Produced by Audrey Longhurst, Jeannie Howse and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team.










SOCIALISM AND AMERICAN IDEALS

BY
WILLIAM STARR MYERS, Ph.D.
PROFESSOR OF POLITICS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY



PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
PRINCETON
LONDON HUMPHREY MILFORD
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1919




1919, by
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS


Published February, 1919
Printed in the United States of America


            TO
       THE MEMORY OF
    SAMUEL SELDEN LAMB
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF A
  MUTUAL PROMISE MADE AT
  "DEAR OLD CHAPEL HILL"




PREFACE


The following essays originally appeared in the form of articles
contributed at various times to the (daily) New York _Journal of
Commerce and Commercial Bulletin_. Numerous requests have been received
for a reprinting of them in more permanent form, and this little volume
is the result.

I am deeply indebted to my friend Mr. John W. Dodsworth, of the _Journal
of Commerce_, for his kind and generous permission to reprint these
articles. Since numerous changes and modifications from the original
form have been made the responsibility for these statements and the
sentiments expressed rests entirely upon me.

I hope it is not necessary for me to say that this is not intended as an
exhaustive study of the more or less widespread movement to advance
paternalism in Government. My object is to lay before the people, in
order that they may carefully consider them, the reasons for thinking
that Socialism is in theory and practice absolutely opposed and contrary
to the principles of Americanism, of democracy, and even of the
Christian-Jewish religion itself.

WM. STARR MYERS.

Princeton, N.J.
November 28, 1918.




CONTENTS


Introduction--Materialism and Socialism                          3

I.   The Conflict with the Idea of Equality of Opportunity      13

II.  Why Socialism Appeals to Our Foreign-Born Population       23

III. Its Conflict with the Basic Principles of Democracy
     and Religion                                               34

IV.  Some Instances of its Practical Failure                    54

V.   The True Antidote Found in Co-operative Effort             74




INTRODUCTION

MATERIALISM AND SOCIALISM


It was about a decade ago that Professor E.R.A. Seligman of Columbia
University published his valuable work on the "Economic Interpretation
of History," which gave a great impetus to the study, by historians, of
the economic influences upon political and social development. Professor
Seligman showed conclusively that one of the most potent forces in the
growth of civilization has been man's reaction upon his material
environment. Since that time the pendulum has swung so far in this
direction that many students of history and economics would seem to
think that all of life can be summed up in terms of materialism, that
environment after all is the only important element in the advance of
society, and that mankind is a rather negligible quantity. This is just
as great a mistake as the former practice of ignoring economic
influence, and even so great an authority as Professor Seligman would
seem to tend in that direction.

On the other hand, Mr. George Louis Beer rightly claims that "the chief
adherents of economic determinism are economists and Socialists, to whom
the past is, for the most part, merely a mine for illustrative material.
The latter, strangely enough, while explaining all past development by a
theory that conceives man to be a mere self-regarding automaton, yet
demand a reorganization of society that postulates a far less selfish
average man than history has as yet evolved."[1]

Most thoughtful people of to-day know that the political and economic
elements were just as strong as the religious one in the Protestant
Reformation in Germany, but that fact by no means would lessen the value
of the gains for intellectual and religious freedom that were won by
Martin Luther. Again, bad economic conditions had as much, or more, to
do with the outbreak of the French Revolution as did political and
philosophical unrest. Also taxation, trade and currency squabbles had
more to do with causing an American Revolution than did the idealistic
principles later enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. And
there was a broad economic basis for the differences in crops,
transportation and the organization of labor which expressed themselves
in a sectionalism which finally assumed the political aspect that
caused the Civil War. Yet the student who would forget the spiritual
element in our life, who would overlook the fact that man is a human
being and not a mere animal, will wander far astray into unreal bypaths
of crass materialism.

On the other hand, it would be hard to find an economic explanation for
the emigration of the Pilgrim Fathers to Plymouth, for the Quaker
agitation that supported John Woolman in his war upon slavery or for
most of the Christian missionary enterprises of the present day. Also it
would take a mental microscope to find the economic cause for the
extermination of the Moriscos in Spain by Philip III. or the expulsion
by Louis XIV. of the Huguenots from France. These two great crimes of
history had important economic consequences, but the cause behind them
was religious prejudice. Prof. James Franklin Jameson, of the Carnegie
Institution at Washington, rightly has stressed a study of the religious
denominations in the United States, of the Baptist, Methodist and other
"circuit riders" of the old Middle West, as one of the most fruitful
sources for a fuller knowledge and understanding of the history and
development of the American nation. Neither George Whitefield, Peter
Cartwright, nor Phillips Brooks of a later day, can be explained in
terms of economic interpretation.

This false and entirely materialistic conception of the development of
society and civilization is a mistake not only of the learned, but of
the pseudo-learned, of the men and women of more or less education whose
mental development has not progressed beyond an appreciation of Bernard
Shaw, Henrik Ibsen and H.G. Wells. Most of them are estimable people,
but the difficulty is that they are so idealistic that, so to speak,
they never have both feet upon the ground at the same time. This is
especially true of our esteemed contemporaries, the Socialists. These
cheerful servants of an idealistic mammon pride themselves upon
completely ignoring human nature. A few years ago, at a London meeting
of the "parlor Socialists" known as the Fabian Society which, by the
way, was presided over by Bernard Shaw, an old man began to harangue the
audience with the words, "Human nature being as it is--" At once his
voice was drowned out by a chorus of jeers, cat-calls and laughter. He
never made his address, for the audience was unwilling to hear anything
about "human nature." No Socialists in general are willing to do so, for
human nature, with the mental and spiritual sides of life, is just the
element with which their fallacious creed cannot deal, and they know it.
But the human element must enter into business and trade in the problems
of direction, management, even in the form of competition itself, and
cannot possibly be eradicated.

It is amusing to note that these same Socialists are busily occupied
with pointing out what they consider to be the failures of government,
as well as of "business and capitalism." Yet they do not realize that
they are thus condemning their own system, for if the governments of the
world have failed to do the work at present laid upon them, how can they
ever undertake the gigantic additional political and capitalistic
burden that Socialism would impose? Thomas Jefferson, the patron saint
of the party that President Wilson now leads, always expressed a fear of
"too much government." It would appear that the present Administration
and the Democratic members of Congress have wandered far from their old
beliefs, and if recent legislation is the result of it, their
Socialistic experiments have not been much of a success.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: _The English-Speaking Peoples_, p. 203.]




SOCIALISM--IS IT AMERICAN?

