Sorted anb Jnntti)

Discuss

Socialism

BY

S. SHELL

“Let every Catholic give one-tenth the interest,

enthusiasm and support to Social Reform that the typical

Comrade gives to Socialism, and the solution of the Social

Problem will be a mere matter of time.’*

OUR SUNDAY VISITOR PRESS
Huntington, Indiana



TABLE OF CONTENTS.
V

Page

I. What Socialism Is Not.
The Climax Building Concern—Government Ownership of Public Utilities

—Social Reform—A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothes 6

II. Socialism Defined.

Socialism as an Economic System—A New Basis—Highway Robbers of
Capitalism—Frightful Waste—Architects at Loggerheads . . 7

III. Contractors Non-plussed.

Little Details—Getting Control—Concentration of Wealth and Industries
—Purchase — Confiscation — Revolution 10

IV. Problem of the Superintendent.
Socialism Inevitable?—Working-plan—One Management Throughout—

A

Tremendous Problem—Height of Folly—Postoffice—Army of Unpro-
ductive Laborers 13

V. Problems of the Assistant Superintendents.
Present Conditions Intolerable—Decapitation: a Cure for Headache

—

Regulating Production—Concentration of Dissatisfaction—Absolute
Necessity of Accurate Estimates—An Arithmetical Problem—Socialist
Waste—A Miracle 16

VI. Problems of the Foreman.
A Catchy Question—Personal Interest—A Beautiful Dream—Assigning

Johs—Dirty Work—Automatic Adjustment—Whole Tendency Down-
ward and Backward . 19

VII. Problems of the Paymaster.
Foolish Questions—Labor-Check—Remuneration of Labor—Legalized

Robbery—Labor-Product—Oh! so Simple—Labor the Only Source
of Wealth 21

VIII. Socialism and Liberty in the Light of History.
Next Step in the Evolution of Human Society—A New Argument—Over

One Hundred Socialist Experiments Failures—Blind Faith—Straight-
jacket of Socialism—Irresponsible Democracy—Reign of Terror—New
Australia—History and Experience 24

IX. Socialism and Liberty in the Light of Theory.
Absolutistic Government—Inefficiency and Graft in Government Admin-

istration—Well Cared-for Slaves—Greed and Selfishness—Finer In-
DmdkM® ctS—^ko Join?—Who Shun the Socialist Party? 26



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. I

X. Socialism and Liberty in the Light of

Present Day Experience.
Review of Socialist Leaders—Gathering Grapes of Thorns—Leaving the

Clouds of Theory and Speculation—Socialist Wire Pulling—Socialist
Referendums—Socialist Steam Roller and Bossism—Boards of Arbi-
tration—Freedom of Press—Legalized Ferocity 28

XI. Socialism and the Family.
Exaggerations—Ignorance and Gullibility of the Comrades—Free Lust

—

Socialist Authorities—Garbled Quotations?—John Spargo’s Methods.. 31

XII. American Socialists and Free Love.
Attitude of Socialist Party—American Socialist Writers—Morris Hillquit’s

Strict Monogamy—Sexual Promiscuity—“By Their Fruits You Shall
Know Them”—A Revoltingly Immoral Movement—Responsibility of
the Individual 34

XIII. Socialism and Religion.
Why Catholics Oppose Socialism—Is Socialism Merely an Economic

System?—Spargo’s Deceptive Parallel—The Last Appeal—History of
the Plank on Religion—Mendacity and Hypocrisy—Policy and Ex-
pediency vs. Truth and Honesty—Q. E. D 37

XIV. The Catholic Church and the Toilers.
Why Is a Socialist?—Catholics Lead in the Fight Against Socialism

—

Socialism the Laborer’s Enemy—Disrupts His Unions—Robs His
Money—Opposes His Interests—Debases His Nature—Positive Work
of the Church for the Laborer—His Greatest Benefactor 40

XV. Specific Application of Catholic Principles.
Social Problem Defined—Catholic Principles and Production—Economy

and Efficiency—The Goal—Catholic Principles and Distribution

—

Justice and Charity—Protecting the Laborer—Curbing the Power of
the Rich—Catholic Social Activities—Social Sense—School—Plat-
form—Press—Catholic Federation—Individual Responsibility 42

Nihil Obstat

RT. REV. MON. OECHTERING, V. G.

Censor

IMPRIMATUR

p HERMAN J. ALERDING
m Bishop of Fort Wayne

"'ftadMM



PREFACE.

The dialog on Socialism which is nerewith submitted

to the reader, first appeared in “Our Sunday Visitor.” It

contains nothing new or startling, but much that is crude

and imperfect and would, therefore, not have been given

a permanent form had not the writer been urged thereto

by the Reverend Editor of “Our Sunday Visitor” and by

many readers, both clerical and lay.

The writer freely acknowledges his indebtedness to

existing works on Socialism and Social Reform, particu-

larly to the writings of Rev. Victor Cathrein, S. J., Rev.

John A. Ryan, D. D., John Graham Brooks, Richard Ely,

etc. He also wishes to express his gratitude to the many

readers of “Our Sunday Visitor” who assisted him with

their encouraging words and valuable suggestions, especi-

ally to the Reverend Pastor of St. Mary’s, Granville, New

York, Rev. M. L. Merna. S. SHELL.



Jones anb discuss

Socialism.

i.

What Socialism Is Not.

The Climax Building Concern—Government Ownership of Public Utilities

—

Social Reform—A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothes.

SOCIALIST.—Jones, you’re a fool, the biggest fool on the face of the
earth. By voting a capitalist ticket, the Republican or Democratic ticket,

you’re voting for capitalism and that means you’re voting for the exploita-

tion of the working class; you’re voting for the continuance of the unspeak-

able misery and suffering * * *

CATHOLIC.—Just a minute. Smith. I’ve heard that sort of talk a
good many times. Let me give you my position in the matter. I’ve got a

house down there on Sixth street, and I’m not altogether satisfied with

it. It’s too cold in winter and too hot in summer; the kitchen is too small,

the cellar too low, there’s no bath-room in it, and so on. Now suppose some

fine day a gentleman should come along and say to me: “Mr. Jones, I

understand you’re dissatisfied with your house. Now, I have a proposition

for you. I represent the Climax Building Concern, and my firm is willing

to tear down your shack, that’s really what your “house” is, and replace

it with a home that is better equipped and arranged than any in the city.

All we ask of you, is to lend us a little help in pulling down your shanty.”

Smith, what would you advise me to do under those circumstances?

SOCIALIST.—Jones, I understand what you’re driving at. That
Climax Building Concern stands ^or the Socialist party. I’m the repre-

sentative. The shack you’re living in is capitalism and when I ask you to

vote the Socialist ticket, I am asking you to help us pull down your shanty

and in return we promise to build the best arranged and equipped home in

history, that is, the Cooperative Commonwealth. Did I get you?

CATHOLIC.—Perfectly. But now, how about your advice?
SOCIALIST.—Very simple. Investigate the proposition, Jones. In-

vestigate!

CATHOLIC.—You wouldn’t think it strange if I were a little suspicious,
if I thought of a gold brick, if I were very cautious, would you?

SOCIALIST.—Not at all. We Socialists want you to consider our
proposition very carefully; we want you to examine it very closely, and

only after you are satisfied that Socialism is all we claim it to be, do we

want you to join our ranks, not a minute sooner. I am here to help you

in your investigation.

CATHOLIC.—All right, Smith. It won’t hurt to investigate. Now,



6 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

will you please tell me, just in a general sort of a way, what that new home

of mine is going to look like? What do you mean by Socialism?

SOCIALIST.—Jones, put it here! I’m glad to find you so fair-minded.
And now for your question. By Socialism I mean municipal ownership of

water-works, lighting systems, gas and electric, of the street car lines; I

mean government ownership of the railroads, telegraph and telephone lines

and of the express services.

CATHOLIC.—Now, Smith, don't try to slip one over on me like that.
You make me think of the rooster that appropriated the peacock’s feathers.

Government ownership of public utilities was known and advocated before

your party ever came into existence and is no more Socialistic than eating

or jjrinking. When Lueger and his Catholic party obtained a majority in

the city council of Vienna they municipalized the lighting and traction

systems and built a city slaughter house.

SOCIALIST.—Do you mean to say that the Socialist party does not
stand for those measures I mentioned?

CATHOLIC.—Not at all. What I wish to say and what I mean to
insist on is this, that they are not distinctively Socialistic, that they are not

Socialism. They are merely a bait to attract and inveigle the workmen into

your party. And, believe me. Smith, you Socialists have a big variety and

a big supply of bait. I’ll only give a few samples: Socialism means

economic justice; it stands for a shorter working day and a bigger pay

envelope, for clean politics, for sanitary factories, mills and workshops,

for the abolition of child-labor; it stands for decent and comfortable

homes. * * *

SOCIALIST.—And so it does! It stands for all those things. What
is there wrong in telling that to the workers?

CATHOLIC.—Smith, let me tell you a story. A Protestant minister
was sent by a missionary society to a jrillage in the Philippine Islands to

preach the “unadulterated gospel” to the poor benighted Catholic natives.

The pastor of the parish had been killed in the revolution and, in conse-

quence, the people were without a shepherd. When the minister arrived

in their midst they asked him what religion he professed. “I profess and

teach,” he answered, “the only true religion—the religion of Jesus Christ.
I teach that there is one God, the Creator of the universe. I teach all that

is contained in the Holy Bible, the ten commandments, just those things,

as you see, which you believe.” The simple unsuspecting people, anxious

to obtain the ministrations of a priest, were led to believe that the preacher

was of their own faith. They took him in, put the church and parsonage

at his disposal and flocked together from all sides to hear the word of God.

At first, the minister dwelt only on the doctrines common to Catholics and

Protestants, but gradually he poisoned the hearts and minds of his hearers

with Protestant prejudices, and succeeded so well that the majority were

lost completely to the old faith. Smith, tell me candidly, what do you

think of such tactics?



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 7

SOCIALIST.—Why, that minister was a wolf in sheep’s clothes. I
condemn those tactics absolutely.

CATHOLIC.—Well, my good man, I’m afraid you’ll have to condemn
a large number of your comrades; you’ll have to condemn yourself. Con-

sciously or unconsciously, you Socialists employ the very same, frequently

much worse, tactics. You hold back from the unsuspecting inquirer every

feature of your system that might shock his Christian sense of justice and

morality and make him believe that Socialism means certain reform

measures which are not distinctively Socialistic, which your party in Germany

for a long time opposed with tooth and nail. And when you finally succeed

in trapping your victim, by fair means or foul, you inoculate him with the

poison of discontent, infidelity and hatred of religion. And when the poison

has taken effect, he is ready to be instructed in the real meaning of

Socialism. Smith, I’ve seen this done hundreds of times.

II.

Socialism Defined.

Socialism as an Economic System—A New Basis—Highway Robbers of
Capitalism—Frightful Waste—Architects at Loggerheads.

SOCIALIST.—Jones, you’re judging us altogether too harshly. There is
absolutely no reason why we Socialists should resort to those wolf tactics.

Socialism 's a system so grand and so noble that we Comrades can glory in

every one of its principles, and in all its aspirations and ideals.

CATHOLIC.—Well, then, Smith, why in the name of honest common
sense don’t you Socialists answer our question candidly? Why do you say
that Socialism means government ownership of public utilities, that it means

social reforms such as the eight-hour working day, abolition of child labor,

liability insurance, old age pensions, sanitary workshops, and so on, when

these measures are not Socialistic at all?

SOCIALIST.—Come on, Jones, there is no use getting excited. I see now
what you’re after. You wTant the fundamental principle, the central dis-

tinguishing idea of Socialism. All right. Here it is: common ownership of

the means of production and distribution.

CATHOLIC.—This definition considers Socialism only as an economic
system. Would you please explain your definition?

SOCIALIST.—Very gladly. Socialism wants the people at large to own
and operate the means of production and distribution. By means of pro-

duction we understand all those establishments in which needful things are

produced, as factories, mills, mines, quarries, farms, etc.; by means of

distribution we understand the establishments that are used in distributing

needful things, such as railroads, canals, ships, warehouses, stores, etc.

CATHOLIC.—And what do you expect from such an arrangement?
SOCIALIST.—Why, the solution of all our social problems. The laborer



8 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

will get a square deal; he will receive the full social value of the wealth he

creates. The Collective Commonwealth will do away with the unspeakable

misery and suffering of the working class; it will stamp out poverty, slums,

-child-labor white slavery, unsanitary* living and working conditions, starva-

tion wages, in a word—all the wretchedness to which over one-half of us
working men are subject.

CATHOLIC.—And why would these grand results follow?
SOCIALIST.—Simply because all our industries would be run on an

altogether different basis. Now they are run for private gain, then they
will be run for the common good. You will get a slight idea of the big differ-

-ence if you compare the shoe factory in which you are working with the

post-office. The shoe factory is run to make money for the capitalist and

money can be made only by keeping down wages and keeping up the price

of the shoes. You, the working men, are fleeced when you make the shoes

and you’re fleeced again when you buy the very shoes you made. Now let

me take you over to the post-office and show you how that is run. The

government is not in business to make money, but simply and solely to help

the people. The postmaster-general is not continually planning how to raise

the rates of postage and lower the wages of his employees, but he is plan-

ning how he can do the very opposite. And he succeeds in satisfying his

employees on the one hand and the public on the other, just because he

doesn’t have to pay millions of dollars tribute to the highway robbors of

Capitalism and other millions for frightful waste connected with competition

which our privately owned industries must pay.

CATHOLIC.—I see the big difference between the Socialist idea of run-
ning industries and the one according to which they are run now. But would

you kindly explain what you mean by those highway robbers and that fright-

ful waste?

