Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1889-10-12

new road" rudey says the Socialist
lie was not asked to do that. He was
only asked to lend helping hand to-
ward leading others to a road which
sooner or later must converge with the
road ON which the Socialist travels, and
of which the Nationalist believes it is
already that road. Why not help him
/ | believe am as good and as true
Socialist as the one who had the CORE
spondence with the Nationalist; never
theless am now endeavoring to have
Nationalist Club organized in this city.
because think can do nothing better
for socialism. If it is true that the Ma.
tionalists are only ''gefHhls SoejdlSten,"
why, they are just the men who are
most apt to listen to me when | go
among them to preach scientific social
ism. And pray, what are most of the
members of our Sections? How many
do you find in a Section who are able to
intelligently explain the scientific theo-
res of Socialism, who can fully under
stand the difference between National
| ism and Socialism? What else are they
but socialists in sentiment only-gefUhis
sOzidhSten?
To discuss the differences between
movements of similar import and char
acter is right; but to rudely reject all
fraternity on account of differences
which often result only in hair split
ting, the hedging in of social or eco
nomic theory like religious dogma,
| the canonization of theories and set
phrases, the intolerant sectaran spirit, is
altogether wrong and damaging to our
cause. This is strong criticism,
know, but beg to be pardoned for at.
lacking an evil which, to my regret,
very strongly and very injuriously pre-
walls in our ranks
Those were my thoughts upon read
ing that correspondence. As to the diff
ferences between Nationalism and So
cialism, really they are of no great inn
port. "As a Socialist feel, says the
Nationalist. He has a right to say SO,
and he is correct when he says that Ma
tionalism upholds every vital principle
of Socialism.
Socialism covers the race, and is
never national" says the Socialist in
that correspondence. Why, this is one
of the commonplace phrases with which
he charges the Nationalist. He surely
does not believe that he can make scien-
tifc Socialists out of Fiji Islanders or
Patagonians! And the Nationalist does
not use the word national in the
sense of distinguishing between one
nation and the other. He means to dis
tinguish between the nation and the in
dividual. To him "nationalzing" land
or means of production signifies the
same as 'soclalizing' (Ueryesellseldft-
iche1D land and means of production.
Where we say state he says 'nation."
What is the difference? Socialist
has entirely misconceived the meaning
of the word matchmaking" Social
list" says, "The vital principle of social
ism is the substitution of common prop
erty for private property, in the first
place, of all means of production Is
that so? Could not this be much more
truthfully said of Nationalism? Is not
Just here one of the distinguishing
points between Nationalism and Social
ism? Under Bellamy's scheme all
shall participate equally in the distribu-
ton of the nations products, while ac-
cording to our platform each shall share
in the product IN accordance 1cith the
service rendered. Whichever view may
be more correct, surely Bellamy's view
is more humane. Socialist" may call
it sentimental, but prior to our congress
held in 1887 in Buffalo, our platform
was similar to Bellamy's view
Socialist is of the opinion that para
graph of the Nationalist's platform
does not favor in PLAN words the aboli-
ton of private property in the means of
production. That paragraph favors the
naturalization of all industries, and |
would like to know how the State or
nation could carry on all industries
with means of production other than its
own. could not conceive of what USE
fulness private factory could be if the
State or nation carries on all industries;
and how anyone can deny that such a
system involves, as matter per Sc, the
abolition of private property in the
means Of production.
Really, Socialist" is air-splitting. To
turn the back on Nationaism because il
tries to convert the conservative classes
is foolish. If they think they can do it,
why in Gods, or anybody elses, name let
them try it, and am not averse to help
ing them trying it. No harm can come
from it, 1t cannot injure Socialism.
1t is unquestionably true that there are
many middle class men commencing to
study and gaining sympathy with Ma
tionalIsm, and if they became National.
lists they are already nine-tenths Social,
lists. Although Karl Marx said, "The
emancipation of the working classes
must be achieved by the working classes
themselves yet this Unjust be taken
with grain of salt. 1t is certainly true
that every social or economic struggle
is first fought out on paper before it be-
comes the practical fight. am in favor
of gaining friends whenever and among
whom | can, and if in this country
with its race prejudices, step can be
gained by assisting Nationalism, |, fol-