I

ITS CONFLICT WITH THE IDEA OF EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY


One of the main difficulties in discussing Socialism is to find a
working definition; for this political or social movement is based upon
a system of a priori reasoning which often is vague and lacking in
deductions from practical experience. Socialism also is unreal in its
assumptions and impractical in its conclusions, so that a person finds
it almost impossible to give a definition that will include within its
scope all the Socialistic vagaries and explain all the suppositions
based upon nonexistent facts. Bearing this difficulty in mind, perhaps
the following will serve as a working definition for the purposes of
the present discussion. Socialism is the collective ownership (exerted
through the government, or society politically organized) of the means
of production and distribution of all forms of wealth. This means wealth
not alone in mere terms of money but in the economic sense of everything
that is of use for the support or enjoyment of mankind. Of course
"production and distribution" means the manufacture and transportation
of all forms of this economic wealth.

Inevitably this system would imply the substitution of the judgment of
the government, or of governmental officials, for individual judgment,
and for individual emulation and competition in all forms of human
endeavor. Dr. David Jayne Hill recently has remarked that "if the
tendency to monopolize and direct for its own purposes all human
energies in channels of its own [i.e., the government's] devising were
unrestrained, we should eventually have an official art, an official
science and an official literature that would be like iron shackles to
the human mind."[2] The Socialist probably would object that this
statement is extreme, but at least it is logical, and if Socialism be
reasonable it must be logical, and it must be both reasonable and
logical if it is to be popularly accepted.

The above might be stated in another way by saying that Socialism means
the substitution of governmental judgment for that of the individual and
for individual ambition as well. This is one of the strongest arguments
against Socialism. Individual ambition is not only justifiable but also
an absolute necessity for the integrity and growth of the human mind.
Like everything else, ambition may be wrongly used or directed. It only
goes to prove that the greater the value of anything the greater is the
wrong when it is abused and not rightly used. In fact, proper ambition
is the desire for greater opportunity for service according to the
dictates of individual conscience and it lies at the basis of all
religion and morality. Without ambition the individual mind goes to
seed, so to speak,--there is no further growth or progress. This desire
for greater service is the thing that produces patriotism, that causes
men and women to work at the expense of personal interest for Liberty
Loans, the Red Cross, Y.M.C.A., etc.

Professor Richard T. Ely well expresses the same thought by
saying--"When we all come to make real genuine sacrifices for our
country, sacrifices of which we are conscious, then we shall first begin
to have the right kind of loyal love for our country. We shall never get
that kind of love merely by pouring untold benefits upon the
citizens."[3] Also, Edward Jenks, the brilliant British historian, says
that--"A society which discourages individual competition, which only
acts indirectly upon the bulk of its members, which refuses to recruit
its ranks with new blood, contains within itself the seeds of decay."[4]

The attempt by Socialism to substitute a governmental standard of
happiness for individual desire and ambition is merely another attempt
to legislate human mind and character. A government cannot make a man
happy by law any more than it can make him moral or religious by the
same means. All that law can do is to endeavor to place a man in such an
environment that his moral or religious nature may be aroused and that
his desire or ambition be encouraged. It was the inability to understand
and realize this fact that caused the religious persecutions of past
centuries when Catholics persecuted Protestants and Protestants
persecuted Catholics, and both persecuted the Jews, and everybody
thought that it was possible to legislate a man's belief and enforce it
by the sanction of the law. Happiness, like religion, must have its
impulse from within.

Furthermore, it is along this identical line of reasoning that
Socialism is essentially un-American. The primary object of the
government of the United States, the whole theory upon which our nation
was formed, is not to give happiness to the individual. The Fathers of
our country were too wise to attempt any such ridiculous undertaking.
The ideal or object of the United States is to give equality of
opportunity for each individual to work out his or her own salvation in
a political, a moral or an economic sense. In other words, to give
equality of opportunity for each individual to work out or achieve his
or her own happiness. That is the only possible way in which happiness
can be gained. For this reason the American people believe in public
schools and child labor laws and other forms of social, not Socialistic,
legislation, in order to help less fortunate individuals to help
themselves, and not to help them in spite of themselves. The former plan
is in accordance with the needs of human nature and with American ideas
and ideals; the latter is the essential basis of Socialism and
inevitably pauperizes and atrophies human character.

There is as much difference between social legislation and Socialism as
there is between the common-sense advancement of the ideas of peace and
the selfish or cowardly brand of treason that is known as pacifism. In
both Socialism and pacifism the essential idea is that the individual
should mentally "lie down" and "let George do it." In contrast with
this, the common sense way to gain peace is actively to restrain wrong
in order that right may triumph. The United States recently has been
engaged in just this kind of an undertaking. Also, man is a social
animal as well as an individual being, so social consciousness or social
responsibility consists in the common responsibility of society to see
that each individual gets a "square deal" in the form of equal
opportunity for advancement by self effort.

In fact, the American ideal is to restrain human initiative only to the
extent that is necessary to give equality of opportunity to all, and
that the government should act only on the principle of the greatest
good of the greatest number. Hence Americans believe that Rousseau was
right when he said that the individual gives up a small part of his
personal liberty, or license, in order to receive back full civil
liberty, which is much greater because it has a wider outlook and
possibilities and is guaranteed through the support of society.
Furthermore, they believe that real liberty is freedom of individual
action within the law as the expressed will of the people.

But everything depends upon the fact that the impulse to use this
liberty must come from within, and not be commanded by a government from
without. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, Americans
believe "that all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit
[not the gift] of happiness." On this basis alone was this nation
founded and has it prospered.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 2: _The Rebuilding of Europe_, p. 63.]

[Footnote 3: _The World War and Leadership in a Democracy_, p. 111.]

[Footnote 4: _Law and Politics in the Middle Ages_, p. 306.]




II

WHY IT APPEALS TO OUR FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION


It is often remarked that a reading of the names of the members of the
present Socialist party, or of those who advocate Socialism in the
United States to-day, will disclose the fact that most of these names
denote foreign or Continental European, as contrasted with American or
British, origin. This can readily be understood when it is remembered
that the governments of Continental Europe are theoretically on a
different basis and of different origin from those of the United States
and Great Britain or of those countries where the English Common Law
prevails.

Whether in democratic France, Italy, Belgium or Norway, or in autocratic
Germany or Austria-Hungary, the government is considered as in a sense
coming down from above. It is believed, and taught, that government
exists by divine right and that it has per se its own position and
rightful place of domination. That it exists for itself, and not as a
means to an end. But in Great Britain, the United States, and also in
the British self-governing colonies, as compared with this, the whole
order of things is upside down, so to speak. We believe that all
governments arise from the people, that they should derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed, and that they are merely an
instrumentality to help the people to help themselves--to protect them
in their inherent, inborn right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. Also the government should act upon the principle of the
greatest good of the greatest number as a test when there is any
conflict between individual and social rights.

