The Press., 1890-12-11

Anarchism and Communism are.d e.destruct i've revolutionary remedies, while Social ism presents an evolutionary type. So-H ciaIism says that there shall be but one employer. the state, and herein it differs from all the other typEs
 Socialism would arrange the program so that everybody would have ease. comfort and refinement. It is . just claim, the So- cialists say, that everybody should have pleasant and easy work and plenty of leis- nre. Upon the theory of Socialism, Mir. Edward Bellamy, in Looking Backward, has based very interesting and ingenious speculation as to the social changes that another century may accomplish. Look finish, and is good fiction. however defi- cient it may be in sound thinking and good logic The scheme of socialism would abolish land ownership and nation alize the land then would follow the na- tionalization of capital, giving rise to 2 democratic federation. But to what con- structive end does this plan lead :? Sup pose the present order to be destroyed, what then? We would have reached posi- ton where there would be nothing like trade and commerce shops and stores would be government bazaars; money would be supplanted by labor checks the amount of labor would be the only value oi commodities. The Socialists point to the fact that in England the state is already by far the largest employer of labor, in the post office, in sanitary management, through the administration of the national pooi laws, and in other departments of govern ment
 The history of the state, however, as an employer is not very encouraging. Work is not so wen done under the state. Pri vate enterprises for private ends do the hest work. If the state fulfilled well itl duties in the work it now attempts to de it might then be entrusted with other work In our own country to-day the work oi the navy. war and other departments oi our government is poorly executed. Agair centralized control would break down oi it's own weight, and even if successful Ii would only result in an army of gov ernment officers who could be neither successfully directed nor controlled Under the Socialist program, too, the hest workers would be levelled down anC none would be levelled up; the discipline of self.help and the elevation of self-helE would be wholly lacking.
 If the state confiscated the property o every individual in our country tomorrow gathered the whole wealth of the country in one vast fund, and divided all property equally among our population, there would gradually but surely arise the same inc qualities of wealth that exist to-day. Tn. thrifty would soon acquire the wealth which was allotted to the thriftless and tt those who are deficient in industrial ca pacity. Men are variously endowed by nature, and those who are aggressive ant able would speedily become wealthy, whil' the weak and indolent would quickly returI to comparative poverty. But the severes criticism upon Socialism is the fact that tends toward despotism. From a multi tude of corporations, little principalities 0 labor, we would attain to one vast imperial ism of labor, which would be despotism il it's worst form, and that, too, under thu name of democracy. We would give ul our present masters, the stockholders ant bondholders, for fewer and far less inteHi gent masters. The scheme of Socialism could be managed only by the ability Q one or more stupendous genius. Thi would have tendency toward -distri button of talent for such genius woul' not be content, and could not justly b asked to be satisfied with the same reward as the coal-heaver and stevedore received
 M. s.
 (To be eoncuded)