SOCIALIST.—We Socialists call those men robbers who do not work,
either by hand or brain, for the money they get. You have a nicer name for

that class of people; you call them capitalists. Well, there is no place for

such dead-beats in the Collective Commonwealth. We will tolerate no rob-
bery, call it dividends, profit, rent or interest—and now for the frightful
waste. When you take up your magazine at home and see those hundreds

of advertisements, do you ever ask yourself who pays for them? Do you

know that a single soap company (Pears) spends close to $700,000 a year

for advertising, that the Postum Cereal Company spends a million dollars a

year for the same purpose? These two instances give you a very faint idea

of the enormous sums that are spent each year by private industries for

advertising. And now if you analyze advertising you will be forced to admit

that it represents practically a sheer waste of time, energy and millions upon

millions of dollars. In the Collective Commonwealth there will be no such

waste, because there will be only one company, and therefore no competition

which is the only reason why firms advertise.

CATHOLIC.—I must admit that there is a frightful waste in connection
with advertising.



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 9

SOCIALIST.—Well, Jones, there are other causes of waste in our present
system of planless production, which are even more frightful. Take our

army of commercial travelers, drummers, agents and so on, take the upkeep

of competing establishments, one-half of which could produce and distribute

all the products we need, take the immeasurable amounts of goods produced

in excess of our needs which remain unsold and are spoiled—what a shame-
less, frightful waste! When 1 think of the millions upon millions of dollars

wasted in these various ways each year and remember that over one-half

of our working people do not even get a living wage, Jones, my blood begins

to boil. Do you understand now, why I am a Socialist? Do you under-

stand now, why we Socialists want to put an end to the present capitalist

system with its robbery and waste, and why we want to introduce the

Collective Commonwealth with its justice and economy?

CATHOLIC.—I understand you thoroughly, but I do not agree with you
in all your statements. I admit our working class must bear untold misery,

suffering and injustice, but I do not believe that Socialism is the remedy. I

cannot allow that interest-taking is robbery, nor do I grant that the waste

you refer to is as great as you would have me believe. However, we can

discuss these points more profitably some other time. All I wish to do

just now is to examine the rough outline you gave me of the Collective

Commonwealth and to ask you a few questions.

SOCIALIST.—You’re welcome to ask any questions you wish.
CATHOLIC.—Very well. Do you want the government to own ALL

the means of production and distribution?

SOCIALIST.—Yes, all the means.
CATHOLIC.—But isn’t it true that a large percentage of present-day

Socialists do not agree with you on this point? Isn’t it true that they want

to socialise only the “large scale industries” as your Indianapolis program

puts it?

SOCIALIST.—That’s true. But a larger percentage of Socialists are
opposed to such an arrangement. Such half and half measures are more

contemptible than the present organized robbery of capitalism. Such a

hybrid Socialism will never remedy existing evils and will defeat its own

purpose. Give an inch to capitalism and it will widen into a mile before

you know it.

CATHOLIC.—And then, Smith, isn’t it true, too, that many Socialists
want to socialise private property too, I mean houses, furniture, etc.?

SOCIALIST.—Those are fools, those aren’t Socialists.
CATHOLIC.—Say, Smith, the fact that you Socialists are divided on

the fundamental principle of your system is surely no recommendation for

your plan. To apply the example of the Climax Building Concern to the

present situation, I would say that the ARCHITECTS CANNOT AGREE.
One faction claims that the new house must be three stories high if it is to

satisfy the requirements and that no other kind of a structure can possibly

foot the bill. A second faction calls the first a pack of fools and assures

us that a three-story house would crumble to pieces in a year. The archi-



10 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

tects of this set maintain that the new home must be a two-story structure.

Now comes a third faction of architects who boldly tell us that both the

three-story and two-story advocates are dreamers and sons of dreamers.

They are most emphatic in their assertion that the building-material on

hand will not allow you to go beyond the first story. Now, honest, Smith,

no matter how inviting and alluring the promises of Socialism may be, when

I find that you Socialists are fighting and quarreling among yourselves about

your fundamental principle, that you call one another fools and dreamers,

do you really think it would be a wise move for me to risk even one dollar

or one vote on your party? Must you not admit that I have a very serious

reason for suspecting that YOUR PROMISES ARE EMPTY PROMISES,
that your plans at best are plans and nothing else?

III.

Contractors Non-plussed.

Little Details—Getting Control—Concentration of Wealth and Industries
—Purchase—Confiscation—Revolution.

SOCIALIST.—I must admit, Jones, that you have reasons to be cautious
and I want you to be cautious about joining the Socialist Party. But don’t^

let those little differences which you find among us frighten you too much.

It’s up to you to examine the merits of the various factions, select the one

that seems best, then put your shoulder to the wheel and help us to victory.

Yes, I mean my faction, because we are the only true, genuine Socialists.

CATHOLIC.—Smith you’re a shrewd fellow, a real Socialist. The
greatest difficulties of your system can’t bother you in the least. Well, all

right, I’ll examine your faction. So you want the government to own ALL

the means of production, don’t you?

SOCIALIST.—Yes, all of them.

CATHOLIC.—I bought my wife a sewing-machine some time ago. That’s
a means of production. Would she be allowed to keep it?

SOCIALIST.—Ahem— If she doesn’t use it to make money, I would
let her keep it.

CATHOLIC.—So, she wouldn’t be allowed ta make a dress for any of
her neighbors and charge for it?

SOCIALIST.—Well, ahem, oh! that’s one of those little details which
we cannot settle so far ahead. You must remember, Jones, let us control

the big industries and the little details will take care of themselves.

CATHOLIC.—You’ve forgotten all about the inch widening into a mile.
Well, in regard to the big industries, factories, workshops, etc., let me ask

you, how do you intend to get control of them? You don’t suppose that the

owners will hand them over to the government of their own accord, do you?

SOCIALIST.—Now, Jones, that looks to be a mighty big problem to you;
but, really, study it a little bit, and you wTill find that it is a very simple



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 11

one after all. You must know from your own experience that the poor are

becoming poorer right along, and that the rich are becoming richer. All

the wealth of the country and all the industries are gradually being gobbled

up by the capitalists. Now, this process will continue until all the industries

are in the hands of just a few persons, when the transfer you asked about

will be made without difficulty.

CATHOLIC.—Gee, that’s as simple as rolling off a log. But look here,
Smith, I don’t know from experience that the poor are getting poorer. I

know that I am a good deal better off now than I ever was before, and that

I have ten dollars where my father had one, when he came from the

old country. And I know that to be tne case with all my friends and relatives

who are steady, sober and willing to work.

SOCIALIST.—Well, you may not know it from your experience. It’s
limited after all. But take statistics.

CATHOLIC.—Will you show them to me?
SOCIALIST.—I haven’t got them here.
CATHOLIC.—Say, I just happen to remember what one of your own

Socialist leaders, his name is Bernstein, said in regard to this matter. As

you probably know, he belonged to what is called the revisionist wing of

Socialists, and he absolutely denies the truth of your statement* which is

held by orthodox Marxists. According to Bernstein, “the number of the

possessing classes is growing absolutely and relatively.” (Die Voraussetzun-

gen des Sozialismus, etc., Stuttgart, 1902, p. 50.)

SOCIALIST.—But look at the facts! Don’t you admit that the trusts
are eating up all the smaller companies?

CATHOLIC.—In a very few industries, that may be true. But the ex-
ception is not the rule. I saw this very point clearly proved in the Bulletin

of our Catholic Federation, May, 1913, p. 5. Facts and figures are given

which show clearly that wealth is not concentrating, but is being distributed

and that the number of industrial plants is not diministing, but increasing.

And your opportunist Socialists agree with us on this one point.

SOCIALIST.—Can you cite some of those facts and figures?
CATHOLIC.—In regard to the concentration of wealth, the example of

Pond & Co. was given. That firm controls $26,000,000 in the market, and

hence would seem to prove your claim that wealth is gradually being

acquired by a few people. But upon a little closer inspection, it proves the

very opposite, because the number of stockholders or owners is not diminish-

ing, but increasing right along, so that at present there are 4,650.

SOCIALIST.—And how about the concentration of industries?
CATHOLIC.—In thirty years the number of large plants in Germany

increased by about 400, while the smaller plants increased by almost 20,000.

Does that look like concentration?

SOCIALIST.—But how about our own country? How about the United
States?

CATHOLIC.—The Negros will give you an answer. “Fifty years ago,”
they will tell you, “we were practically penniless. Today we own 600,000



12 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

farms worth a half billion dollars and besides 200,000,000 dollars worth of

personal property.” You certainly can’t make that fact square with your

theory of concentration of wealth.

SOCIALIST.—But there surely is concentration of industries in the
United States.

CATHOLIC.—Let us consult the Census for 1910. I find that in 1909
there were 1,000 more establishments producing one million or more dollars

worth of goods than in 1904, and that the smaller establishments increased

during the same period by more than 50,000. I find, too, that the number

of proprietors of industries during those four years increased by 50,000.

Could I manufacture better arguments to disprove your theories than a mere

statement of plain facts? So you see, Smith, it won’t be so very simple

after all for the government to get control of the means of production and

distribution.

SOCIALIST.—Well, as a last resort, it could BUY them up, couldn’t it?
CATHOLIC.—Where is it going to get the money?
SOCIALIST.—Why, issue bonds.
CATHOLIC.—And who’ll buy the bonds?

SOCIALIST.—The working people, of course.
CATHOLIC.—Just before you claimed they had no money.
SOCIALIST.—Well, then, let the others buy, too.
CATHOLIC.—Now, Smith, just see what an awful tangle you are getting

into. By far the greater part of the bonds would have to be bought up by

the present-day capitalists, the very men from whose clutches you wish to

escape. The Commonwealth would, therefore, become their debtor and

would have to pay an enormous annual tribute to them in the form of in-

terest. And interest-taking, you told me, will not be tolerated. No, my good

man, neither purchase nor any other form of compensation can be made to

agree with Socialistic principles. And that’s the reason why very nearly all

Socialists have rejected them. Just let me read to you from my note-book

what one of your leaders and writers, Jeules Gusde, has to say on this sub-

ject: “Instead of being despoiled by the wage system, the worker will be

despoiled by taxation—and that will be the only difference. Expropriation
with indemnity is consequently a dream, quite as much as, an.d even more,

than purchase.” But, tell me, Smith, why don’t you propose the simplest

method of acquiring the means of production and distribution, the method

that is advocated by practically all thorough-going Socialists, — I mean
confiscation? Why don’t you propose that?

SOCIALIST.—Well, I’ll tell you, Jones. I may be a great admirer of
Socialism, tut I can see so far ahead that if we try confiscation there is

going to be an awful revolution, with the odds against us, for the capitalists

and their sympathizers have the powder and the bullets; and there is going

to be more bloodshed than in all the wars put together. And, to be honest,

I can’t get myself to believe that if we do succeed, the Collective Common-

wealth will stand on a foundation of blood,

CATHOLIC.—Ah! there’s where you said something, Smith. But let



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 13

me tell you something, too. Just stay another year in the Socialist Party,

read Socialist literature and listen to Socialist speeches on confiscation, and

that little scruple of yours will disappear. Confiscation will appear to you

the only sane, just and plausible means for the Collective Commonwealth

to get control of the social tools. For the present, however, I wish to insist

on this point, that your Climax Building Concern cannot tell me where and

how it is going to get the site and material for that best-equipped and

best arranged home it promises me. Your contractors are non-plussed.

IV.

Problem of the Superintendent.

Socialism Inevitable?—Working Plan—One Management Throughout—

A

Tremendous Problem—Height of Folly—Postoffice
—Army of Unproductive Laborers.

SOCIALIST.—Jones, I may not be able to tell you just how we are going
to get control of the means of production and distribution; but that we are

going to get control of them is plain as daylight to any one that considers

the immense progress Socialism is making in all parts of the civilized world.

Just think ot it: within forty years we have gained about 25,000,000 adherents.

No other movement in the whole history of the world can point to such a

phenomenal growth. The enormous momentum which Socialism has

acquired and which is constantly increasing stamps our movement as

inevitable.

CATHOLIC.—Beware! Smith, beware! You know how your great
leader, Bebel, stultified himself by prophecying that the Industrial Common-

wealth would be established in 1895! That Socialism has increased by leaps

and bounds I must admit, but that its past phenomenal growth argues for

its future establishment, I deny. You know the lesson which the quickest

growing plant, the mushroom, teaches us. I am fully convinced that So-

cialism, at least as an economic system, has seen its day.

SOCIALIST.—Now, Jones, don’t close your eyes ro plain and evident
facts.

CATHOLIC.—Facts? Don’t you know that here in the United States
your party lost 50,000 dues-paying members during the past year? that within

the same period your organs, “The Chicago Daily Socialist,” “The Coming

Nation” and “The Cleveland Socialist,” went bankrupt? Don’t you know

that even Ir the great stronghold of Socialism, in Germany, your party is

losing ground continually? At the Socialist Convention, held this aummer

in Jena, your leaders were forced to admit that, in spite of the desperate

efforts of the Comrades, the subscription lists of their publications were

melting away at the rate of over 1,000 each month. And in the October

elections your party lost very heavily all along the line; in one state alone,

12,000 votes. No, Smith, Socialism is not a winning movement. By holding



14 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

out the most alluring promises of economic justice, comfort and luxury you i

Socialists succeeded in gaining the confidence of thousands of oppressed and

dissatisfied workmen. Now, however, they are beginning to realize that your

promises were but promises, nothing else.