Of course it is now popularly understood that an autocracy like that of
Germany until recently, was built up on the theory of the divine right
of governments and of the princes who administered them. The
constitutions of the German states and especially of the Empire of
Germany, were the gift or gifts of the German princes to the people and
not the expression of the will of the people, as in the United States,
or of the people as represented in Parliament, as in Great Britain. Thus
the King of Prussia, who was also Emperor of Germany, was God's
representative on earth and responsible to God alone for the
administration of his office. He, as well as the various princes in
their respective states, were above all earthly law, were laws unto
themselves, and they and their serving (or servile) officials were to be
obeyed without question. Disobedience to the "princes'" laws was not
only treasonable but sacrilegious as well. This fact goes far to explain
the atrocities committed with the consent of German public opinion.
William the Damned and his bureaucracy were believed to be above all
moral or human law, and from the earthly standpoint were infallible and
irresponsible. Their orders must be obeyed without question.

As already stated, few people realize that while even the European
democracies do not accept the bald theory of the divine right of kings
but believe in the divine right of the people, yet somehow or other
these divine rights come down to the people by the gift of the
government, and are not inherent or inalienable, as our Declaration of
Independence would say. This is well illustrated by the principle of the
freedom of the press, which is usually considered one of the greater
guarantees of individual liberty. An examination of the provisions of
various continental constitutions shows that this freedom is given or
guaranteed by the government or by these documents themselves.

"The press shall be free," says the Constitution of Italy (Article 28).
"No previous authorization shall be required in order that one may
publish his thoughts or opinions through the press, except that every
person shall be responsible according to law."--Cons. of The
Netherlands (Art. 7). "There shall be liberty of the press."--Cons. of
Norway (Art. 100). "Every third year the Riksdag (Parliament) ... shall
... appoint six persons of known intelligence and knowledge, who with
the solicitor general as president shall watch over the liberty of the
press ... If they decide that the [any] manuscript may be printed, both
author and publisher shall be free from all responsibility, but the
commissioners shall be responsible."--Cons. of Sweden (Art. 108). "The
freedom of the press is guaranteed. Nevertheless, the cantons, by law,
may enact measures necessary for the suppression of abuses.... The
Confederation may also enact penalties for the suppression of press
offenses as directed against it or its authorities."--Cons. of
Switzerland (Art. 55). "The press is free; no censorship shall ever be
established; no security shall be exacted of writers, publishers or
printers. In case the writer is known and is a resident of Belgium, the
publisher, printer, or distributor shall not be prosecuted."--Cons. of
Belgium (Art. 18). But this same Constitution later on says quite
pointedly (Art. 96, clause 2) when prescribing the administration of
justice,--"In case of political offenses and offenses of the press
closed doors shall be enforced only by a unanimous vote of the court."
Also (in Art. 98) "The right of trial by jury shall be established in
all criminal cases and for all political offenses of the press." A
further reading of the provisions of these constitutions will show that
the whole intention of the documents is to _grant_ various rights and
privileges to the people.

In contrast with these establishments of the freedom of the press by the
constitutions and governments of the various European countries, the
Constitution of the United States merely says in the First
Amendment--"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of
speech or of the press." Stating this in other words, our Constitution
merely protects an already existing, inalienable right. Its guarantee is
in an entirely different sense from that of one of the above named
European constitutions.

In case of riot or disorder, the divinely constituted government of a
country of Continental Europe need merely "suspend the constitution,"
usually by the method of executive decree, and it suspends the freedom
of the press and all constitutional guarantees with it, as was done in
Hamburg, Germany, recently. In the United States this would be
impossible. Even though Germany or some other nation should invade this
country and destroy the governments at Washington and Albany, let us say
for extreme illustration, yet if any person were unjustly thrown into
prison in any part of New York state and a judge of any duly constituted
court happened to be nearby, he undoubtedly would issue a writ of habeas
corpus and the person be brought into the court for substantiation of
the charges in a legal manner according to the common law. It would not
matter whether there were a government or not, the inalienable common
law rights of an American citizen would continue to exist and the
destruction of the government would only remove one of the means of
protecting these rights and not destroy the rights themselves. In other
words, the judge would merely act on the common law rights of the
individual.

Furthermore, in the United States no person, whether high or low,
official or private citizen, is immune from the operation of the common
law. All are finally subjected to it, and the temporary immunity of the
President, a Governor, or any other official, only exists during the
term of office for which that official has been elected. At the
expiration of the term the obligations and penalties of the law
immediately are again in operation. On the other hand, in the countries
of Continental Europe the officials are not subject to the common law
but to the _Droit Administratif_ or Administrative Law, which is an
official law for the regulation or trial of officials. The average
European would consider it almost an act of sacrilege to hale an
official into court like any other private citizen.

All the above goes to show why many of our foreign-born population look
upon a government as "something from above." They are wont to be more
subservient to it, or to look upon it as responsible for the welfare of
its citizens. Therefore Socialism, which stands essentially for the
dependence of the individual upon the State as well as for the
governmental direction of the individual and the substitution of State
for individual judgment, for this reason appeals to them, and it has
made its greatest gains upon the Continent of Europe or among the
foreign-born or descended citizens of the United States.

The Socialists answer the charge that Socialism is not American by
saying--"Neither is Christianity. It is a 'foreign importation.' Its
founder was a 'foreigner,' and never set foot on American soil. Then
there is the printing press. It isn't American, either, though somehow
we manage to get along with it as well as the other 'foreign
importations' mentioned." Of course this smart kind of argument gets
nowhere. It is, in fact, intended to appeal to the half-baked type of
mind which has only begun to think and has never progressed beyond the
point of a consequent mental indigestion that would account for its
Socialist nightmare. What the Socialists do know and are not honest
enough to admit, is that this country was settled three centuries or
more ago by a people who did not come hither to enjoy the fruits of
other men's labor but who came here to carve out a new State in America
literally by the sweat of their brows. Also they consciously founded it
upon the basis of individual freedom and responsibility as proclaimed
and enforced by the precepts of the Christian-Jewish religion and by the
English Common Law. It is upon this foundation that they built their
success. Upon this same basis their descendants and successors to-day
weigh, measure and estimate that which is new in thought or invention
whether "native" or "foreign-born." And they have weighed Socialism in
this American balance and found it wanting.

But they brought with them neither certain loathsome diseases nor
Socialism. All of these are likewise the results of immorality--_moral_
and _political_--and of a type of decadent civilization still prevalent
on the Continent of Europe and at that time threatening to gain a
foothold even in England. It was this last-named threat from which the
founders of the American nation were wise and energetic enough to
escape, even though their escape meant going into the hardships of an
unknown and almost uninhabited wilderness.

