The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1914-08-15

"feudal SYSTEM" against which they
rail so much. They tell us in feudal
days the capitalist class rule the
country. What guarantee can they
give that the privilege class would
not rule under Socialism; and if
they should where would you "Mr.
Workingman" be?
This state would be governed by
horde of officials, elected by the
people (and l suppose the recall
woud be attached) whose duty it
would be to put the people to work.
In the matter of work the workman
would have no choice, he would
simply take up what was assigned to
him, and this work would be as
signed under a despotism as it would
be arbitrary. We all we'll know none
of us would desire to do what was
hard or unpleasant; certainly few
would want to be the scavanger or
use the pick and shovel, surely the
man with college education or
profession would not take to this
work, but under Socialism unless
you work you shall not eat. There
would be considerable dissatisfac-
ton, the only remedy would be re-
call of the official responsible for
placing us in the position we are in,
and as his recall might not be brot
about, our only alternative would be
either perform the work or starve;
if this is not a condition equal to
slavery. what is? Anything that
tends to force civilized man to
adopt position and hold it against
his own free will reduces him to a
condition equal to any form of
slavery known, for it deprives him
of that liberty to seek and choose an
occupation which is congenial.
Workingmen should remember
there is no despotism to be compared
to that where all functions are
vested in the government. We only
have to review the days of imperial
Rome and Athens, where they had
one set of men to work as slaves
and another to legislate and adjudi-
cate citizens. Socialism is not a
movement Of progression as they
claim, it is decidedly a movement of
retrogression.
Under Socialism that initiative
which is inherent in the majority
of the workingmen, the desire to
progress and advance would be de-
stroyed, for he could work ever so
hard, but receive no reward what
soever. He could never own his own
home, for there is no private own
ership under Socialism, every one
would be tenants of the State. The
State being landlord would levy a
tax, and subject us to any restrict
lions so desired. Likewise the State
would own all personal property, be
they tools or other, in brief under
Socialism we would own nothing,
not even the clothes on our back,
nay-not even our children as will
be shown later.
In those countries in the far East
where this collectivism exists, we
find no energy or progress among the
people, on the other hand where we
find private ownership on large
scale, such as in this country, we
find ambition, energy and thrift, and
even the foreigner strives to accum-
mulate enough to get his own home,
he then feels Independent.
From the beginning of the world
till the present day there has been
inequality of wealth and will be till
the end of time. Socialism or no
other ism can change it permanently.
Some men are born to lead others,
to govern, etc., and then Christ has
said: '"The POOR you shall always
have with you" And again He said:
I'm the sweat of thy brow thou shalt
earn thy bread"
John McGuiness.