The daily sentinel., 1912-02-08
JOHN OTTO GIVES
HIS VIEWS ON THE
OWNERSHIP OF LAND
To The Daily sentinel:

I
To The Daily Sentinel:
At last we get it straight, and
what relief, The definition of
Socialism quoted from the Standard
dictionary, in the Comrades columns.
on February 4th-"A civil poIicy-its
aim. reconstruction of society-in-
crease of wealth, and a more equal
distribution of the products of labor,
through the public collective owner
ship of land and capital Cas distin-
guished from property
VIII the comrades stay with this?
1t used to be for long time-Soc-
ialism means the collective owner
ship of the means of production and
the ways of distribution Besides
this, another one came along recently
all property to be the peoples, that
is the basis of Socialism: property
leads crime" That's simply the way
OF it; it keeps the comrades busy to
tell US. what Socialism means; we
may expect them to keep on, until
they put themselves into cold stor-
age.
Wouldn't that frost you? One
says collective ownership of land.
as distinguished from property" the
other says collective ownership of
property"
For Instance: We have at the pre-
sent The National Forest Reserve
government ownership of course) -
Ii any one wishes to build cabin at
tn lakes, for his own use, to live there
in the summer time. he must pay
certain amount to the government
Just for the privilege-if he refuses,
the ranger "slaps" his U. S. Cproper-
ty) on the cabin, and tells him to
| ''yamoose.
Paying for privilege means
nothing else than privileged class"
and the comrades are never through
bowling about privileged class" are
| they? They advocate collective own
! Crship of land. II seems: as we know
the comrades are sincere in advocat-
| ing their beliefs and are working for
the cause, to win, in order to make a
start, that they would sign over their
real estate to Uncle Sam; one should
look for it at least that whatever they
own would ''go back" to the govern
nent-through decree in their will.
They viii tell you that they are
ready to sign over their holdings to
a Cooperative Commonwealth, to-
morrow. When it comes to practical
ideas, we don't much look for them
in the comrades and tomorrow new
er comes, with them.
They seem to enjoy it, to tell about
collective ownership of the land. but
where is the comrade ready to sign
over his city lot to the city fer an
ice plant for instance. The cause
doesn't count for much, when the
Comrade gets cornered. Ready he is
to sell his holdings, perhaps most any
time; and we know almost for a GER
tainty, that if any individual would
offer higher price than the city,
she individual would get it. Many
i an orchard, many a grain ranch,
many a hay ranch is for sale-should
the government buy them and then
lease them to the people. When one
leases, he exploits it is that way in
the mines When one owns the land
he works it and builds it up; when
one leases land, he simply exploits
it, go and see if it isn't so. OF course
much land is owned by individuals
and not worked, it's just waiting for
the next one to step in and make it
produce. That doesn't change the
principle involved
over across the hills on the north
slope of the san Miguel, we all es-
tablished the Colorado Cooperative
Colony. They are called Socialists at
Nucla 1t is only a certain brand OF
Socialism. according to that defini-
ton. The land over there is owned
by individuals; they have a company
store; the Big Ditch Cand it is a fine
one) is owned by the members of the
% cd
year. | havn't heard anyone there
advocating collective land ownership
Nucla, however, is a thriving settle
ment and as one stated at Redvale,
Yes we have our yearly election and
our squabbles, but then after it we
nold big dance and we all rub ell
bows. When asked, what church
lave you in Nucla? The answer was
"Oh, we are all Socialists. A"
l have worked for the Monument
Park proposition. that no individual
should own any of it; but | am also
working" for one hundred and six
" acres, to get title to it from the
government some day, to individual
ly own / t L do not believe in collec-
tive ownership of land. and for that
reason | Will never want to join the
. Comrades. It's nothing to me wheth-
er the city owns its ice plant or not
One thing that the city of Grand
Junction should do, ii seems to me, is
to secure, while there is yet a chance
leo acres under the Taylor Park bill
! for $1.25 an acre. Fruita has done
SC: the town OF Rifle did likewise
] believe it would be a good thing
for Grand junction to do the same
Sincerely yours,