Why I am in favor of socialism by

* * * * *

+-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Transcriber's Note: | | | | Bold text is represented =like so=. | | | | Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. For | | a complete list, please see the end of this document. | | | +-----------------------------------------------------------+

* * * * *

Why I Am In Favor of Socialism

[Illustration]

SYMPOSIUM

[Illustration]

Original Papers

[Illustration]

EDWARD SILVIN

[Illustration]

Sacramento, California U. S. A.

Copyright, 1913 BY EDWARD SILVIN

INDEX TO AUTHORS

Allen, Fred Hovey 31

Andrews, Eliza Frances 10

Andrews, Martin Register 12

Axon, Stockton 23

Baldwin, E.F. 11

Baxter, James Phinney 11

Beard, Daniel Carter 11

Bigelow, Poultney 9

Broome, Isaac 15-16

Burgess, Gelett 8-9

Cazalet, Edward Alexander 31

Chancellor, William Estabrook 7-8

Clare, Israel Smith 24-25

Conger-Kaneko, Josephine 31

Cooke, George Willis 36

Cutler, James Elbert 5

Fisk, Everett Olin 9

Fleming, William Hansell 22

Gates, George Augustus 7

Helms, E.J. 31

Hitchcock, Charles C. 32-34

Hume, Gibson 17-21

James, George Wharton 35

James, W.E.S. 25-27

Kalley, Ella Hartwig 29

Kinney, Abbot 30

Koeb, Otto 36

Levermore, Charles Herbert 29-30

London, Jack 5

Loveman, Robert 5-6

Noll, Aaron 34

O'Neill, John M. 25

Parsons, Eugene 16-17

Peake, Elmore Elliott 27

Pease, Charles Giffin 13

Post, Louis Freeland 6

Russell, Charles Edward 34-35

Sawyer, Roland Douglas 14

Schindler, Solomon 23

Silvin, Edward 37

Sinclair, Upton 14

Smiley, James L. 6

Strobell, George H. 28-29

Towne, Elizabeth 12

Taylor, J.P. 15

Weber, Gustavus Adolphus 27-28

Whitaker, Robert 22

White, Hervey 9-10

Whitson, John Harvey 10-11

Williams, S.B. 15

Why I Am In Favor of Socialism

=London, Jack.= (Author.)

I am in favor of Socialism because I am an individualist, and because in Socialism I see the only possible social organization that will give equal opportunity and an even chance to every individual to develop and realize what is strongest and best in him--and in her, if you please.

Because Socialism is in line with social evolution, is foreshadowed as inevitable by today's social tendencies, was foreshadowed as inevitable by the social tendencies of ten thousand years ago and ten thousand generations ago.

Because I am convinced that it is the only form of social organization that will give a square deal to the little boys and girls that are coming into the world today, tomorrow, and in the days after tomorrow's morrow.

* * * * *

=Cutler, James Elbert.= (University Professor.)

I am in favor of Socialism as regards its aims and purposes, because I believe it to be in this respect in harmony with the fundamental principles of social progress.

* * * * *

=Loveman, Robert.= (Poet.)

I believe Plato favored an ideal commonwealth, and I favor Plato.

Walt Whitman was inclined towards the Utopian theory--and Walt was a poet with a "yawp," that was perhaps barbarian--but it was emphatic.

I am something of a Socialist--a little of a Communist--I hope not much of an Anarchist--and I believe with Lincoln that "God must love the common people--He made so many of them."

Wm. Morris, the English poet, had Socialistic theories--and headed a movement in 1884, I believe--so we have plenty of example. I do not hate the rich--but I pity the poor--and I do not think a few men should own billions--and hoard the wealth--and that millions of human kind starving, barely exist. We are still savage.

* * * * *

=Post, Louis Freeland.= (Editor, The Public, Chicago, Ill.)

I am in favor of Socialism because it aims at abolishing the exploitation of labor.

* * * * *

=Smiley, James L.= (Clergyman.)

I am in favor of Socialism because--First: It stands for absolute justice. It guarantees to every one the full product of his labor. It provides that children and infirm and aged persons be cared for by the strong. It demands that all the natural resources of the earth be equitably administered for all the inhabitants.

Second: Socialism will abolish capitalism, which is a grand system of gambling.

Third: Socialism will abolish the evil fruits of capitalism, such as internecine commercial competition, the white slave traffic, preventable poverty and disease, and war itself.

Fourth: Socialism means brotherhood, industrial and commercial. It, therefore, harmonizes with the teachings of the Bible, making the Ten Commandments and the "Sermon on the Mount" perfectly practicable.

Fifth: As an excellent example of its practical value, Socialism will solve the intricate liquor problem. By public ownership this traffic will be purified from all adulterations and excessive abuse, allowing (in harmony with the Bible) the temperate use of pure beverages.

Sixth: Socialism is the economic expression of Christianity.

* * * * *

=Gates, George Augustus.= (President, Fisk University.)

I don't think I am wholly in favor of Socialism, though I believe it would, even if actually in power, be better than the present reign of stark capitalism.

I am in favor of about nine-tenths of what Socialism advocates. Nearly all of the world's real troubles arise from selfishness. Some way must at last be found out of that regime. The world is keyed to mutual helpfulness; consequently there is and ought to be discord as long as we stupidly play the great game of life in the false key. There is, as a matter of fact, mutual helpfulness anyhow; we cannot live without each other, and more so as our civilization rises. The trouble is that in the present order this helpfulness is an incident, not the motive. All gospels must unite to make it the motive.

* * * * *

=Chancellor, William Estabrook.= (Lecturer and Author.)

It all depends upon the definition and description of Socialism. I am heartily in favor of what I call Socialism. I was indeed mayoralty candidate in my city upon a Socialistic ticket. I do not see how any good or intelligent man can oppose my notions of Socialism. To illustrate: I believe that God made the earth for all of us and that it is a crime, vile and terrible, to allow any man or woman as landlord to collect rent from the father of a family or the mother of babies for a place upon which to rear their children--God's children, my brothers. Yet I, myself, am both a landlord and a rent tenant because of a pitiful legalistic and economic regime that does not allow me to solve my problem. I am a landlord of a trust estate and yet unable to buy a home where my business is because I cannot sell. It is a mere illustration. There are tens of thousands of others as pertinent.

