Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1903-08-22

&>~s '''-'-'-s-'-.''-.. ....-.-.-.-.--.
Alhompson's Reply To Forsbere.
In my first paper for Socialism were
, presented three main arguments to
show that the farmer class should
unite with the industrial class for so.
. c1alism. These were, (1) That only
Socialism would relieve these two
classes: (2) that only by uniting for
Socialism could either class secure the
: needed reforms: (3) that the Populist
movement had never been more than q
national movement while the only final
solution OF our social problems lay in
an International program; and that
even as national movement Populism
had almost entirely disappeared, while
on the other hand the Socialist move
ment being International from the
start, and having fifty years of history
has had steady growth in America
as we'll as throughout the world until
today 1t numbers at least 400, 900
voters in this country alone.
These are my main lines of argu-
ment. In his reply Mr.. Forsberg has
practically disregarded these points
and instead of answering them has
taken a new line Of argument. I wish
therefore to reiterate these arguments.
I insist that Socialism will relieve the
farmer class from the oppression of
railway monopolies, from the exorbi-
tant prices charges by the private cor.
p0rations that manufacture farm ma
chinery; that it will destroy foreign
land holding and landlordism, will
remove the evil of railway land grants,
of the land speculator and shark as
we'll as of the private irrigation CON-
panies; that it would protect the farm
er from exorbitant trust charges on
all the necessities of life and free him
forever from the money loaEer and
the mortgager.
If, now, it is conceded, as believe
it must be, that Socialism will thus
relieve the farmer class; and If it can
not secure such relief without uniting
with the wage-earning class, as I have
positively proven in my former paper;
and If there is every promise of his
securing such relief through the So
cialist movement; and if the Populist
movement has almost if not quite dis
appeared, IF these points are indis-
putable, as I believe they are, then
our case is won. For submit that
these considerations tower In import
ance far above every other that has
been mentioned during this discussion.
I cannot allow my opponent, nor my
readers to escape from the tyranny OF
this logic. In these main PROPOSE
tions lie the argument. If these things
are true,-if these are unanswerable
facts then the case is won for Social
ism.
However, although apparently con-
ceding the above arguments Mr.. Fors'
berg goes on to raise certain objec-
tions to Socialism. I propose in this
paper to examine these objections.
y OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM.
Il. The first objection raised by Mr..
Forsberg is that It Is Impossible to got
It. This is the usual objection raised
to every effort for human betterment
that has ever been made. The reply
to this argument Is this,-That In the
first place this 10 not the question at
issue in this debate. 1t is not whether
Socialism would be easy, or hard, or
impossible to get, but whether or not
the economic interests OF the working
/. Glasses demand it. And the final reply
to this objection Is this,-that In the
very nature of the case it cannot be
proven to be true that Socialism Is
impossible. It cannot be counted an
argument against proposed line OF
!. action that some one should raise the
worn out cry of ''impossible." Every
aahievement of human history has
Ibeen previously thus shown 70 the sa-
stisfaction of some minds to be ''im-
nosstb1e.' And every invention,
every discovery, the achievements OF
modern science, and the history OF
every nation on esrthe-ha refuted .
thoussnd times and silenced forever
this feeble objection. - -
Moreover, the reasons which Mr.
Forsberg mentions as ground Tor MS
3 sbelief that socialism is impossible are
Mt oood. ne assumes that the wage
sasrnerzzvho ~ - owns ) home and the farm
So ,v.ho owns 8 farm can be counted
anon & 8 oppose Socialism. This is
--r. ,,,.rz ,,,.,van. For as Ishave shown IN
- q iormer s paper the farmer will not
IS required % surrend Y Elel der ny is-n, 81,
And certainly the Wage- Garner ~
hfA n0me4s