Puslapio vaizdai

versation. Could Noah have availed himself of our "progress" and built the ark in thirty days, the day of doom for the race would have been hastened one hundred and twenty years. The "fulness of time," according to infinite wisdom, so far from being in the nineteenth century, was two thousand years ago. Christ managed to get along without steam, and actually went on foot through Palestine. Bacon and Shakspeare, Franklin and Washington, without the telegraph and telephone, contrived to say and do some things worth remembering. Flatter ourselves as we may, material "Progress" alone will never restore "the lost arts," bring back the as yet unapproached Attic culture, or introduce the Millennium. We believe in "progress," only do not let us as individuals or nations seek to gain the whole world, at the expense of losing heaven both here and hereafter. The sole condition of all healthy, happy human life, is mens sana in corpore sano. This soundness of mind and body for the individual as well as for the State can be acquired and can continue to exist only by cultivating the homely virtues of temperance in diet, simplicity of manners, naturalness of physical habits, morality and religion, and the proportionate exercise and development of the mental and physical powers. Riches and luxury are as great a curse as poverty and want.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

"There are two freedoms: the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where a man is free to do what he ought."


It is objected to Socialism that it would destroy the liberty of the citizen, and place him in the relation of a serf to the State. Dr. Woolsey thus formulates this objection: "The laborer has, and can have, no effective choice in regard to employment or amount of wages or place of abode, if the State is to be the great employer and capitalist." 1 This is a sweeping statement. No form of human slavery could be more complete and abject. When a man's 1 "Communism and Socialism," p. 164.

work, compensation, and abode are arbitrarily determined by a master, his liberty is indeed lost. But worse than this, he assures us that when the State has "all production, transportation, and the furnishing of supplies in its hands, ... not much choice would be left to private persons in reference to articles they would wish to use, and to the satisfaction of their desires." 1 This is, indeed, a woful picture. Under Socialism, according to this writer, the citizen not only has no effective choice as to his work, wages, or abode, but not even as to what he shall eat, drink, or wear. The Greek, Roman, and even American slave was a freeman in comparison. Mr. Rae also says, "Under a régime of Socialism, freedom would be choked.": Freedom, he says, is necessary for individual development and social progress. Socialists hold the same. What, then, is the difference? Socialists claim that the new order would, and their critics that it would not, admit of freedom, especially freedom of choice in occupation.

In the first place, let us glance at the character of the arguments employed by Mr. Rae to sustain this serious charge. At present he says the demand for a certain kind. of labor regulates the number of workmen seeking that employment. The same, he admits, might be true under Socialism; but since the State would assign to each laborer his work, those who failed to get the most desirable work would feel that they had been discriminated against, and hence wronged. This would be a loss of freedom. A single statement will furnish a complete answer to this argument. The State could give shorter hours or less pay for easy and attractive work, and in this way, by propor tioning reward to work, easily regulate the supply of laborers throughout the entire field of industry. This is only one of a hundred devices which the State might adopt to secure the same end. Mr. Rae's argument is after this fashion: "If you attempt to make a wheel revolve on an axle, the motion will create heat, the axle will swell, and the wheel stop. The wheel and axle idea, therefore, is

1 "Communism and Socialism," p. 208.

2 "Contemporary Socialism," p. 365.

only the Utopian dream of impracticable men." By the application of a little oil, however, the wheel and axle are found to work admirably. In the same way, if the critics of Socialism would allow a little of the oil of commonsense in the adjustment and practical working of its principles, they would attach less importance to their hard and fast theories. Now let us look at this matter of freedom of choice in occupations, which Dr. Woolsey and others lay so much stress upon. Might not Socialism help the individual to secure his choice of work as the present Socialistic highways assist the traveller on his journey, or as our thoroughly Socialistic school system helps each scholar to make the wisest choice of studies? It is in order for our critics to show that because the State owns the school plants, the means of the production and distribution of knowledge, that the freedom of the scholar is destroyed; that he cannot choose his study; that his individuality is lost, and that progress in knowledge must cease. Socialism in education is no longer an experiment, but a historical and glorious fact. It does not "choke freedom" in the choice of studies, but furnishes the individual with help, the value of which cannot be over-estimated. What is to hinder the same result in industry? When the State owns and controls the means of production and distribution, and takes charge of all the industrial workers, it is difficult to see why it may not assist the individual in the choice of a pursuit in any department of manual, mental, or moral activity. Dr. A. J. F. Behrends, however, does not hesitate to say, "It could not be anything else than a despotism of extreme type, more oppressive and exacting than any that ever cursed the fair lands of the East. . . . Wages would once more be determined by law, or by vote of committee, for men, and not by them." In support of these sweeping assertions, no evidence is adduced, no facts are given, no appeal is made to history or philosophy, and no attempt is even made to deduce them from the way in which Socialism might be supposed to work. On the contrary, the opinion is taken for granted, and then boldly asserted. The state


