Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-01-15
Socialists and "Division."
To the Editor of The Star:


A recent critic calls The Star to order
for its editorial utterance on the socialist
thsory of the division of property: 1t
would have been fairer if instead of max
ing the quoted headline his text the
critic had given the statement that de-
fined The Stars position. The words
We're these:
"One of the most persistent of all the
socialistic doctrines is that which de-
nounces the unequal distribution of wealth
and advocates It's compulsory division
among all classes of people to give every
one an equal chance
That is the heart of the article. The
critics reply does not disturb that in
the least.
Socialism is a vague word. We doubt
whether any two men would agree in
its definition. But no definition that
came In sight of the subject would not
agree with The Star. that it .'denounces
the unequal distribution of wealth and ad-
vocates it's compulsory division etc. The
vocabulary of philosophy defines social
ism as the theory which advocates
community of property on the ground of
the abnegation of personal and individual
rights" The Encyclopaedia Dictionary de-
fines 1T loosely as including all schemes
for abolishing social inequality" Stuart
Mill gives as the characteristic of social
ism the joint ownership by all the men,
bers of the community of the instruments
and means of production" Whether all
this means an equal division or not, it
certainly justities The Stars statement
that socialism ''denounces the UNEQUAL dis
tribution of wealth." etc. However vague
the term in the popular use. it will be
generally agreed that socialism means
the entire revolution of the present So
cial and industrial system. Instead of
individual ownership. all lands, plants.
works and wealth are to be held in COM
E,on, the proceeds to be divided I'm COM
oon. The sober and industrious are to
share with the. drunken, the lazy and
shiftless. As DR. Bushnell said of the
woman rights movement of his day
1t is a reform against nature. Human
nature Will never accept 1t for any length
of time. For a good part of a century
il has been tried over and over again,
with dismal failures.
\ logical outcome of the system al
ready demanded by some, Is community
of families as well as of goods One
writer says, "Instinctively most social
list theoriZers have realized that the fam
lily is inimical to socialism-therefore the
family must be destroyed" No man shall
lie sole pOssessor of his wife; no woman
of her husband: children shall not belong
To their parents, but to the state to be
trained by the state for the use of the
state. This is socialism gone to seed
One point in your critics article is
very significant. Going entirely out OF
his way, as far as The Stars article is
concerned he says that "a few more
Judge Wright decisions will bring social
ism to the front and make ii "a burning
issue" in this country. BY the same token
lie should have included the decisions OF
the Supreme Court. Let that pass Judge
Wright's decision was made under the
law as IL stands. The warning there is
and 1t sounds like threat-that legal
decisions against labor leaders who VIC.
late law will make socialism a burning
issue for our government. This Is an
extraordinary position, if the execution
of the law against any class of men
who defy IL is to make the workingmer
OF our country socialists and to make
socialism itself the burning issue of the
republic We may well be considering
the possibilities of the scenes of the
French revolution. We do not believe
it. Whatever the fraction of union mer
may do. the 30,O0O,000 workers who are
not i'm the unions are not to be ajoleC
or driven into any such wild and suicida
scheme as the critic suggests.
Il. S CHILDS.