Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-09-10
ANOTHER NUT FOR THE
 SOCIALISTS TO CRACK
WrIr Who QsOiss Figures su uImass that Those Given By
 Socialists We're Jugglsd For Eiieel.

ly passes over the citations 1 made from Hagerty and from "The Social list"
 If the committee will pardon me for using blunt language think they are "trimmers. l charged socialism with being anti-Christian and gave as my authorities just such men as Babel, Bax, Liebknecht, Engle and others. No. says the committee, the object of socialism Is not to drive out Christianity. Yet these men say 1t Is. The committee then disagrees with them; at least inferentially they are not good socialist authorities. Yet when the committee needs them to bolster up its case 1t has no com punctions about citing them as great socialist leaders. These men know what socialism Is or they don't know. If they don't why does the committee use them as authority, and If they do why reject their, authority as socialist leaders, which they are, on points that concern society just as vitally as does the economic feature of social ism? A ......
 Since the committee seems so fond of associating itself with French so- cialists, will ask if 1t sanctions the following from the socialists of France: Villani says The fight Is against all religion" and this from Buisson: "The only possible result of all rational education must be the evolution of the religion of the past into the irreligion of the future" And this from Delpech: "The triumph of the Galilean has lasted long enough. It is now. his time to die" These are the socialists that Jaures upholds. Does the; committee also uphold them? Come, gentlemen be honest The founders and leaders of international and scientific socialism are your gods or are they not. If they are not, cast them out from the temple of socialism; if they are, ac- cept them for what they are and for all that they are. Don't try to pare down their doctrine to suit particular circumstances. They were not ashamed of it. Why should you be if your scientific socialism is the great panacea for all the ills social, political and economical that men are heir to? X
 take the committees definition of capital, whether agreeing with it or not, is of little importance just at present. Capital" says the commit
 tee, lis wealth used to assist produc- tion." But whose wealth? Evident ly the capitalists who furnished it. Ac- cording to the committee, therefore, the capitalist has the first hand in any definite production. From fixed capital it changes to circulating capi- tal.' Just so, but without the fixed capital there would be no circulating capital Here again the wealth of the capitalist looms up to great pro portions in the production. Fixed capital becomes circulating capital by the application or exploitation of la bor power" Not entirely. Labor by itself independent of circumstances that labor had no part in, has never yet created five cents worth of pro- duction. In the raw material that labor works on there are inherent qualities entirely independent of la bor and without them labor could produce nothing; in fact there could be no productive labor. AS Mattock has said ("Social Equality" p 67) Labor in itself is no more the cause of wealth than Shakespeare's pen was the cause of Hamlet. There is no greater fallacy in the whole economic question than that manual labors are the sole producers of wealth. Modern wealth is the production of comparatively few men who have invented machines, organized enter prises and opened markets and but for these millions would have never had any labor and would therefore have no share in production. Take our country with its unparalleled progress. It's. boundless resources lay hidden in the earth's bosom for ages. Who were the primary causes of the development? Was 1t due to the rank and file of the workmen? That they did their share and their part is not to be lightly considered, but if the capitalist had held on to his money and left 1t uninvested, how many workmen would there be in the United States? have seen 1t stated somewhere-I regret that I cannot state where-that 1t has been calculated that two-thirds of the wealth produced in the nineteenth century were due to ability and but one-third to the work of those who toll with their hands. If labor is necessary to capital, it is likewise true that capital is indispensable to labor. Now, according to the United States census of 1900 more than half the net products of manufacturing and mechanical industries were paid out to labor and that would seem to be fair proposition when one considers that the inventor and manager and the use of capitai In supplying machinery and trans portation were necessary before the laborer could do anything.
 He would be knave as well as fool who would deny the importance of labor as a factor in productions; but I can't see that he is any more honest who makes labor everything Wealth says the socialist belongs to him who produces it but all wealth is produced by labor; therefore all wealth belongs to working people. The fallacy in the reasoning is that the syllogism contains four terms where but three are allowed by all the laws of dialectics The wealth of to-day is not by good deal the pro. duct of the labor of to-day. It rep resents in some cases the product of uanaratinnS of hnth lahnr and