SOCIALIST.—I beg to differ from you.
CATHOLIC.—Now, Smith, don’t you close your eyes to plain and evident

j

facts. You had to admit that the architects of your Building Concern are at

loggerheads and that your contractors do not know where nor how to get

the material needed for the construction of that magnificent home you

promised me. In my opinion, that is sufficient evidence to prove that your

promises are empty promises, and I would be a consummate fool were I to

bank on them and begin tearing down my house, as you bid me Well, I

know it’s very, very hard to give up pet notions and to forsake long-cherished

plans. Let us continue our investigation. Supposing that a contractor has

received a definite building-plan from his architect, what does he do with it?

SOCIALIST.—Very often, at least, he hands it over to his superintendent
who divides up the work required in the construction of the building among

the cement-workers, structural iron-workers, masons, bricklayers, electricians, !

carpenters, and so on. It’s the superintendent’s duty to draw up a working-

plan; that is, he must figure out exactly what each trade must do and he <

must determine the time when the respective jobs are to be done. Unless

you have a working-plan made out beforehand, your building can’t possibly

go up.

CATHOLIC.—And now, Smith, who in your Co-operative Commonwealth
corresponds to the superintendent? Who divides up the vast amount of work

that is to be done, co-ordinates it and regulates it and controls it?

SOCIALIST.—Why, the President. Of course he’ll be assisted by a
cabinet, which will be composed of the heads of the various departments.

CATHOLIC.—Will you have such a President with a cabinet in each
State of the Union?

SOCIALIST.—Oh, no! Industries will be organized very much in the
same way as our postal service is,—one management throughout. If the
social tools were left to the individual States so that they could produce

what they chose and as much as they pleased, competition between these

various units would necessarily spring up. In its train would follow all the

evils of the present competitive system: waste, robbery, oppression, swind-

ling, fluctuation, etc. No, we will have a very highly centralized organization.

CATHOLIC.—Your President and his cabinet will have a good deal to
attend to, won’t they?

SOCIALIST.—They certainly will.
CATHOLIC.—Did you Socialists ever try to draw up a working-plan for

the superintendent of your Commonwealth?

SOCIALIST.—Not that I know of.

CATHOLIC.—Just a minute ago you told me an ordinary building can-
not be erected without a very definite working-plan. How, then, can you



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 16

expect your vast Industrial Commonwealth to be established and to run on

smoothly without one?

SOCIALIST.—Oh, it won’t be so difficult to devise a working-plan. You
see the government will be assisted by experts.

CATHOLIC.—Well, Smith, I can’t agree with you there. I think it will
not only be extremely difficult, but simply impossible to devise a practical

working-plan. Just let me read a few numbers to you from my note-book

(they are taken from the last census) and we will get a faint, a very faint,

idea of the tremendous problem confronting your central authority which

the working-plan should solve. In our country 93,402,151 inhabitants are to

be fed, clotned, housed, educated, etc.; 46,701,076 must be employed; 3,026,789

square miles of land must be looked after; 6,361,502 farms must be operated,

representing an area of 878,798,325 acres; they are valued at $34,801,125,697

and yield crops to the amount of $5,487,000,000 and live stock worth $4,925,-

600,000; 268,491 factories must be run; they employ 7,678,578 persons, repre-

sent a capital of $18,428,270 and produce manufactures worth $20,672,052;

166,320 wells and 18,164 mines and quarries must be worked; they have

1,139,332 employees, a capital of $3,380,525,841 and yield products valued at

$1,238,410,222; 241,004 miles of railroads and 219,219 miles of telephone lines

must be operated; $1,653,354,934 worth of goods must be imported; $2,204,-

322,409 worth of goods must be exported. Smith, let that be enough for the

I
•present. I’T say nothing about the 3,000,000 dwellings that must be erected,

about the stores, warehouses, elevators, steamship lines, and so on and so on.

And I’ll overlook entirely the immense amount of work our government has

even now. I only wish to state that it seems to me to be the height of folly

I

on the part of you Socialists to dream of handling the business expressed

by those staggering figures and to trust to luck for success. And if you think

that a practical working-plan based on Socialistic principles can be devised

whereby all those industries with their incomprehensible volume of business

and all it implies can be systematized, regulated, co-ordinated, without hitch

j

or failure, to the entire satisfaction of all concerned, well, then, you are

welcome to think so. I for one do not and cannot believe it.

SOCIALIST.—But, Jones, doesn’t the postoffice take care of an immense
amount of business?

CATHOLIC.—Ah, Smith; common sense should suggest that there is
absolutely no comparison. In the first place, the postoffice is run along

capitalistic lines. Then, its work of collecting and distributing mail and

parcels is after all not such a very complex problem, if the government had

to write each letter, print each separate periodical or book and make up

each indiv-dual parcel, there would be a slight comparison possible.

SOCIALIST.—You seem to forget altogether that our central authority
will have tne assistance of a large force of help. There will be boards, com-

mittees, sub-committees, statisticians, clerks, experts, and so on.

CATHOLIC.—No, I don’t forget them at all. They are all to be brought
into your working-plan, and I am afraid that far from diminishing your diffi-

culties, they are going to multiply them. They represent the machinery of



16 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

your Industrial Commonwealth and all machinery implies waste; in point

of fact, some machinery consumes more energy than it transmits, and there-

fore leads to failure and bankruptcy. That the enormous army of unpro-

ductive laborers (your machinery) in your Commonwealth will not bring

on failure is for you to prove.

V.

Problems of the Assistant Superintendent.

Present Conditions Intolerable—Decapitation: a Cure for Headache—Regulat-
ing Production—Concentration of Dissatisfaction—Absolute

Necessity of Accurate Estimates—An Arithmetical
Problem—Socialist Waste—A Miracle.

SOCIALIST.—Working-plan or no working plan, Jones, present condi-
tions are simply intolerable and we laborers won’t stand for them much

longer. Were not free, we’re slaves; we’re the wage slaves of a brood of

robbers and tyrants, subject to their every beck and call. In order that

these licentious, immoral dead-beats may live in luxury and plenty, we, the

producers of wealth, must sacrifice our health, our limbs, our lives, our

morals, our wives, our children. Look at the human scrap-heap piling up

in our public institutions; go to our hospitals, visit our homes, if you think

I am exaggerating.

CATHOLIC.—Smith, I’ll let you in on a little secret of mine. I am just
about as much dissatisfied with present conditions as you are and I feel

the cruel injustice that is done us workmen as keenly as you do. I realize

fully that our much-boasted liberty is a hollow mockery for a large propor-

tion of the working-class. And, to be candid, when I feel the galling chains

with which capitalism has enslaved us, I sometimes nibble at Socialism

—

it looks so inviting and promising. But, thank God, I always feel the hook

before it is too late.

SOCIALIST.—Well, what are you going to do about it?
CATHOLIC.—Let us discuss that some other time. I do not think it

wise to cut a man's head off in order to cure his headache, no matter how

severe it may be; nor do I think that a fish has obtained liberty when it is

dangling in space on a hook, no matter how confining che jar in which it had

been imprisoned. Now, it seems to me that Socialism implies such opinions

and leads to such conclusions. I hope to be able to show you this as we go

on with our discussion.

SOCIALIST.—I am open to conviction, but you’ll have to “show me.’’
CATHOLIC.—Very well. Let us continue our investigation of your

Building Concern. The material that is needed in the construction of a

building is figured out beforehand, isn’t?

SOCIALIST.—Most assurredly. Certain men, whom we may call assistant
superintendents, figure out almost to an inch or a pound the amount of



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 17

structural iron, cement, stone, brick, sand, and so on that will be needed.

They know approximately when and in what quantities the various materials

will be needed and have contracts for their delivery drawn up accordingly.

This must be done in order to save time, keep the working force together,

avoid waste and, in general, to keep down expenses.

CATHOLIC.—Now, Smith, something similar will have to be done by
officials of your commonwealth. They will have to figure out how much of

every needed article must be procured, when and where it is to be delivered

and so on. Isn’t that right?

SOCIALIST.—It surely is. That’s one or me strong points ui Socialism.
By making estimates in advance and regulating production accordingly, we

will eliminate the frightful waste of our present planless, haphazard system

of production. Of course, we realize fully that these estimates will play an

important role in our future State; in fact, the success or failure of the one

is bound up with the success or failure of the other. Under our present

system we are dissatisfied with a good many things, with work, with pay,

food, furniture, service, and so on. But, since this immense dissatisfaction

comes from so many different quarters, we still manage to bear up under it.

In the Co-operative Commonwealth, however, dissatisfaction will come from

one quarter only, from the government, which will be our milkman, butcher,

grocer, tailor, druggist, etc.

CATHOLIC.—Yes, I see the great danger of concentration of dissatis-
faction and the absolute necessity of accurate estimates.. But won’t that be

a big problem!

SOCIALIST.—Surely. But, remember, we are a big people too. You
see we shall have a large force of expert statisticians in our service.

CATHOLIC.—Have you any idea how these statisticians are going to
make their estimates. Are they going to issue peremptory orders and assign

to all of us a certain amount and kind of food, clothing, furniture, utensils

and so on?

SOCIALIST.—By no manner of means. Why that would be the height
of tyranny. Every man will be allowed to choose for himself.

CATHOLIC.—But your statisticians must figure out in advance what
each man is going to choose for himself. And how are they going to figure

that out?

SOCIALIST.—Our experts will take the present consumption as a basis,
make allowances for shortage, waste or surplus, and in this way they will

be able to calculate the future demand quite exactly.

CATHOLIC.—Oh, no! Smith, that won’t work. You forget altogether
that conditions in the Socialist State will be entirely different from what

they are now. We are all supposed to be equal and have equal buying
power, which certainly is not the case at present.

SOCIALIST.—Well, we can ask each inhabitant to draw up a list of his
needs for the coming year and hand that in to our statisticians.

CATHOLIC.—Smith, will you try that scheme on yourself for one year?
Write out for me such a list of things that you want—the kind and amount



18 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

of clothing (hats, caps, shoes, stockings, shirts, underwear, coats, etc.), of

food (meat, bread, cakes, potatoes, cabbage, carrots, beans, and so on), of

furniture (chairs, tables, beds, bedding, carpets, rugs, and so on), of the

thousand little incidentals that are used or needed in every household,

(thread, buttons, needles, blacking, tooth powder, tooth brushes, chewing

gum, candy, and so on, and so on). I would advise you to consult the

catalog of one of our mammoth mail-order houses so that there won't be
j

much danger of forgetting anything. You know we must prevent all dis-

satisfaction. Incidentally, you will learn what a colossal task you are

expecting your statisticians to perform.

SOCIALIST.—I didn’t deny that they would have a big problem to l
solve. They’re solving big problems for us every day. For example let me

|

call your attention to the census which required the help of about 70,000 I

enumerators and an office force of over 3,000 clerks.
i

CATHOLIC.—I’m glad you mentioned the census, Smith, because it !
suggests a little arithmetical problem which will throw some light on the

matter in question. You must keep in mind the fact that our ordinary
*

census concerns itself with about ten items, (color, nativity, parentage, sex,
j

age and marital conditions, etc.), whilst your census would have to take

account of over 40,000 items. I take the number 40,°00 because so many t

items are listed in the catalog of one of Chicago’s great mail-order houses.— j
And now for the problem. If 70,000 enumerators and 3,000 clerks are neces- -

sary to collect and tabulate the data of a census of ten items, how many

enumerators and clerks will be necessary to collect and tabulate the data

of a census of over 40,000 items? And if it takes two to four years to finish

off the one census, how many years will it take to finish off the other?

SOCIALIST.—I confess, I never looked at the problem of forecasting
the demands for commodities in that way.

CATHOLIC.—Well, I am not done with you yet. You must remember !
that the vast army of enumerators and clerks represent so much unpro-

ductive labor, a waste from the Socialist point of view. Then I want to call

your attention to a stupendous miracle which you expect your statisticians

to perform. You expect them to increase our present supply of commodities

almost indefinitely and at the same time to decrease production!

SOCIALIST.—How do you make that out?
CATHOLIC.—On the one hand you promise us workmen a greater share

in the goods of this world and on the other you also promise us shorter

hours.—Oh, Smith, even if you had a working-plan for your Concern it
would not work; if you could devise a governmental machinery for your

Industrial Commonwealth it would not run. The only solution of the problem

under discussion is the one. I suggested at the outset and which obtains in

the army: issue peremptory orders and assign to all a certain amount and

kind of food, clothing, furniture, utensils, etc. Don’t you feel the mailed

hand under the Socialist kid glove?



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 19

VL

Problems of the Foreman.

A Catchy Question—Personal Interest—A Beautiful Dream—Assigning
Jobs— Dirty Work—Automatic Adjustment—Whole

Tendency Downward and Backward.

SOCIALIST.—Jones, there’s a flaw somewhere in your reasoning which
escaped me. You say that we Socialists cannot devise a working-plan for

our Cooperative-Commonwealth and that even if wTe did devise one it would

not work.

CATHOLIC.—That’s what I said, and I think I proved it, too.
SOCIALIST.—Well, now, isn’t it true that all the industries are run at

the present time?

CATHOLIC.—Yes, tjiey’re run to a certain fashion.
SOCIALIST.—Why, then, should they come to a standstill just because

owners have changed hands, just because they will be run for the benefit

of all the people instead of for the enrichment of a few?

CATHOLIC.—That’s a catchy Socialist question, I admit. It’s like this
conundrum: Why can’t a man raise himself from the floor by pulling at
his bootstraps? The answer to both is the same: because you can’t spend

your money and keep it at the same time.

