow of those life-giving streams in my body and I will become a strong, healthy man. In gratitude I will serve you faithfully to my dying day." This fervent prayer was heard and the request granted. Do you know what happened? SOCIALIST. — I can easily imagine. The poor fool should have known that he had enough to do without looking after the circulation of his blood through se\eral million veins, arteries and capillaries. He was a corpse in less time than it takes to tell. CATHOLIC. — Well, Smith, you Socialists are trying to undertake a similar task in regard to Society. You want to control the circulation or flow of wealth absolutely and completely, and you imagine it will be easy just because you see wealth flowing now. You expect to have all the advantages of the present automatic and natural regulation of wealth with none of its disadvantages and then, besides, you expect the advantages of a 20 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. diametrically opposed system, namely an absolutely controlled regulation. You want to spend your money and keep it at the same time. SOCIALIST. — If I'm not mistaken you are thinking now of that bugaboo with which our enemies try to frighten us and our prospective adherents — I mean the absence of personal interest which, as you claim, will wreck our Commonwealth. CATHOLIC. — Yes, that enters into consideration too. You have no substitute for personal interest wljiich will impel the members of your Commonwealth to do a reasonable amount of work, let alone develop the best that is in them. SOCIALIST. — Now, there you are badly mistaken. Is Goethals building the Panama Canal from a motive of direct personal interest? Did Washing- ton establish this grand republic for the money that was "in the job"? Did Raphael paint the Sistine Madonna for a pecuniary reward? Did CATHOLIC. — Stop! Smith, wake up from your beautiful dream. Do you expect to built Panama canals and establish grand republics and paint Madon- nas as soon as the Socialist Commonwealth is established? Look at the cold facts. We have seen the impossibilities you expect from your architects, con- tractors, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and the farther we go down the line of officials the more hopeless the outlook becomes. Your beautiful dream of the grand work you are going to do reminds me of the foreman, who has charge of employment in your Commonwealth. SOCIALIST. — Well, here, at least, I can hold my ground. Socialism can solve that worst curse of the workman, unemployment.. Oh, what a terrible word, what a horrible nightmare! I shiver from head to foot when I think of the days and nights I walked the streets looking for work; not a bite to eat — my wife and children starving. CATHOLIC. — I've been there, too, Smith and I know what it means. But to come back to the foreman. How are you going to assign jobs? SOCIALIST. — We are not going to assign jobs. That would be tyranny and downright slavery, and no comrade would stand for it. Every man and woman will be allowed to choose the work he or she likes best. CATHOLIC. — Won't there be a general rush for tho soft and easy snaps then? You must remember that we will all start out in life on a perfectly equal basis, with the same education, equal rights and no special privileges. In other words who is going to do the dirty work? SOCIALIST. — First of all you must remember, Jones, that dirty work is being diminished every day by new inventions. CATHOLIC— Well, now, I'm just a little doubtful about that. It seems to me that there is more dirty work now than there ever was. Most of the work in our factories is dirty work, to my mind, even if you could do it with your Sunday clothes on. The same holds good of railroads, steam-ships, mines, farming, and practically all modern industries. SOCIALIST. — There is really no need of disputing or arguing about that point. Our solution of the employment problem is, after all, independent of it. You eee, as soon as we find that there is a shortage of laborers in any JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 21 particular indusitry we will sliorten its labor-time, and where there happens to be a surplus of laborers we will lengthen the labor time. CATHOLIC. — Let me apply your principle of automatic adjustment to a concrete example. Suppose that there is a surplus of physicians and a shortage of miners. Will you shorten the labor-time of the miners in the hope that some of the physicians will take to mining? SOCIALIST.— Yes, we'll do something like that. CATHOLIC. — But look at the trouble you are going to get into. First of all the physicians will raise a howl because they are being discriminated against. You are rating their services lower than those of unskilled labor and indirectly, at least, you are trying to drive them out of their profession. And supposing the scheme would work, what will be the result? Physicians will become miners. What a waste in skill and talent! And won't those doctors who have been accustomed to wield the delicate instruments of surgery or to diagnose a sickness and write out prescriptions, feel right at home down in the shaft of a mine burrowing out coal with pick and shovel! But the greatest objection I have to your scheme is this, that all along the line labor forces will be withdrawn from the higher and skilled occupations and that as a consequence the entire tendency of the Commonwealth will be downward and backward. Why don't you advocate Bebel's scheme and have us all take turns in doing dirty work? SOCIALIST. — Ah, nonsense! I told you I am against assigning work because it means slavery. Besides, the scheme is too ridiculous on the very face of it to deserve further consideration. CATHOLIC. — Well, then. Smith, I think you must admit that you Social- ists have no satisfactory solution for the employment problem. The only way you can possibly solve it is to assign to each comrade a job and make him hold it down no matter whether he likes it or not. But that's what I call cutting a man's head off to cure his headache. VII. Problems of the Paymaster. Foolish Questions — Labor-Check — Remuneration of Labor — Legalized Rob- bery — Labor-Product — Oh! so Simple — Labor the Only Source of Wealth. SOCIALIST. — Jones, I must admit that I cannot answer ail your ques- tions satisfactorily. But, really, you should not expect me to, either. I am not a profe::,cior, not even a student; I am only an ordinary workman. Put your questions to our leaders, to the men that have made a study of So- cialism, and I am sure they will give you information on all those points where you cornered me. CATHOLIC— Taat's a strange confession you are making. Smith. You admit tliat you have adopted Socialism without understanding it and 22 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. that you are trying to win recruits for the movement in spite of the fact that you cannot answer a number of very elementary questions. But I am not surprised at this, for I have encountered the same experience over and over again; and as for your leaders, do you know what Liebknecht answered wben questions were put to him concerning the Socialist State? SOCIALIST. — Liebknecht is an authority with us. He was one of our greatest leaders. Wliat did he say? CATHOLIC. — He told Bachem in the German Reicbstag that the inquiry concerning the future state is "a question which only fools will answer." So you see he is not very complimentary to you who thought it but fair to try to answer my questions. Now that you have heard that remark of your famous authority and great leader, you may perhaps wish me to stop my investigation of your Climax Building Concern, of Socialism? SOCIALIST. — Not at all. If Socialism cannot bear investigation, and if our leaders cannot answer reasonable questions regarding ithe Co-operative Commonwealth in a satisfactory manner, why, the sooner the Socialist Party disappears from the face of the earth the better for all concerned. Your questions have indicated to me the lines along which my own study and inquiry must be directed in the future and if you have any more, why, just propose them. CATHOLIC. — All right. Smith. I must compliment you for your fair- ness. My next question is in regard to the pay-master of the Building Con- cern. But first I want to ask you If you agree with those Comrades who wisih to do away with money? SOCIALIST. — No, I do not agree with them. Money as such is not the cause of our present social evils. The fanciful labor-check about which some make so much ado is really only another form of money without the many advantages of our present monetary system. Of course, I wisb to insist that labor will be the real measure of value and that money will be merely its expression. We can remunerate labor more easily with dollars and cents than with labor-checks. CATHOLIC. — That's just what I want to get at: remuneration or pay of labor. You Socialists make a good deal of capital out of our present system of remuneration, the wage system. You denounce it in almost every book and every paper and every lecture as systematized robbery and ex- ploitation of the working-class, as the ultimate source of our social troubles. And you promise us workmen that in the Co-operative Commonwealth we shall all get the full social value of the wealth we create, a remuneration sufficient to keep us all in comfort, not to say luxury. SOCIALIST. — Yes, we promise that for the simple reason that we are going to do away with interest, rent and dividends by means of which do- notbing capitalists are enabled to rob us workingmen of two^th-irds of our labor product. CATHOLIC. — I admit that capitalists have outraged us workingmen most shamefully, but even if you take into account stock-watering, monopolistic prices and all the other villainous methods of modern freebooting, I do not JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 23 think that the civilized licensed robbers of our present day, taken as a b^dy, have despoiled us to the extent of sixty-six per cent. At any rate, you Socialists could never prove your assertion. However, there is no need losing time over this point, because we are only concerned with Socialism which you claim will remedy the evil. I want to know how you are going to solve the difficult problem of remunerating labor. Will your paymaster give each employee of the Commonwealth, say, one dollar per hour, irrespective of the kind or amount of labor he performs? SOCIALIST. — Nonsense. I know some hair-brained Socialists have ad- vocated that absurd plan. They could not see that it is in direct contradic- tion to a first principle of Socialism, that each workman should receive the full social value of the wealth he creates — no more, no less. Put all em- ployees on the same level without regard to kind and amount of labor per- formed and you will banish from the community every indication of industry and skill, you will put a premium on laziness and inefficiency, you will drive the Commonwealth into bankruptcy before you are aware of it. No, Jones, if a man wants to earn a dollar he must iproduce a dollar's worth. CATHOLIC. — That sounds very reasonable. But tell me how will you know when a man has produced a dollar's worth? SOCIALIST.