To illustrate again: I am sure that it is absurd and wicked that some should rot in luxury without working, while others die of the diseases of starvation though working diligently. I am in favor of changing the statute laws so that these kings shall no more be, than chattel slavery of blacks, or the punishment of religious heresy by death. I believe that the Father in Heaven does not intend the vicious inequitableness of this passing economic system and of this social regime upon which the habit-minded look with such apish pleasure. I refuse to eat the leavened bread of the Pharisees and to sit silent amid these wrongs; but at the same time I suspect that I am rather an opportunistic reformer, a Christian Socialist, perhaps a Social Democrat, than a revolutionary all-or-none, now-this-minute Socialist, for I can be charitable to most other men who still worship the idols of the market-place. Some, however, I cannot forgive; I cannot forgive the hypocrites or the malicious.

* * * * *

=Burgess, Gelett.= (Author.)

I am in favor of Socialism because I believe that co-operation, rather than competition will the sooner bring about the brotherhood of man.

Because the conditions that surround the majority of mankind are continually growing worse, and Socialism offers a radical solution for the problem of the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Because the rich are steadily growing richer, and the poor, poorer, under the present industrial system.

Because the concentration of this wealth in the hands of a few has shown the possibility of a centralized control of the industries, and has taught methods of handling big business, so that these activities may and should be in the hands of the people.

Because of the enormous saving through co-operation, both time and opportunity will be increased for the benefit of the people.

Because the use of this time may be used by the people for education, for culture, for travel and for larger mental growth.

Because this change in economic system will emancipate woman by making her man's equal and will thereby develop her mind, her self-respect, and her inventive capacity.

Because with a rational industrial system and the opportunity for leisure natural and sexual selection will work more freely amongst men and women by giving both a wider choice, a better approximation of the ideal mate.

Because this effect will result in a benefit and happiness not only to the present but to the future of the race.

Because Socialism is the only project which contemplates these benefits.

* * * * *

=Bigelow, Poultney.= (Author and Barrister.)

I am in favor of Socialism because it is the teachings of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of his predecessors, the Buddhists, and before them the people who followed the example of Rama or Brahma.

* * * * *

=Fisk, Everett Olin.= (President of the Fisk Teachers' Agencies.)

While I do not count myself a Socialist in the extreme sense and shall never vote a Socialist ticket, I lean very strongly toward public ownership of public utilities and find myself in cordial sympathy with the view of some of my intimate friends who will vote for Mr. Debbs. Just how fast the public should assume control of public utilities I am not clear, but I feel quite sure that we should move in that direction and keep public ownership in mind as an ideal. Whatever embarrassments may arise, and certainly embarrassments must arise in any change of program, I feel that the disadvantages would be more than offset by the education of the public and by the cultivation of public spirit which would naturally accompany the gradual introduction of public control.

The fact that the post-office, the public schools and in many cities water supply, street lighting and transportation have been well managed by the public, promises well for extension of public control and I think we are moving along toward this perhaps as fast as can be expected, in view of our imperfect human nature.

* * * * *

=White, Hervey.= (Novelist and Poet.)

Socialism seems to me the most practical plan for the individuals of a highly specialized and complicated society to share the duties, the responsibilities, and the rewards of their organization.

It is the logical development of our system of combination or "trusts" that has already supplanted competition. It will do more to put the wealth produced by intellect and labor into the possession of the earners than any program I have met with.

* * * * *

=Andrews, Eliza Frances.= (Author and College Professor.)

There are so many reasons why I am a Socialist and why everybody should be one, that it would require a book to give them all. A few of them are:

First: Because I believe that those who do the work of the world should receive the full product of their labor, and not be forced, as under the capitalist system, to pay a tribute from their toil for the support of useless idlers.

Second: I believe that "the earth and the fullness thereof" was provided by nature for the benefit of all her children, and not as the "vested interest" of a few greedy monopolists.

Third: As history teaches us through the example of Jesus Christ and all who have rendered the greatest and noblest services to mankind, that, love of greed and personal gain is not an incentive, but a hindrance to noble deeds. I believe that Socialism, by removing this hindrance, will leave men free to follow the higher promptings of their nature, and through the noble incentives it offers, hasten the evolution of the race to a higher plane.

* * * * *

=Whitson, John Harvey.= (Novelist.)

At present I am a Progressive. But I can see that our industrial system is breaking down. As men rise in the scale of humanity they reach a point, and it is now near, when the exploitation of the weaker by the stronger can no longer be tolerated. I think present conditions clearly show that the government (the people) should own all such natural monopolies as coal, oil, minerals and the like; and that the railways, express companies, and the big machinery of transportation should also be government conducted, like the post-office. When that has been accomplished, further steps in that line can be taken, if the people deem that best. In so far, I am in favor of Socialism, and stand ready to go farther when it seems desirable and the people are ready for it. That is, have risen to it.

* * * * *

=Beard, Daniel Carter.= (Author and Artist.)

I am in favor of Socialism because I am not afraid of their ever introducing into this country the Socialism of Carl Marx, and I do believe that by their propaganda, their enthusiasm and insistency, they are forcing people to think who otherwise would drift along in the same old rut, and anything that makes the people think stands for progress, although it may not be progress along the lines advocated.

* * * * *

=Baldwin, E.F.= (Editor, Star, Peoria, Ill.)

Socialism is a beautiful dream, but when we wake up, we still have to scratch for a living. Under Socialism, one man is as good as another, and generally a good deal better. Poverty is a crime. Therefore, every poor man ought to be in jail. Socialism is a panacea for all the present ills. The trouble is, nobody wants to apply it. Under the present system, it is every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost. Under Socialism every man is hindmost. Every honest man now is a Socialist. The trouble is, there are no honest men. I never knew but one honest Socialist editor, and he has just committed suicide.

* * * * *

=Baxter, James Phinney.= (Author and Ex-Mayor, Portland, Me.)

Socialism is subject to several definitions. There is a Christian Socialism which embodies the spirit of the second precept: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." It is patient and long-suffering; wise in its efforts of helping men to advance by righteous ways to the stature of true manhood.

* * * * *

=Towne, Elizabeth.= (Editor and Author.)

I am in favor of the Socialist ideal, because it aims to take care of all the people, affording equal opportunity for everybody to develop, laying no extra burdens on any one person or class of persons. I believe the Socialist ideal to be the ripened fruit which the world is to bring forth.

But I do not believe in the Socialist practice of forcing the ripening of that fruit. In other words, I do not believe the world is ready to do away with capitalism. And I do not believe in the inopportunism of Socialists. I do not believe in tearing off the husks of capitalism before human intelligence is ripe for expression on the higher plane. As long as Socialists hold aloof, and will not co-operate with capitalism they show themselves unfit to co-operate with all the people in the world in the making of an ideal government without capitalism. The Socialists missed the chance of a life-time, yes, of a hundred years, when they did not lead and nominate Theodore Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson on their own ticket, instead of putting up two men whom they know it is impossible to elect this year, thus weakening the strength of Roosevelt, who is trying to put into practice a whole lot of the Socialist program, which the Socialists accused him of stealing from them. As if the Socialists themselves did not steal every one of those ideas from somebody else! Why, Confucius ran a Socialist government five hundred years before Christ. I am opposed to the Socialist practice of hypnotising itself with the working class consciousness, in opposition to all other classes. Because of Socialist inopportunism others will have to do the practical work of putting into practice the Socialist ideal. Theodore Roosevelt has done and is doing more to bring Socialism into practice than any other one man in the world today.

