Montana news. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1904-191?, 1909-07-08
Objections to Socialism Answered

prr%on so obtusa as to thh,k that So
c'elism ever surg ,stcd s,uh thing.
Socialists urge no equality except in
/ opportunity. and no distribution OF
wealth TO any one beyond what he
creates (the worthy dependent ones
exccI ted,) but to each all that he or
she does create.
II few are still msled and bewil-
dered by this dividing up" objection,
let them reflect on the fact that by
receiving, as they do, only about one
fifth of the value of their toll as wage
earners, they are now dividing up
hugely with the capitalists.
(4) IL has been said that So
cialism antagonizcs mans right to
private ownership of property.
Capitalism also does this. No one is
permitted to own privetcly the public
schools, the city fire department,
bridges, roads. the lakes. rivers, parks
and postal service, and public owner
ship Of municipal utilities is extending
rapidly.
These social utilities are owned
collcctivcIy-for which we are all glad
Socialism would make more things
owned collectively: such as the rail-
ways oil fields, coal mines and the
land and machinery upon which We
all depend for life and happiness.
But under Socialism every person
could own privately, as now, his or
her home. automobile. yacht library
and as much of any form of nonpro-
ductive property and means of en-
joymetn as he could earn. Private
ownership of these would be more
secure than now.
(5.) Socialism. IL is said. would
place us all on common level in
our earning capacity"
Socialism would do this but little
more than we are now thus placed.
In a group of a hundred workmen
in almost any trade some of them
are twice as strong as others. and ex.
pend less of their energy-their earn
ing eapacity-by one half, perhaps.
in doing the same days work as the
less capable and weaker ones do. yet
the same pay is given each. while
the stronger might produce twice as
much; and IL one of them makes an
Improvement in the work methods i'm
use. or in the machinery that proves
a labor saver. his Improvement or in
vention usually becomes the property
OF and benefits the employer by virtue
of the discoverer being in his employ
The greater capaclty-mcntal in this
case in the worker. is not rewarded
by relatively greater gain. Under
Socialism undoubtedly such a person
would be pensioned as well as hon
ored for his useful discovery.
One person today in ten thousand
accumulates great wealth $4,000
I OOO) through his greater capacity;
I as the objectur to Socialism does. is
5 misnomer. Some call it "thieving
, capacity" others more mild call il
, acquiring capacity" certain It is no
, one can accumulate million dollars
without exploiting others
Honest earning capacity is not such
. varying quantity as many suppose
II to be. Men do not differ so greatly
r in ability. John ID. Rockefeller has
I acquired" many thousand times more
y money than many a good business
{ man, but IL is absurd TO think that
= Rockefeller has many thousands times
' ability of the other men. IL he has.
Mr.. d. Rockefeller must be a god in
decd. Beyond a certain point it is
interests, profits and rents. and not
the earning capacity or merit of the
individual.
r Socialism would reward each person
I according to his merit-the value of
I his labor-and not, as individualism
: does. according to his ability to "ac-
Il Dy ilbh ibA III VI iohe VI
e grab or exploitation Of society.
2 co. 1t is objected that Socialism
y would destroy the incentive to pro-
gress. Yes II, would be insentive 10
! progress In the above named vicious
2 means OF acquiring wealth and in
1 selfish extortion. one person of an
D other, in interest, profits and rents
Y But under Socialism the collective
$ 81 od would be prominent and the in
!. c,ntive to progress along all utili-
= tu,ran lines would be augmented.
$ Anything done by one that espeG-
iary benefited the public would more
q certainly than now benefit the doer %
y H. The inventor would not he
G robbed OF the honor and benefit of his
$ Inve ption by hook or crook, as so com
{ monty occurs today.
Q ife pensions and honors would, ne
r doubt, be conferred on thore who dis
I tvor the new and useful, or who other
o wise prove benefactors to the race