Iditarod pioneer., 1915-09-18
WHAT MAKES A NATION
 STRONG
lChicago Tribune

Britain has sent fleet and army into var. The difference IS great and 1t represents an | essential difference between a powerful com munistic nation and powerful individual | istlc nation.
 The struggle is one between individualsm and communism, not between absolutsm | and democracy, but between a commanding | state of high organization and an lndulgent l or careless state of loose organization. | The United States IS such a state as Great | Britain It has rot as yet ignored as many circumst ances as might have suggested or advised higher organization, because it has been free from direct competition with a 1 highly organized state.
 It may be that highly developed com munism has in it the germ of its own de struction. It may be that a state is really strong only as it raises citizenship strong and well ordered because of the will, the in stnct, the idealism of the individual, and not by direction or coercion, however benev olent or amelloratlng not by the pressure . of government, however wise, upon the mass.
 It is a question for thought and not for conclusion, and it is one which manifestly interests the United States We see the dangers to which loosely organized de mocracy can be exposed. We can at least sense the dangers to which a highly organ | zed communism can expose itself, even Ii nothing be thought of the dangers to which | 1t may expose others
 | The development of communism, which in 1 the case of Germany we may call military socialism in its present aspect, has made war revert to the old German tribal method, l When the tribe vent to war its whole people l and its whole fortunes were involved; all its strength and all its resources were drawn upon. It risked annihilation if 1t did not conquer. Its women and children were with | the fighting men and every man was Q | warrior.
 Give tribal life the complications of mod ern life and Germany today Is fighting as | Germans fought in the forests. All the ener- | gies of the nation that are needed i'll war | are distributed end used as and where they are needed, and the non-combatants feel that they are directly behind the lines of 1 fighting men, organized to aid at every Op- 1 portunity.
 | That Is & nation at war, even aS the tribe was at war. The British spread the British empire without drawing the nation into war. 1 Even in Napoleonic days it was an aclVlty not the activity. of the nation to fight Its selected men, not its populace, were organ ized for the trial Now, the demand beng that it meet highly organized fighting people. Great Britain founders in its great efforts to command its resources, while Ger many commands hers at d word.
 If nations found their reasons for cohesion merely in fighting or if only by fighting | IL. oDbpSInD there would be no question at all They would have to adopt Germany $ methods or be what Germany wished them to be. The apparent hope of Germany'S enemeS Is to l adopt just enough of the German system to be able to destroy it and escape the apph- cation of it to their own habits.
 If they fail it Is likely to make gradual | but great change in our customs, habits, 1 thought end institutions, and we naturally wonder what the change would make of us. 1 That is why speculation regarding the uItl- mate good of the highly organized state oc- cupies good deal of thought in this l country.
 The individuaIst will contend that even benevolent communism which procures the strength of the mass by providing for the health happiness and security of all its components will end by destroying the will 1 and thereby the character of the individual, and that. this done the mass will be de stroved by the weakness of its components.
 He will contend for a life upon vast | expanse at the extremes of which will be weakness and Restitution and strength and comfort. He will contend for 9 play which gives character and endurance their right to what they may attain He may not be without benevoIence, seldom IS. but he thinks that life to be productive of the best and the strongest must be an lnexorable lie of rewards and penalties, prescribed as by law of nature.
 The communist finds in this the rot of decay He sees unequal distribution, over | fattening the successful and starving the unsuccessful He sees society rOttlng at ! both extremes of fatty degeneration ot the liver at one end and of malnutrltlon at the other an egotistic society of indulgence tor l the successful and semi-starvatlon for the unsuccessful incapable of any heroic effort 1 because that would deprive the successful of their pleasures and ask of the unsuccessful an effort for which they are not physically | fit, mentally prepared or morally ready, The successful would have too many reasons for l IlOl tlIsI DIIlS lItIl lllS, IhC Nii9NNNS'"INi would have none for doing SO
 These are the extremes of two concep- tions of the state, and although they are not
 in their extremes involved in the war, they are in many of their essentials engaged. We have our own stake in it because if com munism wins we must conform, and whether it win or not it may be our clear duty to conform at least by compromise.
 If state can develop a system which permits to the individual free play of ef fort and character, which gives him free dom and copious life with no conscious ness of a commanding influence forcing him. and yet stands besides the weaker elements in its organization and gives them condi tions preservative of their strength and we'll being, it may have found its stability and be proof against internal rot and strong against attack from without
 For an inexpensive watch to take the place of a cheap dollar watch, I have an ELGiN, in a 7-jeweled nickel case for S6.