The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1910-04-28
More About
Socialism
Mr.. D. NJ. Again Expresses His
Views on that Subject
Of Discussion.


The author of The Other Side of
Socialism IS original in his state
ment that the socialistic ideal is the
suppression of legitimate ambition
and the encouragement of evil. The
principal fault with the opponents
of Socialism is that they refuse to re-
gard it as progressive movement,
one intended to elevate, not reduce.
In seeking analogies they believe to
be illustrative of their conceptions
of Socialism they go backward, pre-
ferring to expatiate upon the evils
that unjust conditions have produc-
ed, rather than believe in and trust to
the inherent good qualities that bet
ter conditions would foster. Man is
not naturally selfish and savage, but
on the contrary | believe him to be
a generous and sociable kind of crea-
ture when the condition of his life
permits it.
1t is poverty, the wretchedness and
the fear of poverty that warp and
destroy. In the paper referred to
this statement s made: Socialism
means that the State is to be the uni
versal owner of property, public and
Individual" When public and in
dividual property passes into the pos
session of the State you have an au-
tocracy, and to this and such as this
Socialism is opposed. The property
that would pass into the possession
or under the control of the State dur
ing Socialistic Administration would
be that upon which the welfare of
the multitude depends: i. e., land and
natural resources. The assertion that
under Socialism individualism would
be impossible, that man, woman and
child would become units subject to
the dictum of the State, is incorrect.
Under such an administration the
people would be vested with the pow
er of referendum, whereby legisla-
tive acts that failed to achieve the
result desired m g h t be revoked
Equitable distribution does not mean
uniform distribution, or that each
regardless of merit, shall receive a
like portion, but that the share re-
/ ceived by each shall accord with the
value of his labor.
Who" inquiries the author, re-
ferred to, would determine the na.
ture of the service which each would
be called upon to render? Who
would say whether man was to be
an artist, coalminer, shoemaker, OF
journalist" w h O decides this
question today? Necessity presum
ably and ability. Precisely the same
things would decide under Socialistit
Administration, with this difference
That today numbers who labor hope
lessly for a wage that barely supports
them, and stunted by the knowledg,
that the moment their strength fail
| they cease to be of value, would un
der the aforesaid administration, b.
stimulated by the knowledge tha
their labors would receive just com
pensation while actively employed
and reward when age or debilit,
should bid them cease. The indus
trial system would remain practical
ly unaltered, but the economic schem
would be re d u s te d. Socialism
would not mean an abolition of jus
tice, or total suspension of the Law
of equity. Men would not as tn
u t h or mentioned presumes the,
would, be equally rewarded regard
less of worth. y
For those naturally unable or un
J fit to labor Socialism would max
: provision and for those capable, bu
undesirous to labor, provision of an
other kind would also be made. Tha
/ the hope of reward is the incentiv
8 of all human endeavor / admit. Blu
can there be no other reward tina
! material? Would genius languis
because relieved of the depressing in
fluence of poverty, or men lose thei