The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1913-12-13
CONTINUED from Page ~

CONTINUED from Page ~
seems worth combating them. Per.
haps, the point most worthy of con-
sideration is his definition and state.
ments about property.
"Is Socialism workable? 1t first
has an insuperable difficulty-to Sc.
cure possession of property now in
the keeping, rightfully, of private own.
ership. Private property is an indi
visible right y repeat that
Socialism is face to face with this diff
ficulty. It must rob, confiscate and
wrong. 1t cannot purchase without
retiring from activity the vast sums
of money that would be required for
the instruments of gain. 1t would be
a loss that would pauperize the ma.
ton and put into the iron safes Of
those who now own the just pur.
chase price of all those great sources
Of living. On the other hand confisca.
ton would mean robbery"
Rights Not Abstract or lmmutable.
To demolish these statements one
by one. In the first place property
is not an indivisible and inalienable
right. Rights are not something alb
stract and immutable. They are def
mite, concrete privileges established
and sanctioned by usage, custom and
laws. The rights of the individual
have been established by society, by
the COLLECTIVELY and may be changed
by society whenever existing rights
are not longer compatible with the
welfare of society as whole. The
right of the individual to own and con-
troll productive property has been es-
tablished by the laws of society be-
cause at that time such an arrange,
ment was most conducive to the gen.
eral welfare.
Should private productive property
ever become a detriment to society
then the right to own productive
property privately will be abolished
by the COLLECTIVELY. 1t is not the
province of this article to enter into
discussion of whether or not such
a time will ever arrive, but the great
growth in the number of Socialists
would seem to indicate that an in
creasing number of people believe
that it is even now at hand.
When condition has arisen where
the best interests of society demand
the adjustment of the private own
ership of productive property (and
such a condition must arise before
Socialism will be possible) we need
not be very much concerned over the
methods that will be used to effect
this transformation.
Money Is Not Wealth.
Surely the Archbishop Is not so ig-
norant of matters financial as to take
his own statement, that the industries
could not be purchased, seriously. The
business of the modern world is not
done by cash, but by credit. Low
bearing interest bonds could be issued
by the government in payment for
property and. these gradually reab-
sorbed by taxation: But even If pur-
chased outright and all the vast sums
of money shoAld< be locked in the iron
safes of the present owners, society
would not be pauperized as the Arch.
bishop says. Wealth does not consist
of coin but of commodities. Money in
itself can satisfy no human wants. It
is only the characteristic which it
possesses of being exchangeable for
all other commodities that gives it
value. Money is a medium of ex-
change only because it has been or
dained legal tender by society. If all
coin was locked up in iron safes the
government could easily ordain new
legal tender. Time checks issued by
the government for time spent in
productive labor would constitute the
very best kind of legal tender.
Robbery or Restitution.
The Archbishop is much concerned
over the fear that private property
may be contradiction that would
be robbery. To the few who owned
the nations wealth, it might seem
like robbery, but to the army of dis
possessed it would seem more like a
restitution of stolen goods. But his.
tory has taught US that in the face
of a great social need, society does
not stop to consider whether or not
her actions square with the ideas OF
the moralists.
Workers Urged to Be Content With
| Their Lot.
1t is the function in society of Arch
bishops to detract the attention of
workingmen from the solution OF
their earthly difficulties and it is not
surprising, therefore, to find him ad-
vocating contentedness with our lot
to the end that we may merit life
of everlasting ecstacy in the life to
come" This is the same old gag with
which ecclesiastics of all faiths have
attempted to keep the oppressed OF