* * * * *

=Andrews, Martin Register.= (College Professor and Editor.)

I have listened attentively to the talks of Socialist orators, who seem to be honest, earnest men, who have a strong desire to do something for the betterment of "poor, sad humanity." With many of the reforms for which they plead I am heartily in sympathy.

* * * * *

=Pease, Charles Giffin, M.D.= (Reformer and Author.)

I am in favor of Socialism, the fundamental basis of which, as I understand Socialism, is economic co-operation or the individual laboring for the good of the whole; for the reason that competition is based upon selfishness, and stimulates selfishness.

Competition or doing business for individual gain is responsible for the placing of liquor saloons on almost every other block of some of our avenues; for the opening of a still larger number of tobacco stores for the sale of the most poisonous weed grown; for the opening of gambling halls, race tracks, questionable resorts and brothels of all kinds. Doing business for personal gain is an incentive to foister upon the people intoxicating liquors, tobacco and other harmful drinks and articles by means of alluring advertisements; the adulteration of foods; the maintaining of high prices, thus depriving the poor, who are victims of the competitive system, of the necessities of life.

Under the present system, the anxiety of the employed upon the advent of "dull times," lest they may lose the needed employment; the unrest, the chicanery, the criminality and the perversion of normal appetites resulting therefrom, is opposed to the best interests of the race morally, mentally and physically.

Competition or doing business for personal gain, develops the worst there is in man. Co-operation or the individual laboring for the whole, brings out or develops the best there is in man and establishes true brotherhood. The greatest benefactors the world has ever known have labored for the uplift of the race without personal material gain as an incentive, but with the full knowledge that their labors would mean for them persecution or perhaps the Cross.

Under Socialism, the whole moral atmosphere would be changed and the individual, and consequently, the race would be enriched in the development of qualities that make for peace, joy, love and normality, as man would merge from the influence of the present conditions into the influence of the conditions under Socialism.

* * * * *

=Sawyer, Roland Douglas= (Clergyman and Author, Ware, Mass.)

We of the present generation come into a world where the swamps are cleared, the forests felled, the soil ready for our seed, roads of gravel, steel, and across the trackless waters connect us; great machines of iron and steel are ready to take upon their tireless muscles the work of the world--and the human race today is rich--so rich that it can easily supply the material needs of every soul.

But still over half the race are in want, just as though we were poor.

The only thing needed is a scientific organization of industry, and Socialism is a scheme for such scientific organization. Therefore, I, as being intelligent to the present-day conditions, favor Socialism.

Of course, those who are selfishly receiving personal gains out of the present system, and those who live in the ideas of the dead, will howl for "things as they are," but more and more we must firmly (though kindly) show them the door--they don't belong with us of this day.

I might also add that it is necessary for me to advocate Socialism to square myself with my profession; I am a minister of the Gospel; as such I advocate before men that there is a loving Father in Heaven; that Jesus was the divine, ideal man; that human beings have souls that will not die with the body. I could not advocate these things without blushing if I did not at the same time condemn the existing social order--for the existing social order kills the souls in men, the ideals of Jesus cannot live in it, and should it continue we could not believe in a loving Father who rules things. For me to preach the gospel of Jesus without at the same time demanding social revolution, would be for me to confess that I was either a mental prostitute or a moral pervert, and I hope I am neither.

* * * * *

=Sinclair, Upton.= (Author.)

I am in favor of Socialism because it is impossible for me to be happy while living under a system which deprives others of the fruits of their labor.

* * * * *

=Taylor, J.P.= (Manufacturer, Winston-Salem, N.C.)

I am in favor of Socialism because I think that the time has about arrived for society to take into its own hands the operation of the means of producing and distributing the wealth by which it lives and progresses.

I have become conscious that the present mode of production and distribution of wealth does not fill society's requirements; that private ownership is no longer necessary in the machinery of wealth production and distribution, either as owning or managing; that the whole machinery is operated by hired men; that these hired men can better be used to produce social wealth for use than private wealth for profit.

* * * * *

=Williams, S.B.= (Clergyman, Eureka Springs, Ark.)

I am in favor of Socialism because it is more than a political party. It is a world movement having as its fundamental principles, the teachings of Jesus. It is an intensely practical interpretation of such teachings. Socialism stands for the brotherhood of the human race. It is a constructive program of economics that will result in the emancipation of the wage slave. Many good people misunderstand Socialism, because some of its most ardent advocates blunder in their teaching, and its growth is retarded by the fact that skeptics and infidels become prominent in leadership and try to foster their private religious beliefs on the movement, but in time all such will find their proper level, and all true, earnest Christians will be glad to embrace the propaganda, and Socialism in its truest aspects will help to usher in the kingdom promised by our Lord.

* * * * *

=Broome, Isaac.= (Sculptor, Lecturer, Inventor and Author, Trenton, N.J.)

All good men--poets, artists, moralists, philosophers, scientists, economists, scholars--have in all ages proclaimed the ideal of a civilization, wherein all should help and protect each other, to develop intelligence and destroy ignorance, which is the root of all crime and misery.

Socialism has for its proper idea the fulfillment of this universal hope--by uniting the world industrially, with the object of abolishing poverty as the base of ignorance, and ignorance as the base of crime, injustice and disorganized society. This is the ideal. An ideal impossible at present with society composed of a few ignorant, predatory rich and a mass of equally ignorant, predatory poor--both destroyers of society's substance, from the scientific, economic view.

* * * * *

=Parsons, Eugene.= (Editor.)

I am not altogether opposed to Socialism. I am willing to see a move, yes, several moves, made in that direction. I am in favor of municipal ownership of public utilities, such as gas, water, electric light, street railways, etc. When franchises for these utilities are sold or given away to an individual or a company, they afford opportunities for private enrichment at the expense of the people at large.

If such enterprises as water or lighting, or tramways, be in the hands of the city fathers, the profits, if there be any, go into the pockets of the common people, which is better than the piling up of fortunes by the favored few, known in common parlance as "big business."

