New-York tribune., 1895-05-15

| gets for taking tickets at the theatre door. II
| thus the enemies Of the wage system disagree
| among themselves. which OF them is entitled to
| cast the first stone at 1t?
| common saving Of Socialist agitators is that
the wage system is slavery. That is entirely
false The truth s that the laborer is worthy
NJ his hire" The essential notion Of wages Is
that he who receives them is free and inde-
pendent man. entitled to work as he will and to
hold property Of his own. The slave or serf gets
! no wages. but only bare sustenance ITO earn
| wages a man must be free man. must have his
faculties at his own disposal and be entitled to
employ them primarily for his own good. There
Is no more slavery dishonor in the workman
receiving wages than in the capitalist taking
profits"
When we come to consideration Of Socialism
in it's attitude toward capital. we reach one OF
same time most anomalous chapters in the whole
! discussion. Capital Is the chief rock OF offence.
Against il the fierccst fuminations Of the Social
! ist propaga nda are directed. SO that capital
! ISM has come to stand as generic term for all
that Is reckoned most .nimical TO labor. And yet
! in fact capital is the very form Of wealth thit Is
useful to labor indispensable even. and that can
exist only In cooperation with labor. The mo-
ment II ceases to cooperate with labor. IL ceases
! to be capital Without labor there can be no
capital and without capital there can be no use
| ful labor Yet this Is Just the form OF wealth
| that Socialism. professedIy In the name OF labor
seeks TO abolish. Socialism would permit the
| boarding OF wealth for selfish love OF lucre: but
! the amassing OF II for use In industry for the
benefit OF others II would absolutely prohibit 1t
is not easy to comprehend the reasons for this
mad prejudice against capital so vague and con-
nnn of
the foremost living Socialists. Mr. Henry George.
practically charges capital with indolence and
holds that the laborer makes the fund from
which his wages are paid without drawing upon
his employers capital. but while. indeed actually
adding to IT, Karl Marx went further. and
charged capital with theft. II had It's origin. ne
sad in sheer robbery and is maintained by the
same means following which amiable argument
a little further still Schaefle contends that every
capitalist IL and Of necessity must be objectively
a thief and lives by stealing. All these ana sim
liar sophisms should be to reasoning men, sum
cienty disposed of by the mere statement OF
them. II ampler refutation Of them be desired 1t
Is deftly and effectively provided by our author
in these lucid and convincing pages lie does
not of course. defend ali capitalists per Sc. or
credit all capital with unvarying benehcence. On
the contrary some capitalists may be as bad as
Socialists picture them and some capital may be
badly and unJustly used. But that Is not ncces-
sarily because the men are capitalists IL they
were workingmen they would doubtless be dis
honest. and use their powers of labor ILL., To
such. and TO all capitalists Professor Flint reads
an eloquent and impressive lecture lie tells
them frankly that the real crux Of the labor
problem rests largely upon them. II they would
only grid themselves up to the task they could
,b..i iok.. rir,V 81. han
any absolute monarch can do for the subjects OF
his Empire no class of men - called 10
nobler mission than the capitalists. II Is their
interest as we'll az their duty to listen to the
call"
Socialism however is not merely critical and
destructive II is also. to some extent. construct
>ive and Of all its constructive propositions there
is. perhaps none better known than that Of land
naturalization. involving also tina, of n single
tax which was set forth by Thomas Spence more
than a hundred years ago and has recently been
much revamped by Mr.. Alfred Wallace and MI
Henry George. The principle is that the in
crea sed value o' land IL not due the labor 4 the
owner bu, TO the general growth of the commu-
nifty or country and II should therefore be allo-
Gated To the nation f. ,his a Will be observed.
Socialists adopt the very argument they seek TO
Ignore or L. deny In tn" c,s~ ~ the wagc-carner
and the profits of hls toll Bui exactly the same
principle is applicable - all other forms of prop
erty A building which In the heart OF a great
city Is worth a million dollars would be worth
nothing In the heart ~ a wilderness. What makes
the difference? Nothing In the building Or In the
owner Of IL. but in its environment. I'll" whole
value is due 10 the community. wherefore 1t should
belong to the community. \ mans services as q
iaborer worth 81 900 a year In an Industrial com
i. IN
Tie whole value of his services Is due 10 tn,
community. and should therefore be rendered 10
i;. And so get around To Proudhon's hobby.
that property IA robbery and II T. immoral foi any
one TO own anything Are all those who - giibiy
quote his catching dictum aware tha, Of the book
he wrote In support of II onc-third Is devoted 10
demonstrating that there can be no such thing
as property Probably not. And sine. they
thus refuse to the excellent fooling" ~ that
book. but insist on taking il quite seriously. II is
well TO have the prcposterou, notion refutcd AZ
cogently AS II IL by Professor Flint The alb
surdity Of saying that the State can possibly have
n better title to the land than has the individual.
the practical impossibiliiy Of univ"rsal land pur
chase by the State and the wickedness ~ the con
fscation proposed In lieu thereof he insurmounf
able difficulty Of administering nationazed land
Justly and prohaby. these and other associated
matters are set forth In n style az convincing In
It's directncss as 1t is commanding In It's au-
thority.
From the naturalization of land the next step.
logically enough is t. the collectivizaiion ~ CAPT
tai. All industry. from the petty workshop In
tho most extensive factory. IL 10 he put into the
hands Of the state. But how? IT is conceded |
that purchase Is mnnifcstly impossible. there
fore resort IL to he had To wholesale and forcIble
fact no A1
Socialist programme. II IL fitting that II should |
be. Universal theft 10 an appropriate prelude to
universal slavery. But how madly Illogical is
such a scheme! The evil IT, according to the |
Socialist. that the workman now In these great |
Industrial establishments. has no voice in the |
control OF the works. and does not even own the |
tools he works with; and thus he IL dependent |
and insecure In his place How does the Socialist
rfrncr nranase To cnErc.i the elil2 lly mailing /