The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1903-12-17

dent) shows such honesty Of purpose
and such desire to do good that it is
pleasure to read them all, while it is
pleasure to skip nearly everything
in the great" plutocratic papers, I
should like to write more about the
laws of nature, but must stop now.
A. J. PETTIGREW.
Manatee, Fla.
(Mr. Pettigrew should not be led
astray in the belief that Nebraskans
have not read the works of Edward
Bellamy. Doubtless Mr.. Englehard,
who is a close student Of economics
and philosophy, has read all the recent
works on socialism, whether Christian,
Utopian, scientific or otherwise.
The materialistic teachings of scien-
tific socialism ought to show Mr.. Pet
tigrew, Prof. Simons, Ernest INTER
mann and many others the folly Of
expecting at this time large access
sions to their ranks from the land
holding agricultural portion of the
population. Granted that the farmer
may hold only shadow Of title" to
his land, while the railroads, bankers,
mortgage sharks, etc., hold the real
title, is it reasonable to suppose that
the farmer can be converted" to So
cialism by mere talk? Suppose you
do appeal to his reason, but that his
material interests, on the surface at
least, run counter to your appeals
which will he follow?
1t is not difficult to see why the so
cialist propaganda should be attrac-
tive say in shoe factory, where day
after day thousands of men make
hundreds OF thousands Of shoes;
where the division of labor is carried
to the extreme; where not one of the
workers, probably, could make pair
Of shoes himself; where not one Of
them owns any portion of the ma
chimes or any portion of the product.
In such a place, it Is not difficult to
see why the workers would be at
| tracted by the demand for the "col-
lective ownership of the means Of
production" which, so far as they are
concerned, signifies the means of pro-
ducing shoes.
Doubtless 1t may be urged with some
plausability that the farmer is part of
| intense division Of labor-but 1t is not
SO close to him. Nobody pays him
wages. He is not exploited" after
the MARKHAM formula Of surplus val
ue." He does not labor cooperative
ly with his fellow farmers after the
fashion Of the shoe workers. Then
men who cooperate with him are SO
remote that on the surface il does not
have the appearance of cooperation
at all. He buys reapers and plows and
threshing machines; he pays freights
by receiving a smaller price for his
grain: he contributes to the manufac-
turers through the operation of the
protective tariff" he pays usury to
the money trust; and he bears the ma
jor burden of direct taxation.
But he cannot see wherein he would
be benefited by having the collective
ownership Of ALL the means Of pro-
duction and distribution (Which would
include his farm, because 1t has not
been demonstrated that there is COM
polling necessity in his line of work
for the sort of cooperation which is
typified in the shoe factory. Wheat
growing, for example, cannot be di-
vided up after the manner of making
a shoe. There is no advantage in hav.
ing one man pillow the ground, another
to SOW the seed, third to cut the
ripened grain, etc. Machinery, in
stead of binding the farmers together
In the bonds of mutual helpfulness
tends to isolate them.
How can the man who believes tha
environment dominates, expect agri
culturists to see social questions in thu
same light as do the wage-worker'
where the division Of labor is so close
at hand? TO say that thew can b.
made to do so through mere areumen
and appeals to reason" Is to ahan
don the stand OF scientific socialism
npon economic determlnism" and th'
materialistic conception OF history
and to paw the sincerest tribute Il
idealism.--Assoclate Edltor.)