People's party paper. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1891-1898, 1897-11-05
IS POPULISM SOCIALISM
Or Revolutionary PopuIism VS..
Revolutionary Socialism.
WHERE THE DIFFERENCE LIES.
A Paper Read Before" the Social Science
Club of Minneapolis, Minnesota. by
Miss Ida b. Woodwork With
Valuable New Ideas.

Club of Minneapolis, Minnesota. by
Miss Ida B. Woodwork with
Valuable New Ideas.
Anything is practical which is fit for
performing. as opposed to what is fhe-
oretical. Practicable is synonym for
what is possible. Socialism is the re-
construction of society on the principle
OF CO. operation, and advances the com
mon ownership of the instruments of
production and the gifts of nature
Populism is equal rights to all, and
special privileges to none. 1t aims at
this not by revolution, but by evolu.
ton, and also by taking possession of
rights that have been usurped To this
end the Peoples Party would reform.
our financial laws The people should
issue their own medium of exchange,
right now appropriated by the banks.
The public should control all means of
transportation and intelligence, and
such other municipal rights as street
rsilway, electric light plant, etc. 1t is
opposed to all special privileges or class
laws 1t favors graduated income tax
and improvement in the election laws
The Peoples Party does not believe
that state interference should at pres
emit at least, go to the extent the social
ist desires In a general way the PEG.
ple's Party considers that the states
functions should be limited to protec-
ton of life, property and liberty. and
promotion of industry, intelligence,
science, morality and art, and promo
tion of factory and sanitary laws 1t
believes ia doing only that which, un-
der the present general sentiment, it is
imperative for the state to do In de-
Gliding such the Peoples party asks at
every step three questions: First, is the
object good? Second. will the means
obtain itP Third, at too great a sacri-
fee. Having defined the terms of our
thesis we claim that Populism ia a fit
system for recoDstructing society in
such way as to level great inequali-
ties existing; and to bring about COM
mon ownership, and the principle of
cooperation, but that Socialism is i'm
practicable. Socialism claims to be the
party of evolution, but is really revo-
lutiopary. Evolution moves almost
imperceptibly step by step. Revolution
!, 1r1{S Sc "a
gradual heating of water up to the
boiling point until it turns into steam,
but the Socialist is impatiently at
tempting to put into the water the hot
iron of Socialism without waiting TOR
natural processes. would not vote
ssssz- ,;s-s ,ss>&s Kco2 12ta .-S.J e dis s2l
naturalization of any industry if ad-
vanced by another party than mine,
said one of the Socialistic leaders,
plainly indicating his revolutionary
rather than evolutionary spirit. While
these men are members of party
which aims at good things we all de-
sire, it seems to me, for the present at
least, they are impracticable sgitators
of an imprscticable theory. From a
woman's standpoint it seems to me
that the single-taxer, Socialist, Popu-
list, Prohibitionist, Nationalist, and
all other retormers, are living in the
same house. called Equal Rights to
ALL" and yet they quarrel because the
Socialist wants to occupy the rooms
in the house at once, while the rest OF
the reformers consider it more prudent
to furnish one room at a time, as their
means allow, and as their experience
proves is wise. The Socia list never
having built house will find, if he
ever gets it built, that it would have
| been much better to have relied more
or practical experience, and less or
visions, theories, or a priori deductions
But have they even a theory? They
have been given three evenings Of
this summer course and have 'ailsd tc
give us an idea # what Socialism real
ly is. 1t is impracticable to expect tbs
American public to accept, they know
not what. 1t is easy to find fault anc
criticise, but difficult to construct, anC
hard to disprove negative. Socialism
is negative so far as we have learned
What else have they represented. They
tell about the "two classes" but every
one knows that. The only positive o.
constructive statement they make il
| the definition of value " It is imprac
ticable to expect the publ c to give III
the present system for a system o
which it knows nothing, except the de
fnition of tvalues." Even that is no
proved. Why 10 they not tell us how
to determine the "averaye labor time,
or how many times more skilled la
bor'' is than ''unski1led," or how thei
standard of measurement would re
main Interchangeable, or how to dete m
inc that NEST difficult question, as t.
how many labor units' there nigh
be in such complex product as cottol
cloth, what to do with the idlers ant
incompetent, or men that will not d.
honest work, and how they should b
paid? will tell you why, because il
their own words Socialism is an anal
ysis of social forces" 1t is no scheme
1t gives no methods whatever. 1t ha
no plans and therefore is impractical BILE
something we cannot argue against
and something whose adoption mus
come by revolution, unless the Social
lists are prepared in the dim future t.
state definitely what their methods arr
concerning their "co-operative com
monwealth." They desire this common
wealth imme diately, The Populist
step by step, as the public becomes fit
ted for it. The Populist wishes t.
avail himself of every opportunity It
help the people, while the Soeialis
promising great things neglects hi
present opportunities while waiting
for his fellow men to rally round hi
standard.
What will be the result? That tn
| vary neOnla whose interests he nrofas