SOCIALIST.—I don’t see the point. Where is the connection?
CATHOLIC.—Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was a

man who suffered from headache, stomachache and many other aches. When

he learned from his doctor that all his troubles were due to an irregular

and unequa 1 distribution of blood he prayed most fervently to Jupiter, the

highest of the gods: “O Father Jupiter, you were kind enough to give me

control over my hands and feet but you did not give me the power to control

the circulation of my blood. And see the consequence: my head is overfed

and the rest of my body is underfed; I am suffering terribly from one

disease or another all my life. Oh! allow ME to regulate the flow of those
life-giving streams in my body and I will become a strong, healthy man. In

gratitude I will serve you faithfully to my dying day.” This fervent prayer

was heard and the request granted. Do you know what happened?

SOCIALIST.—I can easily imagine. The poor fool should have known
that he had enough to do without looking after the circulation of his blood

through several million veins, arteries and capillaries. He was a corpse in

less time than it takes to tell.

CATHOLIC.—Well, Smith, you Socialists are trying to undertake a
similar task in regard to Society. You want to control the circulation or

flow of wealth absolutely and completely, and you imagine it will be easy

just because you see wealth flowing now. You expect to have all the

advantages of the present automatic and natural regulation of wealth with

none of its disadvantages and then, besides, you expect the advantages of a



20 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

diametrically opposed system, namely an absolutely controlled regulation.

You want to spend your money and keep it at the same time.

SOCIALIST.—If I’m not mistaken you are thinking now of that bugaboo
with which our enemies try to frighten us and our prospective adherents

—

I mean the absence of personal interest which, as you claim, will wreck our

Commonwealth.

CATHOLIC.—Yes, that enters into consideration too. You have no
substitute for personal interest which will impel the members of your

Commonwealth to do a reasonable amount of work, let alone develop the

best that is in them.

SOCIALIST.—Now, there you are badly mistaken. Is Goethals building
the Panama Canal from a motive of direct personal Interest? Did Washing-

ton establish this grand republic for the money that was “in the job”? Did

Raphael paint the Sistine Madonna for a pecuniary reward? Did

CATHOLIC.—Stop! Smith, wake up from your beautiful dream. Do you
expect to built Panama canals and establish grand republics and paint Madon-

nas as soon as the Socialist Commonwealth is established? Look at the cold

facts. We have seen the impossibilities you expect from your architects, con-

tractors, superintendents, assistant superintendents, and the farther we go

down the line of officials the more hopeless the outlook becomes. Your

beautiful dream of the grand work you are going to do reminds me of the

foreman, who has charge of employment in your Commonwealth.

SOCIALIST.—Well, here, at least, I can hold my ground. Socialism can
solve that worst curse of the workman, unemployment.. Oh, what a terrible

word, what a horrible nightmare! I shiver from head to foot when I think

of the days and nights I walked the streets looking for work; not a bite

to eat—my wife and children starving.
CATHOLIC.—I’ve been there, too, Smith and I know what it means,

j

But to come back to the foreman. How are you going to assign jobs?

SOCIALIST.—We are not going to assign jobs. That would be tyranny
and downright slavery, and no comrade wTould stand for it. Every man and

woman will be allowed to choose the work he or she likes best.

CATHOLIC.—Won’t there be a general rush for the soft and easy snaps
then? You must remember that we will all start out in life on a perfectly

equal basis, with the same education, equal rights and no special privileges.

In other words who is going to do the dirty work?

SOCIALIST.—First of all you must remember, Jones, that dirty work
is being diminished every day by new inventions.

CATHOLIC.—Well, now, I’m just a little doubtful about that. It seems to
me that there is more dirty work now than there ever was. Most of the

work in our factories is dirty work, to my mind, even if you could do it with

your Sunday clothes on. The same holds good of railroads, steam-ships,

mines, farming, and practically all modern industries.

SOCIALIST.—There is really no need of disputing or arguing about
that point. Our solution of the employment problem is, after all, independent

of it. You see, as soon as we find that there is a shortage of laborers in any



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM, 21

particular industry we will shorten its labor-time, and where there happens

to be a surplus of laborers we will lengthen the labor time.

CATHOLIC.—Let me apply your principle of automatic adjustment to a
concrete example. Suppose that there is a surplus of physicians and a

shortage of miners. Will you shorten the labor-time of the miners in the

hope that some of the physicians will take to mining?

SOCIALIST.—Yes, we’ll do something like that.
CATHOLIC.—But look at the trouble you are going to get into. First

of all the physicians will raise a howl because they are being discriminated

against. You are rating their services lower than those of unskilled labor

and indirectly, at least, you are trying to drive them out of their profession.

And supposing the scheme would work, what will be the result? Physicians

will become miners. What a waste in skill and talent! And won’t those

doctors who have been accustomed to wield the delicate instruments of

surgery or to diagnose a sickness and write out prescriptions, feel right at

home down in the shaft of a mine burrowing out coal with pick and shovel!

But the greatest objection I have to your scheme is this, that all along the

line labor forces will be withdrawn from the higher and skilled occupations

and that as a consequence the entire tendency of the Commonwealth will be

downward and backward. Why don’t you advocate Bebel's scheme and have
us all take turns in doing dirty work?

SOCIALIST.—Ah, nonsense! I told you I am against assigning work
because it means slavery. Besides, the scheme is too ridiculous on the very

face of it to deserve further consideration.

CATHOLIC.—Well, then, Smith, I think you must admit that you Social-
ists have no satisfactory solution for the employment problem. The only

way you can possibly solve it is to assign to each comrade a job and make

him hold it down no matter whether he likes it or not. But that’s what I

call cutting a man’s head off to cure his headache.

VII.

Problems of the Paymaster.

Foolish Questions—Labor-Check—Remuneration of Labor— Legalized Rob-
bery— Labor-Product—Oh! so Simple—Labor

the Only Source of Wealth.

SOCIALIST.—Jones, I must admit that I cannot answer ail your ques-
tions satisfactorily. But, really, you should not expect me to, either. I am

not a professor, not even a student; I am only an ordinary workman. Put

your questions to our leaders, to the men that have made a study of So-

cialism, and I am sure they will give you information on all those points

where you cornered me.

CATHOLIC.—Tnat’s a strange confession you are making, Smith.

You admit that you have adopted Socialism without understanding it and



22 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

that you are trying to win recruits for the movement in spite of the fact

that you cannot answer a number of very elementary questions. But I am

not surprised at this, for I have encountered the same experience over and

over again; and as for your leaders, do you know what Liebknecht answered

when questions were put to him concerning the Socialist State?

SOCIALIST.—Liebknecht is an authority with us. He was one of our
greatest leaders. What did he say?

CATHOLIC.—He told Bachem in the German Reichstag that the inquiry
concerning the future state is “a question which only fools will answer/' So

you see he is not very complimentary to you who thought it but fair to try

to answer my questions. Now that you have heard that remark of your

famous authority and great leader, you may perhaps wish me to stop my

investigation of your Climax Building Concern, of Socialism?

SOCIALIST.—Not at all. If Socialism cannot bear investigation, and
if our leaders cannot answer reasonable questions regarding the Cooperative

Commonwealth in a satisfactory manner, why, the sooner the Socialist

Party disappears from the face of the earth the better for all concerned.

Your questions have indicated to me the lines along which my own study

and inquiry must be directed in the future and if you have any more, why,

just propose them.

CATHOLIC.—All right, Smith. I must compliment you for your fair-
ness. My next question is in regard to the pay-master of the Building Con-

cern. But first I want to ask you if you agree with those Comrades who wish

to do away with money?

SOCIALIST.—No, I do not agree with them. Money as such is not the
cause of our present social evils. The fanciful labor-check about which some

make so much ado is really only another form of money without the many

advantages of our present monetary system. Of course, I wish to insist that

labor will be the real measure of value and that money will be merely its

expression. We can remunerate labor more easily with dollars and cents
than with labor-checks.

CATHOLIC.—That’s just what I want to get at: remuneration or pay
of labor. You Socialists make a good deal of capital out of our present

system of remuneration, the wage system. You denounce it in almost every

book and every paper and every lecture as systematized robbery and ex-

ploitation of the working-class, as the ultimate source of our social troubles.

And you promise us workmen that in the Co-operative Commonwealth we

shall all get the full social value of the wealth we create, a remuneration

sufficient to keep us all in comfort, not to say luxury.

SOCIALIST.—Yes, we promise that for the simple reason that we are
going to do away with interest, rent and dividends by means of which do-

nothing capitalists are enabled to rob us workingmen of two4hirds of our

labor product.

CATHOLIC.—I admit that capitalists have outraged us workingmen most

shamefully, but even if you take into account stock-watering, monopolistic

prices and all the other villainous methods of modern freebooting, I do not



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 23

think that the civilized licensed robbers of our present day, taken as a foody,

have despoiled us to the extent of sixty-six per cent. At any rate, you

Socialists could never prove your assertion. However, there is no need

losing time over this point, because we are only concerned with Socialism

which you claim will remedy the evil. I w'ant to know how you are going to

solve the difficult problem of remunerating labor. Will your paymaster give

each employee of the Commonwealth, say, one dollar per hour, irrespective

of the kind or amount of labor he performs?

SOCIALIST.—Nonsense. I know some hair-brained Socialists have ad-
vocated that absurd plan. They could not see that it is in direct contradic-

tion to a first principle of Socialism, that each workman should receive the

full social value of the wealth he creates—no more, no less. Put all em-
ployees on the same level without regard to kind and amount of labor per-

formed and you will banish from the community every indication of industry

and skill, you will put a premium on laziness and inefficiency, you will drive

the Commonwealth into bankruptcy before you are awrare of it. No, Jones,

if a man wants to earn a dollar he must produce a dollar’s worth.

CATHOLIC.—That sounds very reasonable. But tell me how will you
know when a man has produced a dollar’s worth?

SOCIALIST.—Oh, that won’t be so hard. You see the labor product is
always equal.

CATHOLIC.—I don’t understand you.
SOCIALIST.—Let me explain by means of an example. Suppose it

takes a carpenter one hour to make a chair and five hours to make a table,

why then one table will be worth five chairs. And if the chair sells for one

dollar, then the carpenter is entitled to get one dollar for each hour that he

works. Apply that principle to all our industries and you will have a simple

but just scheme for determining a man’s wage.

CATHOLIC.—Simple, indeed. But it seems to me its very simplicity
is its strongest refutation, for it necessarily supposes a very simple state

of society, such, for instance, as obtained when one and the same carpenter

did all the work that was necessary in the making of a chair or table. But

take conditions as they actually are: trace back the history of any chair in

your house to the time when the wood from which it is made was still a part

of some living tree in the forest and you will find that several hundred

hands had been busy with it before it reached your house. How are you

going to determine what share in the price each one of those hundreds is

entitled to? But I have another objection. to your scheme: it presupposes

that labor is the only source of wealth.

SOCIALIST.—And so it is. Wealth can be created only by labor.
CATHOLIC.—Well, then, tell me why is a chair made of mahogany

worth ten times more than one made of yellow pine, though exactly the

same amount of labor was required in the manufacture of both? Why are
you willing to pay more for fresh articles of food—fruit, meat, butter, eggs,
etc.—than for such as are stale although more labor was expended upon the
latter? Why were you perfectly satisfied to pay your surgeon fifty dollars



24 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

for performing an operation which lasted scarcely a halMiour, whilst yon

paid your servant girl only ten cents, though she labored a good deal more

during the same length of time scrubbing the kitchen floor? But after all,

why argue on this point? If it is so easy to determine the social value of

each man’s labor^product, why don’t you Socialists work out your scheme

in detail? Why can’t you submit a sort of scale of wages to us workingmen
so that we may know what to expect? I put a lot of stock in the two say-

ings: “Look before you leap." “Don’t leap in the dark.’’ You Socialists,

however, seem to think that those sayings have become obsolete. You step

up to us workmen as children do in their games and tell us: “We have

something nice to eat, open your mouth, shut your eyes,” and in goes a

handful of red pepper. Red pepper may be nice to look at from a distance,

but it certainly isn’t very pleasant to the taste. Economic Socialism is un-

doubtedly most beautiful and captivating in theory, but woe betide the com-

munity that endeavors to carry it out in practice.

VIII.

Socialism and Liberty in the Light of History.

Next Step in the Evolution of Human Society—A New Argument—Over One
Hundred Socialist Experiments Failures—Blind Faith—Straight-

jacket of Socialism— Irresponsible Democracy—Reign of
Terror—New Australia—History and Experience.

SOCIALIST.*—Jones, the objections and difficulties you have been urging
against Socialism are unsound and sophistical; they must be!

CATHOLIC.—Why? What makes you think so?
SOCIALIST.—If they were not, it would necessarily follow that Capital-

ism represents the last and highest stage in the development of human

society. Now, I cannot believe that.

CATHOLIC.—Neither do I believe that society has reached the last and
highest stage in its development. But much less do I believe that Socialism

is the next. Socialism, as I have shown you, is a beautiful dream, but an

absolute impossibility.

SOCIALIST.—Did not the so-called wise men in the days of Columbus
call his plan a dream, an impossibility, just as you are calling Socialism a

dream and an impossibility?

CATHOLIC.—-No doubt, many did. But that is no argument for Social-
ism. If it were, every charlatan, crank and dreamer could appeal to it in

support of his plans, no matter how absurd and nonsensical they might be;

if it were, then you have no right calling extreme Socialists, I mean Com-

munists, fools, as you did in one of our former discussions. It is true, people

did claim some ideas impracticable, impossible, which have been realized

and are a fact at the present day; but it is no less true that they claimed

and still claim and will e^er claim many more ideas impossible which have



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 25

remained impossible and will remain impossible to the end of time. And

among such impossibles must be classed Socialism.