Socialism is not only essentially un-American, but it is essentially
undemocratic. A democracy means a government by public opinion, and this
opinion is the result of the co-operative impulse or community feeling
of the people of a free country--a people who are given the opportunity
to think for themselves, and are not thought for by a divinely
constituted government. As Thomas Jefferson maintained, liberty is not a
privilege granted by a government, but government is a responsibility
delegated to its officers by the people. "On this distinction hangs all
the philosophy of democracy."[5] The people must decide questions for
themselves and make their common will known through the representative
organs of a government which is after all only the instrument intended
to produce the best expression and administration of this public will.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 5: David Saville Muzzey, _Thomas Jefferson_, p. 311.
  "Generally speaking, one may say of the German soldier that he is
  normally good-natured and is not disposed to do injury to harmless
  people, so long as he finds no obstacles put in his prescribed way.
  But once disturbed, he becomes frightful, because he lacks any
  higher capacity of discrimination; because he merely does his duty
  and recognizes no such thing as individual conscience and, besides,
  when he is excited becomes at once blind and super-nervous." "The
  Germans are, indeed, a good-natured people, born to blind obedience
  and humble willingness to let others do their thinking for them."
  Wilhelm Mühlon, _The Vandal of Europe_, pages 172 and 251.]




III

ITS CONFLICT WITH THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY AND RELIGION


In the course of a conversation during the past winter one of the
members of the present city government of New York remarked that
although he was not a Socialist, yet he failed to see how the election
of Morris Hillquit on his un-American platform to be Mayor of New York
would have had any result except as regards the national safety and the
immediate influence upon our international relations. He added that the
life of the city would have gone on just the same for a time at least;
hence why the great fear of Socialism? What this man failed to see was
that in fact the life of the city would go on for a time without change
only on account of the impetus the former democratic government had
given. That the policy of individual responsibility and judgment, which
had always been the professed aim of American government in the past,
had produced leadership and popular experience by the process of natural
selection, and that this leadership would last only until the time that
the deadening influence of Socialism had its true effect.

Let us consider for a moment the result of Socialism as a permanent
policy. It means the substitution, as already shown, of government or
official judgment and initiative for that of the individual. The whole
process would be one to deaden and atrophy the powers of the people in
general, with the result that there would follow a leveling down to a
plane of mediocrity rather than a leveling up according to individual
capacities and ambitions, exercised through equality of opportunity.

It should not be forgotten that the varying degrees of success in the
different walks of life finally have caused so-called social
differences. These differences result from the attempt on the part of
mankind to meet "the inequality of men in their capacity for the work
with which they are confronted in this life," said the New York _Journal
of Commerce_, with great acuteness, in a recent editorial discussion of
the phase of the question.[6] It continued by saying,--

"What we must strive for is intelligent understanding and sound
reasoning on the question of rights, and a just application of
principles for the common benefit. Everything should be done to develop
and train intelligence and increase the capacity of the people for their
various tasks and duties, and they should be stimulated by the rewards
to which they are fairly entitled in the results; but that cannot be
made to mean that they are all equal in contributing to results and
entitled to equality in the returns. Nothing could be more inconsistent
with a sound democracy than the distribution of the material results of
productive activity applied to the resources of nature, regardless of
the merits or just claims of those engaged in the work. To apply that
so-called principle of equality of rights without regard to the part
taken in producing results, would deaden the energies applied in
achieving them, and greatly reduce the product. It would prevent
material prosperity and defeat national progress."

In a Socialistic State, inevitably there would be formed a bureaucracy
of selfish office holders. Although, owing to the impetus of our
previous free Democracy, the first Socialist officials might be men of
ability who had gained their places through successful experience, yet a
close corporation of officials would follow them and retain the exercise
of power. The people gradually would sink to a level of servile
conformity.

We have a perfect illustration of this in the Germany of the past forty
years. There is a good reason for the fact that Germany, in the hands of
a selfish and conscienceless autocracy, made more successful use of
practical Socialism than any other nation in history and even carried
efficiency itself to a point of great success. Her close corporation of
bureaucratic officials, playing upon the remains of feudal and
aristocratic loyalty among the people that have survived the darkness of
past centuries as nowhere else among civilized nations, successfully
carried through Socialism in many practical ways, just as Morris
Hillquit and his un-American followers probably would have succeeded in
doing in New York for a short time. But the inevitable followed. The
German people have been reduced to a very low level of political
ability.

The German is one of the poorest politicians in the world, as every
student of political science knows. His lack of ability to run a
government on constitutional principles has been found in the inane
vaporings and factional maneuvering of the Reichstag, the supposedly
"popular" House of the Parliament, which was merely a machine to
register the will of the aristocratic autocracy. The individual citizen
is the most servile and unthinking person in any civilized country of
the world to-day. He has been trained to political incapacity.

What has the success of German Socialism amounted to? We find that
Germany, from the political standpoint, is nothing but an organized
machine without soul. Professor Ely, in taking the Moral side of the
matter into consideration, well says that "it may be added that truth,
an attribute of the gentleman, is less valued in Germany than in English
speaking countries. As long ago as 1874 Professor James Morgan Hart in
his book _German Universities_ called attention to this weakness in the
German character. A German mother will say to her child, 'O, you little
liar,' and does not imply serious reprobation thereby, and Professor
Hart said that if you called a German student a liar, he might take it
calmly, but if you called him a blockhead, he would challenge you to
fight a duel. All this has been amply exemplified during the present
war. It was the German socialist Lassalle who said of the lie that it
was one of the great European Powers! It was natural enough that he
should have said it."[7]

The public preparatory schools in Germany are so arranged that the
pupils are trained to unthinking subservience to the labor policy and
materialistic aims of a selfish, bureaucratic State. In fact, it is well
to remember that this German illustration only proves that Socialism,
instead of being democratic, is essentially undemocratic in its
effects. It produces an autocracy of officials which is as unfair and
selfish, because entirely materialistic, as any aristocracy of wealth or
birth could be. Shrewd observers note the same tendency in the
Commonwealth of Australia where the full fruition of its
semi-Socialistic policy of recent years has been somewhat retarded by
the individualistic influence of the English Common Law. When the
Socialistic autocracy is once completely in power, with its professed
policy of taking away human ambition and initiative, its position will
be almost impregnable and become more and more secure as the average
citizen becomes more and more servile, lazy and unambitious. Socialism
is politically decadent and contains within itself the germ of
self-destruction. During this process of self-destruction the people at
large will offer a rich field for exploitation by the demagogue, the
corrupt politician and the charlatan.