— Oh, that won't be so hard. You see the labor product is always equal. CATHOLIC— I don't understand you. SOCIALIST. — Let me explain by means of an example. Suppose it takes a carpenter one hour to make a chair and five hours to make a table, why then one table will be worth five chairs. And if the chair sells for one dollar, then the carpenter is entitled to get one dollar for each hour that he works. Apply that principle to all our industries and you will have a simple but just scheme for determining a man's wage. CATHOLIC. — Simple, Indeed. But it seems to me its very simplicity is its strongest refutation, for it necessarily supposes a very simple state of society, such, for instance, as obtained when one and the same carpenter did all the work that was necessary in the making of a chair or table. But take conditions as they actually are: trace back the history of any chair in your house to the time when the wood from which it is made was still a part of some living tree in the forest and you will find that several hundred hands had been busy with it before it reached your house. How are you going to determine what share in the price each one of those hundreds is entitled to? But I have another objeotion to your scheme: it presupposes that labor is the only source of wealth. SOCIALIST. — And so it is. Wealth can be created only by labor. CATHOLIC. — Well, then, tell me why is a chair made of mahogany worth ten times more than one made of yellow pine, though exactly the same amount of labor was required in the manufacture of both? Why are you willing to pay more for fresh articles of food — fruit, meat, butter, eggs, etc. — than for such as are stale although more labor was expended upon the latter? Why were you perfectly sa4:isfied. pay your surgeon fifty dollars 24 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. for performing an operation which lasted scarcely a half^hour, whilst yon paid your servant girl only ten cents, though she labored a good deal more during the same length of time scrubbing the kitchen floor? But after all, why argue on this point? If it is so easy to determine the social value of each man's labor^roduot, why don't you Socialists work out your scheme in detail? Why can't you submit a sort of scale of wages to us workingmen so that we may know what to expect? I put a lot of stock in the two say- ings: "Look before you leap." *'Don't leap in the dark." You Socialists, however, seem to think that those sayings have become obsolete. You step up to us workmen as children do in their games and tell us: "We have something nice to eat, open your mouth, shut your eyes," and in goes a handful of red pepper. Red pepper may be nice to look at from a distance, but it certainly isn't very pleasant to the taste. Economic Socialism is un- doubtedly most beautiful and captivating in theory, but woe betide the com- munity that endeavors to carry it out in practice. VIII. Socialism and Liberty in the Light of History. Next Step in the Evolution of Human Society — A New Argument — Over One Hundred Socialist Experiments Failures — Blind Faith — Straight- jacket of Socialism — Irresponsible Democracy — Reign of Terror — New Australia — History and Experience. SOCIALIST.' — Jones, the objections and difficulties you have been urging against Socialism are unsound and sophistical; they musit be! CATHOLIC— Why? What makes you think so? SOCIALIST. — If they were not, it would necessarily follow that Capital- ism represents the last and highest stage in the development of human society. Now, I cannot believe that. CATHOLIC. — Neither do I believe that society has reached the last and highest stage in its development. But much less do I believe that Socialiism is the next. Socialism, as I have shown you, is a beautiful dream, but an absolute impossibility. SOCIALIST. — Did not the so-called wise men in the days of Columbus call his plan a dream, an impossibility, just as you are calling Socialism a dream and an impossibility? CATHOLIC. — ^No doubt, many did. But that is no argument for Social- ism. If it were, every charlatan, crank and dreamer could appeal to it in support of his plans, no matter how absurd and nonsensical they might be; if it were, then you have no right calling extreme Socialists, I mean Com- munists, fools, as you did in one of our former discussions. It is true, people did claim some ideas impracticable, impossible, which have been realized and are a fact at the present day; but it is no less true that they claimed and still claim and will e^er claim many more ideas impossible which have JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 25 remajined impossible and will remain impossible to the end of time. And among such impossibles must be classed Socialism. SOCIALIST. — Jones, aren't you begging the question? CATHOLIC. — Not in the least! It's up to you to prove the feasibility of Socialism and you certainly do not claim to have even attempted it. So I do not beg the question when I deny it. Moreover, in our little investiga- tion of your Climax Building Concern, of Socialism, I showed you that your architects are at loggerheads, that your contractors are non-plus sed, that your superintendents, assistant-superintendents, foremen and paymasters are all at their wits' ends. They have thrown up their hands in despair and told us that they do not know how to tackle the infinitely complex tasks set them by the Industrial Commonwealth. No, Smith, I cannot bank on a proposition of that character, even if I didn't know that every attempt at establishing a Socialist community, and there were more than one hundred, proved a miserable failure. SOCIALIST. — The experiments you refer to were all on a small scale. CATHOLIC— What of it? If you can't build a one-story house out of sand, much less will you be able to build a sky-scraper. SOCIALIST. — Be that as it may. I have pinned my faith to Socialism and to Socialism I look for relief from injustice and oppression. Even iC the worst does happen, to use the words of Marx: "We have nothing to lose but our chains." (Communist Manifesto, Chicago, p. 64.) CATHOLIC —Well said, Smith; Socialism is a matter of faith, of im- plicit, childlike, but blind faith. Do as you please: if you wish to leap in the dark, I can't hold you back, but don't expect me to follow. We workmen are in chains, as you say, but you must admit that our chains allow most of us a very coasiderable amount of free movement, and that conditions have improved very much during the last twenty years, and that they will and must improve wherever laborers are organized into Unions and use the ballot intelligently. But for the sake of argument I will suppose that the Industrial Commonwealth can be established. Do you think you will no longer be in chains? SOCIALIST.— Of course I do. CATHOLIC. — Well, then, you're sadly, very sadly mistaken, as you were on so many other points. We workmen will be shackled with chains as galling as the cruelest straight-jacket any prisoner ever wore. SOCIALIST.— That's rubbish, Jones. Don't you know that Socialism means a democracy? CATHOLIC. — Yes, and I know, too, that an irresponsible democracy can be more cruel and brutal than the most bloodthirsty tyrant. Call to mind •the horrible and harrowing excesses the Socialists or Communists, as they are more frequently called, perpetrated in Paris only sixty-five years ago,— the murder, pillage, robbery and other nameless, shameless crimes that were committed in the name of liberty and democracy. Read the book, "Where Socialism Failed," by Stewart Grahame, and learn of the ruthless tyranny and higih^handed injustice that was practiced In the Sooialist experiment of 26 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. New Australia, begun under the most favorable circumstances, — and them judge for yourself if Socialism must not necessarily degenerate into legalizedi ferocity. SOCIALIST. — Jones, don't try to frighten me with your rhetoric. CATHOLIC. — No, I am not trying to frighten you with rhetoric. I amv stating and all through our discussion have been stating truths which are« plain and apparent to everyone, whose eyes are not blind to facts and whos^l judgment is not clouded by Socialist prejudice. I should like to appeal toi your intelligence and, drawing the logical inferences from our preceding^, discussions, show you how Socialism, if it could be established, must worki out in daily life; how it must affect us workmen in our personal affairs. But as long as you refuse to accept history and experience as a teacher, what is the use? SOCIALIST.' — You have aroused my curiosity, Jones, and I really would like to" see the picture you intend to paint of the Socialist state. But allow me to suggest a little precaution: don't draw too generously on your imagi- nation, poisoned as it is against Socialism, for inspiration and materials. CATHOLIC. — I beg your pardon. Smith, but I think your suggestion isi' utterly uncalled for. Imagination has entered very little, if at all, into my share of the discussion. Every statement th^t I have made was dictated f by hard