New-York tribune., 1912-02-12
A PROBLEM FOR SOCIALISTS
Antagonism Between Morality and
Root Principle Of Socialism

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir; Since the appearance OF Cohae D.
paIlen's article in The Tribune on January
% there have been a few inenectuaI at
,empts 10 answer II. None OF your cor
r.spondents, however. have mahe une
sI,ehtest effort 10 meet the issue raised by
him. Joseph A. Margolies protests against
",he dragging in of all the stun ABOUT
morals. etc" That Is evasive, but Is
nevertheless the logical position for
Socialist II Is never particularly pleasaat
for a Socialist TO have the antasohishl
between the root principle or SOCIALISM ana
morality pressed home with MT Paiieh
force and directness.
Mr.. Margolies would prefer 10 divert the
attention OF the public from the phase OF
Socialism emphasized by Mr.. Pallen 10 the
semi socialstio postal service And Tor
obvious reasons He does not point out,
however. that I'm the administration OF the
postofiice there is no production In the IN
dustrtal sense and that distribution Is not
made known on any known Socianste
formula Nevertheless, In the admlnistra-
ton OF the postofiice there are certain
points OF resemblance to the Socialisuc
regime foreshadowed by tho prophets OF
tho new commonwealth-name the lack
OF check upon waste and the absence OF
that pushing incentive to exertion where
there ia a personal stake in tho product,
the spirit killing routine and red tape and
the perennial deficit.
Another correspondent from the hlnter'
land Of q sister state, doubts whether MI.
Pallen himself understands what he is
talking about" He suggests that better
arguments would be forthcoming from
certain writer's, the practical effect OF
whose principles would be TO leVei the IN
equaiities In wealth that correspond 10
differences in enterprise, in Industry ana
In thrift, as we'll as those which correspond
TO differences created by aruhclai adVan-
tages Indeed, John Armstrong, or Peetz-
burg. n. j., is not nearly so far removed
from Socialism as he would have US be-
lieye The gentleman doth protest too
much.
In The Tribune of February Arthur
w. Welles, writing as q non-Sociaitst' iect-
ures Mr.. Pallen upon his hippahcy ana
bids him address himself to 'the proplem
Of distribution OF wealth propieh
which no Socialist has ever satisfactorily
answered. &. Free love ana Hfeisioh
are no part OF Socialism. socialism ~ An
economic doctrine, pure ana SIMPLE anu
the private views Of Socialists toward mar
riage and the Trinity have nothing to do
with Socialism"
Well, let us see. One might as well bay
the moon as argue the economic principle
involved in Socialism with It's toho"ers.
The fatallsm OF their philosophy makes
collectvism inevitable, and any argument
about the universal disorder that will fol-
low does no, disturb the ordinary Socialist,
Besides, it would have been di'cour'eous in
Mr.. Pallen 10 have ignored the moral issue
which was raised in Mr McMahon's COM
munica,ion. Mr.. Mcmahon would. then
have had reason 10 complain
I. IA true that free love" Goes not con,
.,,,,,. nart Of the definite. written. po-
litieal proeramme of Socialism. Neverthe-
less. since the philosophy OF Socialism
pred,cates the abolition OF the monogamic