SOCIALIST.—Jones, aren’t you begging the question?
CATHOLIC.—Not in the least! It’s up to you to prove the feasibility

of Socialism and you certainly do not claim to have even attempted it. So

I do not beg the question when I deny it. Moreover, in our little investiga-

tion of your Climax Building Concern, of Socialism, I showed you that your

architects are at loggerheads, that your contractors are non-plussed, that

your superintendents, assistant-superintendents, foremen and paymasters are

all at their wT its* ends. They have thrown up their hands in despair and

told us that they do not know how to tackle the infinitely complex tasks

set them by the Industrial Commonwealth. No, Smith, I cannot bank on a

proposition of that character, even if I didn’t know that every attempt at

establishing a Socialist community, and there were more than one hundred,

proved a miserable failure.

SOCIALIST.—The experiments you refer to w^ere all on a small scale.
CATHOLIC.—What of it? If you can’t build a one-story house out of

sand, much less will you be able to build a sky-scraper.

SOCIALIST.—Be that as it may. I have pinned my faith to Socialism
and to Socialism I look for relief from injustice and oppression. Even if

the worst does happen, to use the words of Marx: “We have nothing to

lose but our chains.” (Communist Manifesto, Chicago, p. 64.)

CATHOLIC.—Well said, Smith; Socialism is a matter of faith, of im-
plicit, childlike, but blind faith. Do as you please: if you wish to leap in

the dark, I can’t hold you back, but don’t expect me to follow. We workmen
are in chains, as you say, but you must admit that our chains allow most

of us a very considerable amount of free movement, and that conditions have

improved very much during the last twenty years, and that they will and

must improve wherever laborers are organized into Unions and use the

ballot intelligently. But for the sake of argument I will suppose that the

Industrial Commonwealth can be established. Do you think you will no

longer be in chains?

SOCIALIST.—Of course I do.
CATHOLIC.—Well, then, you’re sadly, very sadly mistaken, as you were

on so many other points. We workmen will be shackled with chains as
galling as the crudest straight-jacket any prisoner ever wore.

SOCIALIST.—That’s rubbish, Jones. Don’t you know that Socialism

means a democracy?

CATHOLIC.—Yes, and I know, too, that an irresponsible democracy can
be more cruel and brutal than the most bloodthirsty tyrant. Call to mind

the horrible and harrowing excesses the Socialists or Communists, as they

are more frequently called, perpetrated in Paris only sixty-five years ago,

—

the murder, pillage, robbery and other nameless, shameless crimes that were

committed in the name of liberty and democracy. Read the book, “Where

Socialism Failed,” by Stewart Grahame, and learn of the ruthless tyranny

and high-handed injustice that was practiced in the Socialist experiment of



26 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

New Australia, begun under the most favorable circumstances,—and then
judge for yourself if Socialism must not necessarily degenerate into legalized

ferocity.

SOCIALIST.—Jones, don’t try to frighten me with your rhetoric.
CATHOLIC.—No, I am not trying to frighten you with rhetoric. I am

stating and all 'through our discussion have been stating truths which are

plain and apparent to everyone, whose eyes are not blind to facts and whose

judgment is not clouded by Socialist prejudice. I should like to appeal to I

your intelligence and, drawing the logical inferences from our preceding

discussions, show you how Socialism, if it could be established, must work

out in daily life; how it must affect us workmen in our personal affairs.

But as long as you refuse to accept history and experience as a teacher, «

what is the use?

SOCIALIST.*—You have aroused my curiosity, Jones, and I really would
like to see the picture you intend to paint of the Socialist state. But allow -

me to suggest a little precaution: don’t draw too generously on your imagi-
[

nation, poisoned as it is against Socialism, for inspiration and materials.

CATHOLIC.—I beg your pardon, Smith, but I think your suggestion is
utterly uncalled for. Imagination has entered very little, if at all, into my

share of the discussion. Every statement that I have made was dictated

by hard common sense. If Socialism as an economic system means salva-
|

t.ion for us working-men, why should I oppose it? Why shouldn’t I adopt it '

as an economic system?

IX.

Socialism and Liberty in the Light of Theory.

Absolutistic Government— Inefficiency and Graft in Government Administra-
tion—Well Cared-for Slaves—Greed and Selfishness—Finer

Instincts—Who Join?—Who Shun the Socialist Party?

SOCIALIST.—We’re getting off the track. Show me how, in your judg-
|

ment, based upon our previous discussions, Socialism, if it could be estab-

lished, must affect us workingmen in our daily affairs.

CATHOLIC.—Very well. Remember you have freely admitted, or, at
least, you have been forced to admit, that your Socialist government must

be highly centralized and that it must be vested with practically absolute

power. It will be the only employer in the country and will, therefore, dictate

where we must work, how long we must work, for how much we must work

and under what conditions of labor we must work. It will be the only seller

in the market and will fix the price of goods and determine their kind and

quality, for it need not fear competition, and hence need not consider our

personal likes or dislikes. The government will be the only educator and

will prescribe where our children are to be educated and how they are to be

educated. It will, for a long time, at least, be our only landlord and, there-



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 27

fore, will oblige us to live in that bouse and under such conditions as 1*

thinks best. The kind a*’ 4 character of our amusements as well as the man-

ner of taking them, will be determined by the government; as also a hundred

other personal affairs. To sum up: we shall all become members of a huge

industrial army subject to the will of individual officials or committees.

SOCIALIST.—Well, Jones, I don’t see that such an arrangement would
be so very bad. At any rate, the workingman’s condition will be a hundred

times better than it is at present.

CATHOLIC.—You seem to forget of a sudden the Socialist complaint that
the administration of nearly all departments of the National, State and

Municipal governments is flagrantly inefficient and wasteful, honeycombed

with graft, favoritism and dishonesty.

•SOCIALIST.—Not at all! We Socialists know full well the leprous con-
dition of the government, and, by a careful diagnosis of the case, we have

discovered the cause, namely: Capitalism. Remove the cause and the effects

will cease. As soon as we get the reins of government into our hands we

will do away with the wasteful and dishonest methods that prevail in the

administration of the government and thereby save the country the hundred

thousand million dollars which are lost or stolen annually; we will usher

in an era of thorough-going efficiency, sane economy, even-handed justice,

strict impartiality, scrupulous honesty.

CATHOLIC.—Even if you Socialists could fulfill your glorious promises
to the letter, I would not vote for the introduction of the Co-operative Com-

monwealth.

SOCIALIST.—Why not?
CATHOLIC.—Because I would a thousand times rather be a starving

freeman than a well cared-for slave of the absolutistic government I

described for you a minute ago. But I flatly and absolutely deny that you

have any reason for assuming that the officials of the Industrial Common-

wealth will be a whit better than are the officials of our present government.

Not Capitalism is the last cause of the inefficiency and dishonesty which, as

you say, disgrace our government, nor of the robberies, injustice and heart-

less cruelties practiced against us workmen by the captains of industry, but

greed and selfishness; and what is there in Socialism that can or will curb

the greed and selfishness of man? I have come in contact with Socialists

if every type and description and, while I gladly admit that some of the

Comrades are noble-minded and generous-hearted men and women, I do

maintain that the big majority are intellectually and morally of an inferior

Lype of mankind.

SOCIALIST.—You’re making a very serious charge there, Jones. On
what do you base it?

CATHOLIC.—As I already indicated: on my own experience as well as
m the experience of others. Let me read to you what Judge Cushing of
Cincinnati said not long ago in this connection: “I was judge in the Cin-

cinnati Court during the summer term three years ago, and we had trouble

n finding enough cases to keep the court busy for three weeks. This year



28 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

we have been having criminal trials right along. . . . The increase in

number of criminals coming to Cincinnati is due to the spread of Socialism.

The teachings of this ‘ism’ are such as appeal to the criminal classes.” And

to men of that stamp you want me to confide absolute powers of government!

And with the assistance of such men and through them you expect to “usher

in an era of thorough-going efficiency, sane economy, even-handed justice,

strict impartiality, scrupulous honesty!”

SOCIALIST.—I admit that Socialism has attracted to its standard a large
number of less desirable individuals who have brought our organization into

disrepute. But you must remember that Socialism is a movement of the

down-trodden and oppressed workingman and that the finer instincts in many

of our workingmen have been paralyzed by the brutalities of Capitalism.

CATHOLIC.—Your Comrades would feel highly flattered to hear you
speak that way in their regard, and would thank you for your compliments.

But, if Socialism, as you claim, really stands for what is noblest and best in

man, justice, honesty, etc., it seems very, very strange to me that those

principally should flock to its standard in whom “the finer instincts have

been paralyzed,” whilst the workingmen in whom “the finer instincts” are

most highly developed generally shun your organization as they would a

pestilential menace.

Socialism and Liberty in the Light of

Present Day Experience.

Review of Socialist Leaders—Gathering Grapes of Thorns—Leaving the
Clouds of Theory and Speculation—Socialist Wire Pulling—Socialist

Referendums—Socialist Steam Roller and Bossism—Boards of
Arbitration—Freedom of Press—Legalized Ferocity.

SOCIALIST.—Now, don’t forget that the rank and file, who, as I freely
admit, do not measure up to our own ideals, after all is said and done, have

littr© influence in the higher councils of our organization and that Socialist

activities are directed almost exclusively by our leaders. The destinies of

our Party are guided and shaped by them and to them you must look for

an efficient and perfectly honest administration of affairs under Socialism.

CATHOLIC.—I wish you would tell me a little more in detail whom you
refer to when you speak of Socialist leaders.

SOCIALIST.—Why, to the men who influence Socialist thought and
action; to the editors of Socialist publications, to our writers, speakers,

officials, candidates for public offices, etc.

CATHOLIC.—Very well. Let me recall a few of those past and present
leaders of your party in this country and then, putting aside your Socialist

prejudices for a moment, judge for yourself: Wilshire, “Millionaire Social-

ist” editor, who, as Martha M. Avery an ex-Socialist tells us, fleeced the



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 29

“Dear Comrades” by means of bis mining schemes and then absconded to

England where he is now living in ease and comfort (Common Cause II,

890); the Appeal to Reason staff, which Goldstein did not hesitate to charac-

terize in a public statement as “a gang of rogues” (Common Cause II, 382)

and against whom Locals and Comrades in Minnesota and Chicago

have filed charges “for offering worthless land as premiums in its

subscription contests” (Social Democrat Herald); J. A. Wayland, widely

known Socialist editor and founder of the vilest and most sourrilous

sheet in the country who “dreading to face the humiliation of legal prose-

cution for an infamous offense deliberately put an end to his life” (Common

Cause II, 774); Haywood, member of the Executive Committee, who had

to be expelled from the party for his dishonorable acts; Harriman, member

of the Executive Council, who disgraced himself in connection with the

McNamara case; J. Mahlon Barnes, who was thrust upon the Socialist

Party as Campaign manager for 1912 through “the cunning of Hillquit”

(Christian Socialist, June 27, ’12) in spite of the fact that he had been “forced

to tender his resignation as National Secretary on the ground that his conduct

in private life proved him to be a degenerate, drunkard and libertine” (The

Miner’s Magazine); Morris Hillquit, who made “a mad fight” for this “degen-

erate, drunkard and libertine” and so eloquently pleaded “that reparation

should be made to the convicted and self-accused adulterer that he so far

forgot himself as to state (falsely) that he made the nomination of Barnes

with the endorsement of the National Executive Committee” (Christian

Socialist, June 27, ’12); Shoaf, Socialist correspondent, who outraged Com*

rade Untermann's (a prominent Socialist author) daughter, relative to whom

her employer stated: “Until this very day the girl has not received any

assistance from her relatives” (Common Cause II, 396); Herron, Socialist

writer and speaker, who, it has been stated again and again in the public

press, deserted his wife and children (Socialism, Goldstein-Avery, p. 279).;

Hagerty, Socialist speaker, an apostate priest, who counseled the miners

at Telluride, Col., on July 3, 1902, to loot the local banks and stores;

Berger, international secretary, member of the Executive Committee, etc.,

who scoffs and rails at everything we Catholics hold most sacred and who

advised every Socialist voter “to have a good rifle and the necessary rounds

of ammunition in his home and be prepared to back up his ballot with his

bullets if necessary” (Social Democratic Herald, July 31, ’09); Tichener,

editor, the arch-blasphemer; Debs, Socialist presidential candidate, who

“has spent his energy in attempting to disrupt the trade unions” and

“organized dual organizations and strike-breaking organizations” (Collins,

Why Socialism is Opposed to Trade and Labor Unions, p. 26) ; practically
the whole Socialist press which is continually conducting a vile campaign

of deception, duplicity and double-dealing in regard to Socialism’s real

attitude toward the family, morality and religion.

To close this review of Socialist leaders I will quote a sentence from

one of Goldstein’s lectures which will throw some light on the character

of Socialist headquarters: “Rev. Edwin Ellis Carr was expelled from the



30 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

Socialist party for exposing the free love practice in the national Socialist

headquarters.” Now, Smith, do you sincerely believe that such men give

fair promise of ushering in an era of “sane economy, even-handed justice,

scrupulous honesty, absolute impartiality” and that it would be prudent on

our part to entrust them with the reins of an absolute government and allow

them to wield full sway over our personal affairs?

SOCIALIST.—Jones, you’re becoming personal and bitter.
CATHOLIC.—I’m becoming direct, practical and outspoken, Smith, in

the hope that you may open your eyes to the real situation. I’m coming

down from the clouds of theory and speculation which you Socialists

delight to revel in, because they afford you more room and greater facilities

for dodging and evading arguments and I am looking at men and affairs as

they really are, not as they might be. The child-like, unquestioning faith

and confidence which so many of you Socialists place in your leaders and

your movement would be comic if it weren’t so extremely tragic.

