The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1910-03-17
Other Side
OF Socialism,
Socialism, According to the Writer,
Would Not be of Advantage
To the People.

Pape, Read Before the Chautduqua Circle.
There are two sides to almost every
question aud with the doctrines ana
theories submitted by the author OF
Socialism Discussed still fresh in our
memories, let us for a few moments
look at the other side OF Socialism.
However, in the time and space allotted
here, one cannot hope to cover more
than very few points of this many
sided subject, for Socialism embraces
within its sphere practically every field
of human endeavOr.
When we consider the possibility OF
constructing society upon principles
that are opposed at almost every turn
to the prescott order of things, we gain
some idea of what Socialism aims to
accomplish. When we use the word
Socialism we must, to avoid contradic-
tory interpretations, take it as under
stood by it's chief exponents. AS they
express it, Socialism means that the
State is to be the universal owner OF
all property, public aud individual. ln
other words, Socialism lie, in its logical
development, the opposite pale from
individualism. It seems to me "there's
the rub" without going any farther, for
this involves the very antithesis offree'
dom to begin with and under no con-
ceivable Sociaiistic condition could an
individual be even an individual, but
each man, woman and child would Le
nothing but unit, subject in all things
to the dictation of the State, which
means these appointed to voice the
"wiil of the people"
The strongest appeal that Socialism
makes to the ave: age man who works
for wages is, to quote the author OF
Socia ism Discussed, ct h at wealth.
which is the product of labor should be
more equally divided among those in
strumental in its production" And 1t IL
admitted on all hands that at present
production j s ample t o supply the
needs of all if only the equitable dis
tribution of what is produced could be
secured. Now by equitable distribu
tion" it would appear at first sight tha
what is meant is, that every ole woult
get an equal share, but clearly tha
would not be equitable.
Socialists, in cropping for practica
way of c .rrying out their theories hav
dimly recognized this, for a common
Socialistic formula is that the stat
should take from every one ACCORDING
to sbis capacity" and give to every On
according to "his needs" That is t
say, everyone should produce that whic
he is best capable of producing for tn
benefit of the State. and that everytn
should get from the State that whic
he requires most.
This sounds very fair and interes
ing in theory, but how would it wor
out in practice? Who would determlr
the nature of the services which eat
one would be called upon to render
the State? Who would get the difficu
Jobs and who would get the easy ones
Who would say whether man was
be coal-miner or an artist or sho
maker or a journalist? For clear
this could not be left to the indlvidu
choice of each person to determine
it is at present.
Nowadays man takes a risk in
choice of occupation. If he chooses
be an artist he must succeed on
merits. If he does not succeed he bes
the brunt of his own failure. But
this would be reversedin the Socialis
State, for whether the results of
work were satisfactory or otherwise,
would be entitled to draw from
community, for his needs, just the sal
as some one else who was producing
valuable commodity with an exchan
value and giving the State the equi'
lent of what he would draw from
The State, in fact, would :be mi