New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-07-15
MR.. w. II. TAFT ON SOCIALISM
Mr.. Van Vslkenburgh Incorporates by
Permission Ex-President's Letter,
to Which He Replies.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: In answer TO Mr.. Van Valken-
burgh's letter requesting my views on
socialism. | beg to say that | am in
favor of the practical advancement of
the human race along lines of progress
that are possible. ! am not, however,
IN favor Of adopting a plan that instead
of promoting improvement will retard
1t. Measures framed on the theory
that men are better than they are and
will act differently from the way in
which we know they will act will do
no good. That some men have high
aspirations and some of them higher
aspirations than others goes without
saying, and that there is a general in
crease in fraternal spirit | am not only
willing but glad to concede. But to
assume that enough of all men are so
strong in their disinterestednes as to
Justify laws or a governmental policy
dependent solely for its success on I'M
usual altruism seems TO me utter folly.
Nor does the tn quoque argument or d
personal application, which he sug-
gcsts, contribute in the slightest to the
Qualification of thought in such dis
cussiOn. WILLIAM II. TAFT.
New Haven, Conn.,, July l, 1914.
The substance of that part of Mr..
Taft's letter which deals unfavorably
with socialism is that the movement,
being FRAMED on the theory that meh
are better than they are and will act
differently from the way in which we
know they will act, will do no good"
Further, it seems to him utter folly
to assume that enough of all men ara
so strong in their disinterestedness as
to justify laws or a governmental poll
icy dependent solely for its success
on unusual altruism."
With due respect to his sincerity,
Mr.. Tafts opposition to socialism on
the grounds stated must seem beside
the point, not to say far-fetched. There
is nothing in the programme, platform
or propaganda of socialism to justify
the belief that its aim is for state
of absolute economic equality. It's
sole purpose is to systematic and
facilitate production and distribution
by means of collective ownership, the
benefits resulting to be shared in pro.
portion to the work performed. II at
some future date the institution of
socialism shall make equality from
every standpoint desirable, just as
progress and reform in the past have
made way for more progress and re-
form, then there will be time to dis
cuss this phase Of economies. But to
condemn socialism by ignoring its hui
manitarian aim and by making it APP
pear to be wholly visionary does not
conform to the principles of true
thinking.
For the purpose Of argument and 10
overcome some OF the prejudice against
equality. let US assume for the moment
that there is wide demand for equal
ity of income. From practical stand
pOint such state would be possible
to-day. If a maximum and a minimum
income were established, and finally a
standard income with the same meth
DDS of supervi sion, there is no reason
TO believe that the incentive supplied
by self-respect, God-given energy and
love of accomplishment would be de-
stroyed. Nor would a change from
private to public supervision affect
these qualities. If there were want
under such conditions il would be only
because a man refused to take part in
the social work, in which case he could
and would rot in poverty. Such cases,
however. would be so rare as to be
negligible. Nothing will ever destroy
the truth of the statement that Work
is mans greatest blessing"
If the unwillingness OF the ex-Presi-
dent TO believe "that men are better
than they are" (thsn they appear to
Mr.. Taft to be- is founded on political
experience, it would seem to constitute
the best argument for change Of
government from a game Of plumber to
an opportunity for service. II the at
titude is based on snap Judgment OF
the proleteriat, some excuse for his lack
of faith in human nature should be
found in the fact that Mr.. Taft has
labored under the disadvantage OF
viewing life through plate glass win