The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1904-04-07


how society goes about 1t. OF
course, as a theory, it is logical and
Scientific if one will swallow as
gospel truth all the assertions. But
/ refuse to do this-and so does Bro.
Kicker, if he would make an honest
confession.
But l am willing to go long way
with the socialist on the other two
fundamentals" That is, economic
determinism,' and the "class strug
gle." The Omaha declaration that
1.-The interest OF the urban and rural
workers are identical" is correct as
between them and the non-workers;
but when it comes to a division OF
products between the two classes Of
workers, their interests clash. The
farmer wants high-priced wheat and
cattle-for he has these to SELL the
urban worker wants lOw-priced bread
and meat-fOr he has these to buy.
And although these are as nothing
compared to the real contest between
the workers and the leeches, yet they
are material interests" sufficiently
important to maintain a division be-
tween the middle class" and the
"proletariat,' until such time as both
will become sufficiently educated to
take more than surface view Of the
situation.
confess / find it hard TO UNDER
stand just what Brother Kicker means
when ne says, there is no way OF es-
cape for the farmer short OF the
0 m p tie transfer of the machin-
cry of production and distribution
from private to public hands and
then follows with the statement that
socialism does not necessarily imply
that the individual system OF farming
Will be abolished" Rather peculiar
individual system of farming it
seems to me. where the ownership OF
the farm and machinery of produc-
ton and distribution" have all passed
to the public. Paraphrasing Brother
Richers terse remark, IF YOU could
give me any assurance that | would
not be simply shifting robbers, might
give ear to your plea"
The difficulty with socialism and
socialists seems to be that they insist
on measuring everything IN one-half
Dushel. will you agree" asks Bro.
Kicker, that the government shall
own the packing houses also and
throw in the -four mills?" Why. YES.
certainly, whenever It Is known to a
certainty that such businesses have
the inherent qualities Of monopoly.
But populists argue that highways
and m0ney-two things Indispensable
in the exchange Of commodities have
always been attributes Of sovereignty.
That the private ownership OF high
way, or the private coinage Of mon
ey, is an unwarranted delegation OF
sovereign power to the individual,
and species of paternalism which
must inevitably wreck free govern
ment if not abolished. OF course, It
is like discussion of predestination--
because it cannot be verified by ex-
perience reasonable and reason
ing men believe that the foundation of
all such as thu packing house trust,
Standard Oil. ETC., is the secret fav-
oritism accorded them by the rail-
roads and syndicated usurers. 1t may
be that some of these have reached
the point where public railroads ami
public money. would not destroy their
monopoly. If so-take them over,
same as the railroads. The peoples
party is not bound by an inflexible
rule that only SO much shall become
public business
Brother Kicker has great fears OF
populist public ownership of rail-
roads. 1t would, he is afraid, be SIM
ply a change of masters. How about
socialist public ownership-would it
be any the less dangerous? The pop
ulists propose public ownership OF
railroads and operation by the genei al
government at cost OF service. Every
employe would then, the same as now,
be wage worKer-but with better
pay, except the head officials. perhaps
There is something tangible about
this.
But how about the socialist pro-
gram? oh, 1t Is ''the collective own
ership of the means OF production and
distribution with democratic manage
ment by the workers employed In the
various divisions Of the public service |
something as different from tpop-
ulisD government ownership as day
from nlpht" Douhtiaao n t,uat ho