Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1900-05-10
SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM.
While tho One Demands Common owner
ship Of All Property tho Other Does
Not DO Any Such Thing

ship of All Property tho Other Does
Not DO Any Such Thing.
In the course of q recent article
written TO demonstrate the folly of
the middle-of-the-ronders indorsing
the ticket and platform OF the social
democracy, the Missouri World soys;
"Under socialism no money would
be needed; there would be no debts
and no private property 10 buy or sell,
and therefore no medium OF exchange
would be required Hence socialists
ignore the money question, do not
give the question Of paying the great
debts public and private, even pass
ing consideration"
Without entering into any discus
sion as 10 the adylsNbility Of the Gin
Cinnati convention taking the action
In question, ! desire 10 crltclse the
Worlds assertions,
In the first place, system Of prac'
teal state socialism such M Is con-
tcmplated by the social democracy
would In no wise destroy the rights
Of private property nor bring about
state Of society In which there would
re mo private property TO buy or
sell" Socialism demands the public
ownership and operation OF only the
sources Of crude, or raw, wealth and
the machinery and tools Of production
Of finished products, On the other
hand, communism involves the abrogN-
ton Of all property rights and the
common ownership Of all things, The
World must have COMPOUNDED the one
with the other and have had com
munism in mind when writing OF
socialism.
Under socialistic regime, money
would he required and used Just as
now, but debts, in the last analysis,
are not paid with money but with
the products of labor, and legal ten
der money Is simply nm order upon
the people, scycrolly and collectively
for such products Of labor. Under
Just and reasonable socialistic system,
the individual would have available
for the payment Of debts all the
wealth product Of his l0bors now
absorbed, or stolen, from him by rent,
profit and interest But, aside from
the question Of interest rates, the
money question is Of but little conse-
qucnce in It's relationship to other
economic questions. II rent, profit
and interest remain undsturbed In
the spoliation Of the masses, II mat
tiers hut little Of what material money
Is made, There Is more money
per capita in circulation now than
there has been at any time since 1870
and yet there Is discomfort and ngitO-
ton and the rich grow richer while
the poor grow poorer and n few are
monopolizing all the natural re-
sources Of the earth,
II IL not likely, however, that land
would be socinlized 10 any greater eN-
tent than would result from the in
augurHllon Of the single tax system
which, as Henry George himself said,
was The "cssence Of socialism applied
to the land question: Socialism
would certainly provide for govern
mcnt banks and absolute, legal ten
der paper money, but would probably
use some certain period Of time spent
In labor ms the unit of account" or
standard of value. But because the
people, ms n government became the
manufacturers Of the nation, selling
the product TO retail dealers at the
labor cost of production, il would by
no means follow that there would no
longer be any property privately
owned or bought and sold and It is
not easy to see why anyone should
imagine that any such result would
follow.
But, after all, the best way TO ar
rive at an understanding of just what
the social democracy is aiming at Is
TO examine their platform and see
what they demand therein. Here II
is:
The social democratic party Of America
declares that life liberty and happiness
depend upon equal political and economic
rights.
In our economic development nm indus
trial revolution has taken place the In
dividual tool Of former years having be-
come the social tool Of the present The
individual tool was owned by the worker
who employed himself end was master Of
his product The social tool, the ma
chine, Is owned by the capitalist and the
worker Is dependent upon him for ems
ployment. The capitalist thus becomes
the master Of the worker and IL able TO
appropriate TO himself a large share of
the product of his labor,
Capitalism, the private ownership Of
the means Of production, Is responsible
for the insecurity Of subsistence, the p0v-
erty misery and degradation Of the
ever-growing majority Of our people; but
the same economic forces which have
produced and now Intensity the capital
tat system win necessitnte the adoption OF
socialism, the collective ownership Of
the means OF production for the common
good and welfare.
The present system OF social production
and private ownership Is rapidly con-
vertIng society into two antagonlstic
classes--i e., the capitalist class and the
propertyless class The middle class, once
the most powerful Of this great nation,
Is disappearing In the mill OF cOmpeti-