The herald., 1895-02-23
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED
JAMES @. CLARK.


Catholic Church will be likely to prove
the strongest force in opposition to So
cialism. Whether or not the reverend
gentleman said this approvingly the
proposition is doubtless correct as that
great religious organization is conserva-
tive, patriarchal, and paternal in spirit
and policy, over any other Christian de-
nomination. .st
In fact it is the ecclesiastical brake"
of Christian civilization. And l am not
prepared to say that, as such it is not
acting a necessary function in the order
of things.
Otherwise the Protestant impulse and
energy might drive us along too fast.
nevertheless Professionalism will, from the
very nature Oft case, lead in the world S
pros ress, because it is the disintegrating
and individualizing force which must hold
sway before meh ere prep rel for soc al
ism. The society units must become
educated in the line of independent in
dividual thought before they can be
properly fitted for true and permanent
lnterdependent life and action, such as
genuine socialism contemplates.
We must not forget that Professionalism
means more than it did when Luther,
with his mighty hammer, broke in twain
the rock OF St. Peter and cast the
loosened fragment under the relentless
tread of the reformation. 1t is living,
moving principle that knows nothing
either OF secular or religious boundary
lines. 1t will never pause in its onward
march till it has trampled down and
ground to powder under its heel usury
and goldcralt as well as tyranny and
kingcraft.
The aggressive trend of emancipated
human conscience and intelligence are
destined to ''go forever" and to ac-
complish their foreordained work without
regard to religious, civil or social pull
backs, and when the final end IS
reached, there will be nothing but lin
gering memory left of much that now
seems Pc manent and essential.
But, n matte human ty will b left,
and God will b Father in deed no | ss
than in creed, and the Son of Nan will
live and shine in til race, for He shall
see of the travail of His SOUL and be salts
fled, " as He never can while the
least of His brethren are naked,
hungry or in prison, in order that few
may build palaces, corner the lands and
| products of the people, and fair sumpt-
ously every day, " under the protection OF
standing armies and professional men
| slayers
/ The hand on the dial moves. 1t is
coming But speaking of Rev. Thomson,
reminds me that he-ignorantly no
doubt-confused socialism with commun-
ism in his discourse on that topic.
The New Standard Dictionery of the
| English language" which is admitted by
our best scholars to be the most perfect
authority up to date, on the meaning and
use of words SAYS:
Socialism is a theory of civil polity
that aims to secure the reconstruction OF
society increase of wealth, and a more
equal distri button of the products of labor
through the public collective ownership
of land and capital (as distinguished from
property and the public collective man
agement of all industries. Its motto is;
Every one according to his deeds and
is distinguished from communism in not
| demanding a community of goods.
This does not resemble the definitions
that we read in leading dailes and
| hear from otfice-seekers and sometimes
from popular pulpits and even in single
tax meetings, but, nevertheless, it accords
with the facts of experience, and the au-
| thority is not only unimpeachable but
strictly unbiased and impartial. l re-
grettcd not seeing in The Herald account
| of late single-tax gathering some report
of Rev. r. NJ. Webster address.
1t is safe to infer, however, that his
address, Why the Unemployed, was full OF
! clear common sense and unanswerable
logic, as he is by all odds the best and the
most searching and unanswera BILE teacher
of true political and social economy on
this Coast or that | ever listened to.
OF course the omission of his aemarks
Herald nor of the gentlemen who had
charge of the meeting, but owing to Mr..
| Webster s failure to furnish brief report
to The Herald, as the other speakers
ldoubtless did of their criticisms. The Sin
| gle Tax Club is doing great good in agi-
tating the subject of land monopoly
the underlying monopoly of all the
! great family of despotism and in making
/ their platform free to those who hold op-
posite views and while some of our So.
cialist friends complain occasionally OF
not being treated fairly at these meet
] ings we must not forget that the Single
| Takers hire the hall and pay the ex-
| penses incident to the occasion, and
have right to insist upon order after
| their own taste and manner. To do less
| than this would be to invite chaos and de-
stroy the usefulness of the meetings.
That the central principle involved in
| the single tax must be granted at least
temporary application and expression,
| though, perhaps, not strictly according to
the programme of its champions, is,
| think, a self-evident conclusion. But
it is no less evident that competition
which the single takers so warmly defend
must, after the reduction, or even de-
struction of land monopoly, sooner or
later destroy itself-in short eat itself out
| of house and homeland thus render col
| lective industry necessary as the only
| final and complete means of industrial
| salvation.
The fact is the conflict between ma
tons, involving the man killing and con-
quest by brute force,-and conflict be-
tween individuals involving conquest
over others in trade, through superior
CUNNING and brain force, are identical in
spi it and in final results. The one can
not long survive the elimination of the
| others from human motive or policy.
1t is natural for human beings to fra
ternze except when drivs t. contentio
| bv kings and usurers and the instinct of
selfpreservation. AS soon as men learn
as they are fast learning through nece.-
! sity-that this instinct is best served by
mutual consideration and action the latter
will take the place of national warfare
| and of competitive commerce.
| But the worst argument used against
| socialism, or nationalism as contemplated
by modern social reformers, is the sense
| less and idiotic one that Socialism would
make imbeciles.' Our best answer to
this proposition may be embodied in a
few practical questions:
Does the objector feel growing sense
| of imbeclity in receiving his postal ac-
commodations from the hands of men and
women who are literally paid for the SER
vice by the General Government, and un-
der the direction of Postmaster General
and of postmasters who are paid regular
salaries out of the Government fund? If
so, would the anti-Socialist grow more
manly and intelligent if Uncle Sam
were to surrender the department.