1 "Socialism and Christianity," p. 85.

ment that " wages would once more be determined by law," is contradicted by all Socialists, by the genius of Socialism itself, and implied in the author's own admission that the State would be sole producer. In Socialism, the entire production of the country belongs to the people, all of whom are laborers. The product is annually distributed among all the people. The share of each, which would depend largely on the annual product, is therefore his wages. Wages would be determined, therefore, not by law, but by the amount of production.

There is, indeed, a kind of freedom which is "choked by " the State's control of education. It is the freedom of the individual to let his children grow up in ignorance if he so desires. Under Socialism, a man must send his children to school. Every citizen must be able to read and write. In these and other respects natural freedom is restrained for the sake of civil or social freedom. Natural or personal freedom allows every man to go where he pleases, to do what he chooses, to take possession of whatever he likes, without the slightest regard to any other human being. It is the freedom of the wild beast. The moment men form themselves into society, however, this sort of freedom must be surrendered in exchange for the greater benefits conferred by society. Freedom is still an ambiguous term. If we intend by it the natural, wholly unrestrained movement of the individual, it is the most brutal, savage, and wicked word that ever entered the thought of man or demon. If, on the other hand, we intend by it that movement of the individual which is restrained and limited by the requirements of society, according to the eternal principles of right and justice, then freedom is the grandest, sublimest word in the world's vocabulary.

The present volcanic upheaval of industrial fire and lava is due to the fact that natural freedom is let loose upon an advancing social state. Civil or social freedom has been largely realized in education, in politics and religion, but in industry natural freedom has not been sufficiently restrained; individuals are left free to prey upon the weaker members of the social body, and every attempt to limit this

freedom is met by the cry that freedom is endangered. And so it is; not social freedom, let it be borne in mind, but natural or animal freedom which allows one to kill and eat the next man he meets, provided he is strong enough, and provided his methods of cannibalisın are sufficiently refined and within due form of law; and provided further that he inscribes on the fillet of his victim this motto sacred to individualism: "You have an equal chance to kill and eat me, were you strong enough, which sacred right is guaranteed. by freedom." We have called attention to the insufficiency of the doctrine of equal chances and need not discuss it here.

Socialism demands that natural freedom in industrial affairs be so far restrained as is necessary for the good of all the people; that is, for the highest degree of civil freedom. The charge under consideration, that Socialism would destroy the freedom of the workmen, is supported only by arguments based on pure assumption. For example, an able writer says, "When government supervises all work, it will determine what each laborer must do, and he will have no choice in the matter." No argument is adduced in support of this bold assertion. It by no means follows that because government supervises work the workman "will have no choice in the matter." One might with equal propriety say that because government supervises marriage, including all the details of certificates and returns, it therefore determines what woman a man shall marry. Freedom of choice in occupations, under government supervision of labor, need not be interfered with any more than is the present freedom of choice in marriage. A similar logic would show that the "factory acts" interfere with the freedom of the manufacturer in choosing the kind and quality of the goods he shall produce. Would any say, because the government owns and supervises the highways, because it requires the traveller to turn out on a certain side, to walk his team on a bridge, to drive through the street so as not to exceed a certain rate of speed, to tie his horse when he stops, and not to drive him at all unless the government regards him in a proper physical condition, that freedom of travel is destroyed, and that a man can no

« AnkstesnisTęsti »