Furthermore, Socialism is essentially unChristian. It also is opposed
absolutely to the whole basis of the Jewish religion as well. The
foundation of the Jewish-Christian religion, for they are essentially
the same in basis, is the belief in the value of the individual soul in
the sight of God, and the dependence upon its relation to something
Divine. The impulse from within the human heart is the basis of all
right living. Thus Christ taught the social responsibility of the
individual for his neighbor. The appeal always was made to the
individual and the responsibility was laid upon him.

We read in the New Testament--"Remember the words of the Lord Jesus how
he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts, XX, 35.)

Right giving, which results from an appreciation of the obligations of
service, is an individualistic action; receiving, which means a benefit
from the activity and initiative of someone else (and often irrespective
of the real deserts of the recipient), is essentially Socialistic in
tendency. The one causes a growth in individual character; the other
tends to stunt or weaken it. St. Paul mentioned (1st Corinthians XIII,
3) as one of the greatest possible forms of service the bestowal of all
one's goods to feed the poor. But he did not suggest as a better way
that the individual should sit back, let the State take over his goods
and attend to the feeding of the poor, and thus relieve him from
responsibility. In fact, "love" itself, which is declared to be the
greatest thing of all, is essentially an individual impulse and never
could be called forth from the human heart, nor supplied to it either,
by the fiat of a government.

The same note runs through the Jewish Scriptures. At the beginning
(Genesis, chap. IV), in the old story of Cain's murder of Abel, when
Cain inquired of the Lord "Am I my brother's keeper?" the inference to
be drawn most decidedly is that the Lord thought he was, and not the
State, or the tribal government of that day, in his stead. Both the
Christian and Jewish religions are essentially individualistic in appeal
and social in responsibility, and so also is Democracy.

May not the extreme brutality of the German soldier of to-day be the
result not only of the ruthless command from the official higher up but
also of the de-souling, materialistic influence of Socialism on the
common people of Germany during the past twenty-five years? Is not the
viciousness of Prussian militarism plus the demoralizing influence of
Socialism a sufficient explanation?

According to Mr. J. Dover Wilson, "the German nation, in fact, is
suffering from some form of arrested development, and arrested
development, as the criminologists tell us, is almost invariably
accompanied by morbid psychology. That Germany at the present moment,
and for some time past, has been the victim of a morbid state of mind,
few impartial observers will deny. It has, however, not been so
generally recognized that this disease--for it is nothing less--is due
not to any national depravity but to constitutional and structural
defects."[8]

Many Socialists point to the housing, sanitary, insurance and other
State activities of Germany as showing the care of the Government for
the laboring man. My dogs are well fed, are kept clean, dry, healthy and
amused, and are carefully looked after in every way. But they are still
dogs. They have no soul or any right or power of self-determination. So
recent events show beyond cavil that the German workingman, from the
standpoint of the State and Government, was in reality a political dog.
He existed only for the good of the divinely constituted State and its
God-given princely proprietors, and as such was used and sacrificed for
the imperial and national glory. The German laboring man was the most
exploited, the most servile, the most unfairly treated worker on earth.
He was given enough material comforts or even amusements (religious,
theatrical, musical or otherwise) to keep him seemingly content, but
politically he was not permitted to think--or economically either, when
taken in the broad sense of the term. Therefore those who expect from
the revolution or uprising against the Kaiser and his military henchmen
the immediate establishment of a well-ordered and democratic republic,
are reckoning without their host. People must be experienced in
self-government before they can make a success of democracy as that term
is understood in America, and experienced the German people are not.

While the Socialists of the United States, "parlor" and otherwise,
include in their number many sincere and thoughtful, as well as
idealistic people, it is well to remember that a large part of them is
composed of individuals who have nothing, and want to divide it all with
everybody else. It is the old jealousy of the "have nots" for those who
have, which usually means the "will nots" for those who have the
ambition and will. Or if they are not of this kind, the best that can be
said of them is that they are foreigners, who are in reality not
Americans, who don't believe in democracy, but in autocracy, and
probably don't even know what democracy means. Autocracy is the
government of the many by and for the benefit of the selfish few. Real
democracy is the government by and for the many, who express their will
through their duly chosen representatives.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 6: Issue for November 12, 1918.]

[Footnote 7: _Op. cit._ p. 172.]

[Footnote 8: _The War and Democracy_, p. 58.]




IV

SOME INSTANCES OF ITS PRACTICAL FAILURE


I have stated my conviction, and the reasons for it, that Socialism is
essentially undemocratic and unChristian, as well as unAmerican. Yet
after all it is in the practical realm of experience that it has proved
to be most lacking and inefficient. To prove this, it is hardly
necessary to point to the classic illustrations of the utter failure of
Socialism when actually tried in France under the leadership of Louis
Blanc and Albert during the days of the Second Republic in the year
1848, or again when tried under the form of the Commune in 1871. The
horrors of the extreme form of Socialism known as Bolshevism, as seen
in the Russia of 1918, are destined to implant a useful lesson, not soon
to be forgotten, in the minds of intelligent people throughout the
entire world.

One of the best illustrations of the failure of a practical Socialistic
State is that of the "Mayflower" settlement at Plymouth in 1620. In
order to raise the money needed for the venture the Pilgrims borrowed
seven thousand pounds from seventy London merchants. In order also to
provide a species of sinking fund it was decided to accept the
suggestion of the creditor merchants that the net earnings of the
colonists should go into a common fund for the space of seven years and
then should be divided among the shareholders. It should especially be
remembered that the Pilgrims were a set of people small in number and as
a consequence easy to govern; of a high type of industry and integrity;
and that they were united by the strongest of all common and social
interests,--that of deep religious conviction. Furthermore, the relative
positions in life of the personnel of the entire Plymouth Colony showed
a remarkable equality. Their method of living was primitive and most
simple in form, without the usual complications of the life of even
three hundred years ago, much less of that of today. And yet this
communal or Socialistic system in Plymouth resulted in such a marked
lack of interest among the inhabitants, the whole arrangement worked so
badly, that the settlement verged on failure and destruction. The system
virtually was abolished after only three years trial in the year 1623
and good results showed themselves immediately. "Individual effort
returned with the prospect of individual gain." The cause of the failure
is evident,--the system was opposed to the fundamental facts of human
nature.

