The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1900-10-16
correspondence.
A REPLY TO THE EDITOR.

opened your columns to a discussion
of Socialism, a vast industrial move
ment which, ignoring party and Ma
tional boundary lines, is interna-
tional and worldwide, and numbers
among its advocates thousands OF
the brightest and best minds of our
time. Thank God that we still have
so many unselfsh men who can be
satisfied with nothing short of the
uplifting of the whole human race.
Mr.. Hauser, to whose article you
called attention in your last issue,
does not need Socialism for his physi-
cal comfort. He is working for
others and though, in our State, his
CRY be but as "a voice in the wilder
ness where no man dwells, it will
yet be heard.
1t is passing strange that the OPP
ponents of Socialism charge it with
the sins of the system which they
themselves advocate, and which So
cialists are trying to amend. lnyour
editorial on the subject, you say !:
1.-The two false doctrines upon which
the whole fabric of Socialism rests
are these: 1. The Sameness OF men
in wants and in ability and the JUS
tice of a common reward and lot for
all. 2. The denial of the doctrine
that the certainty that a man can
enjoy the fruits of his own toll is the
great stimulus to production, enter
prise, and prosperity"
Now if Socialists hold any such
doctrines, it does not appear in their
speeches or writings. Socialism
claims only the sameness of men as
to their animal wants and the equal
and inalienable right of all to the re-
sources of nature from which these
wants must be supplied. To those
who have higher aspirations it would
supply, absolutely free, all the means,
schools, books, scientific Instruments,
tools, in short everything necessary
to bring them to the highest state of
perfection physically, mentally,
and morally of which they are capa-
able. 1t would only draw the rein
on their predatory instincts, and de-
mand that they do not bring their
high claims into contempt by fight
ing with their humber brethren over
the bones and slop tubs from which
the animal must feed.
In view of the fact that a majority
of our people T already wage
ers, and receive, as statistics show,
not more than One-fOurth of the
product of their labor in return, and
that Socialism would give to every
man, m and child all that their
labor produced, the charge that they
deny 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 prosper
ity" is truly astonishing. The editor
has unfortunately consulted authors
against Socialism who were them
selves ignorant of it's teachings.
Woods charge that under Socialism
working, eating, sleeping and all
social and personal activities would
be conducted upon a compulsory
plan Is mOnstrOus. Socialism would
organize labor just as successful
capitalists do now with the differ
nee that it would give every man an
opportunity to work where he would
be most effective. And he has to do
that now if he would succeed. But
it would compel no n to work or
to cooperate. If he wanted his
share of the earth to himself it would
give it to him and bid him God speed.
If he then failed to work, it would
not let him starve, but put him on
the pauper list.
Tom WatsOn's idea that the bar
barOus Franks who recognized the
right of all to land and knew no bet
ter way to receive justice than to
change them about, is laughable.
Had they been Communists, they
would have LETT the lazy lout on the
poor land, as he could do as much
for the community there as else
where. The truth is each man was
working for himself. To make him
self o ridiculous, Watson con-
POUNDS Socialism with Communism.
1t would indeed require true Chris
tians to be Communists. But Social
ism recognizes self-interest also, and
appeals both to the highest and low
oct inC+inn+c &c nnnn h. n-1