The Washington herald., 1912-10-13
~ FRANCES DE SALES RYAN.

~ .,SA<SSA3C -. O4A-e - <1>Ss
In the two previous articles It has
been demonstrated that Socialism 10 I'm
practicable. Mr.. Kopelin offered hts pri-
vate views in attempting to answer
several Of the thirty-four dihiculties that
I submitted. but none Of his statements
wers supported with quotations from his
partys platform. or from resolutions
adopted by q majority vote Of the menu
bership of the Socialist party. Judged
according to his own rule. as laid down
Washington Herald. Mr.. Kopeltn has
admitted that Socialism ofncially oKers
no solution. no answer to the practical
objections which ! set forth In the first
article Of this series.
In the present article win show
that Socialism 10 essentially unjust.
First, however. I wish to say that Mr..
Kopelin 10 unjust when he insists on
representing me as an advocate Of capi-
talism. in his own sense OF the word
with all its abuses and evils. I have
strongly advocated the removal Of these
evils. but by Just means. I advocate as
alone consistent with the inalienable
rights Of man the continuance Of the
worid-old system Of private ownership.
purged Of its abuses, with FREQ and rea-
sonable competition for all and injus-
tice to none.
Socialists demand that all industries.
all means OF labor. manufactures. ma
chinery. raw materials. work tools. &C.
be made the exclusive property Of the
entire community. All private property
must be transferred to the Socialist
state.
The question Immediately presents It,
self: Will socialization be brought about
by main force? Are the present owners
TO be indemnified?
The cost Of indemnihcation in the
United States alone would be at least
$4,000 100000. No government on earth
could give value to bonds representing .
$7o. 100000 debt, nor could 1t keep up
the interest payment. meet other public
expenditures. and maintain its credit.
The idea Of buying up the property Of
the country has been dismissed as ab-
surd by representative Socialists.
ConAscation Might Do.
conAscation.r or theft. then. is the only
means by which the Socialists can OBJ
openly advocated by the leading Social
lists Of the United States.
The opponents of Socialism hold that
the confiscating Of property from private
persons and transferring 1t to the COM
munity would be emphstically unjust,
because II would rob the lawful possess
sor. bring the State into a sphere that
is not its own. and cause complete con-
fusion In the community. Let US take q
couple of examples.
"A" has made or saved some money by
farming. He has fairly earned it and it
10 his tc spend. Instead Of spending IL
ch himself he sees an opportunity to es-
tablish an agricultural industry near Q
pOverty-stricken town. He puts his
money into that, builds his factory, takes
the people who are out of work and on
the street into his factory. teaches them
to work. and pays good wages. His busi-
ness helps all and Increases employment.
Everybody is benefited-the workers, the
business men, the professional class, the
farmers.
"B'' has bought an important machine
into practical working and made a for.
tune by selling 1t to other people, who
are glad to buy II. But he has further
ideas and Is seized with desire to
utilize the waste product which exists
In great quantities. but is no use to any.
one. He expends his whole fortune in
pursuing this aim, and eventually sue
ceeds. He thereby gives employment to
5000 people and enriches the world by
turning rubbish into a valuable thing.
Neither of these two men could have
done without capital and no government
would have taken the risks of doing 1t
for at least fifty years. probably never.
In robbing men OF the tools of produc-
ton and Of private property Socialists
would deprive the world of the benefits
resulting from such examples as 1 have
given above.
Socialists tell us that all the means