But what is "human nature"? Let us take a definition from the Socialists
themselves. "If the phrase means anything at all, it means man, with his
loves and hates, his desire for pleasure and aversion to pain, his noble
and ignoble traits, his interests, feelings, beliefs, prejudices,
ignorance, knowledge, fears and hopes. All these motives, desires and
emotions vary in each individual, some of them usually dominating over
the rest, yet all more or less active. Some one or more of them may be
cultivated by favorable environment or almost crushed by an unfavorable
environment. A saint may be dragged down to hell by adverse conditions
and a rake win eminence in the same environment. If the cultured
educator ... was suddenly forced to earn his living in a vile mining
center, his polish would soon wear off, and he would brood over a world
that now strikes him as on the whole all right. If cast adrift at sea,
within a week the wolf stare of hunger would make him and his associates
seriously consider casting lots as to who should be eaten. Later the
feast might actually begin and ... human nature find it easy enough to
gnaw the shin bone of a fellow castaway. This thing we call human nature
is a bundle of emotions and desires that will find expression in
different ways, according to the environment in which it is located, as
we have seen in the example given."[9]

This is exactly true in thesis, though utterly false in detail. But it
is the object of democracy to give equality of opportunity for human
nature, starting from the essential point of individual impulse (which
is the precise expression of character), to work out the best of which
it is capable. On the other hand, it is the object of Socialism, acting
through political and economic machinery, to crowd out these varying
attributes of human nature and reduce the individual to the mental
status of a dull, unthinking animal. Of course human nature always has
rebelled against this repression and always will do so in the final
analysis. It is impossible for Socialism or any other system of uniform
and outward repression to fetter the human soul and it inevitably will
fail to do so in the end. It is from an experience of the difficulties
and dangers, the unhappiness and injustice that will accompany this
process of failure, that the opponents of Socialism and the believers in
Democracy wish to spare the people of the world to-day.

This failure of Socialism especially is true as applied to Germany. The
un-souling of the people has come as the direct result of the use of
Socialism by the military autocracy for its own selfish purposes. Also
its failure is repeatedly seen in its actual working, and in spite of
the German boast of efficiency. The best illustration of this, because
the one most used by the Socialists on the other side of the argument,
is that of the railroads.

Most of the railroad lines of importance in Continental Europe are owned
and operated by the various governments. I can say from my own personal
experience and observation that the only railroads that are really well
run, so far as I have traveled, are those under private ownership and
direction, as in Great Britain and the United States. I have tried the
various trains de luxe and Blitzzüge of Continental Europe and their
slow progress and often indifferent accommodations make one long for an
English or American express train. And then to hold first-class tickets
in Germany, and be refused admission to first-class compartments still
empty "because some officials may want them," as was my experience in
going from Nürnberg to Mainz, does not add to one's desire for
governmental control. The best European trains do not for one moment
compare with those of the privately owned British and American
railroads.

According to statistics published in 1913, the railroads of the United
States were capitalized at $60,000 per mile under private ownership; the
government-owned German roads at $109,000 per mile, and this in spite of
the far cheaper costs of building. Railroad rates in the United States,
both freight and passenger, under private ownership have been among the
lowest in the world. The first thing that our government control has
brought about is a raise in rates that exceeds by far what the private
managements would have dared even to imagine, much less ask of the
Interstate Commerce Commission. And this has been accompanied by a
marked deterioration of service, all of which can by no means be blamed
upon conditions resulting from the war. Poorer service at higher cost is
the almost universal experience, in the long run, of government-owned
public utilities both here and abroad.

The Boston _Commercial_ in 1913 called attention to the fact that in
France the year 1912 was marked by the largest increase in gross
receipts on record, for both government and privately owned railroads,
but the privately owned roads showed an improvement in net earnings
almost three times as great as that of the nationalized railroads. These
failings noted above are almost inevitably found wherever the government
owns the railroads or other utilities, or else these utilities are run
at a loss and the difference made up in the tax bills of the people.
Government control never is as efficient and economical as private
control, even though all questions of political power and influence be
omitted from consideration.[10]

The important testimony of Mr. W.M. Acworth, an English authority upon
railroads, which he gave by invitation before the Senate Committee on
Interstate Commerce at Washington, has not been fully appreciated by
American public opinion. The National City Bank of New York rightly
stressed the importance of this testimony in one of its bulletins
during the year 1918. Mr. Acworth was in this country during the early
part of 1917 as a member of the special Canadian Commission on Railways,
and he told the Senate Committee that "while American companies have
revolutionized equipment and methods of operation, Prussia has clung to
old equipment and old methods. This is typical. In all the history of
railway development it has been the private companies that have led the
way, the State systems that have brought up the rear. Railroading is a
progressive science. New ideas lead to new inventions, to new plant and
methods. This means the spending of much new capital. The State official
mistrusts ideas, pours cold water on new inventions and grudges new
expenditure. In practical operation German railway officials have
taught the railway world nothing. It would be difficult to point to a
single important invention or improvement, the introduction of which the
world owes to a State railway."

Is it not a rather significant fact that with all their boasted advance
in science and learning, the Germans have failed utterly in the two
realms of politics, as shown in the preceding pages, and of railroading?
And these are the two most extensive fields of the influence of German
Socialism.

The American citizen has before him in clear outline the sure result
from a continuation of governmental ownership or control as a permanent
policy in the United States after the war. As regards railroad
personnel, if the positions from top to bottom were filled with Mr.
Bryan's "deserving Democrats," as was the case with our diplomatic and
consular service in 1913, the results would be as striking, though
perhaps in a different and even more serious way.

Of course the Civil Service, which has been a solid measure of reform
and one from which we dare depart only at our peril, would probably be
called into use and be evaded in exactly the same way as it has been in
the past. And even if it were not evaded, we must remember that the
Civil Service examinations and rules are not a guarantee of efficiency
or excellence. The best that can be said for them is that they are a
protection against absolute incompetence and, to a certain extent,
against political spoiling. But in a positive sense, the Civil Service
is merely a guarantee of mediocrity. And mediocrity never yet made a
success of a great transportation or productive system such as our
railroads or industrial corporations. The political possibilities of a
"railroad vote" of several million employees of the government need only
be referred to, to be feared.

Perhaps no one would suffer more from a policy of government ownership
than the present force of railroad employees in the United States. They
have won their present positions for the most part by individual
achievement, but their future advancement would depend not upon the
continued successful handling of their work, but upon either the
injustice of political favoritism or the undiscriminating rules of the
Civil Service. That some of the employees have not failed to grasp the
political possibilities is shown by my own recent experience upon a
train between Philadelphia and New York. I had a difference with one of
the train crew who was collecting the tickets in my car, and which was
caused by carelessness and indifference on his part. The employee
finally answered my protests by remarking--"Oh well, we don't care so
long as Woodrow Wilson is in the White House." The truth or untruth of
this statement is not the important thing, but the fact that he made it.

