The Kennewick courier. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1905-1914, 1906-10-12
SOCIALISM AND IT'S ARGUMENT.

often said, is entitled to hearing.
1t is strong enough, indeed, If
not in its positive or constructive
argument, at least in its suggestion
to compel hearing 1t is strong
in its appeal against private monop-
oily and in it's contention for pro-
por,ional and distributive justice.
The discussion it forces lays bare
many evils in the industrial and
social system; and therefore it does
good.
But III its constructive argument
it is less fortunate. In general
terms the program of socialism is
t. subsiitue government manage
lnent for private management, to
put all productive industry under
state administration, thus making
the STAT the SOLE employer and put
ting all workers i'll the employ Of
the state. On this system the fuuc
tons of government would extend
over The whole domain of economic
operations; 1t would manage all the
railroads, the factories, Tie mIues
aud the farms. In place OF COM
tpeting retail stores, government
distributing houses would he es-
tabllshed for delivering to each cit
lzen his SAare or the national pro-
duction, as he might earn it in the
employment to winch he would be
assigned. individuals would Still
have a property rig nt to things they
were actually usins--houaes, God,
booAs, clothes, etc. but all tine
means of production would be pa-
tionalized.
WHAT are the objections to the
SYSTEM Such as grow, apparently,
out of its inherenl iinpr acticability.
First, there would be the difficulty
OF assigning employuients, since
some are more desirable than others
aud the less deslrabl. are those
which most persons are competent
to undertake. Thee are more per-
sons competent to clean the streets
than to supeiintepd an electric
{ power plant or manage a railload;
AND we assume that the socialist
state would still want electric D ants
and railroads. The ordinary worker
would haye to be content wi. Ii the
position and the pay the state
would give him; for of course all
couldn't have thu best jobs or the
hig hest remuneration.
Would the state factories pro-
duce any line of high-cla>s goods?
What for? Under true system of
equality there would be no class of
people 10 use them, and no class
would have means to buy them,
since none could acquire anything
beyond his daily or weekly wage,
which Of course in no case could be
large enough TO create envy in the
body of the workers Here again
the claim that private property
would still exist as now requires
attention What means would men
aud women have, working Under
the system, of renewing or repro
ducing their property as time and
use would wear it out? And what
means for construction of new
houses, and for travel, and for edu-
cation beyond the ordinary? The
socialist state would not endure it
that any class of its people should
get wages or paw enough for these
or any other objects in which all
could not share.
These are some of the difficulties
that beset this constructive arsu-
ment for socialism. Most persons
think them insoluble Besides.
there is the objection that the sys-
item would create despotism from
which all would soon be glad to
escape. One thing is sure: The ar
gument for socialism must remove
these difficulties; and many more,
before the people will give their
assent to the system. But The
Oregonian believes as it has said
often heretofore, that the country is
booked for advancing experiments
in the direction of socialism In
the field Of municipal action there
is great advance in that direction
already
But If the constructive argument
for socialism, as system to put all |
productive industry under state
management, seems to come to an
impasse. it still remains to be said |
that its destructive criticism direct
ed against private monopoly and |
abuses produced by it. does bear
fruit. 1t is a part of the awakening
of the general mird to excuses of
private monopoly and of the gen.