SOCIALIST.—It’s mighty strange that we Socialists don’t get wise.
CATHOLIC.—That is one of the tragic phases of the situation. But,

thank God, a good number of the more intelligent and upright Comrades,

particularly those whose finer instincts have not been altogether paralyzed,

are beginning to realize that they are duped. Here is what M. Mikkelson,

for several years a leading member of your party in Milwaukee and a mem-

ber of the Common Council under the Seidel administration, said in a public

statement (New York Sun, Dec. 19, T3) only a few weeks ago: “I have

quit the party for good because I am tired of explaining things I do not

believe in. I am tired of the political wire pulling in the Socialist party.

They pull the political wires just like all other parties.”

SOCIALIST.—Well, Jones, even granting that our Party has as yet not
developed a high type of unselfish and irreproachable leaders, that doesn’t

argue against Socialism.

CATHOLIC.-—There you are again up in the clouds. Do you ask me to
vote for Socialism in the abstract, or do you ask me to vote for the Socialist

Party as it is constituted here and now?

SOCIALIST.—You must bear in mind, Jones, that our platform provides
for the referendum and that by its means we can eliminate objectionable

legislation and remove undesirable men from their offices.

CATHOLIC.—Listen to what Mikkelson had to say on that point: “They
don’t hold referendums any more like they used to, so that a majority of the

party members can rule. Most of the important matters are decided by

a few ring-leaders and we have to go out and stand for them.” And if you

wish to get a further insight into the character of Socalist referendums,

study up the Barnes referendum and see for yourself what a “huge farce

comedy” it developed into. Open your eyes to the facts of the case and

you will find that steam-roller tactics and bossism are just as prominent in

your party politics as anywhere else. But you miss the point when you

refer me to the referendum, because we evidently cannot have recourse to



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 31

a referendum every time we are unjustly dealt with by an official or a

committee.

SOCIALIST.—Oh, in those cases you could refer the matter to our
boards of arbitration.

CATHOLIC.—Made up, I suppose, by men like Hillquit, who “put up
a mad fight” for a “degenerate, drunkard and libertine” and Barnes “the

convicted and self-accused adulterer” etc. (Christian Socialist, June 27, ’12)

Little justice could you expect at their hands. . . . But even supposing

that the members of your boards were absolutely just, you know as well as

I, that a foreman or boss or any official, and you are going to have an endless

number of them in your Commonwealth, I say, you know that they can annoy

and harrass us in a thousand different petty ways which we feel most

keenly but which we cannot formulate into a charge that will make a show-

ing in court.

SOCIALIST.—You could expose officials in the papers.
CATHOLIC.—Not on your life! The papers will be owned and printed

by the Government and a mighty silly Government it would be which would

allow you to use its presses and papers to expose its shame. No, Smith,

freedom of the press would disappear, just as personal liberty would neces-

sarily disappear and we would be condemned to a state of abject slavery,

grinding tyranny and legalized ferocity.

XI.

Socialism and the Family.

Exaggerations— Ignorance and Gullibility of the Comrades—Free Lust-

Socialist Authorities—Garbled Quotations?—John Spargo's Methods.

SOCIALIST.—Jones, you’re indulging in wild exaggerations. If, as you
claim, Socialism means “abject slavery, grinding tyranny and legalized

ferocity,” how in the world do you explain the fact that millions of our

liberty-loving people are flocking to its standard?

CATHOLIC.—In the first place, Smith, millions of our people are not
flocking to the Socialist standard. In the last presidential election your

party polled approximately 900,000 votes, but that does not mean that there

are 900,000 Socialists in our country.

SOCIALIST.—Why not?
CATHOLIC.—Because, as one of your own campaign leaflets says: “If

you’re not a member of the Socialist party you’re not a Socialist.” According

to this rule you can boast of only about 100,000 adherents.

SOCIALIST.—The precise number does not affect my argument. I ask
you again: how do you explain the phenomenon that thousands upon

thousands are willing to make personal and material sacrifices of every

kind for a cause which you assert means slavery and tyranny?

CATHOLIC.—Let me tell you a story, Smith. Many years ago I was in
Chicago and while visiting the stock-yards I spent some time watching the



32 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

arrival of cattle from the western prairies. When the steers had been
collected in a pen near the railroad track a giant member of their species,

well trained for his particular duties, was introduced among them. He

welcomed his cousins of the plain, spoke to them in the steer language,

sympathized with them in the hardships they had borne on their long

journey, and then seemed to call on them: “Comrades, follow me! I will

lead you to the plains of liberty, to pastures rich with the sweetest clover

you have ever tasted.” The gate of the pen was opened, the self-appointed

leader started off on a lively trot down the alley of the yards and his com-

rades followed close upon his heels. The new-comers had not gone very

far when they found themselves enclosed in another pen near to a slaughter

house and when they looked about for their kind-hearted, sympathetic

leader he was not to be found.

SOCIALIST.—Stop your childish prattle, Jones. We Socialists have
brains and know how to use them and we will not allow ourselves to be

duped as easily as you imagine.

CATHOLIC.—That’s just about what those steers would have answered
had anyone tried to tell them that they were being led to the shambles. It

will not be difficult for me to show you that the story is not so childish after

all, and that to some extent at least, it represents the Socialist situation

and therefore answers the question you put to me.

SOCIALIST.—Do you mean to say that the rank and file of the Socialist
Party is as unthinking and ignorant and gullible as dumb animals?

CATHOLIC.—Your own leaders openly assert that eighty per cent, of
the Comrades do not know what Socialism really means. Verify their

statement for yourself. Ask any ten Socialists, as I have done, what they

mean by Socialism and I venture to say you will get ten different answers

and probably not one correct and to the point. They will tell you it means

the golden age of which poet and prophet sang, in which there will be little

work and much enjoyment, a universal brotherhood of man, an era of

justice, freedom, liberty, etc., etc. Ask them some of the pointed questions

I asked you and they will be as unable to answer as you were. Their

ignorance of Socialism’s real nature will appear most strikingly if you ask

them concerning its attitude toward marriage and the family.

SOCIALIST.—Now, Jones, don’t disgrace yourself by trotting out that
hackneyed, dishonest argument of Free Love. You know yourself that we

Socialists love our wives and children as tenderly and affectionately as you

do and that we would gladly shed the last drop of blood for the preservation

of our families. I can sincerely state that in all the Socialist meetings

which I have attended I never heard a single word uttered in favor of

Free Love.

CATHOLIC.—You are bringing out my contention. I maintain that the
majority of Socialists are ignorant of the fact that Socialism stands for

Free Love, I should say Free Lust.

SOCIALIST,—Dp you, an outsider, know more than we members of the
organization?



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 33

CATHOLIC.—That will appear later on. In the meantime I wish to ask
you a question. If you intended to become a Catholic would you rest

satisfied with the information that I or any other workman could give you

concerning our religion?

SOCIALIST.—I think not. I would read up the approved authors of your
Church and consult one or more of your priests.

CATHOLIC.—Well, now, I have done something similar in regard to
Socialism. I have read up your writers and have found that they advocate

Free Love as part and parcel of the Socialist system.

SOCIALIST.—I wish you would give me some proofs for that statement.
CATHOLIC.—Very well. Let me begin with the founders of Socialism

—

with Marx and Engels and read a few lines from their Communist Manifesto

which is “still recognized the world over as the greatest statement of the

principles of the International Socialist Party”: “Bourgeois marriage is in

reality a system of wives and thus at the most, what the Communists might

possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce in substitution

for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women.

For the rest, it is self-evident, that the abolition of the present system

of production must bring wTth it the abolition of the community of women

springing from that system, i. e., prostitution, both public and private.”

(Authorized English Translation, Chicago, p. 41.)

In “The Origin of the Family,” p. 99, etc., likewise the joint work of Marx

and Engels, we find the following: “If marriage founded on love alone is

moral, then it follows that marriage is moral only as long as love lasts. The

duration of an attack of individual sex love varies considerably according

to individual disposition, especially in men. A positive cessation of fondness

or its replacement by a new fondness or its replacement by a new passionate

love makes a separation a blessing for both parties and for society.”

Bebel, the great German Socialist leader, writes: “In the choice of love,

she is free, just as man is free. She wooes and is wooed and has no other

inducement to bind herself than her own free will. The contract between

the two lovers is of a private nature, as in primitive times, without the

intervention of any functionary. Should incompatibility, disappointment and

dislike ensue, morality demands the dissolution of the tie that has become

unnatural, and therefore immoral” (Woman,” p. 154).

Now, Smith, tell me candidly, don’t the passages I have just read

advocate Free Love, Free Lust and practically Sexual Promiscuity?

SOCIALIST.—As you quoted them, they certainly do. But haven’t you
torn those passages out of their context?

CATHOLIC.—I see, you have read Spargo and you have been deceived
by this passage in his little popular treatise, “The Socialists. Who They
are and What They Stand for”: “Often these quotations are so garbled or

dishonestly torn from their contexts as to misrepresent the views of their

authors.” By the way, this is that same Spargo (member of the National

Executive Committee) who publicly stated in the Socialist Convention at

Chicago in May, 1910: “It is, indeed, amusing to hear the mention of morals



34 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

and morality in a Socialist Convention.” Well, I challenge Spargo, or any

other Socialist for that matter, to prove that the passages I have just quoted

and which are most generally quoted to show that Socialist authorities

advocate Free Love, are “so garbled or dishonestly torn from their contexts

as to misrepresent the views of their authors.” Unless that proof is brought,

Spargo is convicted of using those ‘‘despicable and dishonest methods” of

which he accuses the ‘‘religious press.”

XII.

American Socialists and Free Love.

Attitude of Socialist Party—American Socialist Writers—Morris Hillquit’s
Strict Monogamy—Sexual Promiscuity- -‘‘By Their Fruits You

Shall Know Them”—A Revoltingly Immoral Move-
ment— Responsibility of the Individual.

SOCIALIST.—To prove that Socialism stands for Free Love you quoted
two or three writers. Is it fair to base a universal indictment upon such a

slender foundation?

CATHOLIC.—If you wish, I’ll spend hours with you reading similar
passages from the works of other Socialists. But mark well, Smith, I

selected your foremost writers

—

SOCIALIST.—Foreigners w ho are dead and buried- -
CATHOLIC.—Nevertheless recognized as standard authorities by the

Socialist Party of the United States.

SOCIALIST.—How do you prove that?
CATHOLIC.—By the fact that the Socialist Party sells the very works

from which I have quoted; by the fact that your party has offiicially adopt 2d

and recommended them as textbooks for the study of Socialism; by the

fact that various schemes are resorted to to give them the widest circulation

possible.

SOCIALIST.—But we only advocate the economic views of these writers
and not their personal views regarding marriage.

CATHOLIC.—You, the rank and file, perhaps, but certainly not your
leaders. If they do not advocate the free-love principles of Socialist writers,

wrhy don’t they publish expurgated editions of their works? Why don’t they

openly and publicly repudiate free-love principles in their National Con-

vention as they have been challenged to do time and again?

SOCIALIST.—That is at best a negative argument.
CATHOLIC.—But one that establishes my point beyond doubt or cavil.
SOCIALIST.—It seems to me that if our American Socialist leaders

wT ere really in sympathy wTith the free love principles of foreign writers, that

sympathy would manifest itself in their own writings.

CATHOLIC.—And so it does. In Wilshire’s Magazine for June, 1902, we
read: ‘‘Socialism annihilates family life. With the abolition of private

property, marriage in its present form must disappear. This is part of the



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 35

program.” For similar views I would refer you to Ernest Untermann,

(Preface to the “Origin of the Family,” p. 7); Charles H. Kerr, (“The Folly

of Being Good,” p. 23); M. C. Wentworth, (The Socialist Spirit, Chicago,

November, 1902); R. Sawyer, (The Call, November, 22 1909). I do not deny

that American Socialist leaders have been more reserved in expressing

their real sentiments in regard to marriage than the European leaders

because they know full well that “it does not make a good campaign subject”

(Delegate Lewis in the Chicago Convention). To give you a sample of the

sincerity, honesty and straightforwardness of your leaders in this matter

allow be to instance Morris Hillquit, “a past-master in dodging questions

that must be evaded for the good of the movement.” Only a few years back

he tried to have the following plank inserted into the Socialist platform:

“It (the Socialist movement) is not concerned with the institution of

marriage” (Proceedings, National Convention of the Socialist Party, 1908,

p. 193). In this month’s (February) issue of Everybody’s Magazine, forced

by the exigencies of a debate, he asserts: “Most Socialists stand for

dissolubility of the marriage ties at the pleasure of the contracting parites

(p. 233).

SOCIALIST.—How dare you interpret that last statement as a defence
of free love?

CATHOLIC.—Free love, according to the dictionary and the general
acceptation of the term, means “the doctrine or custom of unrestrained choice

in sex relations or of promiscuous sexual intercourse.” Now if the state-

ment “marriage ties dissoluble at the pleasure of the contracting parties,” is

not identical in meaning with “unrestrained choice in sex relations,” I beg

you to show me the difference! ^
SOCIALIST.—But doesn’t Hillquit state expressly that “Socialists stand

for strict monogamy”? (Everybody’s Magazine, Feb., 1914, p. 240).

CATHOLIC.
—

“Strict monogamy coupled with the right of divorce to

all persons whose marital .life has been rendered loveless, joyless, and

miserable for any reason whatever” (ibidem); “monogamy dissoluble at the

pleasure of the contracting parties.” Accordingly, under Socialism, man and

woman, it matters not how old or how young they are, may live together a

life-time, a year, a month, a week or less—and then separate. The only
factor which determines the duration of their cohabitation is their “pleasure.”

Now, if that does not mean free love, free lust and sexual promiscuity, please

tell me, what does it mean?

SOCIALIST.—Jones, I can’t believe you are interpreting our leaders
correctly. The statements you have quoted are at most theoretical views

and opinions which will never be carried out in daily life. Judge a tree by

its fruits.