comimon sense. If Socialism as an economic system means salva- tion for us working-men, why should I oppose it? Why shouldn't I adopt it^ as an economic system? IX. Socialism and Liberty in the Light of Theory. Absolutistic Government — Inefficiency and Graft in Government Administra-i tion — Well Cared-for Slaves — Greed and Selfishness — Finer Instincts — Who Join? — Who Shun the Socialist Party? SOCIALIST. — We're getting off the track. Show me how, in your judg- ment, based upon our previous discussions, Socialism, If it could be estab- lished, must affect us workingmen in our daily affairs. CATHOLIC. — Very well. Remember you have freely admitted, or, at least, you have been forced to admit, that your Socialist government must be highly centralized and that it must be vested with practically absolute power. It will be the only employer in the country and will, therefore, dictate where we must work, how long we must work, for how much we must work and under what conditions of labor we must work. It will be the only seller in the market and will fix the price of goods and determine their kind and quality, for it need not fear competition, and hence need not consider our personal likes or dislikes. The government will be the only educator and will prescribe where our children are to be educated and how they are to be j educated. It will, for a long time, at least, be our only landlord and, there- 1 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 27 fore, will oblige us to live in that house and under such conditions as J* thinks best. The kind a^^^ character of our amusements as well as the man- mer of taking them, will be determined by the government; as also a hundred other personal affairs. To sum up: we shall all become members of a huge [industrial army subject to the will of individual officials or committees. SOCIALIST. — Well, Jones, I don't see that such an arrangement would ibe so very bad. At any rate, the workingman's condition will be a hundred times better than it is at present. CATHOLIC. — You seem to forget of a sudden the Socialist complaint that the administration of nearly all departments of the National, State and Municipal governments is flagrantly Inefficient and wasteful, honeycombed iwith graft, favoritism and dishonesty. SOCIALIST.— Not at all! We Socialists know full well the leprous con- idition of the government, and, by a careful diagnosis of the case, we have discovered the cause, namely: Capitalism. Remove the cause and the effects will cease. As soon as we get the reins of government into our hands we will do away with the wasteful and dishonest methods that prevail in the administration of the government and thereby sa^'e the country the hundred thousand million dollars which are lost or stolen annually; we will usher in an era of thorough-going efficiency, sane economy, even-handed justice, strict impartiality, scrupulous honesty. CATHOLIC. — Even if you Socialists could fulfill your glorious promises to the letter, I would not vote for the introduction of the Co-operative Com- monwealth. SOCIALIST.— Why not? CATHOLIC. — Because I would a thousand times rather be a starving freeman than a well cared-for slave of the absolutistic government I described for you a minute ago. But I flatly and absolutely deny that you ihave any reason for assuming that the officials of the Industrial Common- wealth will be a whit better than are the officials of our present government. Not Capitalism is the last cause of the inefficiency and dishonesty which, as you say, disgrace our government, nor of the robberies, injustice and heart- less cruelties practiced against us workmen by the captains of industry, but greed and selfishness; and what is there in Socialism that can or will curb the greed and selfishness of man? I have come in contact with Socialists of every type and description and, while I gladly admit that some of the Comrades are noble-minded and generous-hearted men and women, I do maintain that the big majority are intellectually and morally of an inferior type of mankind. SOCIALIST. — You're making a very serious charge there, Jones. On what do you base it? CATHOLIC. — As I already indicated: on my own experience as well as on the experience of others. Let me read to you what Judge Cushing of Cincinnati said not long ago in this connection: "I was judge in the Cin- cinnati Court during the summer term three years ago, and we had trouble in finding enough cases to keep the court busy for three weeks. This year 28 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. we have been having criminal trials right along. . . . The increase in number of criminals coming to Cincinnati is due to the spread of Socialism. The teachings of this *ism' are such as appeal to the criminal classes." And to men of that stamp you want me to confide absolute powers of government! And with the assistance of such men and through them you expect to "usher in an era of thorough-going efiiciency, sane economy, even-handed justice, strict impartiality, scrupulous honesty!'* SOCIALIST. — I admit that Socialism has attracted to its standard a large number of less desirable individuals who have brought our organization into disrepute. But you must remember that Socialism is a movement of the down-trodden and oppressed workingman and that the finer instincts in many of our workingmen have been paralyzed by the brutalities of Capitalism. CATHOLIC. — Your Comrades would feel highly flattered to hear you speak that way in their regard, and would thank you for your compliments. But, if Socialism, as you claim, really stands for what is noblest and best in man, justice, honesty, etc., it seems very, very strange to me that those principally should flock to its standard in whom "ithe finer instincts have been paralyzed," whilst the workingmen in whom "the finer instincts" are most highly developed generally shun your organization as they would a pestilential menace. X. Socialism and Liberty in the Light of Present Day Experience. Review of Socialist Leaders — Gathiering Grapes of Tliorns — Leaving tlie Clouds of Tlieory and Speculation — Socialist Wire Pulling — Socialist Referendums — Socialist Steam Roller and Bossism — Boards of Arbitration — Freedom of Press — Legalized Ferocity. SOCIALIST. — Now, don't forget that the rank and file, who, as I freely admit, do not measure up to our own ideals, after all is said and done, have little influence in the higher councils of our organization and that Socialist activities are directed almost exclusively by our leaders. The destinies of our Party are guided and shaped by them and to them you must look for an efficient and perfectly honest administration of affairs under Socialism. CATHOLIC. — I wish you would tell me a little more in detail whom you refer to when you speak of Socialist leaders. SOCIALIST. — Why, to the men who infiuence Socialist thought and action; to the editors of Socialist publications, to our writers, speakers, officials, candidates for public offices, etc. CATHOLIC. — Very well. Let me recall a few of those past and present leaders of your party in this country and then, putting aside your Socialist prejudices for a moment, judge for yourself: Wilshire, "Millionaire Social- ist'* editor, who, as Martha M. Avery an ex-Sooialist tells us, fleeced the JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 29 "Dear Comrades" by means of his mining schemes and then absconded to England where he is now living in ease and comfort (Common Cause II, 390); the Appeal to Reason staff, which Goldstein did not hesitate to charac- terize in a public statement as "a gang of rogues" (Common Cause II, 382) and against whom Locals and Comrades in Minnesota and Chicago have filed charges **for offering worthless land as premiums in its subscription contests" (Social Democrat Herald); J. A. Wayland, widely known Socialist editor and founder of the vilest and most scurrilous sheet in the country who "dreading to face the humiliation of legal prose- .cution for an infamous offense deliberately put an end to his life" (Common Cause II, 774); Haywood, member of the Executive Committee, who had to be expelled from the party for his dishonorable acts; Harriman, member of the Executive Council, who disgraced himself in connection with the McNamara case; J. Mahlon Barnes, who was thrust upon the Socialist Party as Campaign manager for 1912 through "the cunning of Hillquit" (Christian Socialist, June ^7, *12) in spite of the fact that he had been "forced to tender his resignation as National Secretary on the ground that his conduct in private life proved him to be a degenerate, drunkard and libertine" (The Miner's Magazine); Morris Hillquit, who made "a mad fight" for this "degen- erate, drunkard and libertine" and so eloquently pleaded "that reparation should be made to the convicted and self-accused adulterer that he so far forgot himself as to state (falsely) that he made the nomination of Barnes with the endorsement of the National Executive Committee" (Christian Socialist, June 27, '12); Shoaf, Socialist correspondent, who outraged Com- rade Untermann's (a prominent Socialist author) daughter, relative to whom her employer stated: "Until this very day the girl has not received any assistance from her relatives" (Common Cause II, 396); Herron, Socialist writer and speaker, who, it has been stated again and again in the public press, deserted his wife and children (Socialism, Goldstein-Avery, p. 279); Hagerty, Socialist speaker, an apostate priest, who counseled the miners at Telluride, Col., on July 3, 1902, to loot the local banks and stores; Berger, international secretary, member of the Executive Committee, etc., who scoffs and rails at everything we Catholics hold most sacred and who advised every Socialist voter "to have a good rifle and the necessary rounds of ammunition in his home and be prepared to back up his ballot with his bullets if necessary" (Social Democratic Herald, July 31, '09); TIchener, editor, the arch-blasphemer; Debs, Socialist presidential candidate, who "has spent his energy in attempting to disrupt the trade unions" and "organized dual organizations and strike-breaking