The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1905-01-26


pounces upon the kid or the bird that
picks the seeds that fail upon the
ground. Mans morals are created by
his economic needs, there is nothing
in him of the divine or the spiritual.
From that doctrine comes their term
"the materialistic conception of his
tory" That is the philosophic basis
OF their system.
What follows? OF necessity their
doctrine of "class conscious struggle"
The wage earners form distinct class.
They should organize as class The
only way of advancement is class
struggle. The class that works for
wages should take from the other
class the. nacnlurs and oil means OF
production. All things made or pro-
duced should be put under the con-
sicous direction of persons elected for
that purpose and the prOduct-all the
wealth produced-s should be divided be-
claily necessary labor which has been
performed in producing it. tThose
words, socially necessary" is anoth-
er trick term used by socialist writer's
which would take too long to ex-
plain nere.)
All that philosophy and all it's re-
suits, populists denonnce and repudiate
What sense is there then in calling
populists socialists? Populists believe
that there is something in the very
nature Of man that differentiates him
from the beasts They believe that
there is implanted in the breast of
every man sense Of right and wrong.
There Is such thing as conscience.
That while men defy the impulse of
conscience, still t exists and to teach
that morals are tie result of the eco
nomic environment would be to de-
stroy all society and in few genera
lions would degenerate mankind until
the whole race would be reduced to
something lower than barbarism. That
being the case. populists will fight so
cialism with even ali6ss nSreresss than
they do the+inhumanity Of the piraticalI
millionaires. Then why call populists
socialists?
1t seems to populist that the de-
NAL OF the private ownership OF prop
erty and the direction of all labor
whether mental or manual by the
state, must of necessity destroy the
family life as it now exists. Babel
and other great socialists do not deny
that it would, but in this country So
clal1sts generally deny it. Whether
they deny or affirm makes little diff
ference, what we are interested in is
what would result inevitably from the
inauguration of such a system. If a
man owns no property he is helpless.
He may have enough to eat and a good
shelter, he is under the direction Of
some one else as to where and how he
shall work and he gets part of what
is produced, and what is true of him
is true of his wife and his children.
Everything is under the direction of
what the socialists call the state"
Will there be religion under the ,
state? Unless the state" directs it
there can be no churches, no religious .
literatur no ministers. The man
does not support his wife and children.
The children are supported by the
state The man cannot direct where
they shall be educated. He can furnish
hem no literature unless the state
prints it and then he must exchange 1
tor it part OF his labor certificates,
which under socialism will take the
olfce OF money. Under such state
u affairs it will be impossible for the
.amily to exist. Such a condition is /,
'epulsive to every populist.
There is another thing in which the !,
70 |