The personnel would tend steadily to deteriorate in efficiency. The
successful government employee is the one who follows most closely the
beaten track of precedent and past experience. If he departs from this
track, he inevitably arouses the opposition of his fellow-employees or
of the unthinking part of the public, who usually desire no change. He
also takes all the risks of experiment and if he succeeds, the rewards
are uncertain and small; if he fails, he personally bears all the
consequences. This is the reason for the tendency toward steady
deterioration on the part of all public service. Employees of the State
must follow the path of absolute conformity to the past. This deadens
individual initiative, ambition and inventiveness.

At this point it would be well to repeat the penetrating question
recently asked by Mr. Otto H. Kahn in the course of an address before
the American Bankers Association in Chicago. Said Mr. Kahn--"Now, you
and I, who are trained in business, have all we can do to conduct our
respective concerns and personal affairs with a fair measure of success.
On what grounds, then, can it be assumed that by becoming endowed with
the dignity of a governmental appointment, men of average or even much
more than average ability will develop the capacity to run successfully
the huge and complex business undertakings which the devotees of
paternalism would place in their charge?"

Furthermore, the plant and its upkeep would be subject to political
influence and objects. Just as we have needlessly expensive or even
useless post office buildings, harbor improvements and other works of
national cost built as the result of sectional log-rolling of
Congressional politicians, so probably we would have railroad stations,
tracks, subway crossings, and service in general offered not from the
standpoint of efficiency and public service, but as indirect campaign
contributions to needy Congressional candidates for re-election.

It should be realized that the mistakes and delays in our shipping and
airplane production during the first year of the war were probably not
so much the fault of the government at Washington and the administration
of affairs in these departments, as they were the inherent defects of
the Government itself doing the work, and these effects were overcome
only by the heroic efforts of Mr. Schwab, Mr. Ryan, and the other men
whom President Wilson wisely chose to insure the success of these war
measures as a patriotic necessity.

Our present postal service, the most necessary, next to the public
schools, of all the means for the formation of community feeling and
public opinion essential to a democracy, has been under the charge of
deterioration and inadequate service for the past ten years. Also it
must be remembered that the government-controlled systems of telegraph
and telephone in the various European countries are unspeakably bad,
according to the standards of service to which we have become accustomed
through long years of efficient private management. Therefore, in the
light of this experience the taking over of our systems by the
government has its justification only as a war necessity. As a matter of
permanent policy, it would be an entirely different and very serious
matter. The marked deterioration that almost immediately appeared in the
telegraph service, is sufficient proof of this fact.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 9: Quoted from an editorial in the (daily) New York _Evening
Call_, issue for August 29, 1918.]

[Footnote 10: "The advantages which might be derived from a single
united administration of all the railroads are doubtless somewhat
analogous to those we derive from the post office, but in most other
respects the analogy fails completely and fatally. Railway traffic
cannot be managed by pure routine like that of the mails. It is
fluctuating and uncertain, depending upon the seasons of the year, the
demands of the locality, or events of an accidental character. Incessant
watchfulness, alacrity, and freedom from official routine are required
on the part of a traffic manager, who shall always be ready to meet the
public wants." W.S. Jevons (reprinted in _Selected Readings in Public
Finance_, by C.J. Bullock, p. 103).]




V

THE TRUE ANTIDOTE FOUND IN CO-OPERATIVE EFFORT


There is one term, the use of which is anathema to the Socialist, and
that term is "human nature." He never wishes to meet or discuss this in
an argument, and with good reason, for it has been shown that it is only
by ignoring human nature entirely, both in theory and in practice, that
Socialism can make even the semblance of a reasonable showing. But
another term, which the Socialist especially likes, is "co-operation,"
and that is one to which he has no manner of right. Cooperation is a
social movement, the impulse for which comes from within the human
heart, while Socialism as already stated, is essentially a working
together only as the result of outward direction and dictation. The
first is the act of a free man; the latter results from the obedience of
a political and mental slave.

We Americans have made one of the greatest successes of history along
the line of political co-operation. Our whole democratic type of
government is based upon this principle as a foundation. But we have
done little toward the free and successful use of co-operation in
business or production. It is here that our British cousins have far
exceeded us even though we have outdistanced them, we think, along
political lines of activity.

It was shown in _The Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin_ for
January 25, 1918, that this co-operative movement in Great Britain has
developed to such an extent that at the present time distributive
societies there number some 3,500,000 members. The turnover of these
societies last year amounted to $605,000,000, to which should be added
$350,000,000 from the co-operative wholesale and the hundred
distributive societies. As a contrast to this, the American people have
been so filled with the individualism necessary to the spirit of the
pioneers who in reality have been "subduing a continent" that they have
failed to realize what a wonderful field for efficient, popular effort
the commercial and industrial activities of the country offered if we
only would adopt the principle of co-operative organization. Probably
one of the greatest lines of development after the war will be this
co-operation between producers and consumers. In no other way can those
activities and profits of the middlemen, which are more or less
unnecessary, be entirely eliminated.

I have it on good authority from members of the American Federation of
Labor that fully 95 per cent of its membership is opposed to Socialism,
and that the Socialistic 5 per cent is largely among the laboring men of
the Pacific Coast, with possibly a few in the Middle West, especially
Kansas. This latter is probably an after effect of the old "Populistic"
craze of the early 'nineties. On the other hand, American labor is
feeling the need of cooperative action, not only as regards themselves,
but also as regards capital as well, and Mr. Gompers has proved himself
of the stature of real statesmanship in appreciating and advancing this
idea in the most patriotic way since the war began. Individual laboring
men with whom I have talked say they "like the working together" that
Socialism advocates, but after explaining their position more fully, in
nine cases out of ten it is found that they utterly repudiate the
dictatorial, outwardly-directing theory upon which Socialism stands, and
in reality desire the advance of this spirit of co-operation. Thus they
look upon a bonus from profits as merely a partial gift on the part of
corporate management. What they desire is profit-sharing, as standing
for a recognition of the just right of labor to a larger part of the
just proceeds of its work. Thus probably the greatest antidote and enemy
of Socialism is profit-sharing, and after all it is only a recognition
of the fact that production is the joint work of both capital and labor,
that both are requisite and necessary, and that their whole success is
based upon this spirit of co-operation.