organizations" (Collins, Why Socialism is Opposed to Trade and Labor Unions, p. 26) ; practically the whole Socialist press which is continually conducting a vile campaign of deception, duplicity and double-dealing in regard to Socialism's real attitude toward the family, morality and religion. To close this review of Socialist leaders I will quote a sentence from one of Goldstein's lectures which will throw some light on the character of Socialist headquarters: "Rev. Edwin Ellis Carr was expelled 'from the 30 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. Socialist party for exposing the free love practice in the national Socialist headquarters." Now, Smith, do you sincerely believe that such men give fair promise of ushering in an era of "sane economy, even-handed justice, scrupulous honesty, absolute impartiality" and that it would be prudent on our part to entrust them with the reins of an absolute government and allow them to wield full sway over our personal affairs? SOCIALIST. — Jones, you're becoming personal and bitter. CATHOLIC. — I'm becoming direct, practical and outspoken, Smith, in the hope that you may open your eyes to the real situation. I'm coming down from the clouds of th(?ory and speculation which you Socialists delight to revel in, because they afford you more room and greater facilities for dodging and evading arguments and I am looking at men and affairs as they really are, not as they might be. The child-like, unquestioning faith and confidence which so many of you Socialists place in your leaders and your movement would be comic if it weren't so extremely tragic. SOCIALIST. — It's mighty strange that we Socialists don't get wise. CATHOLIC. — That is one of the tragic phases of the situation. But, thank God, a good number of the more intelligent and upright Comrades, particularly those whose finer instincts have not been altogether paralyzed, are beginning to realize that they are duped. Here is what M. Mikkelson, for several years a leading member of your party in Milwaukee and a mem- ber of the Common Council under the Seidel administration, said in a public statement (New York Sun, Dec. 19, '13) only a few weeks ago: "I have quit the party for good because I am tired of explaining things I do not believe in. I am tired of the political wire pulling in the Socialist party. They pull the political wires just like all other parties." SOCIALIST. — Well, Jones, even granting that our Party has as yet not developed a high type of unselfish and irreproachable leaders, that doesn't argue against Socialism. CATHOLIC- — There you are again up in the clouds. Do you ask me to vote for Socialism in the abstract, or do you ask me to vote for the Socialist Party as it is constituted here and now? SOCIALIST. — You must bear in mind, Jones, that our platform provides for the referendum and that by its means we can eliminate objectionable legislation and remove undesirable men from their offices. CATHOLIC. — Listen to what Mikkelson had to say on that point: "They don't hold referendums any more like they used to, so that a majority of the party members can rule. Most of the important matters are decided by a few ring-leaders and we have to go out and stand for them." And if you wish to get a further insight into the character of Socalist referendums, study up the Barnes referendum and see for yourself what a "huge farce comedy" it developed into. Open your eyes to the facts of the case and you will find that steam-roller tactics and bossism are just as prominent In your party politics as anywhere else. But you miss the point when you refer me to the referendum, because we evidently cannot have recourse to JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 31 a referendum every time we are unjustly dealt with by an official or a committee. SOCIALIST. — Oh, in those cases you could refer the matter to our boards of arbitration. CATHOLIC. — Made up, I suppose, by men like Hillquit, who "put up a mad fight" for a "degenerate, drunkard and libertine'* and Barnes "the convicted and self-accused adulterer" etc. (Christian Socialist, June 27, '12) Little justice could you expect at their hands. . ". . But even supposing that the members of your boards were absolutely just, you know as well as I, that a foreman or boss or any ofl^cial, and you are going to have an endless number of them in your Commonwealth, I say, you know that they can annoy and harrass us in a thousand different petty ways which we feel most keenly but which we cannot formulate into a charge that will make a show- ing in court. SOCIALIST. — You cpuld expose oflficials in the papers. CATHOLIC. — Not on your life! The papers will be owned and printed by the Grovernment and a mighty silly Government it would be which would allow you to use its presses and papers to expose its shame. No, Smith, freedom of the press would disappear, just as personal liberty would neces- sarily disappear and we would be condemned to a state of abject slavery, grinding tyranny and legalized ferocity. XI. Socialism and the Family. Exaggerations — Ignorance and Gullibility of the Comrades — Free Lust — Socialist Authorities — Garbled Quotations? — John Spargo's Methods. SOCIALIST. — Jones, you're indulging in wild exaggerations. If, as you claim. Socialism means "abject slavery, grinding tyranny and legalized ferocity,'* how in the world do you explain the fact that millions of our liberty-loving people are flocking to its standard? CATHOLIC. — In the first place. Smith, millions of our people are not flocking to the Socialist standard. In the last presidential election your party polled approximately 900,000 votes, but that does not mean that there are 900,000 Socialists in our country. SOCIALIST.— Why not? CATHOLIC. — Because, as one of your own campaign leaflets says: "If you're not a member of the Socialist party you're not a Socialist." According to this rule you can boast of only about 100,000 adherents. SOCIALIST. — The precise number does not affect my argument. I ask you again: how do you explain the phenomenon that thousands upon thousands are willing to make personal and material sacrifices of every kind for a cause which you assert means slavery and tyranny? CATHOLIC. — Let me tell you a story, Smith. Many years ago I was in Chicago and while visiting tb^ gtock-yards I spent some time watching the 32 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. arrival of cattle from the western prairies. When the steers had been collected in a pen near the railroad track a giant member of their species, well trained for his particular duties, was introduced among them. He welcomed his cousins of the plain, spoke to them in the steer language, sympathized with them in the hardships they had borne on their long journey, and then seemed to call on them: ^'Comrades, follow me! I will lead you to the plains of liberty, to pastures rich with the sweetest clover you have ever tasted." The gate of the pen was opened, the self-appointed leader started off on a lively trot down the alley of the yards and his com- rades followed close upon his heels. The new-comers had not gone very far when they found themselves enclosed in another pen near to a slaughter house and when they looked about for their kind-hearted, sympathetic leader he was not to be found. SOCIALIST. — Stop your childish prattle, Jones. We Socialists have brains and know how to use them and we will not allow ourselves to be duped as easily as you imagine. CATHOLIC. — That's just about what those steers would have answered had anyone tried to tell them that they were being led to the shambles. It will not be difficult for me to show you that the story is not so childish after all, and that to some extent at least, it represents the Socialist situation and therefore answers the question you put to me. SOCIALIST. — Do you mean to say that the rank and file of the Socialist Party is as unthinking and ignorant and gullible as dumb animals? CATHOLIC. — Your own leaders openly assert that eighty per cent, of the Comrades do not know what Socialism really means. Verify their statement for yourself. Ask any ten Socialists, as I have done, what they mean by Socialism and I venture to say you will get ten different answers — and probably not one correct and to the point. They will tell you it means the golden age of which poet and prophet sang, in which there will be little work and much enjoyment, a universal brotherhood of man, an era of justice, freedom, liberty, etc., etc. Ask them some of the pointed questions I asked you and they will be as unable to answer as you were. Their ignorance of Socialism's real nature will appear most strikingly if you ask them concerning its attitude toward marriage and the family. SOCIALIST. — Now, Jones, don't disgrace yourself by trotting out that hackneyed, dishonest argument of Free Love. You know yourself that we Socialists love our wives and children as tenderly and affectionately as you do and that we would gladly shed the last drop of blood for the preservation of our families. I can sincerely state that in all the Socialist meetings which I have attended I never heard a single word uttered in favor of Free Love. CATHOLIC. — You are bringing out my contention. I maintain that the majority of Socialists are ignorant of the fact that Socialism stands for Free Love, I should say Free Lust. SOCIALIST,— Do you, an outsider, know more than we members of the organization? JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 33 CATHOLIC. — That will appear later on. In the meantime I wish to ask you a question. If you intended to become a Catholic would you rest satisfied with the information that I or any other workman could give you concerning our religion? SOCIALIST. — I think not. I would read up the approved authors of your Church and consult one or more of your priests. CATHOLIC' — Well, now, I have done something similar in regard to Socialism. I have read up. your writers and have found that they advocate Free Love as part and parcel of the Socialist system. SOCIALIST. — I wish you would give me some proofs for that statement. CATHOLIC. — Very well. Let me begin with the founders of Socialism — with Marx and Engels and read a few lines from their Communist Manifesto which is **still recognized the world over as the greatest statement of the principles of the International Socialist Party": "Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives and thus at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident, that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i. e., prostitution, both public and private.'