Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-09-14
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
Would Be Possible Without Ald
 of Socialism.
Editor of Democrat.

water, gas, electricity, etc, Is frequent
 cry of socialists. Such ownership
 does not belong essentially to SO
 cialism. It is possible to have al
 these under public ownership and
 without any change in our constitu
 tion. Each community may have
 them and still leave the economic
 conditions unchanged. When social
 ists, therefore, put forward this pro gramme as the socialistic creed
 either they do not know their owr faith or they are dishonest to the ex' tent that they give us only portion of their programme, that portion that appeals to popular opinion
 Whilst the ostensible object of so. cialism is economics, it Is likewise a political movement. Says the Erfurl programme: Tt (socialism) canno, effect the transfer of the means of production into the possession of the social body without possessing itself of political power" and the socialist party convened in Indianapolis tells us: "The workers can work most ef- fectively as class in their struggle against the collective power of capi- talism by constituting themselves a political party distinct from and op- posed to all parties favored by the propertied class" And the Chicago convention ratified similar senti- ments, as one may read in part V of the platform. Socialism's last aim in the elimination of government and any profession like public ownership by governments, as now constituted, is a policy adverse to the ultimate aim of socialism and is reprobated by the upper-ten socialists as piece of namby- -pamby sentimentalism that the real simon pure socialists blush for and despise.
 Let us cull few flowers from the socialistic garden. There is very general idea, says The People May 13, 1900) that socialism means an extension of the powers and func- tions of government. But it is a dangerous misconception and ought to be guarded against. Socialism does not mean the extension of goy- crnrnent; on the contrary, it means the end, the elimination of govern meht
 A. M Sinmcns said in the Interna- tional Review (March IS, 1902) Occasionally this class (capitalists) find it to their interest to use their government to own and operate some industry; but to call such ownership and operation socialism is ridicu- lous misuse of the word"
 The socialist labor party in it's New York convention in 1896 rati- fled the following resolution: 'To elaborate general programme of municipal reform for the information of the people and the guidance of so- cialist officials, it being expressly un- derstood that such programme shall ir no sense be considered as part of the socialist platform :. that the term municipal socialism, ire qnently useG of late ty ignorant per- sons in reference to such demands, is hereby repudiated."
 The Indianapolis convention has the following: In advocating these measures (municipal reforms) step in the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the cooperative commonwealth, we, warn the work ing class against the so-called public ownership movements as an attempt of the capitalist class to secure gov ernmental control of public utilities for the purpose of obtaining greater security in the exploitation of their industries, and not for the ameliora- tion of the conditions of the working class" Here it is expressly stated by recognized socialist party that the workingman should be chary of battling for public ownership of pub lie utilities and for this reason-hear ye gods! that such a measure would be playing into the hands of the capi- talist
 No one at that convention knew the true inwardness of socialism bet ter than did George D. Henon And here is his comment in the most im- portant of socialist papers. the Ap- peal to Reason May 6, 1903): The public ownership of so-called public utilities without the social owner ship of all the tools of production would simply bring forth a new mid dle class and delay the industrial de- velopment that would issue in so- cialism. Capitalists know this better than the working class and are pre- pairing to save themselves by their knowledge" Public ownership, therefore, according to Henon, would be for the interest of the capitalist and to the detriment of the wOrking class.
 Unterman in his Capitalism to Socialism" tells us that the most striking proof of the utter failure of municipal capitalism as an educator of socialist minds is furnished by the English towns, where the majority of the working class, after genera tions of municipal ownership still continue to vote capitalist politicians into office" In The Worker the same Unterman tells us that "it is almost certain that we must pass through an era of non-socialist public owner ship before we reach the era of so- cialism." From this point of view the socialist ought to cooperate with those who, without the full socialist mind are working for public owner ship. And further on in the same article he says: The socialist mind must be produced by socialist propa- ganda, and the mere illustration of the practicability of socialism af- forded by capitalist public ownership is of little or no value in demonstrat- |