It has been proved time and again that men of business ability and initiative do have public spirit and are willing to serve the people well, to give the attention requisite for success in the management of public utilities. I have a case in mind. The light plant of Ellsworth, Iowa, is a paying proposition, although run by the town. Says the "Ellsworth News," December 5, 1912:

"Not only is it a question of being on a paying proposition, but the comfort of having good lights is worth considerable. The city fathers are to be congratulated upon the management of the light plant. Many dollars of expense would have been added to the installation of the plant had they charged anything for their services, but they had gone to a great deal of trouble and a large amount of expense that they had paid out of their own pockets, just because they were enough interested in the welfare of the town to push things along and make it a success."

There it is in a nutshell--unselfish service. So it is a matter that involves one of the fundamentals of human nature. However, the altruistic sentiment will develop more and more under a different system from the present, with all its inequalities in the distribution of wealth.

The question is a large one, requiring full discussion. Let the trial of municipal ownership and management be made, I say. Time will tell how much of grafting will be done. Je ne sais quoi. I for one am willing to risk it.

Furthermore, let us go one step toward Socialism in another direction. I refer to the nationalization of railways. I am in favor of it, and hold that all public-spirited citizens should advocate it, whether Socialists or not. It would simplify things, and put an end to the extortionate charges of the express companies, to say nothing of unfair freight rates.

* * * * *

=Hume, Gibson, A.M., Ph. D.= (Head of the Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto, Canada.)

To endorse and accept all the various conflicting and even contradictory proposals loosely and popularly called Socialism would indeed be absurd and ridiculous. Nevertheless, on the whole the term Socialism has stood for constructive rather than destructive plans. What might be termed Christian Socialism, or perhaps still better constructive Christian Socialism, has ideals and aims that I unhesitatingly adopt as noble, just and right. When it comes to a program or plan to give practical application and realization to these ideals there is much room for debate and difference of opinion. Here, it seems to me, we face real problems.

Christian theology dealing with the relations of God and man succeeded long ago in definitely rejecting the abstract atomism of atheism, and also, though perhaps not so clearly and definitely, the pantheism which over-zealous for God forgot to leave a place for human personality.

In our time modern Christianity is concentrating its attention on the problems of the relation of man to man, of the individual to the community, and logically and consistently with its past speculations opposes the extreme individualism that issues in anarchism and atomism, and also opposes the other extreme of communism which overshadows the individual overmuch in its zeal for the collective standpoint, and the opposition in this instance is the more notable because the early Christian Church for a short time really tried the experiment of having "all things in common." While modern constructive Christian Socialism rejects the opposing panaceas of a simple character offered by the extreme individualist on the one hand and the extreme collectivist on the other, it nevertheless sees in each of these one-sided proposals and theories a certain measure of truth, and it therefore faces the much more difficult and complex problem of trying to combine and harmonize these partial truths in such a manner as to secure a proper self-respecting individualism or personal responsibility on the one hand, and an adequate collectivistic co-operation on the other.

With this double aim and purpose in mind there has arisen a beginning at least of a positive and constructive program leading toward this goal. Emerging from the mediaeval twilight where the fallacy was widespread that made religion a thing apart, modern Christian thought is suspicious of any religious creed or profession which remains a merely intellectual assent or declaration of faith, and demands that a true religion should also permeate and transmute the life and issue in conduct touching and helping the lives and conduct of others.

The key to the Christian social position is the "Golden Rule," not as a mere sentiment of kindliness, though that is good as far as it goes, but it must be made to go further and issue in a principle of action, a principle in action controlling the practice, guiding and inspiring the actual conduct of life, both in its individual and in its social or collective aspect.

At the outset, then, it respects and preserves the individual, not by the negative and suicidal method of rejecting the claims of society, but, on the contrary, insisting that the individual can develop his moral personality only by accepting the duties of social service, which when properly understood becomes not a burden but a privilege, since in this way alone may real self-hood become realized.

Zeal for the preservation of the other person inspired the earlier attack on slavery; it now reappears in a crusade against industrial bondage. Corporations now resist control on the plea that it is an interference with personal liberty. The Christian view-point never granted to the individual a selfish liberty of defying properly constituted authority, much less such right to a corporation. It now makes it perfectly plain that the individual has duties, and to this view of the individual it would be ludicrous for the corporation to appeal in its dislike to bow to social demands.

In international relations the claim of Christianity to be under the Prince of Peace makes modern Christian Socialism demand that other nations should be treated not simply as good neighbors, but as actual brothers, since all are children of the same Father. Hence it follows that the brutality, waste and wickedness, the wholesale butchery and murder known as war, must be condemned and opposed. Furthermore, all militarism and jingoism, all journalistic or other stirring up of bad feeling, leading to strife between different races, the atavistic revival of ancient blood feuds or modern commercial intrigues to reap profit out of the piling up of armaments oppressing the common people, are all to be resisted. The specious claim that armies and navies are merely policy restraining criminals is easily seen to be erroneous, for if each army claims to be a policy restraining criminals, it must follow that each army is by the other army put among the class of criminals. And the fallacious claim that preparation for war is a guarantee of peace, an insurance policy against war, is met by the counterclaim that the best way in times of peace to insure the continuance of peace is to extend the principles and practices that teach the value of peace, that conduce to peace, that make people desirous that peace may continue. The bellicose claim that our neighbors cannot or will not attack us if we are powerful enough in armaments to intimidate them, simply teaches other nations to pursue the same policy of attempted intimidation, which can only breed ill will and ultimately tend to provoke actual hostilities.

When disputes and misunderstandings arise, Christian Socialism favors arbitration as a peaceful way of settling differences, appealing to right and justice and intelligence, not to brute force and blind passion. Hence the development of the principles of international law and justice, the establishing of international courts of appeal and arbitration in matters of divided jurisdiction or conflict of interests is explicitly approved. Within the State, the principles of Christian Socialism demand that each person participate in governing, making government to become simply collective self-control through willing co-operation. In proper theories of government much progress has been made towards at least the partial adoption of "the rule of the people, by the people, for the people," though this maxim is disregarded for earlier tyrannical or paternal theories of government wherever women are debarred from taking their share in the duty of directing and controlling the laws governing all and affecting all, not only men but also women. The reason for still excluding children is simply due to the fact of their immaturity.

It is in the field of industry and commerce that the greatest reconstruction will need to be made, for after having struggled so long to secure the freedom of the individual when it becomes clearly recognized that the only freedom that is even partially secured is the negative one of being left alone and that positive freedom of efficient action is lacking, there is bound to be a new direction to the constant efforts of civilization to secure the good of its component members. When aggregations, companies, corporations, trusts, etc., become an "imperium in imperio," turning the powerful engine of combination into the work of consolidating selfish aggrandizement and rendering impossible the development of a normal and healthy life among the great masses of the unorganized, the lesson taught by the power of organization is likely to be learned by the masses, and this will point to the attempt to secure the control for the co-operative community of all those great fundamental factors that are sometimes called natural monopolies, and the old regime that allowed these to be used as toll houses on the highway of progress to levy tribute to private monopoly and leading to the formation of a class of idle rich on the one hand and of idle poor on the other, will require most radical reconstruction in the interests of mankind.