* (Authorized English Translation, Chicago, p. 41.) In "The Origin of the Family," p. 99, etc., likewise the joint work of Marx and Engels, we find the following: "If marriage founded on love alone is moral, then it follows that marriage is moral only as long as love lasts. The duration of an attack of individual sex love varies considerably according to individual disposition, especially in men. A positive cessation of fondness or its replacement by a new fondness or its replacement by a new passionate love makes a separation a blessing for both parties and for society." Bebei, the great German Socialist leader, writes: "In the choice of love, she is free, just as man is free. She wooes and is wooed and has no other inducement to bind herself than her own free will. The contract between the two lovers is of a private nature, as in primitive times, without the intervention of any functionary. Should incompatibility, disappointment and dislike ensue, morality demands the dissolution of the tie that has become unnatural, and therefore immoral" (Woman," p. 154). Now, Smith, tell me candidly, don't the passages I have just read advocate Free Love, Free Lust and practically Sexual Promiscuity? SOCIALIST. — As you quoted them, they certainly do. But haven't you torn those passages out of their context? CATHOLIC. — I see, you have read Sparge and you have been deceived by this passage in his little popular treatise, "The Socialists. Who They are and What They Stand for": "Often these quotations are so garbled or dishonestly torn from their contexts as to misrepresent the views of their authors." By the way, this is that same Spargo (member of the National Executive Committee) who publicly stated in the Socialist Convention at Chicago in May, 1910: "It is, indeed, amusing to hear the mention of morals 34 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. and morality in a Socialist Convention." Well, I challenge Spargo, or any other Socialist for that matter, to prove that the passages I have just quoted and which are most generally quoted to show that Socialist authorities advocate Free Love, are "so garbled or dishonestly torn from their contexts as to misrepresent the views of their authors." Unless that proof is brought, Spargo is convicted of using those "despicable and dishonest methods" of which he accuses the "religious press." xn. American Socialists and Free Love. Attitude of Socialist Party — American Socialist Writers — Morris Hillquit's Strict Monogamy — Sexual Promiscuity- -'By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them" — A Revoltingly Immoral Move- ment — Responsibility of the Individual. SOCIALIST. — To prove that Socialism stands for Free Love you quoted two or three writers. Is it fair to base a universal indictment upon such a slender foundation? CATHOLIC. — If you wish, I'll spend hours with you reading similar passages from the works of other Socialists. But mark well, Smith, I selected your foremost writers — SOCIALIST. — Foreigners who are dead and buried- - CATHOLIC. — Nevertheless recognized as standard authorities by the Socialist Party of the United States. SOCIALIST.— How do you prove that? CATHOLIC— By the fact that the Socialist Party sells the very works from which I have quoted; by the fact that your party has ofiiicially adopt 3d and recommended them as textbooks for the study of Socialism; by the fact that various schemes are resorted to to give them the widest circulation possible. SOCIALIST. — But we only advocate the economic views of these writers and not their personal views regarding marriage. CATHOLIC. — You, the rank and file, perhaps, but certainly ' not your leaders. If they do not advocate the free-love principles of Socialist writers, why don't they publish expurgated editions of their works? Why don't they openly and publicly repudiate free-love principles in their National Con- vention as they have been challenged to do time and again? SOCIALIST. — That is at best a negative argument. CATHOLIC. — But one that establishes my point beyond doubt or cavil. SOCIALIST. — It seems to me that if our American Socialist leaders were really in sympathy with the free love principles of foreign writers, that sympathy would manifest itself in their own writings. CATHOLIC— And so it does. In Wilshire's Magazine for June, 1902, we read: "Socialism annihilates family life. With the abolition of private property, marriage in its present form must disappear. This is part of the JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 35 program." For similar views I would refer you to Ernest Untermann, (Preface to the ''Origin of the Family," p. 7); Charles H. Kerr, ("The Folly of Being Good," p. 23); M. C. Wentworth, (The Socialist Spirit, Chicago, November, 1902); R. Sawyer, (The Call, November, 22 1909). I do not deny that American Socialist leaders have been more reserved in expressing their real sentiments in regard to marriage than the European leaders because they know full well that "it does not make a good campaign subject" (Delegate Lewis in the Chicago Convention). To give you a sample of the sincerity, honesty and straightforwardness of your leaders in this matter allow be to instance Morris Hillquit, "a past-master in dodging questions that must be evaded for the good of the movement." Only a few years "back he tried to have the following plank inserted into the Socialist platform: "It (the Socialist movement) is not concerned with the institution of marriage" (Proceedings, National Convention of the Socialist Party, 1908, p. 193). In this month's (February) issue of Everybody's Magazine, forced by the exigencies of a debate, he asserts: "Most Socialists stand for dissolubility of the marriage ties at the pleasure of the contracting parites (p. 233). SOCIALIST. — How dare you Interpret that last statement as a defence of free love? CATHOLIC. — Free love, according to the dictionary and the general acceptation of the term, means "the doctrine or custom of unrestrained choice in sex relations or of promiscuous sexual intercourse." Now if the state- ment "marriage ties dissoluble at the pleasure of the contracting parties," is not identical in meaning with "unrestrained choice in sex relations," I beg you to show me the difference! SOCIALIST. — But doesn't Hillquit state expressly that "Socialists stand for strict monogamy"? (Everybody's Magazine, Feb., 1914, p. 240). CATHOLIC. — "Strict monogamy coupled with the right of divorce to all persons whose marital life has been rendered loveless, joyless, and miserable for any reason whatever" (ibidem) ; "monogamy dissoluble at the pleasure of the contracting parties." Accordingly, under Socialism, man and woman, it matters not how old or how young they are, may live together a life-time, a year, a month, a week or less — and then separate. The only factor which determines the duration of their cohabitation is their "pleasure." Now, if that does not mean free love, free lust and sexual promiscuity, please tell me, what does it mean? SOCIALIST. — Jones, I can't believe you are interpreting our leaders correctly. The statements you have quoted are at most theoretical views and opinions which will never be carried out in daily life. Judge a tree by its fruits. CATHOLIC. — It's very hard to suddenly face the light when we have been in the dark for a long time. You ask me to judge the tree by its fruits. It is disgusting and humiliating in the extreme to rake up Socialist muck, but it apparently has become necessary for me to show you some of the unspeakably vile fruits of the free love doctrines we have just considered 36 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. in order to make you realize what a revoltingly immoral movement you are unconsciously abetting by belonging to the Sociali&t Party. I have already drawn your attention to Barnes, the former national secretary of the party under whose administration Socialist headquarters were called "The Harem." In spite of the fact that he had been "compelled to resign from the office of national secretary of the Socialist Party in disgrace, charged with drunkenness, gross immorality, etc.," he had "the ionor of handling the political campaign for 1912" (The Miner's Magazine). \s I already stated, he owed his appointment to this very important and lucrative position to Morris Hillquit. Other practical examples showing clearly what Socialists understand by 'strict monogamy" (Hillquitt) I shall take from a booklet entitled "The Red Peril," which was written by one of the foremost authorities on Socialism in this country. Rev. W. S. Kress: "The daughter of Marx, Elinor, put the principle of free love into practice, when she made a lecture tour through the United States, traveling as the free-love wife of Dr. Edward Aveling. It mattered nothing to her that her companion had a wife living in England at the time. But when this wife died her lover married another, whereupon the discarded affinity committed suicide." George D. Herron entered into a free-love compact with Miss Carrie Rand, in 1901. This compact was glorified by his comrades prominent in Socialist circles, and was given wide publicity by an eulogistic article in the International Socialist Review, stylng it "A Socialist Wedding." Artist Earle justified the repudiation of his wife and taking up with ■ successive affinities, on the ground of love being the only bond of marriage. The Socialist press grew indignant when New York hotels refused to harbor Maxim Gorky and his free-love mate. The standard bearer of the Socialist party, Eugene V. Debs, was less particular than the hotel-keepers; for he wrote in The Worker (April 28, 1906): "With open arms and hearts attuned i to love and greeting, we of the