The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1909-11-03
WHAT IS SOCIALISM?


per containing an article with the
above caption. It appears to be an
excerpt from a communication to the
New York Sun from the pen of that
very distinguished and deservedly
honored Canadian publicist and schol-
ar, Professor Goodwin mot 'Golden')
Smith, and the eminence of the auth
or makes worthy reply which would
otherwise be quite unnecessary.
II was Mr.. Ruskin, | think, who in
the full tide of his manhood had the
happy inspiration of warning his
readers that he might live so long
that in his dotage he would say much
upon great public questions which
would seem inconsistent with the
thought and work of earlier years.
He placed upon record his desire that
no such utterance should be seriously
regarded: that he should not be judg-
ed by his failing strength, but rather
by his ripest and best. 1t is very
melancholy reflection that Professor
Goodwin Smiths superbly robust in
tellectual life should be marred at its
sunset by the pathetic exhibition of
failing mentality which his criticisms
of modern Socialism contain.
A couple of years ago, through the
Macmillan company, New York, Pro
lessor Goodwin Smith published a lit
tie book on this subject, entitled
Capital and Labour, in which he set
forth the views which he now repeats
in the article you have reprinted in
your columns. NHe confused modern
political Socialism with the Utopias
of Sir Thomas More and others. he
asked the same question as now con
corning the Socialist state of the fu-
ture, and made the utterly preposter-
Gus suggestion that we Socialists "of
the thoroughgoing kind" want to put
everything in the hands of the state,
that we believe the state could pick
out inventors poets, artists, gravedig-
gers, and so on.
To that book | replied in book en-
titled Capitalist and Laborer," which
Il published through the Charles H.
Kerr company, of Chicago. That Pro
fessor Smith was not unaware of that
reply | know from the fact that he
wrote me concerning it, thanking me
for its kindly spirit. In that book |
set forth the Socialist position, show
ing that we Socialists have little or
nothing in common with the great
Utopia builders, such as More and
others; that we are not attempting to
put everything into the hands of the
state; that we have no sort of belief
in the power of the state Ito assign to
all their parts and their shares, as
well as to regulate education and in
tervene between parents and their
children" II is, | regret to have to
say, rather disingenuous for Profes-
sor Smith to ignore that reply and
hen. after the lapse of a year or two,
revamp his old charges-especially
after most of the important sociolog-
ical and economic reviews in England
and America have admitted that the
Socialist reply to Professor Smith
was complete and overwhelming
Only the fact that We are dealing
with man of nearly ninety years
whose once brilliant intellect has
lost most of it's virility, makes it pos
sible for us to Judge his latest attack
upon Socialism with charity and with
out loss of reverent respect for the
great achievements of other years.
repeat what | wrote in reply to
Professor Smith in the book named,
and what every reader of the Banner
will readily enough find in any mod
ern presentation of the case for Soc.
ialism; Second. it is not opposed to
private property as such, but rather
looks to its wide extension; third, it
is no part of the aim of modern Soc
ialism to make all human beings
equal we recognize as fully as Pro
lessor Smith that countless are the
Emergencies and inequalities of capa-
city and character" and we would not
have it otherwise.
What, then, is Socialism? For the
sake of a rough and ready definition
| reply that it is A movement which
seeks to bring about the social own
,rship and democratic control of such
means for the production and distri-
button of wealth as are inherently so
cial in their functions, and which can
not be owned and controlled by indiv-
iduals or groups of individuals except
as means of exploitation. We be-
lieve that this specialization of the
sources of life will provide the solu.
ion for many of the fundamental
problems of poverty and misery
which are the tap roots Sf numerous,
ether evils, moral, spiritual, political
and-social Most emphatically, we do
not believe that men and women can
thus be "legislated into perfection;"
at most we believe that it will give
thousands of people q,
chance to be good and worthy citizens
by removing the evil conditions which
compel them now to live s6rdid and
lives.
But the rough and ready definition
| have given must be regarded as |
have thus qualified it. Whoever
would understand Socialism must con.
slider 1t in its fourfold aspects as:
!. A criticism of existing society.
which traces it's fundamental ills to
the fact that the natural evolution of
industry has placed the ownership
and control of the means of wealth
production upon which all depend In
the hands of a few, thus enabling
them to exploit the labor and needs
of the many.
2. A theory of social evolution, ac
cording to which man is ever cease
lessly moving upward
Working out the beast, letting the
ape and tiger die" According to this
theory, the development of immense
powers of production has brought us
to point in human development at
which II becomes necessary to make
social changes Power