The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-11-08

the day.
 A Parsaise, Says victor 0rayssn, M. F.
 What would England be like under socialism? Serious prophecy is always difficult and dangerous; and because we socialists do not care to enter in- to prognostications as to the colors that would be, assigned to the various valued stamps. or the shape of the money orders, our opponents snatch frfumphantly at the straw and cry out that we have no definite practical platform. .s. kAf
 But a broad forecast is not so difi- cult. I the first place. then. the state--that Is the whole community of which you are q member--would De inalienably the owner and adminis- trator of the land. of raw materials. and of values and resources accumu- lated from the past You would not only hold your land from the state. but you would get your milk from 1t, your meat from 1t. your bread from 1t. There is class of people to whom the idea of buying bread from the state appears--or appears to appear y-unaccountably appalling. They seem to forget that already they buy many things from the state they buy their stamps. for fnstance--and that the burden thus laid upon them does not begin to crush the romance out of their lives--a charge that has been laid at socialism's door.
 ! The idea that socialism would create q bureaucracy--a host of officials un- der whose tyrannica1 thumbs the pub lie would writhe--is best answered by looking at the present situation un- der individualism. Competition in- f.f d of officials that. the co-ordination brought about by a socialistic regime would inveftably abolish about half of them. Then, again, we socialists believe that socialism can only come when the people are educated up to its principles. Tn the circumstances, il is ludicrous to imagine an enlighten- ed people tyrannizing over itselfl
 We don't hear much talk about the tyranny of the postoffice. On the con trary. 1t is generally cited as model of organization.
 No More sffIIionaires.
 Again, if socialism were introduced it would be impossible for any one man to arnass riches to the extent of say. Mir. Carnegie or MT. Rockefeller or anything approaching that extent Yet the idea that socialism Is opposed to capitaI--though 1t is opposed to capitaIism--is one of those popular misconceptions with regard to the proposed development of socialism which need not exist if those who criticise socialism would undertake the elementary labor of reading its literature.
 The best answer to those who say that capital would be driven out of the country by any advance toward socialism is that for purposes of or dinary sociaiistic tendencies, such as municipalization schemes and schemes for national control of industrial com cerns. there is never any difficulty in obtaining linaitless capital as loans from the very people who threaten us with the export of their capital It is case of the demand creating <he supply.
 Tn the abstract philosophy of the s0cialistE. capital exists in no banks or bags. but in the will and capacity to labor on the raw material of the earth. We invite the hescapitailst to take this latter out of the country! Another point overlooked by this class of ob. jeetors is that socialism is not na- tionai but an international movement There is no country of the slightest importance that is not as much de-
 
 itself. and it would obviously be ab. surd to transport capital to any but the important industrial centers
 As to the army and navy question we are being continually misrepresent- ed. It is hardly conceivable that our present barbaric method of settling national disputes would survive the introduction of international socialism But in the event of backward nations retaining system of individualisnl and manifesting imperial designs. the socialist state would organze and train it's citizens on a voluntary basis for the protection of the country.
 Brondening the Pool.
 Under a socialistic state. as far as one can attempt to prophecy. as the means of production would be owned by the community. and as production would be for the comfort and con- venience of the community, we should develop finer more robust type oi man and a more spiritual and inte- resting type of woman. The children born into such a community, under the system of state support of mother hood, would not be regrettab1e nec- essities. but national assets, whose free labor would go to broadening and deepening the common pool oi happiness.
 Within the limits of so short an article 1t Is impossible to describe with greater detail what England would be like under socialism. only ask those who are still our enemies to read our literature. disabusing their minds for a moment of all prejudice and to consider whether we are the deep-dyed rufilans. the incorrieible fools, or the idealistic Don Quixotes our opponents. according to their lights. think fit to picture us-whether in fact. socialism and sense have moi as much in common as individuaIisni and selfishness