The Labor enquirer., 1884-07-12

answer SoEialipm has to oiier for the
solution 70 you1 own question If sp,
then the way Ilook at it, it presents this
lanomoly That while yoa admit that
the government is the rightful owner Of
the land, OF any other thing, such a ships
of war, fortresses, or even the District Of
Columbia, ETC.. under your plan you
change the private ownership over to
the Socialist commonwealth" ," thus shut
ting out the possibility Of individual
ownership of land or anything else.
Now, really and in fact. thistseems to me
to conflict. with. the first principle or
fundamental law Of Socialism, (which is
helargest right to the individual, with
out encroaching upon his neighbor's1
right. ."and in the main your plan is only
changing the ownership from the "goy-
pernmentn to the "Socialistic common
wealth." Now,let me ask you who is to.
govern this commonwealth Is each
one to have share in it, or are we to
delegate this power, as at present, to a
central body, or will it be to men or
women who will represent us in the
commonwealth? How will they be
elected? How shall they be paid ?
Where shall they meet to formulate and
promulgate the|laws for the good of the
Socialistic commonwealth ? And If they
said we will pay "a dollars worth" what
would 1t amount to, if they had not the
taxing prerogative attached to their; de-
crees or embodied in the fundamental
law, for the well being of the whole ?
This must be plain to anyone who thinks
at all! If all of the property belonged
to the Socialistic commonwealth, then
how is the government of such common
wealth to be carried on without the tax
ing power residing in the government, as
at present? This is in answer to those
"who go further than Whyte goes" who
believe the government has nothing and
therefore "its order for one dollars worth
amounts to nothing" Can they now see
the point Ht fs5s =.
And here, again, greenbackism is far
ahead of Socialism, for while the one can
only see the ruinous effect of the COM
petitiye wage system, the other not only
sees this, but sees what causes such a
state Of affairs to have its being. And
not only that, but it points to a "peacea-
BILE" solution by destroying the power
which capital has over labor, by using
the "ballot" in place of the bullet; !"
and, moreover, the placing in the Social
istic commonwealth all the property in
contradistinction to the private individ-
ual, is, if can believe Herbert Spencer,
evolution going backwards. He says:
"From the remotest part which science
can fathom up to the novelties of Yester-
day, an essential trait of evolution has
/ been. the Transformation of the homoge-
neous into the heterogeneous. = At
the same time that evolution is change
from the homogeneous to the heteroge-
neous it is a change from the indefinite
to the definite. Along with an advance
ment from simplicity to compIexity,
there is an advance from confusion to
order. * ~ Development, no matter
| of what kind, exhibits not only multi
plication of unlike parts, bu; an increase
in the distinctness with which these
parts are marked off from one another"
Herbert Spencers First PRINCIPLES,
pages 359 and 1862. Now if this is true,
that evolution does not and cannot go
backward, or, in other words, from the
heterogeneous to the homogeneous, from
the definite to the indefinite, from COM
plexity to simplicity, how does your
theoryof Socialism stand this test of.
Herbert Spencer's? -, -.,~..' . .-..
1t does seem to me that, from individ-
ualism to Communism, from private
property to Soclalistic commonwealth
|
ism, from the definite to the indefinite,
is, in my view, going backward. 1 look
upon the present state of society as COM
plexity and, in my view of the case, the
ballot in the hands of the intelligent
toilers is all-suficient for the correction
of all Of the many; evils which afiict
them: And the first evil to be eradi-
Gated from the social body is the evil of
the Money Power,
have written thus full as l have no
wish to go back to the subject of Social
ism again. Yours IN the Cause,
D. Nick. WHITE.
HOW To 0RIINTTE