The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1913-10-22
o Q . Q o G Q o o o o o o q G
o IN BEHALF OF TRUE
. SOCIALISM.
Q o o o o Q o o Q o o Q . .


Simmons, KY, Oct. IA, 1918.
In reply to an article in The Her
aid OF October | by our good friend,
Mr.. M. j. Reid, of Rockport, KY,
will say that 1t is very hard prop
osition to reply to any article when
no constructive argument is used.
His article Is, at best, only a wild
and incoherent statement of things
and conditions not proven by any
logical argument. He seems to
want to impress upon the minds Of
the illiterate Socialists that he is a
very learned and wise gentleman.
We believe he is. We think 1t takes
a man of great ability to talk so
much without saying anything.
His article reminds me of story
I heard of political speaker who
was addressing large and noisy
crowd. Gentlemen he shouted,
"A man is known by his works"
AS he paused impressively, some
one in the audience yelled: Then
YOU must be gas works"
We care not how many books he
has read, nor how many apple trees
he has wallowed under, nor how
omniverous he has been-it has
nothing to do with the subject mat
ter of the questions involved. Al
ter reading his article very careful
" and without prejudice, following
his argument, | have fully decided
that SO far as the principles of So
cialism are concerned, he is the
most densely ignorant writer that
have had the misfortune to meet
with in a discussion. When one has
to resort to the use of profane and
obscene language in any discussion,
it proves conclusively that he has
no real argument to offer. But
enough of that. We will now fol-
low his argument and answer 1T
very briefly.
His defense of the present form
Of government and his objections to
Socialism should have been clearly
divided. He has almost hopelessly
entangled them and it is very hard
to take the subject matter and fol-
low it clearly. First, he admits
that theoretically, Socialism may
be all right. in fact, an ideal gov
ernment." Then almost in the same
sentence he claims that Socialism
advocates free-love and is against
religion. If Socialism advocates
free-love and is atheistic. it is not in
harmony with the moral code OF the
bible and is not all right, but all
wrong. He got his marbles mixed,
that's all. He quoted from different
authors and didn't notice that they
disagreed on this joint. The charge
that Socialism would annul the mar
riage tie and institute dive OF free
loyeism and that it is against all re-
Iieion, is a charge as false and ma
licious as was ever conceived in the
mind of man or devil. We have
heard this charge thousand times
and the highbrows and lowbrows
who have parroted the SANDER in
chorus all over the world have
based their opposition to Socialism
on the alleged fact that 1T would
vine out marriage, disrupt the fam
lily and break up the home.
There is no more actual founda-
ton for this vicious charge than
there would be in charging that the
discovery of a new truth in philoso-
phy or a new fact in science would
unsettle the laws of gravitation and
inaugurate universal chaos and dis
aster. Every movement since the
beginning of time whose aim was
for the betterment of mankind has
been opposed by kings and emper-
ors on their thrones and by their
hired hessians.
His next objection to Socialism
is, that 1t was given fair and thor
ough trial in Australia and failed
Not bit OF it. Lanes Paraguaryan
scheme was a communistic scheme
pure and simple. Communism is
not Socialism. Communism advo-
Gates the collective ownership OF all
property, the community owning
everything and the Individual own
ing nothing. Socialism never has
and never can have a fair and thor
ough trial until II is tried on ma
tional scale.
He defends the present system of
government and says IT is the best
government ever devised by human
hands. II is immateriai to us
whether Il Is the best that ever has