Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-09-18
SOCIALIST COMMITTEE
 PLAYS HIDE AND SEEK
Editor of Democrat.

me bOclhllst GoWInlttce III its pei
 tinent answer seems to be playing
 game of hide and seek. In a, former
 article 1t would not include the own
 CT of the Democrat in the ranks o
 capitalists. and intimated that al
 owner of d small printing plant, ht
 was out of consideration in the SO
 cialistic scheme, In the present ar
 ticle 1t admits that MT Maloney and
 other printers and pressmen would
 be equal owners of the printing
 plant" That was the conclusion
 drew some time ago. The committed
 denied the rectitude of the conclus'
 ion. Now it afirms 1t. It's case
 of now you see 1t and now you
 don't" and that, by the way, is good
 socialist tactics.
 ' As proof of my complete miscon.
 ception of the socialist theory, the
 committee use the school system as a
 comparison. Two observations must
 here be made; the school system and other public utilities do not neces- sarily come into the plan of social
 ism. The most bitter opponents of
 socialism may admit or deny public
 ownership of these things according
 as reasons convinces one way or'the
 other. Again, the school system is
 not the work of private capital. It
 lis supported by public taxes and ev-
 eryone, either directly or indirectly
 contributes, and so everyone has the
 right of control in harmony with ex-
 isting laws. If the committee de-
 sires to abide by the comparison it
 can apply the socialist theories only to those public concerns which are built by the public money and for them there is no need of socialism, for they are now being conducted after the manner of the school. We own the schools and have right of control; we don't own the factories and therefore have no right of con- trol save that which every govern ment has to reasonably protect the lives of its citizens The same line of reasoning applies to public baths, public parks, etc. they are all the result of public money and as such should be managed by the public for the public good. One does not find the government managing private baths or private parks, and by the way, if the government is so success full in collectively" managing af fairs, why not let it alone? The committee is again befogging the question by making public ownership and socialism identical. If, as the committee confesses in this article, there is no socialism except scientific socialism, it ought to abide by the dictates of scientific socialists which might be summed up in the words of a socialist ex-mayor, John c. Chase: Government ownership of railroads and institutions of like nature, is not cure, it is not even palliative It is good vote catcher, and hence it's frequent use by social fists.
 The committee is again unfortu- nate in it's illustration examples, viz: President Roosevelt and Mir Taft. Like good sensible men they both de- socialism but did not con- tradict themselves in their after rec ommendations. Reclamation of arid lands and operation of forest re- serves as already belonging to the public is quite different thing from the appropriation of all the instru ments of labor, machinery, etc, paid for by private funds Neither would Mir Taft's line of steamers be operat-- sd on socialistic principles, for it would be brought by public money, To be thoroughly socialistic MT Taft 1 should have recommended the gov to appropriate some lines | already existing and operated by pri- vate capital. As to the ultimate success of such ownership there night be some doubt. New York ,ity has found it losing venture to operate collectively a ferry boat inc. And I must still insist that the committee was unfortunate in it's 'eference to the American revolution There were repeated conventions, it $ true, just as there have been addi ions to the constitution of the United States. We would expect hat in any socialist constitution here would also be additions to suit unforeseen circumstances. But there lave been socialist conventions since
 SAT in Europe and in this country, nd yet about the only definite thing ye have is commercial ownership of II means of production and a vague lope that all will come we'll If the nen who declared the American rev. lution had nothing more definite to fer they would scarcely have ob- aimed following. The committee efers to the declarations of principle nd platform of socialism, yet when
 quoted the principles and platform s they appeared in the leading so- ialist papers it conveniently passed p the matter by insinuating that I fas out of date and still goes back tself in one of the articles to the ear 1867.
 1 am at loss to see where the { ommittee is any less unfortunate in IS reference to the attitude of so- { 'alism toward religion in Germany i ,aly and France. It would create | he impression that the church ( ligned itself at the ballot box ( gainst socialism and thus began the I ttack. The reverse of this is the 'uth. It was because socialism at lcked the church and threatened its estruction-vain threat-that the :, lurch was forced to defend itself z -.-I