The Mankato free press., 1894-04-06

ious ideas of socialism in vision which
arose before his eyes, of vast domain
which stretched out before him. 1t
was partially wooded, untitled and un-
productive. 1t had everything to
make it productive except water.
That abounded in plenty upon one
side of this domain, and the portion
through which it passed was very pro-
ductive. There was plenty of it to
irrigate every foot of the vast domain,
but those who owned the country
through which it passed. held a mo-
nopoly of it and asserted it was theirs
by natural right. He then pictured
the various schemes which the peo-
pie in the unwatered portion set forth
for the distribution of this water,
which embodied every idea from the
selfish to broad humanitarianism and
covered about all the Socialistic ideas
now presented to society. Continuing
in relation to the definition as to what
socialism is, he said:
Early in the year Mr.. Taylor pre-
Sented us paper on 'SOme FalacieS
of Socialism" in which, if | mistake
not, he looked upon socialism more as
cult, way, method for the i'm
prOYement OF human conditions. If
that be so, then we might say all that
is needed is an infusion of a little more
Christianity into the vision, and the
end Will be agreeable to all. Now we
are inclined to agree with the above
mentioned paper in the main, and
within large limits Christianity is
socialistic and can identify itself more
or less closely with modern socialism
and be mighty help in reaching the
desired good. But we are not alto
gether pursuaded that socialism is
merely cult, method, way, but
that in many aspects of it, and | am
judging now on the basis of the well
known principle, "Ye shall know
them by their fruits" [ cannot but
believe that socialism embodies some
few principles that are antagonistic to
the spirit and teachings of Christ, and
so prevent Christianity from becoming
socialiStic.
He then considered the question is
Christianity socialistic from three
StandpOints. First as to the princi-
pies OF selfiShneSs involved in social
SIN. Every man." he said, sis after
share of the water for himself on
the ground that it is his by right. He
wants to drink from or bathe in the
common reservoir for himself. He is
preeminently saturated with the idea
that the other fellow has more than |
have, l want part of what he has. :.
Each is after the biggest faucet" He
said he never read a socialistic book or
review article, save Prof. Ely's, whom
he did not regard much of socialist
in the general accepted term, with
out noticing this selfish idea crop
out nearly every feature of it is ad-
vocated from selfish standpoint
rather than from high moral consider
atiOns. And to the extent it so acts
it cannot be Christian. Some social
lists, he said, attempted to strengthen
their position by quoting the act of
the early church recorded in the acts
Of the apostles. But the idea of the
early Christians in bringing. in their
possessions together, was not selfish
one but that they might help others.
Modern socialism as judged by it's
fruits is that "I who have little or
nothing will put it into a common
fund with my rich neighbor who has
a great deal, because / will get more
OF the pile, or it is selfish attack of
the empty handed on the selfish greed
of the full handed" This is not. the
spirit of Christianity, and it is not in
this sense socialistic.
Second, "Christianity is not social
istic when we consider the principle
of outwardness and inwardness. So
cialism says change mans outward
surroundings. Christianity says
change mans inner life." He then
went on to show that the mere out
ward surroundings would not of itself
work or bring about the desired i'm
provement in his nature. There must
be spirit from within. Give man
heart that aspires to higher things
and his social condition will improve.
IF we must in following socialism
first consider the outwardness of man
rather than the inwardness, then
Christianity, following the principal
OF it's founder, Jesus Christ that Ye
must be born again, declares it is
not socialiStic."
Third, Christianity is eminently
individual. 1t does not teach that
society must repent and reform, but
man. Prof. Ely says that socialism
does not swallow up individual liberty
nor subordinate the individual to
society. If this is to be accepted as
the modern view of socialism,. then,
he said, Christianity would accept it.
for it does not destroy individual re-
sponsibillty.
He next considered the relation of
socialism to the home, and said he
would like to have the leaders of
modern socialism reveal thair q ottitudo