The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1913-05-31
FAILURE OF SOCIALISM
ABOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPER
TY Is NOT THE PANAcEA FOR
SOCIAL ILLS-IT WON'T WORK
IN PRACTICE.

In the course of reply to the
question: "Can you blame a man,
who is honest, intelligent and indus.
trious, and who has been watching for
more than twenty years the failure of
political parties to compete with the
economic difficulties, which have made
it impossible for him to do little more
than meet exactly the demands of ex.
istence for himself and family-can
you blame such man for turning to
Socialism," Condo B. Pallen, Phi. D.,
writes as follows in the May issue of
The Common Cause:
Has he ever asked himself, how the
Socialists propose, if they should come
into power, to work out his or any
other mans economic redemption?
The Socialists have but one answer:
by the abolition of private property.
Let him cut out of his consideration
everything else in the Socialist pro.
gram, concentrate upon this, the sole
essential of Socialism, and look il
squarely in the face. This is Social.
ism's single aim, the only arrow in
it's quiver-all the rest is mere sham.
What does this really mean, and
will it work? Socialism says that it
will appropriate private property
(CapitaD and make it common prop
erty, i. e., make the Government or
State the owner. Now, whatever you
call the thing in question, private
property or common property, it is
always the same thing, i. e., the means
of production and distribution, and no
individual, as such, in the community
will possess any more of it than he
does now. He will possess no more
of it than he does now of the Federal
navy or the Federal postoff1ce. But,
urge the Socialists, he will possess
at least the fruit of it in an equal
share with everybody else. In other
words, profits, now appropriated by
private owners, will be equally dis
tributed among all. In this way all
economic and social evils arising out
of an unequal distribution will be rem
edied.
'Will the scheme work? Let us see.
Now Socialism may do away with pri-
vate capital, but it cannot get rid Of
common capital and the economic re-
suits of capital, whether private or
common, for the means of production
and distribution operate according to
the same economic laws, and what you
may call it makes not one whit of diff
ference. Whether privately owned or
State owned, the economic forces of
the industrial world cannot transcend
their own nature and as inevitably
follow the path of the law as the tides
of the ocean.
The function of Capital be it clearly
nderstood-whether private or COM
mon capitals to produce and to pro-
duce sufficient to replenish itself, just
as much as it is the function Of labor
to produce and to produce sufficient
to replenish itself. Industry dies when
either labor or capital fail to replen-
ish themselves This is fundamental
economic law. That part Of the prod
uct which goes to the replenishment
of capital is called profit" 1t is this
part of the product called profit which
Socialism proposes to distribute equal
ly among ALL
Profit under the present economic
system divides into income for living
purposes and fresh capital for further
industrial development. AS income it
actuates the industrial processes by
calling forth further economic efforts,
both on the part of labor and capital
already in the field; as fresh capital
it extends the area of industrial de-
velopment.
Under Socialism, IL Socialism were
a practical working scheme, income
equally distributed among all would
be dissipated-that is, its economic en-
ergy would be lowered in the proper
ton in which it fattens out, just as
a river deep enough to float vessels
in its proper channel would not float
a skiff If the waters were spread out
over a wide area of land. In COM
munity of 10000 people in which 100
men each has an income of $4,000 a
year ($3,000,0OO in ALL, you have con-
centrated economic energy actuating a
field of industry to supply their de-
mands according to their standard of
living, which would cease to operate
entirely IL that 100000 were dis
tributed equally among the 10000 in
habitants, since that equal distribution
of energy which is turned into use
would give but 500 per year addi-
tional to each of the 10000 inhabitants.
If all the profits of the entire country
were divided equally among the whole
laboring population, the economic en-
ergy Of the whole country would be
lowered in the same proportion as i'm
the instance just given.