The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-17

gle was over the audience gathered out.
side on the sidewalk to argue the respec.
tive merits of the two schools of social and
political economy.
The speakers were introduced and the
floor was given to Mr.. Mcguire for the first
twenty minutes effort. Mr.. MacIyor ex.
blamed the mode of debate, which was
that Mr. Hartman was to have twenty
minutes in which to reply. MT. Mcguire
was to resume for twenty minutes longer
and then Mr.. Hartman. was to have
twenty-five minutes. Finally Mr.. Mcguire
was to have five minutes for conclusion
Mr. MacIyor read the affirmative as fol
lows:
Affirmed, that the establishment of the fol
lowing principles would conflict with the
of the race: To replace the system of private
capital d. e. the speculative method of produc
ton regulated on behalf OF society only by the
full competition OF private enterprlses) py 9
method of production which would Introduce
unified Social or "collectiye') organization
of national labor, on the basis OF corrective OF
common ownership OF the means OF production
by all the members OF society.
The statement of the principles" re-
ferred to was taken from page OF
Schaffle's "Quintessence of Socialism," a
book that was subsequently referred to
more than once. Mr.. Mcguire came for
ward and said:
A mighty conflict of thought is now going on
in the world, and portends complete social
change as its consequence. Existing social
the course of human progress as 1t is going on
to-day too many lives are crushed in misery in
the struggle for existence there is too much of
Injustice; too much of privilege to some and
denial of opportunities to others. Against
these ends the spirit of altruism rebels. These
conditions must be remodeled SO that vice and
the evils of which speak shall be eliminated,
or chaos and disaster must be the ultimate end.
In this great conflict there are two schools of
thought, opposed to each other, 1t is trne-one
ing the entire social system, making the pro-
cess of production and distribution matters OF
public function, and the other that of the in
dividualists, who believe in doing away with
all privileges and giving to all equal oppor-
tunities to do all the good they can. My SYM
pathles, Judgment and opinions, are with the
latter.
Mr. Hartman is one OF the ablest and most
sincere and straightforward representatives OF
his school. Nor would | praise the man and
disparage his movement. The socialists are
though I believe they will never accomplish
their ultimate purpose. At present they are
directing the attention OF mankind to the evils
that accompany modern civilization.
The modern socialist is in favor of the col.
lective ownership.of all means of production
including all machinery and implements, as
well as the natural resources, and an organiza-
ton of all the members of society in one great
industrial army for the production, exchange
and distribution of such things as shall best
satisfy the wants of mankind. Dauntless
contest be, viii ultimately triumph.
/ assert that in all ages OF human progress
mans advancement has been along the lines
of individual development; that the aggregate
brought the race to its present high standard:
that there is differentiation of qualities that
can never be brought out save by individual
liberty and individual enterprise. Wherever
in the worlds history any check has been
placed upon the natural stimulus and indi
vidual development, a period of gradual de-
generation has enSued.
If the socialistic system is to be substituted
for that of perfect individual action, then eyery
incentive In man to progress will be DESTROYED
and nothing substituted therefor. Selfishuess
in the form OF greed and the disregard of the
rights Of others should be restrained, but true
self interest works to the highest development
of the race, and ought not to be destroyed
because the present system has allowed some
to interfere with and enroach upon the rights
of others.
The difficulty with the present system is the
displacement of the great body of workers, u
these workers had free access to neutral Cd
portunitieS and found natural employment
monopolies and grinding combinations Of
capital could not exist.
Socialism proposes to destroy the present sys
TEN of individual effort because of the exist
ence of the evil of the greatest monopoly O,
all-the monopoly OF the land OF this earth. Or
the other hand, we propose to do away with
the special privileges of one man to own OF
to hold more than his natural share OF natura
opportunities, and allow individual civiliza
tfon to proceed along the lines on which it has
progressed thus far. Never yet have the re
suits of socialism justified the claims of its ad
yocates-they have never demonstrated to the
satisfaction of one part of the community thai
every unit was doing its full duty, and every
attempt to organize on any other than natura
basis has proved a failure.
Mr.. Hartman then took the floor and
admitted that Mr.. Mcguire was correct