CATHOLIC.—It’s very hard to suddenly face the light when we have
been in the dark for a long time. You ask me to judge the tree by its

fruits. It is disgusting and humiliating in the extreme to rake up Socialist

muck, but it apparently has become necessary for me to show you some of the

unspeakably vile fruits of the free love doctrines we have just considered



36 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

in order to make you realize what a revoltingly immoral movement you are

unconsciously abetting by belonging to the Socialist Party.

I have already drawn your attention to Barnes, the former national

secretary of the party under whose administration Socialist headquarters

were called “The Harem.” In spite of the fact that he had been “compelled

to resign from the office of national secretary of the Socialist Party in

disgrace, charged with drunkenness, gross immorality, etc.,” he had “the

nonor of handling the political campaign for 1912” (The Miner’s Magazine).

\s I already stated, he owed his appointment to this very important and

lucrative position to Morris Hillquit.

Other practical examples showing clearly what Socialists understand by

‘strict monogamy” (Hillquitt) I shall take from a booklet entitled “The Red

Peril,” which was written by one of the foremost authorities on Socialism

in this country, Rev. W. S. Kress: “The daughter of Marx, Elinor, put the

principle of free love into practice, when she made a lecture tour through

the United States, traveling as the free-love wife of Dr. Edw'ard Aveling. It

mattered nothing to her that her companion had a wife living in England

at the time. But when this wife died her lover married another, whereupon

the discarded affinity committed suicide.”

George D. Herron entered into a free-love compact with Miss Carrie

Rand, in 1901. This compact was glorified by his comrades prominent in

Socialist circles, and was given wide publicity by an eulogistic article in the

International Socialist Review, stylng it “A Socialist Wedding.”

Artist Earle justified the repudiation of his wife and taking up with

successive affinities, on the ground of love being the only bond of marriage.

The Socialist press grew indignant when £Iew York hotels refused to harbor

Maxim Gorky and his free-love mate. The standard bearer of the Socialist

party, Eugene V. Debs, was less particular than the hotel-keepers; for he

wrote in The Worker (April 28, 1906) : “With open arms and hearts attuned

to love and greeting, we of the proletariat welcome Maxim Gorky and his

wife to these shores. Only a Socialist would have spoken of her as a wife.

Dr. Antoinette Konikow achieved unenviable notoriety when she left her

husband to take up life with a youthful “soul-mate.” The episode was looked

upon as a very ordinary affair by her Red associates; for she was elected, in

spite of her evil record, to the National Woman’s Committee of Socialist

Propaganda by the convention of 1908.

Upton Sinclair relinquished his wife to her paramour, when reminded

of his own teaching by the unkempt poet of Kansas. And the free-love mate

reminded the latter in turn, after a few weeks’ association with him, that he

was her husband no longer, since she had found another whom she loved

better” (pp. 38, 39).

These examples ought to be sufficient to show you what your leaders

understand by the Socialist “monogamous marriage.”

SOCIALIST.—Jones, I protest against your unwarranted generalizations.
Is it fair and just to besmirch our whole leadership just because a few of

their number have been detestable libertines?



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 37

CATHOLIC.—It would be unfair and unjust to implicate your leadership
if the culprits I mentioned had been repudiated by them. But, as was

indicated, far from experiencing such a fate, their actions were eulogized,

they retained their positions of influence or were advanced to more important

posts of authority and power.

SOCIALIST.—Be that as it may: In any case I repudiate them and all
those who connived at their shameless deeds. I repudiate the free-love

doctrines of Socialist leaders and protest my sincere respect and high regard

for the sacredness of the marriage bond and the Christian character of the

monogamous family.

CATHOLIC.—Your actions belie your words as long as you remain a
member of the Socialist Party. Whatever assistance or patronage you give

the Socialist movement means so much moral support and so much appro-

bation for those leaders whom you claim to repudiate. Every penny you

spend in the interests of Socialism, be it in payment of membership dues,

of subscriptions to Socialist periodicals, of tickets to Socialist lectures or

free donations, is so much money spent in the interests of a movement

whose object is the disruption of the marriage bond and the destruction of

the family.

xm.

Socialism and Religion.

Why Catholics Oppose Socialism— Is Socialism Merely an Economic System?
—Spargo’s Deceptive Parallel—The Last Appeal—History of the

Plank on Religion—Mendacity and Hypocrisy— Policy and
Expediency vs. Truth and Honesty—Q. E. D.

SOCIALIST.—You Catholics make me sick and sore. You’re everlast-
ingly finding fault with Socialism. Everyone of your priests thinks he must

take a fling at it and all your publications are black with denunciations

of it. But what are you doing for the working-class?

CATHOLIC.—The reason why we Catholics in general and our priests
and our press in particular so strenously oppose Socialism is not far to find

and ought to be apparent to you after our last discussion on Socialism and

Morality. We Catholics believe that Socialism is doing, and will continue
to do more harm to our Church and to religion in general, than all our other

enemies put together; on the one hand, hecause it is so insidious, and on

the other, because it is spreading such baneful doctrines. Posing as the only

friend and savior of the working-class, it poisons the hearts and minds of

its deluded victims with a material philosophy of life which admits of no

God, no soul, no free will, no hereafter. It ridicules the sublime teachings

of our faith, maligns and slanders our clergy and vilifies us workmen who

refuse to adopt its revoltingly immoral system.

SOCIALIST.—That’s all talk, Jones, all talk and I'll prove it to you.
Socialism means the “national ownership of the industrial tools.” Examine



38 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

that definition as closely as you please and you will find that Socialism has

no relation whatever to religion; has nothing to do with it.

CATHOLIC.—Now, Smith, don’t try to lead me off into the realm off
Socialistic abstractions. We are not concerned with some theoretical or
possible system of Socialism but with the Socialism advocated and defended

!

by present-day Socialists the world over, no matter how you define it.

SOCIALIST.—Precisely; and that Socialism has absolutely nothing to
do with religion; it is a purely economic system merely seeking industrial ;

readjustment.

CATHOLIC.—Let's call in a few Socialist authorities to decide the point
at issue.

Karl Marx says: “We shall do well if we stir hatred and contempt

against all existing institutions; if we make war against all prevailing ideas

of religion. . . . The idea of God is the keystone of perverted civilization.”

(“Secret Society in Switzerland.”)

Frederick Engels: “Three great obstacles block the path of social

reform—private property, religion, and the present form of marriage.” jj
(“Secret Society in Switzerland.”)

Wilhelm Liebknecht: “It is our duty as Socialists to root out the faith I

in God with all our zeal, nor is anyone worthy of the name who does not

consecrate himself to the spread of atheism.”

August Bebel: “We wish in politics, the republic; in economy, Socialism,

and in religion, atheism” (German Diet, Dec. 31, ’81). “Christianity and:i

Socialism are like fire and water” (Christianity and Socialism).

“The Call,” March 2, 1911: “There is nothing to be gained by holding I

out false hopes that a study of Socialism does not tend to undermine religi-

ous beliefs. The theory of economic determinism alone, if thoroughly :

grasped, leaves no room for a belief in the supernatural.”

Isador Ladoff, in “International Socialist Review, August, 1908: “Religion

spells death to Socialism, just as Socialism spells death to religion. . . . The

thinking Socialists are all free-thinkers.”

Geo. D. Herron, secretary to the International Congress of Socialists, in

“The Worker,” March 30, 1902: “Christianity today stands for what is

lowest and basest in life. It is the most degrading of all our institutions .

and the most brutalizing in its effects on the common life. For Socialism to

use it, to make terms with it, or let it make approaches to the Socialistic !

movement, is for Socialism to take Judas to its bosom.”

Smith, should I ask some more Socialist authorities for their testimony?

SOCIALIST.—Save yourself the trouble, Jones; I don’t deny that there .
are many atheists within the Socialist ranks, but I do deny that you are

justified in concluding from this fact that Socialism is atheistic or anti-

religious. It would be just as logical and fair—I should say, illogical and
unfair—to argue that the Republican Party is atheistic and anti-religious
because there are many free-thinkers among the Republicans. Spargo

rightly dismisses your argument with the remark: “Such cowardly and

dishonest methods of attack are unworthy of serious considei ^Mon.”



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 39

CATHOLIC.—You are quoting Spargo who deceived you in regard to
Socialism’s real attitude toward marriage and the family; that ‘‘gentleman”

who had to enlighten onq of the delegates to the Chicago convention, May,

1910, on the utter absurdity of such a thing as morals and morality. Listen

to what this same Spargo had to say on another occasion relative to the

matter under discussion: ‘‘It is easier so to act, than to affirm, what in our

very souls we feel to be true, that Socialism, as an ethical interpretation of

life, is far removed from Christianity and of infinitely greater beauty and

worth. . . . Socialism christianized would be Socialism emasculated and

destroyed” (The Comrade, May, 1903). Of course it would be unfair and

illogical to argue that the Republican Party is atheistic and anti-religious

just because some of its members are free-thinkers; but if the foremost

leaders of that party were to tell us that it is atheistic and anti-religious, and

this happens in (the case of Socialism, wouldn’t we be allowed to take their

word for it?

SOCIALIST.—If they spoke in an official capacity, yes; but not if they
merely voiced personal opinions as do the Socialist authorities you quoted

a few minutes ago. I demand, and demand it in all fairness and justice,

that you judge the Socialist Party exclusively by its official utterances, by

its platform. Now, our platform states expressly: “The Socialist Party is

primarily an economic and political movement. It is not concerned with

the institution of religion.” .

CATHOLIC.-—Smith, if you knew the history of that plank you would
hesitate a long time before appealing to it as an argument.

SOCIALIST.—Why so?
CATHOLIC.—Let me tell you how it found its way into your plaftorm.

It was formulated by the past-master in Socialist tactics, Morris Hillquit,

and after a heated debate' was finally adopted by a majority of one vote

(Proceedings, p. 205). Of the 157 delegates, 78 who had the courage

of their convictions and were not of the vote-angling type, bitterly

opposed the insertion of the “religion plank” on the ground that it was

an unmitigated lie and an impudent piece of the rankest hyprocisy.. To

quote from delegate Van der Porten's speech: “Let us say nothing or say

the truth. To spread forth to the world that religion is the individual’s

affair we lie when we say it” (Proceedings, p. 204). Strickland,

another delegate, dumbfounded his opponents by flinging this question into

their faces: “If economic determinism be true and if the nooral and ethical

principles of society be based upon the economic manner of production, how

dare you, then, say that we have nothing to do with religion?” Delegate

Lewis gave expression to his outraged sense of honesty in a harangue on

“truthfulness,” from which I will take the following: “But if we must

speak, I propose that we shall go before the people of this country with

the truth and not with a lie. . . . Now, I do not propose to state in this

platform the truth about religion from the point of view of the Socialist

philosophy as it is stated in almost every book of standard Socialist litera-

ture; but if we do not do that, let us at least have the good grace to be



40 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

silent about it, and not make hypocrites of ourselves’* (Proceedings, pp.

191, 192).

But truth and honesty had to yield to “policy and expediency.** In the

opinion of Hillquitr who openly confessed that “ninety-nine per cent, of us

(Socialists) have landed in the same spot’’ (agnosticism) (Proceedings, p.

193); Hunter and other defenders of the plank, it was necessary for cam-

paign purposes to declare that Socialism is not concerned with religion,

and that it would be infamously bad policy to tell the people at large that

religion and Socialism are antagonistic.

This may sound “fishy’’ to you, but listen to what delegate Unterman

had to say: “Would you expect to go out among the people of this country,

people of different religious factions, and tell them that they must become

atheists before they can become Socialists? That would be nonsense. We
must first get these men convinced of the rationality of our economic and

political program, and then, after we have made Socialists of them and

members of the Socialist Party, we can talk of the higher philosophy and

of the logical consequences of our explanation of society and nature. . .

.

Therefore, I ask you to retain this plank in our platform’* (Proceedings,

p. 194).

Smith, compare these words of one of your recognized leaders with a

statement I made in our opening discussion, the statement at which you

took so much offense. I said: “You (Socialists) hold back from the unsus-

pecting inquirer every feature of your system that might shock his Christian

sense of justice and morality and make him believe that Socialism means

certain reform measures which are not distinctively Socialistic. And when

you finally succeed in trapping your victim, by fair means or foul, you

inoculate him with the poison of discontent, infidelity and hatred of religion.

And when this poison has taken effect, he is ready to be instructed in the

real meaning of Socialism.**

Now, Smith, be honest with yourself and confess that you have been

duped. Socialist leaders tell you so. Take their word for it if mine isn’t good.

XIV.

The Catholic Church and the Toilers.

Why Is a Socialist?—Catholics Lead in the Fight Against Socialism

—

Socialism the Laborer’s Enemy—Disrupts His Unions—Robs His
Money—Opposes His Interests — Debases His Nature—Positive

Work of the Church for the Laborer—His Greatest Benefactor.

SOCIALIST.—I am cornered. I must admit you have me on the hip. But
really, Jones, most of us Comrades are not in the Socialist Party because we

believe in its economic, moral or religious theories—why, we ourselves
haven’t got a clear idea of what they are and don’t bother our heads very

much about them either—we’re Socialists mainly because the Socialist Party
most fearlessly and courageously voices our protest against injustice and



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 41

PP.

lie

us

P.

iii-

oppression and because it gives the most definite expression to our aspiration

after a better order of things. Show us a better way! Give us a

better champion! Answer this question: What are you Catholics doing for

the working-classes? What are your aims and purposes in their regard? I

say, answer this question, answer it satisfactorily and I shall have done with

Socialism.

d, CATHOLIC.—With the little time at our disposal, I can give you only a
at very imperfect idea of all that the Catholic Church is doing for us toilers.

