The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1903-12-17
SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM
Mr Psttigrew Criticizes Mr.. Englshard's
Analysis Published Some Wssks


Analysis Published Some Weeks
Ago.
Editor Independent: In your issue
Of July 16 is a very interesting article
by F. Englehard that deserves some
criticism. | had hoped ere this to see
some good answer to it by some prac-
ticed writer. The brief answer to 1t
in your issue of July 80 don't do it
full justice.
There is much that is good in the ar
ticle, but it don't eanalyze." Mr.. En-
glehard seems to have COMPOUNDED
present day scientific socialism with
communism and extreme state social
ism, something like New Zealand has
now, only much worse.
He betrays himself by asking, "Who
will do the dirty work." which none
of its present opponents will now do
after they have studied socialism
enough to oppose 1t without betraying
themselves. If he will analyze his
own thoughts he will find himself not
ready to accuse very large number
of sensible people of trying so very
earnestly to bring about such a
"tyrannical' government as he pic
lures, for would there be a "phenome-
nal increase of socialists" II his ideas
were correct? Also would not the
publication Of his article and many
others like 1t in many other papers
very quickly stop this phenomenal in
crease?" Mr.. Englehard again be-
trays himself by accusing socialism
OF destroying individuality. The only
fundamental error" in this part OF
his article is his lack Of studying So
cialism sufficiently to know that 1t is
the only system that will give COM
plete individuality to all.
He surely cannot think that any
system could be worse to destroy in
dividuality than the present, IL he
will only take time to investigate.
"Any theory social or otherwise,
to be successful must be In harmony
with the laws Of nature" What sort
OF nature? brute, anarchist or socially
ITO ascertain these and conform to
them must be the first effort OF every
reformer" Amen. But in ascertain
ing them don't rely on the statements
Of an enemy or one financially inter-
ested on the other side.
If Mr.. Englehard had reliable infor-
nation concerning the German social
lists he would not make the statements
about them which he does and prob
ably The Independent is partly re-
sponsible for this by mistaking their
| immediate campaign demands for
their platform. If Mr.. Englehard
would read some French and German
anti-socialist papers he would find al
most the same comparisons of home
socialists with foreign socialists that
he uses, and in every instance 1t is
the home socialists thta are dad" and
the foreign good"
| Near the close Of his article oc-
ours do not be captious." DO not
think you have an exclusive lien on
all WISDOM etc. abide by the ma
jority judgment" Compare these
with his statement concerning his
communistic ideas of socialism and
his fatal error" regarding Individual
ity in the first part of his article
Then l think you will conclude that
Mr.. Englehard is not too old to be ar
enthusiastic reformer and that ne will
'strike his best ticks" according to the
knowledge that he has; but he ought
to read Bellamy's Looking Back.
ward" and Equality Rev. F. M
Sprague's Socialism from Genesis tt
Revelation" and read some good so
cialist paper for year or two. after
which he could write as we'll of social
ism as he does of single tax and pop
ulism In this article under review.
Now, one question concerning 'lawi
of nature" Is II not a law OF nature
to try to get all you can and to keel
and save all you get? VIII not tn,
rich and smart get the product o
others labor without an equivalent a,
long as they can legally do sol Al
long as the wealthy make or eontro
the law. this state OF Affairs will son
tlnue: and Ia there any way TO pre-
vent II except 10 so arrange economics
that each one shall get the full prod
uct of his labor?
wish ''value" could he creates
without labor and that The Indepen