The representative., 1897-10-13
OUR FORUM q
IS POPUllSM PRAC...
TICAL SOCIALISM,
OR EVOLUTIONARY POPULISM VS..
REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISM.
Paper Read Before the Social Sci
ence Club, of Minneapolis, by
Miss Ida B. Woodwork

IL.
Anything is practical which is fit for
performing, as opposed to what is the
oretical. Practicable Is a synonym for
what is possible. Socialism is the re-
construction of society on the principle
Of cooperation, and advances the COM
mon ownership Of the instruments OF
production and the gifts of nature. Pop
ulism is equal rights to all, and special
privileges to none. 1t aims at this not
by a revolution but by evolution, and
also by taking possession of rights that
have been usurped. To this end the
Peoples party would reform our finan-
cial laws. The people should issue their
| own medium of exchange, right now
appropriated by the banks. The public
should control all means of transporta-
tion and intelligence, and such other
municipal rights as street railway, elec-
| trio light plant, etc. 1t is opposed to
! favOrs graduated income tax and i'm
provement in the election laws. The
! Peoples party does not believe that state
! interference should, at present at least,
20 to the extent the socialist desires.
In general way the Peoples party con-
siders that the states functions should
be limited to protection of life, property
and liberty, and promotion Of industry,
intelligence, science, morality and art,
and promotion of factory and sanitary
laws. 1t believes in doing only that
which, under the present general senti-
ment, 1t is imperative for the state to
do. In deciding such the Peoples party
asks at every step three questions:
First, is the object good? Second, will
the means obtain it? Third, at too
great sacrifice. Having defined the
| terms of our thesis we claim that Pop
! ulism is fit system for reconstructing
! society in such a way as to level great
inequalities existing, and to bring about
common ownership, and the principle
Of cooperation, but that Socialism Is
impracticable Socialism claims to be
! the party of evolution, but is really
revolutionary. Evolution moves almost
imperceptibly step by step. Revolution
comes with a crash. Evolution is the
gradual heating of water up to the
boiling point until it turns into steam
but the Socialist is impatiently attempt
ing to put into the water the hot iron
of Socialism without waiting for natural
| processes l would not vote for even
such good measure as the natiOnaliZa-
ton of any industry il advanced by IN
other party than mine, said one of the
Socialistic leaders, plainly Indicating
his revolutionary rather than evolution
ary spirit. While these men are men,
bers Of party which aims at good
things we all desire, 1t seems to me,
practicable agitators of an impractic-
able theory. From a woman's stand
point 1t seems to me that the single tax-
er. Socialist, Populist, Prohibitionist,
Nationalist, and all other reformers, are
living in the same house, called Equal
Rights to ALL" and yet they quarrel
because the Socialist wants to occupy
all the rooms in the house at once,
while the rest of the reformers con-
sder it more prudent to furnish one
room at time, as their means allow,
and as their experience proves is wise.
The Socialist never having built house
will find, if he ever gets it built that
1t would have been much better TO
have relied more on practical expert
ence. and less on visions, theories, or
! priori deductions. But have they even
, a theory? They have been given three
evenings of this summer course and
have failed to give us an idea of what
Socialism really is. It is impacticable
to expect the American public to &C
cept, they know not what 1t is easy
to find fault and criticise, but difficult
to construct, and hard to disprove q
negative. Socialism is a negative 90
far as we have learned. What else
have they represented. They tell about
the 1.-TWO classes" but every one knows
that. The only positive or constructive
statement they make is the definition Of
value" 1t is impracticable to expect
the public to give up the present sys-
tenn for system of which it knows
! nothing, except the definition of wal
ues." Even that is not proved. Why
do they not tell us how to determine
the average labor time," or how many
times more skilled labor" Is than "un-
skilled" or how their standard of
measurement would remain unchange-
able, or how to determine that most
difficult question, as to how many labor
units" there might be in such a COM
plex product as cotton cloth, what to do
with the idlers and incompetent, or
men that will not do honest work, and
how they should be paid? 1 will tell
you why, because in their own words
Socialism is an analysis of social
forces" It is no scheme. It gives no
methods whatever. 1t has no plans and
therefore is impracticable, something
we cannot argue against, and some
thing whose adoption must come by
revolution, unless the Socialists are
prepared in the dim future to state def