cipal English and French infidels, and were more familiarly known by them than by their own.” Socialism is no more responsible for the unbelief of this procession of German Socialists than the love of liberty is for the unbelief of a much larger procession of American patriots.

When an esoteric and plutocratic faith or a speculative philosophy of religion has blotted out the belief in a hereafter, or has emphasized the blessedness of heaven, as compensating for the wretchedness of earth, and made such blessedness hereafter an excuse for a capitalistic system that dooms the great body of working men to a hopeless purgatory here, it is hardly consistent to characterize their struggle for industrial freedom and justice as an infidel and atheistic movement. The simple truth is, that Socialists in their philippics against the church have only been demanding a return to the principles of the gospel.

One point is worthy of emphasis in connection with this charge of atheism. It is the demand of socialism for cessation of work on the Sabbath. Sabbath desecration now menaces our civilization. Private enterprise is directly responsible for it. To make money the Sunday trains are run and the Sunday passenger travels; to make money the Sunday paper is issued; to make money nearly all Sunday work is done; and so demoralized is the public conscience, that almost every kind of business can take refuge on Sunday under the ægis of necessity and charity. Under Socialism there will be no money to make, and no private interest to serve; hence no temptation from this source to desecrate the Sabbath. It certainly looks as though the charge of atheism was more applicable to individualism than to Socialism.

"Socialists and Anarchists, as such, are enemies. They pursue contrary aims, and the success of the former will forever destroy the fanatical hopes of the latter." - Committee of the Socialistic Labor Party.

It is objected to Socialism that it is Anarchistic. With many people the very word Socialism suggests dynamite

and assassination. This is owing to three causes. First, certain forms of Socialism in Europe were formerly associated with methods of violence; second, Socialistic writers often employ such stinging language to express their indignation at social wrongs as to suggest violence, although advocates of peaceful methods. Third, the enemies of Socialism lose no opportunity to take advantage of this misconception to intensify popular prejudice.

"Alton Locke" represents English workmen as resorting to violence. Chartism was anarchism. Was it Socialism? If so, it has been forgiven. It may be that every great Social reform has its revolutionary stage. Such was the case with Christianity, the Reformation of the sixteenth century, and the establishment of constitutional liberty everywhere. If there was ever any sympathy between Socialism and anarchism, it was because they had a common enemy.

Socialism, however, did not long mistake its mission or its methods. When his Lord was attacked, Peter drew his sword, but sheathed it again at the bidding of the Master. Socialism, in obedience to the same spirit, lays aside all methods of violence, and draws its weapons of warfare from the arsenal of justice, truth, and love.

Herein it differs from anarchism. Socialism is unselfish; anarchism is essentially selfish. It differs from both anarchism and communism as follows:

Communism means every one according to his need.
Anarchism means every one according to his greed.
Socialism means every one according to his deed.

This is not an adequate statement of Socialism, but it is sufficient to distinguish it from communism and anarchism. Socialism would render deeds both possible and necessary to all, and it would make deeds more equal. Socialism, like the sacred Scriptures, judges man according to "deeds." It allows him to eat according to his labor, and is no respecter of persons, but says to all men, "Go work in my vineyard." Anarchism is destructive. Socialism is

constructive. The former would lay society in ruins; the latter would regenerate and thus save it.

A single statement will suffice to show conclusively that Socialism and anarchism are at the antipodes of each other. Anarchism wants no government, while Socialism makes the most of government.

Anarchism says,

"The very best government of all

Is that which governs not at all."

Anarchism and individualism or capitalism are one. With anarchism, laissez-faire (capitalism), regards the State as a necessary evil.