As Christian Socialism has no simple formula to solve all the manifold and complex economic difficulties, it must go slowly, cautiously and experimentally. As it sympathizes with both the individualist and the collectivist in certain respects in each case, it may seem to favor opposing policies, but perhaps it is a case of walking forward by first moving up the left foot, then the right foot.

Where competition is found by experience to be both feasibly and advantageous, Christian Socialism will strive to secure real competition and so will assist in removing any device tariff or tax that favors one and penalizes the other. On the other hand, where monopolistic control is unavoidable or economically advantageous, it will strive to have such monopolistic enterprize strictly supervised and controlled by government or where it is practicable owned and operated by the community through its government, central or local.

Christian Socialism stands unambiguously and clearly for the sanctity and preservation of the family as a fundamental social unit more significant than the disconnected individuals in whose interests much legislation has been made bearing heavily on the family and favoring unduly those who have selfishly preferred to stand alone. As the perpetuation of the race is one of the most obvious and outstanding of the purposes of the family, marriage will need to be safeguarded still more with this in view, that is to the securing of fit and proper persons as parents through the guardianship, complete supervision and restraint of the unquestionably unfit. Nevertheless, Christian Socialism could scarcely be expected to endorse some of the wild and even shockingly cruel and barbarous proposals of the eugenic group.

The child is the special ward and care of Christian Socialism, and here all the earlier paternalism of primitive Christianity may still find beneficent scope. The child should be protected, nurtured and cared for, and trained in such a manner as to prepare for the most efficient and noble service at maturity. In the child we see embodied our hope for the future, hence as the most promising road to the fulfillment of the dreams of all social reformers and idealists we must eventually learn to concentrate our efforts on the child. How can the child be trained so as to develop most fully his latent aptitudes and abilities so as to be capable on the one hand of reaching his own greatest realization and on the other hand contributing most to the good of the race? Surely we should all aim to secure for each and every child the fullest development of all his powers, physical, mental, moral-religious, and the moral-religious most of all if we are to secure that altruistic character, that unselfish disposition without which all plans, schemes and programs must necessarily end in failure.

* * * * *

=Fleming, William Hansell.= (Lecturer, Author and Editor.)

If by Socialism you mean that the individual in asserting and demanding his rights should consider and grant equal rights to all others in the community, then I am in favor of Socialism.

* * * * *

=Whitaker, Robert.= (Clergyman and Editor.)

I am in favor of Socialism because I see no other way out of the world-wide social distress which afflicts all the industrial nations today. Capitalism has outlived its historic function, and is today a cause of intolerable oppression, immeasurable misery and irrepressible conflict. The whole order of things by which society exists for the exploitation of the many by the few, either through competition or private monopoly, is fundamentally awry, and must be superseded by an order which shall give us the largest measure of practicable co-operation for ends of common service. There can be no real or lasting peace between capital and labor until society recognizes the common rights of all in natural resources, until we meet the marvelous multiplication of human effort through mechanical invention with social ownership and democratic control of the machine, and until the whole industrial order is organized so as to eliminate the waste of competition not in the interest of a few great industrial barons, but in the interest of the whole body of laborers. This is the program of Socialism in a large way, a system of social service as against a system of private profit, of co-operation as against exploitation, whose threefold objective is to make every man a partner with every other man in the commonwealth of nature, in the common gain of the world's inventive genius which is fundamentally social and not individual in its origin, and in the organization of industrial life, which ought to be democratic and not autocratic or oligarchic in its end.

I am for Socialism because Socialism is the economic expression of both democracy and religion, and because as such it is as inevitable as the movement of the suns.

* * * * *

=Schindler, Solomon.= (Author.)

If Socialism means the adjustment of social conditions of the past to the industrial and commercial needs of the present or some future day; if its objects are the utilization of natural forces, inventions and discoveries, for the benefit, not of the few, but for the greatest number--I am thoroughly in favor of Socialism.

Or, if Socialism stands for an endeavor to improve all things human, to attack all the hostile forces that threaten human well-being, such as hunger, sickness, ignorance, etc.--I, again, am in favor of Socialism or any "ism" that will try to make this world a happy abode of human beings.

But, if Socialism should stand for upheaval by force instead of peaceable evolution; if it should appeal to class hatred nurtured by envy; if it should endeavor to realize dreams of an impossible economic equality by means of the ballot or nitro-glycerine--in that case I am not in favor of Socialism.

Show me your Socialism, and I will tell you whether I am in favor of it or not.

* * * * *

=Axon, Stockton.= (University Professor and Writer.)

I think that all people who hold progressive opinions are desirous of getting a more equitable distribution of the wealth which is produced by the many, of getting such governmental adjustments as will destroy favors and special privileges under the government, of getting a government sensitive to the interests of all instead of a few. I believe these things can be accomplished by the free processes of democracy in the hands of a thoroughly aroused and informed people, sufficiently informed to make their own choices, and sufficiently determined to hold their leaders responsible to themselves, the people.

Every progressive platform has in it something that may be called Socialistic, and I am not sure just how much progressivism is necessary to make a Socialist.

Politically, I am a Democrat, and I was never stronger than now in the faith that Democracy can be free and powerful to serve the best interests of the whole people.

* * * * *

=Clare, Israel Smith.= (Historian, Author of "Library of Universal History," 15 Vols. Address: Lancaster, Pa., R.F.D. 2.)

I am a Socialist because Socialism is right; because it is industrial democracy and economic freedom; because it is in accordance with the principle of human brotherhood; because it is against dividing up, against breaking up the home, against free lust (wrongfully called "free love," as all love is free love, there being no forced love or compulsory love), against killing good incentive or good personal initiative; because it is against robbing the producer of four-fifths of his product; because it is against poverty, misery, prostitution, vice, crime, insanity, war, murder, suicide, pestilence, famine, ignorance and all that is bad; because its ethics are identical with the ethics of Jesus Christ; because it would make man's existence in this life a heaven upon earth; because the Socialism we already have works so well, as our post-office system, our public school system, our free textbook system, our public water and fire departments, our public roads, our public parks, our public playgrounds, our public libraries, etc.; because it is the next step in accord with economic revolution and is inevitable, is destined to come in spite of all opposition, in spite of all obstacles thrown in its way to obstruct or retard it, and in spite of all mistakes or shortcomings of Socialists themselves; in short, because Socialism is a rising sun.