proletariat welcome Maxim Gorky and his wife to these shores. Only a Socialist would have spoken of her as a wife. ; Dr. Antoinette Konikow achieved unenviable notoriety when she left her husband to take up life with a youthful "soul-mate." The episode was looked upon as a very ordinary affair by her Red associates; for she was elected, in \ spite of her evil record, to the National Woman's Committee of Socialist ! Propaganda by the convention of 1908. Upton Sinclair relinquished his wife to her paramour, when reminded i of his own teaching by the unkempt poet of Kansas. And the free-love mate reminded the latter in turn, after a few weeks' association with him, that he was her husband no longer, since she had found another whom she loved better" (pp. 38, 39). These examples ought to be sufficient to show you what your leaders \ understand by the Socialist "monogamous marriage." i SOCIALIST. — Jones, I protest against your unwarranted generalizations. Is it fair and just to besmirch our whole leadership just because a few of their number have been detestable libertines? JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 37 Catholic. — it would be unfair and unjust to implicate your leadership if the culprits I mentioned had been repudiated by them. But, as was indicated, far from experiencing such a fate, their actions were eulogized, they retained their positions of influence or were advanced to more important posts of authority and power. SOCIALIST. — Be that as it may: In any case I repudiate them and all those who connived at their shameless deeds. I repudiate the free-love doctrines of Socialist leaders and protest my sincere respect and high regard for the sacredness of the marriage bond and the christian character of the monogamous family. CATHOLIC. — Your actions belie your words as long as you remain a member of the Socialist Party. Whatever assistance or patronage you give the Socialist movement means so much moral support and so much appro- bation for those leaders whom you claim to repudiate. Every penny you spend in the interests of Socialism, be it in payment of membership dues, of subscriptions to Socialist periodicals, of tickets to Socialist lectures or free donations, is so much money spent in the interests of a movement whose object is the disruption of the marriage bond and the destruction of the family. XIII. Socialism and Religion. Why Catholics Oppose Socialism — Is Socialism Merely an Economic System? — Spargo's Deceptive Parallel — The Last Appeal — History of the Plank on Religion — Mendacity and Hypocrisy — Policy and Expediency vs. Truth and Honesty — Q. E. D. SOCIALIST. — You Catholics make me sick and sore. You're everlast- ingly finding fault with Socialism. Everyone of your priests thinks he must take a fling at it and all your publications are black with denunciations of it. But what are you doing for the working-class? CATHOLIC. — The reason why we Catholics in general and our priests and our press in particular so strenously oppose Socialism is not far to find and ought to be apparent to you after our last discussion on Socialism and Morality. We Catholics believe that Socialism is doing, and will continue to do more harm to our Church and to religion in general, than all our other enemies put together; on the one hand, because it is so insidious, and on the other, because it is spreading such baneful doctrines. Posing as the only friend and savior of the working-class, it poisoias the hearts and minds of its deluded victims with a material philosophy of life which admits, of no God, no soul, no free will, no hereafter. It ridicules the sublime teachings of our faith, maligns and slanders our clergy and vilifies us workmen who refuse to adopt its revoltingly immoral system. SOCIALIST.— That's all talk, Jones, all talk and I'll prove it to you. Socialism means the "national ownership of the industrial tools." Examine 38 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. that definition as closely as you please and you will find that Socialism has no relation whatever to religion; has nothing to do with it. CATHOLIC. — Now, Smith, don't try to lead me off into the realm of Socialistic abstractions. We are not concerned with some theoretical or possible system of Socialism but with the Socialism advocated and defended by present-day Socialists the world over, no matter how you define it. SOCIALIST. — Precisely; and that Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with religion; it is a purely economic system merely seeking industrial readjustment. CATHOLIC. — Let's call in a few Socialist authorities to decide the point at issue. Karl Marx says: "We shall do well if we stir hatred and contempt against all existing institutions; if we make war against all prevailing ideas of religion. . . . The idea of God is the keystone of perverted civilization." ("Secret Society in Switzerland.") Frederick Engels: "Three great obstacles block the path of social reform — private property, religion, and the present form of marriage." ("Secret Society in Switzerland.") Wilhelm Liebknecht: "It is our duty as Socialists to root out the faith in God with all our zeal, nor is anyone worthy of the name who does not consecrate himself to the spread of atheism." August Bebel: "We wish in politics, the republic; in economy, Socialism, and in religion, atheism" (German Diet, Dec. 31, '81). "Christianity and Socialism are like fire and water" (Christianity and Socialism). "The Call," March 2, 1911: "There is nothing to be gained by holding out false hopes that a study of Socialism does not tend to undermine religi- ous beliefs. The theory of economic determinism alone, if thoroughly grasped, leaves no room for a belief in the supernatural." Isador Ladoff, in "International Socialist Review, August, 1908: "Religion spells death to Socialism, just as Socialism spells death to religion. . . . The thinking Socialists are all free-thinkers." Geo. D. Herron, secretary to the International Congress of Socialists, in "The Worker," March 30, 1902: "Christianity today stands for what is lowest and basest in life. It is the most degrading of all our 'institutions and the most brutalizing in its effects on the common life. For Socialism to use it, to make terms with it, or let it make approaches to the Socialistic movement, is for Socialism to take Judas to its bosom." Smith, should I ask some more Socialist authorities for their testimony? SOCIALIST. — Save yourself the trouble, Jones; I don't deny that there are many atheists within the Socialist ranks, but I do deny that you are justified in concluding from this fact that Socialism is atheistic or anti- religious. It would be just as logical and fair — I should say, Illogical and unfair — to argue that the Republican Party is atheistic and anti-religious because there are many free-thinkers among the Republicans. Spargo rightly dismisses your argument with the remark: "Such cowardly and dishonest methods of attack are unworthy of serious considei ''^ion." JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 39 CATHOLIC. — You are quoting Spargo who deceived .you in regard to ISocialism's real attitude toward marriage and the family; that "gentleman" who had to enlighten one of the delegates to the Chicago convention, May, 11910, on the utter absurdity of such a thing as morals and morality. Listen )to what this same Spargo had to say on another occasion relative to the matter under discussion: "It is easier so to act, than to affirm, what in our very souls we feel to be true, that Socialism, as an ethical interpretation of I life, is far removed from Christianity and of infinitely greater beauty and i worth. . . . Socialism christianized would be Socialism emasculated and destroyed" (The Comrade, May, 1903). Of course it would be unfair and illogical to argue that the Republican Party is atheistic and anti-religious jjust because some of its members are free-thinkers; but if the foremost \ leaders of that party were to tell us that it is atheistic and anti-religious, and I this happens in the case of Socialism, wouldn't we be allowed to take their word for it? SOCIALIST. — If they spoke in an official capacity, yes; but not if they i merely voiced personal opinions as do the Socialist authorities you quoted a few minutes ago. I demand, and demand it in all fairness and justice, that you judge the Socialist Party exclusively by its official utterances, by its platform. Now, our platform states expressly: "The Socialist Party is primarily an economic and political movement. It is not concerned with the institution of religion." CATHOLIC- — Smith, if you knew the history of that plank you would hesitate a long time before appealing to it as an argument. SOCIALIST.