Of course you know that Catholics are leading the fight against Socialism,

n Now, we believe that we are thereby doing the working-class an inestimable

h ; service.

8

SOCIALIST.—That you are fighting Socialism and fighting it more suc-
8

cessfully than any other organization, all Socialists know full well, and it is

for this very reason that they hate you so cordially; that -they are fighting

* you in turn. I know from experience that they are as active as the most
1

bigoted Protestants in spreading anti-Catholic literature, particularly the

“Menace,” and that they are always on the alert for opportunities to discredit

’ Catholic beliefs and institutions and to withdraw the working-men from the

influence of their priests. Socialists feel that the Catholic Church is the

one great enemy whom they must dispose of, or at least cripple and disable,

before they can hope to attain ultimate success. But how can you interpret

your fight against Socialism as an inestimable service to the working-class?

CATHOLIC.—Because, far from being the laborers friend, Socialism is
its most .insidious enemy. I have already shown you what an im-

practicable, impossible economic system it is; how revoltingly immoral and

bitterly anti-religious. But even from a bread-and-butter standpoint it is

doing the toilers incalculable harm. Socialists are straining every fiber to

destroy those organizations which “have probably done more for the better-

ment of the working population than all other agencies combined, with the

exception of religion” (Father Ryan) I mean the Trade Unions, for, in

the opinion of the Socialist presidential standard-bearer, Eugene V. Debs,

‘Trade unions are an unmitigated evil and a crime against the workers.’
”

(Int. Soc. Review, Feb., 1911). Socialists are continually opposing

efforts made for the betterment of the laborers, because “the Socialist

Party is not a party of reform but of revolution” (C. E. Russell, Socialist

candidate for governor of New York, Sept. 7, 1912); and because it is their

avowed policy “to keep the wounds of the body social in a festering condi-

tion” (Bebel). Socialism never put a penny into the pay-envelope of the

worker, but robbed him of many a hard-earned dollar by demanding

fees for calamity-howling propagandists, by securing payment for im-

moral, scurrilous, blasphemous, revolutionary literature, by exacting mem-

bership dues which eventually landed in the pockets of grasping leaders who

are not of the working-class, and whose names have become by-words for

free lust, revolution, blasphemy. Socialism never even attempted to develop

the nobler instincts and finer qualities in the working-man. Its appeal is



42 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

ever directed to his lower passions; it robs him of peace and content-

ment and sows in his heart hatred, suspicion, rancor and enmity.

SOCIALIST.—Looking back upon my past experience, I confess that there
is much truth in what you say. But, tell me, what is your Church doing in

a positive way for the laboring classes.

CATHOLIC.—The Catholic Church is the one great organization which
almost alone and single-handed, persistently and insistently defends the

highest and noblest title of every toiler: “man made in the image

of his Creator, a child of God redeemed by the precious blood of Christ/* and

she absolutely condemns, utterly repudiates and indignantly repels attempts

of Socialists and materialist writers and professors who would degrade us

to the level of the brute and make of us the chance product of a blind force.

She vindicates and ever insists upon those fundamental principles which

she bequeathed to mankind and from which our most cherished rights

and prerogatives proceed: the essential equality of all men and the inviolable

sacredness of each individual. The Catholic Church safeguards our dearest

and highest treasures: our families, our nobler impulses and aspirations

after virtue, particularly justice, charity and chastity, and the “mighty

hopes which make us men” and without which material prosperity would

be an empty delusion and a hollow mockery.

SOCIALIST.—What a contrast with the low, debasing principles and
tendencies of Socialism! I begin to appreciate the force and value of Cath-

olic claims that the truths and principles you mentioned were instrumental

in raising the laboring classes from the state of slavery, in elevating woman

from the deep degradation to which she had fallen in paganism, ancient and

modern, and in establishing democracy. I realize, too, that these same prin-

ciples find their concrete expression in the numberless institutions of Catholic

charity; in your schools, hospitals, homes for the poor and aged, asylums for

the orphan, the cripple, the defective, refuges for the fallen, etc., etc. But,

what I am particularly anxious to know, is their detailed and specific appli-

cation to our present social conditions. You are fully aware of the fact that

the working-class is not so much demanding charity but rather justice. To

put my question more pointedly: what is the Catholic solution of the Social

Problem?

XV.

Specific Application of Catholic Principles.

Social Problem Defined—Catholic Principles and Production—Economy and
Efficiency—The Goal—Catholic Principles and Distribution—Justice and

Charity—Protecting the Laborer—Curbing the Power of the Rich
—Catholic Social Activities—Social Sense—School—Platform
—Press—Catholic Federation—Individual Responsibility.

CATHOLIC.—If you promise to make generous allowances for my
personal limitations, and if you will bear in mind that I am not authorized to



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 43

q{.
i

speak in the name of my co-religionists, but that I am merely giving you

the results and fruits of my reading and study of Catholic authors, I will

re undertake to answer your question. Speaking in general terms we may

m say that the Social Problem is the problem enabling all classes of human

society to obtain a proper and just share of the goods of this earth and that

h it accordingly embraces the problems of production and distribution.

SOCIALIST.—I see the point. If all classes are to obtain a proper amount:
e of material goods, these goods must be produced in sufficient quantities,

i and, if we all are to obtain a just share of them, they must be distributed

> equitably.

CATHOLIC.—Applied to production, the Christian truths and principles,.
I mentioned, give expression to the watchword “Economy and Efficiency,” and

to the following imperative demands:

Cut down our vice and crime bill (which, from a money point of view

alone, runs into many millions each day), and develop the principle factor in

production, the individual, by means of religion and education.

Cut down our alcohol bill (several billions per year in money not to

speak of impaired efficiency, wrecked individuals and homes, etc.), by means

of religious education and proper restriction of the alcohol traffic.

Cut down our idleness bill: voluntary idleness, through the establishment

of labor colonies; involuntary idleness through compulsory arbitration, trade

agreements, etc., if occasioned by strikes, lockouts—through labor exchanges
if occasioned by fluctuations in the market.

Cut down our sickness bill by establishing National, State and Municipal

Boards of Health, by enforcing pure food laws and by education.

Cut down our waste bill in households by proper training and by re-

ducing capital and labor consumed in luxurious living and display.

Increase efficiency in the operation of our factories, shops, farms, rail-

ways, mines, in the construction of buildings and other permanent works,

and in the distribution of products among the consumers. The principal means

to this end is vocational and industrial training.

Increase efficiency of the farmer by establishing credit unions and

facilitating the marketing of farm products.

SOCIALIST.—I did not suspect that your general principle could be
translated into such specific applications to the problem of production. They

certainly go to the root of many of our evils. Still, I think you are willing

to admit that in spite of our incalculable extravagance and wasteful pro-

digality we produce enough to satisfy all reasonable demands of every in-

dividual, but that our products are not equitably distributed. How can your

principles be effectively applied to the problem of distribution?

CATHOLIC.—First of all, I wish to point out the goal toward which the^r
lead. No democracy can long exist if the majority of its citizens are hired

men, and therefore economic and social conditions must be so arranged as

to enable the farmer to own the soil he tills and the worker to own the tools

with which he works. In other words, establishments should be owned and

operated by the men and women who actually work in them, not by absentee



44 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

stock-holders, as is the case under Capitalism, nor by the community at

large, as Socialism demands.

SOCIALIST.—But how do you ever intend to bring about such an ideal
and much-to-be-desired arrangement?

CATHOLIC.—Personally, I see no valid reason why, when conditions and
circumstances are more favorable, the same means which are being so suc-

cessfully employed to give their land back to the Irish, could not also be

employed to put the toilers in possession of the establishments in which

they toil.

SOCIALIST.—I do not know what the means are that you refer to.
CATHOLIC.—The English government advances money to the Irish ten-

nant at a low rate of interest which enables him to buy out the landlord who

is compelled by law to sell.

SOCIALIST.—Of course you don’t expect' to realize this plan in the near
future, do you?

CATHOLIC.—Many years will pass before our ideal is attained in its
entirety. Much must still be done to enlighten the minds of our people, to

quicken the social conscience, to prepare and train the worker for the en-

larged responsibilities that await him. However, the multiplying instances

of co-operative societies, of co-partnership, of the admission of labor to the

management and control of business, which we witness on all sides, indicate

that we are moving toward the ideal.

SOCIALIST.—And what are your plans for the immediate future?
CATHOLIC.-—The problem of an equitable distribution of the goods of

this earth is really a problem of equalizing the struggle for existence in

which one class, the powerful rich, have obtained unfair advantages over

their competitors, the powerless poor.

SOCIALIST.—Very well put. And how do you intend to equalize the
struggle?

CATHOLIC.—Applying our principles to this phase of the problem we
obtain the watchword: “Justice and Charity/' and, in accordance with its

spirit, demand, first of all, that the weaker party in the struggle be protected

against further unjust exploitation, and to achieve this purpose we insist

upon the passage and strict enforcement of laws providing for a Living

Wage, insurance against sickness, accidents, unemployment, old age, an eight-

hour work day, Sunday rest, safe and sanitary working conditions, restriction

of work by women and children, proper housing.

SOCIALIST.—Have you any definite plans for preventing a few favored
individuals from gaining unfair advantages over the rest of the community?

CATHOLIC.—Certainly. Here ,too, we have recourse to legislation and
demand laws prohibiting speculation on the exchange and precluding the

transfer of government mineral and forest lands to private parties.

SOCIALIST.—And how wiil you curb the power which many corporations
possess and use to exploit and oppress the laborer and consumer?

CATHOLIC.—In accordance with Catholic principles we demand that
all workless capital be subjected to the usury laws in order to prevent



JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM. 45

capitalists from obtaining an unjust and unreasonable rate of interest on

their actual investment.

SOCIALIST.—Such legislation would put an immediate stop to our
modern legalized robbery. Could you suggest some specific methods for

obtaining this result?

CATHOLIC.—In case of natural monopolies, such as railroads, telegraphs,,
telephones, street railways and other public utilities, the government should

regulate rates and charges or take over their ownership; other monopolies

or trusts should be divided up into a sufficient number of parts so as to

insure actual competition. If this cannot be obtained the government should

fix maximum prices or compete with the exploiters by entering into their

respective fields of mercantile endeavor.

SOCIALIST.—One more question. How do you expect to decentralize
wealth?

CATHOLIC.—Principally by means of a more rational system of taxa-
tion. Taxes should be gradually removed from the necessaries of life and

improvements and placed where they belong—upon land, inheritances, in-
comes, and especially upon the unearned increment of land values.

SOCIALIST.—I frankly confess I never even suspected that you Catholics
had such a comprehensive, reasonable, satisfactory solution of the Social

Problem, and I am sure that, if Socialists generally knew of it, many of them

would turn their backs upon the Party, provided they could be assured that

you are really in earnest about carrying out your plans.

CATHOLIC.—Our activities at present consist first of all in developing a
“Social Sense” in our Catholic people. Interest in the Social Problem is

being aroused, attention is constantly called to the grave responsibility that

rests upon every Catholic to “put his hand to the work which falls to his

share, and that at once and straightway, lest the evil which is already so

great become, through delay, beyond remedy” (Pope Leo). As a powerful

means to this end. Catholic toilers are urged to become active, energetic

members of unions and every Catholic citizen is impressed with the para-

mount importance of his sacred obligations as a citizen in the matter of cast-

ing his ballot, watching the actions of those who represent him in the legis-

lative bodies of city, state and country and insisting upon the strict enforce-

ment of laws which have been passed for the benefit of the laborers.

SOCIALIST.—May I ask how you are striving to obtain these various
purposes?

CATHOLIC.—By proper training in our schools, particularly our high
schools and colleges, by arranging lectures on social topics, organizing study-

clubs, conducting social study courses, etc., but especially by enlisting the

services of the press. In this connection I should like to call attention to the

hundreds of books and pamphlets bearing on social subjects which are being

spread throughout the country; to the splendid social press service of the

Catholic Federation, whereby many hundred thousand readers are reached

every week; to the two periodicals devoted exclusively to the Social Prob-

lem: “The Live Issue,” an excellent penny weekly, published in New York,



46 JONES AND SMITH DISCUSS SOCIALISM.

131 E. Twenty-third Street; and the “Central Blatt and Social Justice.” a

scholarly monthly published in St. Louis. Temple Building.

SOCIALIST.—Have you no organization for the express purpose of push-
ing social reform?

CATHOLIC.—I will mention the principal ones: The Catholic Federation
and its most prominent unit, the Central Verein, which have adopted Social

Reform as their main activity and which, so we Catholics hope, will be in-

strumental in bringing about the realization of our plans. It is understood

that whenever prudence suggests they will co-operate with other agencies

pursuing similar purposes, with such agencies as the American Federation

of Labor, the American Association for Labor Legislation, the National

Consumers
4

League, charity organizations, etc.

SOCIALIST.—It is needless for me to state that your outline of Catholic
plans and activities has been a complete revelation to me. I was under the

impression that your co-religionists, priests and laity, knew little else than

denounce Socialism and pronounce a few pious platitudes. It is necessary

to expose the fallacies of Socialism, its immoral and anti-religious tendencies,

but, if we wish to check the further spread of irreligion, revolt and anarchy,

it is even more necessary to adopt and push with vigor and consistency a

definite program of Social Reform. And for this work no agency is better

equipped than the Catholic Church, with its sound, sublime principles, its

centuries of experience and its incomparable organization extending to every

section of every city and to every hamlet of every state in the Union. Let

every Catholic give one-tenth the interest, enthusiasm and support to Social

Reform that the typical Comrade gives to Socialism, and the solution of the

Social Problem will be a mere matter of time.