I am opposed to Capitalism, because it is social and economic slavery; because it is in accord with the doctrine of human greed and selfishness; because it robs the workers and the industrious and rewards the shirkers and the exploiters; because it is for dividing up with a vengeance; because it breaks up the home by low wages, unemployment and high cost of living, as shown by government statistics, which tell us that there are a million divorces every ten years in this country; because it promotes race suicide, as the marriage rate and the birth rate are decreasing, and the death rate increasing, in all so-called civilized countries; because it causes panics and business depressions and makes ninety-eight out of every hundred business men fail (according to Dunn's Agency figures); because it discourages all good incentive and encourages all bad incentive; because it promotes free lust, or so-called "free love;" because it causes poverty and then punishes its victims for being poor; because it breeds poverty, misery, crime, prostitution, drunkenness, insanity, political corruption, pestilence, famine, war, murder, suicide, ignorance and all that is bad; because it is in accordance with the ethics of His Satanic Majesty; because it is a setting sun, a dying system, as it is destroying itself, is impregnated with the seeds of its own dissolution, is slowly committing suicide and digging its own grave, giving up the ghost, unwept, unhonored and unsung.

* * * * *

=O'Neill, John M.= (Editor, The Miners' Magazine, Denver, Colo.)

I am in favor of Socialism because I believe that Socialism in operation means the emancipation of the human race. It is idle to talk about political liberty while the vast majority of the people are without industrial liberty. The man who owns a thousand jobs, owns a thousand lives. Such a statement may sound harsh and brutal to the man whose cradle has been rocked beneath the starry banner of young Columbia, and he may say to me, "I am not a slave for I can quit the owner of the job," but if he quits the owner of the job and he belongs to the disinherited class, the wage earning class, then necessity demands that he shall seek another owner of jobs, and he has merely changed masters and he is still a slave.

For men to be free, they must own their jobs, and to own the jobs the people must own collectively, the natural resources of the earth, and its machinery of production and distribution.

I am in favor of Socialism because collective ownership of the earth and its machines of production and distribution will open wide the gates of equal opportunity to every man, woman and child who live upon the face of the earth. Socialism means that the profit system shall be destroyed and that upon its shattered ruins shall be built a real republic, beneath whose sheltering dome, there can live no master and no slave.

* * * * *

=James, W.E.S., M.A., B.D.= (Clergyman, Ayr, Ont., Canada.)

Socialism is the scientific analysis of the present state of society and the theory of social development founded thereon. A Socialist is one whose study of this scientific analysis has convinced him that society is progressing towards a co-operative commonwealth. My study extends over fifteen years, and I clearly see the gradual concentration of capital--the gradual consolidation of labor interests and the life and death struggle between them. As no question is ever settled until it is settled right, this can have only one result--the capturing of the wealth of the nations by the producers of wealth and the utilizing of it, not for the few, but for the whole people.

With the passing of the small privately owned shop through the coming of the large manufactury, socially operated but privately owned, way was prepared for the larger, nation-wide manufactury, socially operated and socially owned. It must come.

As right has behind it all the power of omnipotence and so must prevail the present system, which makes the many toil in poverty while the few live on the earnings in idleness and luxury, must make way for a system which will provide a more equitable reward of labor.

As competition is based on man's selfishness and so is un-Christian, co-operation, based on man's brotherhood, the essence of Christianity, must supersede it.

The capitalistic system must consider profits first--business must pay--and men second. The last hundred years has traced the gradual rise of man and the next twenty-five will see him freeing himself from this system of wage slavery and evolving another which will dethrone the dollar and will enthrone the rights of man.

When the ballot was given to the masses and free education to their children, the inevitable result was the rise of these masses to assert their freedom and their right to all the product of their labor--possible only in a co-operative commonwealth.

Every great religious awakening of the past has resulted from the preaching of some great neglected truth especially needed in that age. The next great religious awakening will come from preaching the one sadly neglected truth of this age--economic justice and brotherhood. It will be greater, more fundamental, more stupendous in its effects than any reformation or revolution of the past. It is inevitable.

This coming emancipation of man--dethronement of competition and dollar rule--the new moral, social and religious awakening--these give my life its greatest joy, its highest hope, and its greatest inspiration to service. I am in favor of Socialism.

* * * * *

=Peake, Elmore Elliott.= (Author.)

The word "Socialism" (aside from its partisan use) has so many connotations that one can hardly say he is either for it or against it without being misconstrued. With Socialism's cardinal tenet, the better distribution and the better production of wealth, I am heartily in sympathy, as I suppose everybody is. People disagree as to the means by which this may be obtained. Public ownership of wealth-producing factors is evidently coming more and more into favor, as is evidenced by the municipal ownership of electric, gas and water plants. This principle is bound to be extended.

But it seems to me that Socialism stands with Prohibition to this extent: Long before either of them has made sufficient converts to put their party in power, their principles will have been incorporated by other parties which do not confine themselves to these specific contentions.

* * * * *

=Weber, Gustavus Adolphus.= (Economist.)

The ideal of Socialism, as I understand it, is a condition of society in which each individual will render his share of service in the production and distribution of wealth, and in which each will receive his proportionate share for consumption. I do not dispute the desirability of such a condition. I take issue with the Socialists in their contention that this condition can be brought about, or that a material advance toward such a condition can be accomplished, by legislation.

Society must advance by gradual evolution, as it has done since its beginning, and I believe that this ideal condition is still many generations, perhaps centuries, distant. The only way to strive for its realization is for each generation to do its part in promoting a spirit of temperance, co-operation, fairness and intellectuality. Society will then gradually realize the waste, unfairness and barbarism of industrial competition, of inheritance and of unequal distribution and consumption. While man is thus slowly becoming civilized, he will naturally devise from time to time, such laws and such forms of government as will fit each stage of his development.

* * * * *

=Strobell, George H.=

I work and vote for Socialism. Every age has its special problems, its special tyranny to combat, its own liberty and independence to preserve, to hand down to its descendants. The machine has destroyed hand labor and association in labor is inevitable. The machine, too large and complex to be owned by individuals, has made necessary combinations of owners. Combinations of owners destroyed competition, and, through resultant economy and increase of production and profit, became rich and powerful corporations. These corporations control the means of life of over nine-tenths of the people. The owners no longer are the administrators of their property. They hire the necessary business abilities to run the business machine, but they insistently demand higher dividends and profits. These demands cause the virtual slavery of the workers, and millions work today long hours at a speed and productive capacity never before known in the world, and get so little for it that they are hungry all the time, live in squalor and dress poorly. More and better machinery being constantly invented, turns loose on the labor market a host of unemployed to compete with their fellow workers for work. We are not the freeman our fathers were.

