The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1900-09-11
SOCIALISM AND WHY TT CANNOT sue
CEED. ~

a Forsyth county citizen in defense
of Socialism. The only thing wrong
with Socialism is that it is founded
upon radically wrong conceptions or
human nature, and therefore IN
suited to the race of beings that now
inhabit. the earth. And in our opin-
ion without a general reconstruction
of the earth's population, successful
Socialism is many centuries OF The
two false doctrines upon which the
whole fabric of Socialism rests are
these !:
/. The samenessa of men in wants
and in ability and the justice of a
common reward and lot for all.
2. The denial of the doctrine that
1.-the certainty that a man can enjoy
the fruits of his own toll is the great.
stimulus to production, enterprise
and
We think Socialists have a right
to complain of the evils of the exist
ing order of things we do not think
that to remedy these it is necessary
to revolutionize society by destroy
ing individualism, making machines
of men,, and d~isavowing individual
merit. In short, we do not think it
necessary to demolish the present
system because of it's durable evils,
any more than we think it necessary
to cut off our head to get rid of head
ache. It's the ache, not the head, we
wish to lose. .
And it is not competition, but the
avoidance of competition by laws of
special privilege that have brought
about most of the grave public
wrongs of the time. With free com
petition unrestricted by grants of
special privilege to favored mem
bers, he who best serves humanity
secures by natural law the best re-
ward. This is the freedom we need.
Socialistic freedom" is of quite a
different kind. AS Henry Wood says
in his Political Economy of Natural
Law"
ut would indeed be slavery to
have eating, sleeping, clothing, work
ing, and all the social and personal
activities conducted upon the com
pulsory plan, in which each is as
signed his place by the majority"
which would really consist of a few
official dictators. The plotting out
of individual liberty would mean real
slavery. By Socialism there would
be no incentive for personal effort,
such as is nov afforded by the hope
of providing for infirmity or old age,
or for the wants of family and kind
red. The fruits of a mans industry
would belong to The State The
choice of occupation would be die
tated by the offceholders of the
dominant party"
And Socialism, as we have said, is
based upon the idea that a man will
labor as faithfully for his neighbor
as for himself-that he loves his
neighbor as himself. This is the
radically wrong conception of hu-
man nature" that renders Socialism
unsuited to human beings-us yet, at
any rate.
And this is why Socialism has ever
failed and will fail until human ma
ure is completely renovated. Has
failed, we say. Some of the Chris
tians in apostolic days tested it
they chad all things in common"
But not even with the holy zeal and
brotherly love of these early follow
ers of the Master could Socialism
succeed the idea was soon aban-
doned. And 1t has ever been thus.
Take another instance. We foundit
accidentally in reading Hon. Thos.
E. Watson's excellent "Story of
France" a few days ago. On page
81, Vol. l.. he says:
"Private ownership of land was
unknown to the Franks. Once a
year the fields were parcelled out
among the tribesmen, and none of
them knew one year where he might
be assigned the next. The eouse-
'quence was that no valuable improve
ment was made-it being to nobody'sI
interest to build a good house or to
enrich a field. Under such a system
the LATEST lout in the tribe might
get next year, the house and the inn
proved field where the thriftiest had
Labored this year, and the thrifty