Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-09-16
SOC OCIALISM, SCIENTIFIC
 AND INTERNATIONAL

picssih6 ioi potu pditiSs anu ioA so
 ciety."
 Great God! And this is the sys-
 tenn we are asked to build up in our
 land to make our American homes
 worse than breeding farms! Every time man gets new attack of "in- dividual sex love" he may cast aside his wife into the dirt heap without even the formality of legal divorce; every time a man and woman con- ceive for each other "a mutual fond- ness" they may abandon home and family and mate together like the dog and the slut. As Dr Shaffie in his "Quintessence of Socialism" says of it: it reduces man to refined animal, society to refined herd, a superior race of dogs and apes, even though all should become productive laborers, and spend few hours daily in manual labor"
 And Engels is not alone in these loose views of matrimony and the family. Bax (Outlooks from a New Standpoint, p. 114), offers us this delectable morsel: He (man) may claim the right of free union be- tween men and women; he may con- tend that he is perfectly at liberty to join himself, either temporarily or permanently, with woman; and that the mere legal form of marriage has no binding force upon him." And then he gives an illustrating exam pie: Suppose that in Russia, or elsewhere, a sudden demand for ma terial resources for party purposes arose. Suppose, again, that as last resort a female member of the party were without any hypocritical pre- tense to sell her body to raise money, would not this be a commendable act? Given the elimination of the mystical concept of sexual relation. I should say yes. Prostitution for pri- vate gain is morally repellant. But the same outward act done for a cause transcending individual inter- est loses its character of prostitution and acquires a new content" Ac- cording to Bax, therefore, it is not the act itself which is morally wrong, but only the motive; and to raise money for some public cause one mans wife may legally sell her body to another woman's husband. And this is the system that is to lift us up to higher levels!
 I might multiply quotations from Henon and Carpenter, from Bebel and Kerr, from Deville and Pearson, and the same immoral strain runs through the whole foul lot. It is not surprising that some socialists do not like to herd with such a filthy gang. Even the socialist convention held in Chicago G904) conveniently ignored the matter in response to an inquiry as to it's party's position on this question, although the Social Democratic Herald of Milwaukee did say this: Love is the only recog- nized form of marriage. Socialists are. immensely proud to stand for this. Love can and should be the only bond of marriage" And what kind of love? Of course the social istic brand, the individual sex love.
 The committee in Waterbury may not wish to be associated with these men. If so, they are to be commend ed. No decent man desires to be as- sociated with them. But these are the founders of economic socialism whom the committee quotes, these are the men who tell us that the present state of the monogamatic family is the result of present eco- homie conditions, that when, through socialism, these economic conditions are changed, one of the great results will be the abolition of marriage as now held, that the reign of free love will be inaugurated. Logical con- sistency, however, would seem to de- mand that the committee accept economic socialism with all that its founders and most prominent cham pions claim for it. Does it do so. or will 1t say, as in the case of religion, it takes no positive stand? Socialism or any other ism that would com pletely revolutionize the economic condition will find it rather diff cult task to keep it's hands off re- ligion and marriage. And Engels seemed to understand this we'll when speaking of the great social reform to be brought about by economic so- cialism he said: Three great ob- stacles block the path of social re- form-private property, religion and the present form of marriage''-all in the same category. And George D. Henon, one of the ablest pro- pounders of philosophical socialism, expresses like sentiment In The Coming Nation (March 2S, 1903,) he says; If it is free land we are after, or free religion, or a free family, or wholly free society, we shall find it only on the other side of socialism, or along the socialistic way" He evidently considers free land, free religion and free family but component parts of one and the same system. And fail to see how the committee can do otherwise and be consistent.