Fortunes so vast as to stagger the imagination for a few; dire, ever-increasing poverty for the masses is now and will be increasingly the result of this development unless--

Unless we look at it in the sane way, as a development toward a new order, where the people will, in their collective capacity, own and operate and democratically manage all industry. That will be Socialism. There is no other way of escape in sight. Socialism is not, however, inevitably the outcome. There must be conscious action by the people to turn this evolution away from its present tendency. To continue as we are is to invite the destruction of our civilization. Therefore I work and vote for Socialism. It is a step forward in the progress of the race and a promise of the fulfillment of the prayer, "Thy Kingdom come, on earth as it is in Heaven."

* * * * *

=Kalley, Ella Hartwig.= (Lecturer.)

I have long felt the need of a more humane form of government, a system of justice regulating international commercial relations, insuring peace and education for the older as well as the younger persons.

Our country should be a republic, industrially as well as politically, and liberate the wage slave by the abolition of the capitalist.

As a writer, I shall continue to defend the interests of the masses instead of the classes, and as a Temperance Suffragette Socialist lecturer, I shall endeavor to inspire my audiences above the misty horizon of all other political parties to the star line of true reform, which is "the hoe of promise" and basis of a nation's greatness.

I am not alone in the thought that a temperance plank added to the Socialist Platform would cause the greatest majority to leave other parties, as Socialism would be more attractive than ever, to the very finest and best representatives of society everywhere, while justice would flower and bloom and the Dove of Peace perch upon our banners. It would be a lame platform for any political party to overlook the crying need of reform on all lines and to enforce the boasted pure food law, and at the same time to tolerate and uphold distilleries, saloons and breweries, is to herald the weakness and sandy foundation of the parties, old or new. As comrades and co-workers in behalf the downtrodden, let loyal men and women unite and lead in the vanguard of Christian political victory.

* * * * *

=Levermore, Charles Herbert.= (Educator and Author.)

I am in favor of Socialism because I believe in the common ownership of land and water and of instruments of production and distribution, and because I believe that the highest ideals of social and moral perfection would lead us all to labor for the welfare of the community rather than of any individual.

But I am not convinced that any party now called Socialist, or any group of avowedly Socialist leaders has as yet shown a safe and practicable plan for the realization of those ideals.

* * * * *

=Kinney, Abbot.= (Author, Venice, Cal.)

We are all Socialists. Man is a social animal. It is consequently impossible that any government of man should be anything but a Socialism.

The people have lost sight of the fact that all property in a State belongs to the State. The exercise by every State of the right of eminent domain is an illustration of this. Modern governments customarily pay the private user or holder of property, when the property is taken for public use. This is always the rule when property is taken by corporations, or persons under a delegation to them of the right of eminent domain. It is only properly so delegated for public utilities in private hands.

Public payment for property so taken is a matter of convention and convenience. It is deemed fair that property taken from one member of the society for the benefit of all, should be paid for by all. Or, if such property is taken by a common carrier, for instance, that such common carrier should pay for it. In case of public stress, however, as in the blowing up of a row of houses to stop the course of a fire, or in the seizure of food or quarters for the use of military in national defense, or in the clearing away of houses or property for defensive purposes, payment may or may not be made as the conditions indicate.

More than this, every human life in a society belongs to the State. Thus the State may draft its citizens to fight fire, suppress disorder, or take part in the military defense of the society or State. The State also imprisons and even executes its members who attack the general welfare.

* * * * *

=Cazalet, Edward Alexander.= (President of the Anglo-Russian Literary Society, Imperial Institute, London.)

The ideals of Socialism might be realized by the precepts of Christianity, "love your neighbor as yourself." Difficult social questions which cannot be solved by the head are sometimes settled by the heart, for it appeals to the conscience, diminishing selfishness and making all classes friends. Christian Socialism, by encouraging mutual concessions, might perhaps attain better results than agitation and violence.

* * * * *

=Allen, Fred Hovey.= (Clergyman and Author.)

I believe in a Socialism which levels upward, which makes a man what he was not, only a higher, nobler, richer being. I believe that next to being God, the greatest thing is to be a man. The more Godlike he becomes, the more man will reflect the true and only permanent Socialism.

I am in favor of such Socialism as will attach the chain of brotherhood to the lowest, if that lowest is capable of rising into true manhood, because truth, honesty, love and kindness mean the Kingdom of Heaven begun on earth, and equal rights to all the children of God.

* * * * *

=Helms, E.J.= (Clergyman.)

I am in favor of Socialism insofar as it is the practical application of Christianity to our economic and industrial life.

* * * * *

=Conger-Kaneko, Josephine.= (Editor, The Progressive Women.)

I am in favor of Socialism because it seems to be the next step in social evolution, carrying the human race toward a more perfect civilization.

* * * * *

=Hitchcock, Charles C.= (Merchant and Author.)

We are fast coming to realize that co-operation in the use of our economic resources is the only form of society worthy of civilized people.

A co-operative commonwealth demands that the able-bodied individual shall not be allowed to consume more wealth as measured in labor power, than he creates. Is not this so evidently reasonable that the system should command the approval of every fair mind? It doubtless would do so were we not born into and environed by the capitalist order, thereby being naturally prejudiced against an innovation so radically different as is Socialism.

Perhaps no more comprehensive definition of Socialism can be given than that by Walter Thomas Mills, which is:

"First. The collective ownership of the means of producing the means of life."

"Second. The democratic management by the workers of the collectively owned means of producing the means of life."

"Third. Equal opportunities for all men and women to the use and benefits of these collectively owned and democratically managed means of producing the means of life."

Under the present order of society the means of producing the means of life are privately owned and controlled; the owners thereby forming a privileged class and are enabled to dictate the terms on which the means of life--land and the machinery of production--can be used.

As a result of this private ownership labor receives but a portion of the product, the larger part of wealth produced being either wasted in the strife of competition or retained by the capitalist in the form of interest, rent and profit.

The wealth we command merely through the ownership of stocks and bonds--so-called income producing capital--is wealth received which we do nothing to produce; hence this wealth must, of necessity, be produced by others who are deprived of a portion of their product. This wealth thus appropriated is wealth derived from profit in the employment of labor (surplus value). A thorough study of economics shows clearly that interest, rent, and profit result in exploitation of labor--the robbery of labor. It is this profit system which is strangling our civilization. Poverty and the greater portion of crime can be traced directly to this exploitive system.

The aim of the Socialist movement is the dethronement of capital and the capitalistic class by merging all humanity into one class, a producing class.

