Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-09-01

create for me here a position or must
 l sell house and lot if I have them
 and move to some far distant place
 to engage perhaps in an occupation
 for which I am not fitted? Either
 that, or being willing worker, l
 should be entitled to laborer's wage
 whetherAor not work and so receive
 a wage for which I do no work. ! Moreover, how will wage be deter
 mined? Shall ir be by contract with
 the government? If so wherein do I
 differ from now? Shall it be by the
 labor hour as a measure of value?
 If 1t is a question of mere time one
 man might do in one eight hour day
 more than any one of ninety-nine
 others at the same occupation. Shall 1t be the value of the thing pro-
 duced? Who then will establish the
 ratio between various productions?
 For example, how will the govern
 ment establish, ratio between the
 man who is operating the telegraph
 and the man working in the forest?
 Again, all positions will be consid-
 cred equally lucrative or they will
 not. If they are then the man who
 produces the most and labors the
 hardest will be deprived of the
 fruits of his labor. If they are not
 who will get the most lucrative posi- tions? There would be but one fair
 way, competitive examination, and
 who will say that even then justice would be done to the deserving?
 A method such as common owner ship, whether national or municipal, may have limited application for certain things in certain places and yet not be the necessary method to be applied to the entire activity of the human race, That is reasoning from the particular to the universal, a process that has always resulted in both political and intellectual retrogression. It is very easy to gen. eralize. Collective ownership, gov ernment ownership, are very com prehensive terms. What is needed is details, and these the socialist avoids. The general end with them is: the fruit of labor for the work man. But they give us no pro- gramme embodying the practical working details of the new system which society is urged to establish. They talk in scathing terms of the | ignorance and superstition of the | masses, but there is no one who has so befogged and beclouded the economic situation as has the social st with his "glittering generalities. Will the committee kindly go into some of the details and enlighten us IS to the practical workings of their system, for the masses are not so ignorant as to throw away the sub- stance for the shadow.
 The committee has given five or 'ix sections of general scheme. The F. of L. propose identically the same scheme, though not socialists. But If the committee belongs to in- ernational socialism, and 1t seems o acknowledge the relationship, the committee knows that 1t has given IS only part of what international stands for. It Is favor- te device of international socialism o appeal in the several countries to pecific features as a means to an snd. In Germany 1t is the bread isury' and dear meat cry; in France, the secularization of the chools; in the United States it is the ownership of mines, etc. t appeals to Its platform, but the makers of the platforms have learned to pull In their horns" and are not 70 outspoken as they used to be. The Appeal to Reason has for years 'een considered the best socialist paper to make converts with, and the Appeal to Reason tells us that inter- lational socialism is everywhere the anne, and the true object of inter- lational socialism is not set forth in | few passages concerning public wnership, freedom of speech and of he press, etc. Local and national Iuestions must not be mistaken for he objective point. Its ultimatum cooperative ownership of capital, he abolishing of existing institu- ions, the destruction of Christianity, nd no better authority can be found or this statement than the works f Engel, Bebel, Marx and the others sho were the founders of interna- lonal socialism. They were simply nore outspoken in their day than re their modern disciples.
 HE WRITER OF THE GENERAL,
 SURVEY