The independent., 1904-06-23
Socialism and Its Defenders


and Festner are certainly just like
the rest of the red 1aggers.
For instance, the former being un-
able to disprove my statistics showing |
up the false logic of socialist state
ments. descends to abuse and gives
up the contest; but in order to defend
socialism he quotes percentage OF
farm owners and farm tenants Ior
1880 and 1900 and by publishing these
percentages tries to make the reader
believe that the tenants increased
twice as fast as the farmers. In 1881
there were 1884, ,306 farm owners. In
1900 they had increased to 3,7l24OS,
not counting the 305.0O0 small farms
of under three acres. This was an lh-
crease of 728,102 in twenty years OF
which nearly 100000 increase took
place from 1890 to 1900.
Does this show that the middle class
are disappearing as the socialists SO
often assert? The tenant farmers IN
these same twenty years Increased by
nearly million, but it is plainly stat
ed by the census enumeratorS that
these tenant farmers largely rose from
the wage-working, farm hand class,
which is still another proof that the
socialists are wrong.
A study of the census reports or a
personal investigation will show that
most of the tenant farmers OF the
states north of the Ohio and west OF
the Mississippi own considerable capt.
tai. though as a rule they commenced
life with nothing.
In twenty years, too, there nave Deen
thousands upon thousands OF farm-
ers who have retired and who now i've
in the villages and towns. Thls Is
particularly true of such states as
New York, Illinois, Ohio, etc. Tnere
is only a difference of 10 per cent IN
the number of farm owners In 1880
and 1900.
E-WORKERS.
1t is true that there are many wage
workers in the true sense OF the WORD
who are owners of farms or homes or
who own stocks and bonds and 1T is
merely a matter of guess work as TO
how many and how much this class
have and are.
Mr. Clients logic would place Mr..
Corey. the 100000 president OF the
steel trust, in the ranks OF the wage
workers. but as we use the term eco
nomically, he certainly don't belong
there.
The socialists assert that the middle
class is rapidly disappearing and when
challenged to prove. it they yell dis
honest" If there are any statistics
to prove that the middle class is dis
appearing, why in the name OF COM
mon sense and honest tactics don
the socialists publish them?
There are, as a matter of fact, abb
solutely no statistics to prove their
contention. All wage-workers are not
proletarians. In England an income
of $3.50 or more per year is generally
considered as placing man In the
lower middle class. (See Frol. Levi
If we were to compare those who re-
ceive an income of $1,000 or over now
with 25 or so years ago, and then COM
pare the increase with population we
would find that the increase OF those
with 81 900 or more had increased
much faster than the population ano
all the socialists from New York te
Kentucky cannot disprove it.
AS for confscation, that is exactly
the program of the socialists and its
not disputed by the well informed
either. Mr. Festner's statement thai
the small industries, including tht
farms. are being confiscated, is mere
socialist assertion with no facts Il
back it up.
There were in manufacturing alon'
more than 215,000 firms with 242,15
proprietors, producing a gross valu'
of S1.1S3,615,f7S in 1900. My conten
ton is that under socialism produc
ton would be low. just as 1t Away
has been in socialistic enterprises.
Mr.. Festner assumes to know hov
much more machinery would be use,
under socialism than under capital
ism.
A leading socialist paper says tha
all are to have an equal income unde
socialism. II that Is true, we certainl,
would have minimum production
which would be SO low that II Is doubt
ful even III sixteen hours would be SUI
ficient To keep us alive.
Who Is going TO determine who ar
able 10 work and who are not undo
socialism, III we decide To take th