Arizona republican., 1898-05-19
AN ESSAY.
Socialism as Applied to Private Capital
 and Private Property.

OOCldl tSlu dS Appi3tu " [ lltdIe OdplCdl
 and Private Property.
 One of the objections to socialism is that it would destroy private prop erty. While socialism would annihi- late private capital, it would, for the first time in the history of our race. make private property possible to all. There is a marked difference between private property and capital. A mans private property is that which he him self uses, as such tools as he can use alone better than in the company of others. Capital is that portion of wealth used to multiply itself, as lands with it's products and massive aggre- gations of wealth. Let us here quote a passage from the famous declara- tion of independence: All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights among which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 If a man has right to live has he not right to that which is necessary to maintain life and all that he pro duces by the expenditure of his life's energies? The right to produce car- ries with it the right to own. Has net every man right to his own produc- tions? As a result of the evolution of our social order, we now have great machines so that many of cur simplest necessities are produced by combined labor. The machines used are claSsed as capital.
 To live men must have food, cloth ing and pure air. Without these they do not live, they merely exist To pro duce the first two f1Ouring mill ds a factor, a lumber mill and the help of many men are required. But indi- viduals are allowed to own the neces- sary instruments and can~ therefore claim all that is produced by the men using them.
 One man alone could not produce l one-sixth, it Is even said, one two hundredth of what he can working in the company of others. Since society produces the extra amount should not society own it? In ancient times the capitalist produced this by a system called chattel slavery. In this the master owned the life and all that goes with it of the slaves. This final ly evolved into our present wage sys- tem; under this the master legally
 
 slaves Qaboring men) must use to produce their 1ife's necessities. They are just as much at the beck and call of their masters (the capitalists) as the chattel slaves were at those of theirs under the old system. The only difference is that the laborer is in name free and has the power to eman- cipate himself whenever he learns m fr, d n< aI, hi is the work of the socialist.
 The way the laboring man is de- prlved of part of his own product is: The instruments which he must use to maintain livelihood are owned by the capitalist. He can get no food unless he consents to use them under terms decided upon by his liege lord. UT course as is the nature of greed, the capitalist wants to get as much as possible with the least exertion. He IS not to blame as he is the victim of ! the system in which might makes right. He pays the laboring man say one dollar for an article produced. It passes through the hands of many, each of whom take a profit. By the | time it returns to the real producer the price is two dollars, but as the WOl 1OC6If0S UuL one QOlldr in wages he can buy back but one-half of what he produced
 Every ten or fifteen years we have business panic which the capitalists claim is caused by over-production. The laborer can buy no more than the amount he receives in wages will pur- chase. The more the capitalist takes In profit the less the laborer receives in wages. Business is stagnated. not by production but by want of consumption which is limited by the laborer's wages.
 F. G. R. Gordon asserts that it costs the railroad company just one dollar to take a man across the continent, but the company charges much more than that as we all know. A railroad | would be of no value if no one used it the same as factory would be value less with no workmen. The laboring man who makes both valuable gets the