There is no doubt that there are men to-day who are in official
positions of power and influence in our national, state and city
administrations throughout the United States and who are more or less
openly using the present crisis of unusual and war conditions in order
to precipitate the country into a complete Socialistic organization. It
may be that we shall come to Socialism as a final political and economic
development. Personally, I for one do not believe that we will, or that
even a small part of the real thinking American people, either native or
foreign born, would desire this. Even if we did enter upon such a policy
it would only be temporary in duration, and be followed by a terrible
struggle of readjustment to the old conditions. But if we do undertake
Socialism, let us at least do it with our eyes open. Let us realize that
we are entering upon an entirely new and untried policy which is
diametrically opposed to all the ideas and ideals, the history, the
fundamental thought and theory upon which this country was founded and
has prospered and developed so marvellously up to the present time.
Those officials, no matter where placed as regards power and
responsibility, who by underhand means would throw us into this entirely
new method of life without due thought and consideration, are
politically dishonest, no matter how sincere they may be, and are as
traitorous to American life and thought as are the pro-German or the
pacifist.

The reaction against measures of government ownership and control which
have been made necessary by the exigencies of a great war crisis already
has appeared in Great Britain. The English papers contain open criticism
of the government operation of the railways, of shipbuilding and of
production in general. The London _Times_ said editorially last year:
"The railways are certainly short of labor, but is it established that
all the officials are putting their very best efforts into the solution
of the present problems? The railways are now Government controlled
institutions and competition has diminished where it has not vanished.
It seems to be a question whether quite the same amount of thought and
work is being put into the efficient management of the companies as in
the days before the war when the lines were keenly competing against
each other. This question which has been raised of a slackening of
effort directly in consequence of the nationalization of the railways is
a serious one and evidently deserves inquiry.... The public is entitled
to know if the railways are now using what remains to them (of labor and
capital) with the utmost efficiency." Also the best authorities, and
even the government investigators themselves, are urging a speedy return
to private ownership and operation at the earliest possible moment after
the war. The same undercurrent of feeling, or rather conviction, is
rapidly spreading among our own people in the United States.

Mr. Hoover has expressed this same view in the most emphatic terms in
the course of an address to the special conference of Federal Food
Administrators held in Washington, D.C. on November 12, 1918. "It is my
belief," said Mr. Hoover, "that the tendency of all such legislation
except in war is to an over degree to strike at the roots of individual
initiative. We have secured its execution during the war as to the
willing co-operation of 95 per cent of the trades of the country, but
under peace conditions it would degenerate into an harassing blue law."

But the advocates of Socialism are especially active during the time of
uncertainty and confusion that necessarily follows the close of a great
world war. At such times, they always are. In the words of Mr.
Kahn,--"They possess the fervor of the prophet allied often to the
plausibility and cunning of the demagogue. They have the enviable and
persuasive cocksureness which goes with lack of responsibility and of
practical experience. They pour the vials of scorn and contempt upon
those benighted ones who still tie their boat to the old moorings of the
teachings of history and of common sense appraisal of human nature. And
being vociferous and plausible they are unquestionably making converts."

Recently I saw little "stickers" pasted on the walls of a railway
station in a small New Jersey city which read as follows--

    The Masters Fear Slaves That
            Think
    If you think right you will act right
          Study Socialism

This is typical of the fallacious arguments so often encountered. First
of all, it has the tone of darkest Hungary or Bolshevist Russia, and is
absolutely contrary to the facts as regards conditions in the United
States. The so-called "toasters" or "capitalistic class;" for suppose it
is to them that this refers, have been in the forefront of the movement
to educate the masses, and have given their time, money and sympathy to
aid in its success. I heartily agree with the _non sequitur_ statement
that "if you think right you will act right." I am perfectly willing to
join in the demand that our people should "study Socialism," for if the
American people will not only study it but also think their way through
in regard to it, no sincere believer in democracy and in American ideals
need have any doubt as to the final outcome.

We Americans believe that our people, in the long run, will decide right
upon any question to which they have given due thought and
consideration. So in their hands we may safely leave the whole question
of Socialism and government ownership or operation. All we ask is, that
they be given due knowledge and instruction. Furthermore, if Socialism
be true, it should not fear open and complete examination. If the truth
is the truth, it must prevail in the end. Therefore the surreptitious
and secret attempt to foist Socialism upon an unsuspecting people savors
much of the lack of sincerity and of belief in its real truth on the
part of its own advocates. At least they should stop making their appeal
mainly to the uninstructed foreign-born and to the apostles of
half-baked learning, and lay their case before the hard-headed laborer,
the business and the professional man.




INDEX

Acworth, W.M., quoted, 64-66.

Ambition, 15-16.

American Federation of Labor, 77.

American Revolution, 5.

Australia, 46.


Beer, George, Louis, quoted, 4.

Belgium, Constitution of, quoted, 28-29.

_Boston Commercial_, quoted, 63.

Brooks, Phillips, 7.


Cartwright, Peter, 7.

Christ, individualistic teachings of, 47-48.

Civil Service, 67-68.

Civil War (American), 6.

Common Law Rights, 31-32.

Co-operation, 74-79.


_Droit Administratif_, 32.


Ely, Richard T., quoted 16-17, 44-45.


Fabian Society, 8.

French Revolution, 5.


Germany, theory of government in, 25-26;
  labor in 51-52;
  failure of Socialism, 59 _et seq_.;
  railroads in, 60-66.

Gompers, Samuel, 77-78.


Hill, David J., quoted, 14-15.

Hillquit, Morris, 38, 43.

Hoover, Herbert, quoted, 82-83.

Huguenots, 6.

Human Nature, definition, 57-60.


Ibsen, Henrik, 8.

Italy, Constitution of, quoted, 27.


Jameson, J.P., 7.

Jefferson, Thomas, 10, 36-37.

Jenks, Edward, 17.

Jevons, W.S., quoted, 64 (note).

Jewish Scriptures, and Socialism, 49.

_Journal of Commerce_, quoted, 40-42, 75-76.


Kahn, Otto H., quoted, 70-71, 83-84.


Louis XIV., 6.


Moriscos, 6.

Mühlon, W., quoted, 37 (note).


National City Bank (New York), 64.

Netherlands, Constitution of, quoted, 27.

Norway, Constitution of, quoted, 28.


Object of Government, 19-20.


Philip III (of Spain), 6.

Plymouth Colony, 6, 55-57.

Postal Service, 72-73.

Press, freedom of, 27-30.

Profit-sharing, 78-79.


Railroads, 60-71, 81-82.

Rousseau, 21.


Seligman, E.R.A., 3.

Shaw, G. Bernard, 8.

Socialism, definition of, 14.

Sweden, Constitution of, quoted, 28.

Switzerland, Constitution of, quoted, 28.


_Times_ (London), quoted, 81-82.


United States, Constitution of, quoted, 30.


Wells, H.G., 8.

Whitefield, George, 7.

William, ex-Emperor, 26.

Wilson, J. Dover, quoted, 50-51.

Wilson, Woodrow, 10, 69.

Woolman, John, 6.