— Why so? CATHOLIC. — Let me tell you how it found its way into your plaftorm. It was formulated by the past-master in Socialist tactics, Morris Hillquit, and after a heated debate was finally adopted by a majority of one vote I (Proceedings, p. 205). Of the 157 delegates, 78 who had the courage of their convictions and were not of the vote-angling type, bitterly j opposed the insertion of the "religion plank" on the ground that it was f an unmitigated lie and an impudent piece of the rankest hyprocisy.. To I quote from delegate Van der Porten's speech: "Let us say nothing or say the truth. To spread forth to the world that religion is the individual's affair we lie when we say it" (Proceedings, p. 204). Strickland, another delegate, dumbfounded his opponents by fiinging this question into their faces: "If economic determinism be true and if the n*>oral and ethical principles of society be based upon the economic manner of production, how dare you, then, say that we have nothing to do with religion?" Delegate Lewis gave expression to his outraged sense of honesty in a harangue on "truthfulness," from which I will take the following: "But if we must speak, I propose that we shall go before the people of this country with the truth and not with a lie. . . . Now, I do not propose to state in this platform the truth about religion from the point of view of the Socialist philosophy as it is stated in almost every book of standard Socialist litera- ture; but if we do not do that, let us at least have the good grace to be 40 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. silent about it, and not make hypocrites of ourselves" (Proceedings, pp. 191, 192). But truth and honesty had to yield to "policy and expediency." In the opinion of Hillquit, who openly confessed that "ninety-nine per cent, of us (Socialists) have landed in the same spot" (agnosticism) (Proceedings, p. 193); Hunter and other defenders of the plank, it was necessary for cam- paign purposes to declare that Socialism is not concerned with religion, and that it would be infamously bad policy to tell the people at large that religion and Socialism are antagonistic. This may sound "fishy" to you, but listen to what delegate Unterman had to say: "Would you expect to go out among the people of this country, people of different religious factions, and tell them that they must become atheists before they can become Socialists? That would be nonsense. We must first get these men convinced of the rationality of our economic and political program, and then, after we have made Socialists of them and members of the Socialist Party, we can talk of the higher philosophy and of the logical consequences of our explanation of society and nature. . . . Therefore, I ask you to retain this plank in our platform" (Proceedings, p. 194). Smith, compare these words of one of your recognized leaders with a statement I made in our opening discussion, the statement at which you took so much offense. I said: "You (Socialists) hold back from the unsus- pecting inquirer every feature of your system that might shock his Christian sense of justice and morality and make him believe that Socialism means certain reform measures which are not distinctively Socialistic. And when you finally succeed in trapping your victim, by fair means or foul, you inoculate him with the poison of discontent, infidelity and hatred of religion. And when this poison has taken effect, he is ready to be instructed In the real meaning of Socialism." Now, Smith, be honest with yourself and confess that you have been duped. Socialist leaders tell you so. Take their word fop It if mine isn't good. XIV. The Catholic Church and the Toilers. Why Is a Socialist? — Catholics Lead in the Fight Against Socialism- Socialism the Laborer's Enemy — Disrupts His Unions — Robs His Money — Opposes His Interests — Debases His Nature — Positive Work of the Church for the Laborer — His Greatest Benefactor. SOCIALIST. — I am cornered. I must admit you have me on the hip. But really, Jones, most of us Comrades are not in the Socialist Party because we believe in its economic, moral or religious theories — why, we ourselves haven't got a clear Idea of what they are and don't bother our heads very much about them either — we're Socialists mainly because the Socialist Party most fearlessly and courageously voices our protest against injustice and JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 41 i oppression and because it gives the most definite expression to our aspiration after a better order of things. Show us a better way! Give us a better champion! Answer this question: What are you Catholics doing for the working-classes? What are your aims and purposes in their regard? I say, answer this question, answer it satisfactorily and I shall have done with Socialism. CATHOLIC. — With the little time at our disposal, I can give you only a very imperfect idea of all that the Catholic Church is doing for us toilers. Of course you know that Catholics are leading the fight against Socialism. Now, we believe that we are thereby doing the working-class an inestimable service. SOCIALIST. — That you are fighting Socialism and fighting it more suc- cessfully than any other organization, all Socialists know full well, and it is for this very reason that they hate you so cordially; that they are fighting you in turn. I know from experience that they are as active as the most bigoted Protestants in spreading anti-Catholic literature, particularly the **Menace," and that they are always on the alert for opportunities to discredit Catholic beliefs and institutions and to withdraw the working-men from the influence of their priests. Socialists feel that the Catholic Church is the one great enemy whom they must dispose of, or at least cripple and disable, before they can hope to attain ultimate success. But how can you interpret your fight against Socialism as an inestimable service to the working-class? CATHOLIC. — Because, far from being the laborers friend. Socialism is its most .insidious enemy. I have already shown you what an in^- praoticable, impossible economic system it is; how revoltingly immoral and bitterly anti-religious. But even from a bread-and-butter standpoint it is doing the toilers incalculable harm. Socialists are straining every fiber to destroy those organizations which "have probably done more for the better- ment of the working population than all other agencies combined, with the exception of religion" (Father Ryan) I mean the Trade Unions, for, In the opinion of the Socialist presidential standard-bearer, Eugene V. Debs, 'Trade unions are an unmitigated evil and a crime against the workers.' " (Int. Soc. Review, Feb., 1911). Socialists are continually opposing efforts made for the betterment of the laborers, because "the Socialist Party is not a party of reform but of revolution" (C. E. Russell, Socialist candidate for governor of New York, Sept. 7, 1912) ; and because it is their avowed policy "to keep the wounds of the body social in a festering condi- tion" (Bebel). Socialism never put a penny into the pay-envelope of the worker, but robbed him of many a hard-earned dollar by demanding fees for calamity-howling propagandists, by securing payment for im- moral, scurrilous, blasphemous, revolutionary literature, by exacting mem- bership dues which eventually landed in the pockets of grasping leaders who are not of the working-class, and whose names have become by-words for free lust, revolution, blasphemy. Socialism never even attempted to develop the nobler instincts and finer qualities in the working-man. Its appeal is 42 JONES AKfE) gMittl Discuss sogiaUsm. ever directed to his lower f^li^sions; it robs him of peace and content- ment and sows in his heart hatred, suspicion, rancor and enmity. socialist. — LfOoking back upon my past experience, I confess that there is much truth in what you say. But, tell me, what is your Church doing in a positive way for the laboring classes. CATHOLIC. — The Catholic Church is the one great organization which almost alone and single-handed, persistently and insistently defends the highest and noblest title of every toiler: "man made in the image of his Creator, a child of God redeemed by the precious blood of Christ," and she absolutely condemns, utterly repudiates and indignantly repels attempts of Socialists and materialist writers and professors who would degrade us to the level of the brute and make of us the chance product of a blind force. She vindicates and ever insists upon those fundamental principles which she bequea;thed to mankind and from which our most cherished rights and prerogatives proceed: the essential equality of all men and the inviolable sacredness of each individual. The Catholic Church safeguards our dearest and highest treasures: our families, our nobler impulses and aspirations after virtue, particularly justice, charity and chastity, and the "mighty hopes which make us men" and without which material prosperity would be an empty delusion and a hollow mockery. SOCIALIST. — What a contrast with the low, debasing principles and tendencies of Socialism! I begin to appreciate the force and value of Gath- olic claims that the truths and principles you mentioned were instrumental in raising the laboring classes from the state of slavery, in elevating woman from the deep degradation to which she had fallen in paganism, ancient and modern, and in establishing democracy. I realize, too, that these same prin- ciples find their concrete expression in the numberless institutions of Catholic charity; in your schools, hospitals, homes for the poor and aged, asylums for the orphan, the cripple, the defective, refuges for the fallen, etc., etc. But, what I am particularly anxious to know, is their detailed and specific appli- cation to our present social conditions. You are fully aware of the fact that the working-class is not so much demanding charity but rather justice. To put my question more pointedly: what is the Catholic solution of the Social Problem? V XV. Specific Application of Catholic Principles. Social Problem Defined — Catholic Principles and Production — Economy and Efficiency — The Goal — Catholic Principles and Distribution — Justice and Charity — Protecting the Laborer — Curbing the Power of the Rich — Catholic Social Activities — Social Sense — School — Platform — Press — Catholic Federation — Individual Responsibility. CATHOLIC. — ^If you promise to make generous allowances for my l)er8onal limitations, and if you will bear in mind that I am not authorized to JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 43 speak in the name of my co-religionists, but that 1 am merely giving you the results and fruits of my reading and study of Catholic authors, I will undertake to answer your question. Speaking in general terms we may say that the Social Problem is the problem enabling all classes of human society to obtain a proper and just share of the goods of this earth and that it accordingly embraces the problems of production and distribution. SOCIALIST. — I see the point. If all classes are to obtain a proper amount of material goods, these goods must be produced in sufficient quantities,, and, if we all are to obtain a just share of them, they must be distributedi equitably. CATHOLIC. — Applied to production, the Christian truths and principles'^ I mentioned, give expression to the watchword "Economy and Efficiency^'' and to the following imperative demands: Cut down our vice and crime bill (which, from a money point of view alone, runs into many millions each day), and develop the