The Paducah evening sun. [volume] (Paducah, Ky.) 1906-1929, 1908-07-29
Discomfort.


the doctrine OF contentment. The
reply we got makes us regret the
vigor OF our language; because we
see we have touched somebody where
his faith lies and wounded his senst
bilities deeply. We can only explain
that the editorial in question was
written under the impulse OF an in
dignation as keen as that which
prompted the reply to 1t, and our
aim was not at the real Socialist
whose motives are as pure, as we
think his premises are falsely as
sumed; but at the grumbler. who is
living well, but is disconnected be-
cause another has more OF this
worlds goods than he, and who is
ready to espouse any radical issue
Opposing the existing order of things.
1t was a vicious assault on vested
property in the Commercial-Appeal
that stirred us; but We had no
thought OF arousing a Socialist, who
prides himself on the name. We
seek no argument from that one,
who, as he asserts, considers his
economic theory In the light of re-
ligion. although. we still maintain
that in the communication. which
we shall quote at length, our cor
respondent commits the very error
for which we criticize Socialism-he
exalts property and believes that
happiness will come with the equit-
able distribution OF wealth. That is
Numerically opposed to the teach
ings of Christianity.
Christianity is something people
try 10 live and seldom argue accord
ing to the reasoning Of the world.
Socialism is something that lends It.
self readily to argument; but which
few try to live. II is easy 10 point to
all the misery and distress and injus-
tice in the world-to point out evils
OF which we are all aware; but that
does not prove that Socialism is the
remedy for Z.
We admit that the poor we have
with us always, and there is injustice
In the world. There also is IMPROVE
dence. Our sympathies are with the
man who tolls; for we toll. But here
again Socialism errs-it draws a
sharp class distinction. and our critic
draws it. while he protests he does
not. We even suspect that the true
Socialist would enjoy quite as much
seeing the capitalist starve a. pocket
ing his. own five-fifths" OF the
tprofit. Yet he cannot separate in
his definition of capitalist the trust
magnate. the retail grocer and the
artisan, who owns his own home. so
far as each profits by the "unearned
increment; returns from money in
vested and shrewdness not associated
with manual toll.
Riches do not bring happiness.
IContentment Is a state of the mind;
not of the pocket book: and the
fellow who seeks contentment in the
knowledge that no other fellow has
more than he, is getting well on to-
ward the level OF the man who is
not satisfied for anybody else to have
as much as he.
II We were down and out and
wanted for work, we fear we should
embrace Socialism, Just as we fear
the possession OF great riches might
make us brutal; but We would not
Iliken its Christianity. II It were in
Jour power to say the word, as the
writer suggests, and furnish jobs to
JAN the unemployed, We should do so I;
but We could not thus make them
contented.
Il But, to the letter-which, by the
way ends with a gratultuous fling al
Mrs. Mary Baker G. Eddy, and in a
Esprit OF genuine malice we give the
authors name and address In the
hope that some Christian Scientist
will inquire Of him whether he has
studied the subject deeply. and II
not. why he condemns 1t without
Investigation. .,
He says:
Dear Slr:-Pardon my uncerem.
onious intrusion. You have writer
"a very remarkable editorial in ths
Sun Of the 25th inst. on the greai
and only issue OF the day, Socialism
Remarkable In many ways-re
markable for its Misrepresentation
(ignorantly, hope.) remarkable fol
, its bigotry. remarkable for its gross
and inexcusable ignorance of a work
wide movement for the bettermen
and uplifting OF all humanity, an(
: the irresistible dynamic power driv
ing this mighty host on its sublim.
, mission Of emancipations for al
those who labor and are heavy laden
The wage-slaves OF the earth, Is tn,
} class conscious intelligence of Il
, million working men and womei
who clasp hands around the worl,
|, and cal each other, "Comrade.
|, Now do not propose to take tn
trouble to answer all your objec
tions TO what you call Socialism. Tn
truth is. you have not said one wor,
against Socialism, for you know alb
solutely nothing about that grea
science.
"Can even the most learned mel
talk intelligentiy on a theme the,
have never studied? Would yol
contradict Edison on the subject o
electricity by reading a works on tina
Science? Would you dispute Will
Darwin on evolution without inves