Arizona republican., 1905-04-20
Why It Cannot Win.

Some good humored remarks in this paper the other day to the effect that rhe doctrines of genuine socialism are Impractical, and that the unth:ifty and 1ha discontented are among the loud- est advocates Of the propaganda, have drawn the fire of a number of our socialist friends. MT. H. H. Roser of Tenpe assures us that we are not fair in discussing the subject.
 q am surprised writes Mir. Roser' s.at the prejudice. unfairness and ig- norance displayed in the writing of this editorial as your editorials are usually models of logic, and confined strictly to the truth" He points out that The Republican is not advised as to what socialism really is, and he suggests several illustrations of state socialism There is not a hamlet, city. county or state in the union" he says. which does not directly or in directly recognize the doctrines of socialism in it's administration of pub lie affairs" Granted. We may even grant that we are prejudiced, unfair and ignorant on this question, as Mir Roser insists, but the fact is that the socialists find as much difficulty in agreeing among themselves as to what is orthodox socialism as do the demo- crats in agreeing on the doctrines of modern democracy.
 Whatever the views of educated and theoretical socialists like MT. Roser may be, it is undeniable that the rank and fle-especialIy the large foreign element of the socialist party-would define socialism as the community ownership of all property" That is what the public at large understands the doctrine to mean, and 1t is that doctrine. we insist, which will never be adopted by the American people Hu- man nature will not change sufficiently in the next thousand years to warrant the experiment of removing all in centive for honest industry on the part of the individual. Assuming that Mir Roser is thrifty. industrious citizen, it can be taken for granted that he would never consent to the proposition that he and all the other residents of Tempe should deed their property to the municipality on condi- tion that all should have their share" of the fruits of the community's labors.
 It does not follow necessarily, that there should be no bar to the ambi- tions of the individual-say the ex- ceptionaI individuals who are able to accumulate hundreds of millions of the worlds wealth. Society faces today conditions not wholly unlike the con ditionr which confronted the primitive man. Then, the boldest and stoutest of arm took a club and wrested the meat of the bear from the weaker savage who had killed the animal. For protection there grew up the family relation, then the tribal rela- ton, then the government. In place of the primitive man whose physical strength and courage enabled him to take the belongings of others. we have the modern product-the man whose exceptional sagacity enables him to get the best of thousands of his fellow men. How to deal with this man in justice to him and in justice to the people in general: how-in the words of Richelieu, ito curb the great and raise the low is engaging the thought of the most patriotic men in the land It must be confessed that no complete solution of the difficulty has yet beer devised. But the progress toward so- lution will be impeded rather than aid ed. by efforts to stifle all individual ambition.
 Mir Roser tells us that the decision of the people of Chicago to own theil street railways ''is socialism-the req stuff" But between the form of so- cialism represented by public owner ship of street railways, the public