Laissez-faire with anarchism says, "I want no State interference in industry. Let every man do as he pleases. Away with all government in matters of property and competition." Socialism, on the other hand, regards the State as the highest good, and abhors anarchism or individualism. A pamphlet published by the National Executive Committee of the Socialistic Labor Party is entitled, "Socialism and Anarchism - Antagonistic Opposites." The writer says,

"Socialists and anarchists, as such, are enemies. They pursue contrary aims, and the success of the former will forever destroy the fanatical hopes of the latter." 1

Herr Bebel, in a speech advocating the Socialist Bill in the German Reichstag, Jan. 25, 1890, declared that the disappearance of anarchism from Germany was due to the efforts of the Socialistic party.

The significant fact came to light, also, that the friends. of capitalism, and even the government, had interested. themselves in supporting anarchist movements, and for the sole purpose of confounding its acts and declarations with Socialism, in order thereby to discredit the latter.

The position of German Socialism, in its opposition to anarchism, is heartily indorsed by American Socialists. At a meeting of Socialists held in Chicago, Jan. 26, 1890, the resolutions concluded as follows: "We hereby empha

1 Quoted in "The Labor Movement in America" (Ely), p. 228.

size the necessity of Socialists in the United States giving heed to this declaration of the policy and principles of German Socialism, that in this country dynamite agitation has no justification whatever, and its advocates should be recognized and treated as agents of despots, and not as reformers; and the antagonism between Socialism and their reactionary agitation be kept as well-defined and aggressive as in Germany."

One of the first votes of the International Socialist Congress held at Brussels, Aug. 16, 1891, containing delegates from every civilized country in the world, save Russia and Portugal, was, to expel anarchists. This is the final voice of all Socialists in the world. We submit to the candid reader that this charge of anarchism is utterly groundless.

"Men are born unequal. It is the great benefit of society to diminish this inequality as much as possible, by granting to all security, a competency, education, and help." - JOUBERT.

Socialism is charged with advocating equality. An eminent writer asks, "What will life amount to when men are reduced to a dead level?"

Enter into conversation upon the subject of Socialism with the average man, and he will say, "It is useless to try and make all men equal; you cannot do it."

There is a vagueness about this charge against Socialism, arising from the fact that equality is an uncertain term. In the first place, no one desires to reduce men "to a dead level." There is no such thing as a "dead level; " equality in any such sense is absurd. Does it follow that millionnaires and paupers are the only alternative?

Socialism recognizes natural inequalities among men, and, wherever these work social injustice, proposes to counteract their mischievous effects.

There are natural inequalities that are harmless and even helpful in society: they might more properly be called differences, since the word equality has become closely associated with rights. Capitalism not only aggravates

the ills arising from natural inequalities, but creates artificial ones, and so makes a bad matter worse. Socialism resents the imputation that it seeks an equality that would reduce all men to a physical, mental, and moral sameness. It does, however, demand that kind and degree of equality which God and humanity require, but which capitalism denies. It is generally conceded that in some respects all men are equal. They "are born free and equal," whatever that may mean. They have equal rights; they are equally entitled to the protection of law, and, in a democracy, are equal in respect to political and religious privilege. These equalities are not, indeed, fully realized, owing to disturbing factors; but they are at least theoretical, and there is a constant hope and promise that they will be made actual. Socialism unhesitatingly demands theocratic equality.

The idea of equality finds something responsive in every human breast. It is the countersign of the nineteenth century. Equality is blazoned on the banner of every reform. It has wrought wonders in modern history. It has tempered laws, founded States, planted the common school, and regenerated the church. The sentiment is not the monopoly of any class or sect. Capitalists and employers everywhere encourage employees to rise to equal positions; pupils are urged to equal attainments with the teachers; the rich often honestly wish the poor were as rich as themselves; individualists as well as Socialists deplore certain unhappy inequalities in society. The principal difference between these latter is that Socialists would take the steps necessary to remove these inequalities, while individualists are not ready for measures that involve changes so radical. It is the system that needs to be reformed.

The present system of economic individualism declares that all men have, socially and individually, an equality of chances; and this, it is claimed, is all to which they are justly entitled. The poor and the ignorant may have an equal chance with the rich and wise. Equality of rights, without regard to equality of condition, is all that men may ask. We claim that this principle in the evolution of