principle factor in production, the individual, by means of religion and education. Cut down our alcohol bill (several billions per year in money not to speak of impaired efficiency, wrecked individuals and homes, etc.), by means of religious education and proper restriction of the alcohol traffic. Cut down our idleness bill: voluntary idleness, through the establishment of labor colonies; involuntary idleness through compulsory arbitration, trade agreements, etc., if occasioned by strikes, lockouts — through labor exchanges if occasioned by fluctuations in the market. Cut down our sickness bill by establishing National, State and Municipal Boards of Health, by enforcing pure food laws and by education. Cut down our waste bill in households by proper training and by re- ducing capital and labor consumed in luxurious living and display. Increase efficiency in the operation of our factories, shops, farms, rail- ways, mines, in the construction of buildings and other permanent works, and in the distribution of products among the consumers. The principal means to this end is vocational and industrial training. Increase efficiency of the farmer by establishing credit unions and facilitating the marketing of farm products. SOCIALIST. — I did not suspect that your general principle could be translated into such specific applications to the problem of production. They certainly go to the root of many of our evils. Still, I think you are willing to admit that in spite of our incalculable extravagance and wasteful pro- digality we produce enough to satisfy all reasonable demands of every in- dividual, but that our products are not equitably distributed. How can your principles be effectively applied to the problem of distribution? CATHOLIC. — First of all, I wish to point out the goal toward which they lead. No democracy can long exist if the majority of its citizens are hired men, and therefore economic and social conditions must be so arranged as to enable the farmer to own the soil he tills and the worker to own the tools with which he works. In other words, establishments should be owned and operated by the men and women who actually work in them, not by absentee 44 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. stock-holders, as is the case under Capitalism, nor by the community at large, as Socialism demands. SOCIALIST. — But how do you ever intend to bring about such an ideal and much-to-be-desired arrangement? CATHOLIC. — Personally, I see no valid reason why, when conditions and circumstances are more favorable, the same means which are being so suc- cessfully employed to give their land back to the Irish, could not also be employed to put the toilers in possession of the establishments in which they toil. SOCIALIST. — I do not know what the means are that you refer to. CATHOLIC. — The English government advances money to the Irish ten- inant at a low rate of interest which enables him to buy out the landlord who ,is compelled by law to sell. SOCIALIST. — Of course you don't expect to realize this plan in the near :future, do you? CATHOLIC. — Many years will pass before our ideal is attained in its •entirety. Much must still be done to enlighten the minds of our people, to quicken the social conscience, to prepare and train the worker for the en- larged responsibilities that await him. However, the multiplying instances »of co-operative societies, of co-partnership, of the admission of labor to the •management and control of business, which we witness on all sides, indicate rthat we are moving toward the ideal. SOCIALIST. — And what are your plans for the immediate future? CATHOLIC. — The problem of an equitable distribution of the goods of ^this earth is really a problem of equalizing the struggle for existence in which one class, the powerful rich, have obtained unfair advantages over 'their competitors, the powerless poor. SOCIALIST. — Very well put. And how do you intend to equalize the struggle? CATHOLIC. — Applying our principles to this phase of the problem we obtain the watchword: "Justice and Charity," and, in accordance with its ^ spirit, demand, first of all, that the weaker party in the struggle be protected -against further unjust exploitation, and to achieve this purpose we insist upon the passage and strict enforcement of laws providing for a Living Wage, insurance against sickness, accidents, unemployment, old age, an eight- hour work day, Sunday rest, safe and sanitary working conditions, restriction of work by women and children, proper housing. SOCIALIST. — Have you any definite plans for preventing a few favored individuals from gaining unfair advantages over the rest of the community? CATHOLIC. — Certainly. Here ,too, we have recourse to legislation and demand laws prohibiting speculation on the exchange and precluding the transfer of government mineral and forest lands to private parties. SOCIALIST. — And how will you curb the power which many corporations possess and use to exploit and oppress the laborer and consumer? CATHOLIC. — In accordance with Catholic principles we demand that all workless capital be subjected to the usury laws in order to prevent JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 45 capitalists from obtaining an unjust and unreasonable rate of interest on their actual investment. SOCIALIST. — Such legislation would put an immediate stop to our modern legalized robbery. Could you suggest some specific methods for obtaining this result? CATHOLIC. — In case of natural monopolies, such as railroads, telegraphs, telephones, street railways and other public utilities, the government should regulate rates and charges or take over their ownership; other monopolies or trusts should be divided up into a sufficient number of parts so as to insure actual competition. If this cannot be obtained the government should fix maximum prices or compete with the exploiters by entering into their respective fields of mercantile endeavor. SOCIALIST. — One more question. How do you expect to decentralize wealth? CATHOLIC. — Principally by means of a more rational system of taxa- tion. Taxes should be gradually removed from the necessaries of life and improvements and placed where they belong — upon land, inheritances, in- comes, and especially upon the unearned increment of land values. SOCIALIST. — I frankly confess I never even suspected that you Catholics had such a comprehensive, reasonable, satisfactory solution of the Social Problem, and I am sure that, if Socialists generally knew of it, many of them would turn their backs upon the Party, provided they could be assured that you are really in earnest about carrying out your plans. CATHOLIC. — Our activities at present consist first of all in developing a ''Social Sense" in our Catholic people. Interest in the Social Problem is being aroused, attention is constantly called to the grave responsibility that rests upon every Catholic to "put his hand to the work which falls to his share, and that at once and straightway, lest the evil which is already so great become, through delay, beyond remedy" (Pope Leo). As a powerful means to this end, Catholic toilers are urged to become active, energetic members of unions and every Catholic citizen is impressed with the para- mount importance of his sacred obligations as a citizen in the matter of cast- ing his ballot, watching the actions of those who represent him in the legis- lative bodies of city, state and country and insisting upon the strict enforce- ment of laws which have been passed for the benefit of the laborers. SOCIALIST. — May I ask how you are striving to obtain these various purposes? CATHOLIC. — By proper training in our schools, particularly our high schools and colleges, by arranging lectures on social topics, organizing study- clubs, conducting social study courses, etc., but especially by enlisting the services of the press. In this connection I should like to call attention to the hundreds of books and pamphlets bearing on social subjects which are being spread throughout the country; to the splendid social press service of the Catliolic Federation, whereby many hundred thousand readers are reached every week; to the two periodicals devoted exclusively to the Social Prob- lem: "The Live Issue," an excellent penny weekly, published in New York, 46 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 131 E. Twenty-third Street; and the "Central Blatt and Social Justice," a scholarly monthly published in St. Louis, Temple Building. SOCIALIST. — Have you no organization for the express purpose of push- ing social reform? CATHOLIC. — I will mention the principal ones: The Catholic Federation and its most prominent unit, the Central Verein, which have adopted Social Reform as their main activity and which, so we Catholics hope, will be in- strumental in bringing about the realization of our plans. It is understood that whenever prudence suggests they will co-operate with other agencies pursuing similar purposes, with such agencies as the American Federation of Labor, the American Association for Labor Legislation, the National Consumers' League, charity organizations, etc. SOCIALIST. — It is needless for me to state that your outline of Catholic plans and activities has been a complete revelation to me. I was under the impression that your co-religionists, priests and laity, knew little else than denounce Socialism and pronounce a few pious platitudes. It is necessary to expose the fallacies of Socialism, its immoral and anti-religious tendencies, but, if we wish to check the further spread of irreligion, revolt and anarchy, it is even more necessary to adopt and push with vigor and consistency a definite program of Social Reform. And for this work no agency is better equipped than the Catholic Church, with its sound, sublime principles, its centuries of experience and its incomparable organization extending to every section of every city and to every hamlet of every state in the Union. Let every Catholic give one-tenth the interest, enthusiasm and support to Social Reform that the typical Comrade gives to Socialism, and the solution of the Social Problem will be a mere matter of time. i I 1