The Irish standard., 1911-07-22
COMBAT SOCIALISM ON
POLITICAL GROUNDS
Prominent Catholic Says Socialism
is Not Anti-Catholic in
Principle.
That Many of its Promoters Oppose
the Catholic Church is
Admitted.
But the Same is True of Numerous
Politicians in all the Lead
ing Parties.

Hon. Charles Russell son of Lord
Russell of Kilowcr, late Lord Chief
Justice of England. recently delivered
a well reasoned discourse on Cath
olics and Socialism at the annual
congress Of the Catholic Young Mems
society Of Great Britain In part he
said:
Socialism is denounced by many of
our Catholic priests and Catholic lay
men as something abuminablc which
no Catholic can support or tolerate,
and Socialists arc declared to be fools
or knaves; and that is the attitude
which | wish YOU to examine today.
Again, | repeat | am not Il Socialist
but | want to ask YOU whether this at
titude towards Socialism is either just
or wise. ....
It's definition is well known and ad
mtted: ii is the municipalization of
the sources of production Of wealth or.
in other words, it is a system under
which the State is to own all the pro-
;uctive businesses and manufactures
in a country instead of their being
owned as at present, by a fortunate
Now, in the first place, Il moments re-
Election will at once reveal this: that
Socialism is not Il thing which can be
brought about by either violence or
revolution. Being u state of affairs
which means a complete change in
the habits and thoughts of mankind,
gradual change. 1t must be accom-
pished by evolution not revolution.
In the next place, may J point out
that at first sight, and indeed may
say ut second sight, there is nothing
OH the face of that proposition which
is contrary to Christianity or Cath
Christian countries we have gone Il
good way along the road which leads
to the ultimate realization of that con-
dtiOn. The state in different in
stances owns telephones. water sup
ply. tramWays, gas supply. tclegra phs.
the postal service the railway service
and the tobacco, and ] confess ] have
not noticed any material change for
better or worse taking place in the re-
Iipinn pr DOr.I1S of thn off,
cials or passengers, or of the telephone
operators. since those systems have
bccn transferred to the State.
In what then. can it be said that
Socialism is Christian and un-
Catholic: ono way in which this is
cndcavorcd to be established is the as
tions without compensation by the
state Of private properties of individ
uals, but this is not necessarily so, and
the leading Socialistic parties in this
country do not advocate for a moment
amy such proceeding. They are, in
fact, strongly opposed to it. We have
CtLuS dIiINcu dL lIl'' IIiuhItIpdIIIb.
ton Of industries representing tens Of
thousands OF millions of money with
out adopting such course.
But even supposing that Socialism
did mean the appropriation without
compensation (Which 1t does nOt, I
am tempted to ask, is 1t therefore eli
y
1t is admitted that the State has a
right to tax property of the subject, but
does not right to tax involve neces-
sariIy a right TO take If it should be
| for the public good that the property
| should be taken? 1T is perfectly moral
and right to take a. twentieth part Of
| mans property, as is done by income
| tax at present, or a tenth part, as Is
done often by death duties, or a fourth
if it be admitted that it is right and
proper to take a twentieth, a tenth, a
fourth for the good OF the State, why
| is it un- Christian and immoAal, If the
| State needs 1t, to take the whole?
Where does virtue cease and vice be-
| gin? I submit that 1t must logically
follow that the right to tax must nec-
essarily involve the right to take. Test
the matter in another way. Does any
body deny the right Of State to In
x