Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-09-12
AIM OF SOCIALISM
Cssilscailon Without CoDpea. ssiiop Advocated By Some.
 Others Oppose Ii.

gramme. would like to quote a few recognized authorities relative to that question. do not know whether the committee acknowledges the Appeal to Reason" It Is gen. erally acknowledged as such and es- pecially by that portion of labor's the Federated Miners and the Amer ican Labor union. These ought to be considered good judges of what is socialist authority. We'll, the Ap- peal to Reason (March IA, 1903), gives us this: "A socialist congress may so change our constitutional form of government as to permit condemnation of all property for the benefit of the people without any compensation therefor" But per- haps that Is too ancient for the committee. Here is something later, March IS, 1905, it declared: Whether they (the people, will take it Gall productive property
 with or without compensation will be matter that will be determined by the people themselves. And Berger, the leading Milwaukee so- cialist, said February 5, 1905):
 This change (to socialism, will simply mean the appropriation of the expropriators, the restitution of the means of production to those who use them. This restitution can only take place collectively, it will take place legally for the ma jority of the people have the right to make the laws" If this means anything it means conf1scation. Ip- deed, it is difficult to see how the main tenet of socialism, the expro- priation of the means of production
 (and land is factor to be reck- oned with since without it produc- tion becomes very sterile) can be ac- complished in good socialistic way without confiscation. Looking upon "the property of trusts and combina- tions as stolen goods" (Milwaukee socialists, March 2S,. 1905) they would be foolish to appropriate them in any other way. Unfortunately, however, for the socialists things are not stolen goods because social- ists so regard them.
 According to the authority just quoted, Berger, this confiscation will
 be legal flor the majority of the people will have a right to make the laws.' Well, the majority make the laws now and if unjust laws are made it is because the majority elect representatives who make them. But is the will of the majority the stand ard of right and wrong? In that case the rabble that crucified Christ was right. Perhaps the committee will not recognize Victor l.. Berger as an authority. But since he is Cor was at the time) the head of the Milwaukee socialists, 1 think that I may assume him as a standard. h. deed the great economic maxim of socialism appropriate the eXpropria- tors owes its origin to the father of socialism, Karl Marx. Since it is the very essence of socialism that there will be no class distinction even the committee pleads guilty to that if there are to be any laws they the totality. I therefore conclude that Berger is a good socialist in this respect. And if I needed con- firmation of the fact I have one in Bebel. Take notice, committee, in Bebel the man whom you have quot ed as socialist authority. He tells us: (Woman in the Past, Present and Future, p. 145) The representa- tives of the state will have disappear ed along with the state itself, min isters, parliaments, law courts, law yers, prisons, rates, taxes" Ev1- dently when all these disappear, it will surely be the majority that win rule. And how will these institu- tions be done away with. Another friend of the committee, Jean Jaures, gives us simple explanation. When everybody is an office holder. there will be no more office holders '' Another friend of the committee. Ernest Belford Bax, (The Curse of Law, pp 103, 104) says: S"Socialist administration should be the closing of all courts for the hearing of pure ly civil cases And how would he accomplish this? Why, by "a mod ern convention or Paris commune which would do away with all civil law When this ideal state comes, if 1t be possible of realization; when everybody is an office holder, the will of the majority will be the source of law. I have quoted these authorities to show that Berger is in harmony with the great, and by the committee acknowledged. lead CTS of socialism and that his dictum that the majority will have the right to make the laws. And I ask the committee if it will accept the logi- cal consequence that the will of the majority is the standard of right and wrong and if it will accept the further consequence that the rabble ; who crucified Christ were right, for that is consequence of making the will of the majority the standard of right and wrong A law is not right | now because made by the majority |
 But to return to the definite fea- l ture of confscation It is not true, says the socialist, that socialism ! would rob the land on which the house stands, savings, accounts, etc. l The question here is: Is the land a means of production? I hold tha, 1t is and a very important and pro- ductive means. Land is certainly | among the natural resources. Her. ron, good socialist, includes in nat ural resources land, minerals, oil ! and all active and productive cap ital' and says of them: Private ownership of natural resources is a crime against God, and man and na- ture,' and Liebknecht as quoted by the Appeal to Reason (January 2l, 1905), says: Socialism removes personal private property in the