The exploited majority, the poverty stricken, the submerged, as now under capitalism, will under a Socialistic Republic come into their inheritance--equality of opportunity to the resources of wealth and production--and be enabled to retain the wealth they produce.

The capitalist class, in any fair view of the situation, while being obliged to surrender the privileges now retained through the private ownership of "the means of producing the means of life," will under a Social Republic receive indirect benefit which we claim will out-weigh any advantage they may now seem to possess.

Human nature does not stand in the way of the realization of a co-operative commonwealth. It is natural that mankind not only seek but demand that to which they are in equity entitled. Under capitalism the majority are exploited out of a good share of their product. As the producer awakens to an understanding of the present situation, it is this normal and justifiable self-interest--selfishness--which will prove to be a strong, if not the leading, factor in bringing about Socialism.

The unseemly antagonism and strifes so manifest today under capitalism are largely traceable directly to our conflicting economic interests occasioned by the private ownership of the means of life.

A study of social evolution leads clearly in the direction of Socialism. But it is when we carefully consider the economic situation that we become aware of the fallacy of the capitalist system and realize that the wealth producing majority will in time inevitably demand, as a matter of justice, the co-operative commonwealth; that is, will insist that the wealth producer receive the wealth he produces--that the capitalist, who as capitalist receives usury thereby commanding, without labor, wealth produced by others, must cease to be a parasite on labor.

This changed order, this revolution, can be brought about only through socialization of the means of production and of distribution.

Not very long ago the advocate of Socialism was the voice "crying in the wilderness." Today he bears "good tidings of great joy" to a rapidly assembling multitude.

* * * * *

=Noll, Aaron.= (Clergyman.)

I have been a member of the Socialist Party since the year 1900. I have, also, for twenty-five years, been a Christian minister, serving pastorates, in regular connection with an orthodox denomination--the Reformed Church in the United States. I am increasingly persuaded of the righteousness of the Socialist Movement. To me it seems that Socialism will make possible, in a practical way, the social ideals of the founder of the Christian Religion. The Church, at any period of its history, may, or it may not, truthfully, stand for the practical application of those ideals. But the Socialist Movement, at all times, the world over, stands for social and industrial justice. Jesus implanted in the consciousness of man the worth of the individual life. Socialism will make possible the true development of the individual unto a complete life. Socialism will throw around every individual a wall of protection against the rapacity of the strong, greedy, selfish individual, and it will put into the hands of every one the means of life whereby he may rise to the full stature of his being, there being none to hinder or oppress him. The concern of each will be the concern of all. But it will be a concern founded on justice, love and peace. Socialism, being scientifically correct, holds out to all men a vision of future good that inspires a hope that makes life seem worth while.

* * * * *

=Russell, Charles Edward.= (Journalist and Author.)

I am in favor of Socialism because Socialism would put an end to the monstrous system of injustice by which men toil to create wealth and then are deprived of the wealth that they create. All wealth is created by labor and should belong to the men and women whose labor creates it.

Socialism would abolish poverty, put an end to child labor, make education the universal possession, abolish prostitution and make the earth fit for the inhabitation of its children. It would obliterate the slum, the breeder of nine-tenths of the evils that now afflict society. It would mean industrial as well as political democracy. I believe in democracy. Therefore, I believe in Socialism, which is perfected and applied democracy.

* * * * *

=James, George Wharton.= (Explorer, Ethnologist and Author.)

As I now stand I can scarcely be said either to favor or oppose Socialism. The term must first be clearly defined. I believe in fellowship, in municipal ownership of all public or semi-public utilities; the establishment of free municipal markets for vegetables, etc.; the purchase by the city authorities of fruit, vegetables, eggs, meat, coal, etc., when dealers seek to force up the prices, and their disposal at cost to users. I would take back from all corporations, or else compel them to pay to the people an annual rent for the same, all water rights, power rights, etc., that they have filed upon and held by the right of might; I would make all great coal mining, oil mining and other reapers of crops for which they did not sow, pay a certain percentage of their returns into the public treasury; I would compel the abolition of all slums, even to the extent of compelling the municipalities to provide decent shelter for the poor at reasonable rates; I would parole all well-behaved prisoners (as a rule) at the end of a year and give them a chance to make good; I in every way would seek to educate the people as a whole to the rights, responsibilities and privileges of government, and then give them, what is theirs inherently, a full power to determine how and by whom they shall be governed.

These, hastily and crudely expressed, are some of my ideas on this important question.

* * * * *

=Koeb, Otto, B.S.= (Stanford University, Cal.)

I believe in universal world-peace between all nations. Since the Socialists are the only political party honestly indorsing world-peace, I sympathize with them.

I am in favor of an universal eight-hour working day, six days per week; abolition of child labor; creation of old age pensions for disabled working men. A certain minimum wage rate, which makes it possible for every normally developed laborer to support a family. Up to the above mentioned points I am in favor of Socialism.

* * * * *

=Cooke, George Willis.= (Author and Lecturer.)

I am in favor of Socialism because I believe in equal opportunities for all children born into the world, and that each should be able to use all his natural gifts according to his ability.

I believe in Socialism because I detest all forms of monopoly and exclusiveness, not being able to see why the minority should possess property and the majority should be deprived of its advantages. If it is good for any, it is good for all.

I am a Socialist because it is quite apparent that the great fundamental sources of the necessities of life, on which all alike are dependent, are social and public in their nature, and should be open to all. They should belong to the nation, accessible on the same terms to all who need them, without giving monopolistic advantage to any.

I am a Socialist because I cannot understand why one man should be subject to another as slave, serf or wage-earner. No man is good enough, said Lincoln, to have the control of another man's life.

I am a Socialist because I believe in the equality of men and women, that the domination of women by men has been vastly injurious to the race, and that the ballot will give women a better opportunity to live a noble and healthy life as woman, wife and mother.

I am a Socialist because I believe in freedom, individuality and initiative for every man and woman, and that these can be secured for all men and women, according to the measure of their individual capacity, only by that co-operative method offered by Socialism.

HERE AND THERE.

Here is a mother kneeling by a cradle, who vainly endeavors with smacks and kindly words to appease her hungry babies.

There is a father, dusty and fatigued, vainly begging for work.

Here is a magnificent edifice which is called a museum. It shelters dead mummies and statues of marble.

There on a park bench sits a homeless living human being, who, shivering with cold, stares at the pale moon and wonders why his tears are subject to gravitation.

EDWARD SILVIN.

* * * * *

=-----------------------------------------------------------= | Typographical errors corrected in text: | | | | Page 21: "more significant that" replaced with | | "more significant than" | | | =-----------------------------------------------------------=

* * * * *