Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-09-25
WRITER ON SOCIALISM GIVES SOCIAL.
 ITS AND COMMITTEE A PARTING SHOT

can do so only on grounds held by all good socialists. whether declared in convention or not, viz: that the present state Is the outcome of eco- homie conditions. In the great char ter of socialism the manifesto" we read, "The bourgeois family will van ish as a matter of course when the complement (prostitution) vanishes and both will vanish with the van fishing of capital" And further on 1t says: For the rest 1t is self evident that the abolition of the present sys- tenn of production must bring with 1t the abolition of the community of women springing from that system" l. e. the system now in vogue. It is not necessary to go to any convention to find out the sentiments of social ism in regard to family life when we find the approval and universally ac- knowledged leaders and writers of socialism practically agreed as to the future family in socialistic state, the concurrent opinion of their lead CTS in every country is fairly good proof as to what are the sentiments of socialism on any question. And l quoted authorities in Germany, Italy, France, England and the United States in regard to the socialistic opinion as to the future family when socialism will reign supreme. ] need not repeat them here. If the commit tee does not agree with these autLor- ities it is out of touch with cur rent socialism and that 1t is to be commended. And it won't do to cloak the matter over with the "glittering generality" that the quotations l used are but illustrations of condi, tions existing among some countries and people" The quotations showed the widespread sentiment of various countries, our own included. could add many more to those quoted. As for Bebel I made little account of his work on Woman for he him. self seemed to realize that his senti- ments were somewhat radical and likely to jeopardize the cause of so- cialism and hence he tells us that in the work he expresses only his own personal opinions. It is quite re- markable, however, that his work has received unstinted appreciation from the highest socialistic leaders both in this country and abroad. Bebels personal opinions" are an integral part of the socialist garment and hence scientific socialists have everywhere most industriously circu- lated 1t. But leaving Bebel aside there are Engels, Bax, Hyndman, Morris, Carpenter, Heron and a host of others. And if they do un- derstand what is the true socialis- tic. view on family life it would hardly be expected that socialistic convention would give utterance to it.
 One word as to divorces. The com- mittee says that Surely if ignor- ] ance, economic worry and commer- cialism could be eliminated from marriage, the future would bring fewer divorces and wrecked homes" Perhaps so, am not sufficiently prophetic to know what the future might be. But I do know that. 1t is not among the ignorant or those sub ject to economic worry that divorces are most frequent. Disappointment on account of commercial motives is, l nave lo uoupGs SoLAOIAAASo oA WV casion of divorce, but the fact re- mains that approximately the most salacious and disgusting divorces are among those who are not ignorant. Il but well educated. and who have no economic worry to bother them. Neither socialism nor capitalism Is the cause of divorce.
 It comes mainly from a lowered standard of morality, from disre- gard of the sacredness of the mar riage relation, most frequently from lust. But I don't see how the low cred standard is to be raised by a system which, as w. s. Lilly has said of it, would abolish prostitu. tion by making all women prosti- tutes" Love, indeed, should be the basis of marriage but not the 'in- dividual sex love nor the mutual fondness" as proposed by Engels, Bax and others.
 I have just been reading the mouthings of one Rev Wilson, who last night Sept POD held forth in New York ely. After describing the evils of the present system he tells us that there is not one religion to-day that stands forth boldly to interrupt the oppression of the masses" Such balderdash talk as this discredits socialism. How would the Rev Wilson have religion inter- rupt the oppression? Would he line 1t up in battle array with gun and sword to murder every capitalist? I wonder if the Rev Wilson would tolerate any particular religious demonstration, the Catholic church for example, to make the laws con- cerning economics. Let any particu- lar denomination try to acquire such legislative supremacy and what a howl would go up. There Is but one way that would be tolerated for re- ligion to interrupt this oppression and that is to preach the gospel of the rights of the workingman. And there is at least one religion that is doing that as the reverend gentle man might see if he would read what has become classic among Catholic clergymen-the encyclical of the late Leo XIII on the condi- tions of the working class. In our own country there are such promi> nent men as Bishop Spaulding and Father Morgan Sheedy who have dealt with the evils of capitalism with no gentle touch. Indeed the latter in the first chapters of his book, Social Problems" might at first sight be thought a most radical socialist. And when the Rev Wilson tells us that in New York city the number of men who ''are ready even