The daily Nome industrial worker., 1918-04-13
''ON 10 V|CT0RY'
WHENCE THIS DlSTRUST !?

Now that the railroads have passed under state control, start has been made, and every day that passes brings reports of the almost immin- ent transfer of other industries to the same control. The coal mines seem to be next in order. and possibly may be, if the shortage continues and we have several returns of extreme said, has been appointed already for the oil industry, and the latest report is that the stockyards and packing plants are to undergo a similar pro- cess. And there are also rumors that the great steel mills and foundries win follow suit.
 What measure of truth there be in these statements we do not know. But that they are probabilities. few will now deny. Are they of any inn portance? Have they any sociologi- cal import whatever? If so, what? -N Ntt'ii N'AiIl l'A'tOi HttS D bluiIliN lllttl the state control of railroads 'has not the remotest relation to Socialism" If so. then to what is it related, near * ly or remotely? He does not tell us that. But he does say that dividends are guaranteed by the state and that the investors are doubly sure of their unearned incOmes'-whch we take leave to doubt but let that pass and that the 'whole business is noth- ing more than "a new and glorifed form of exploitation" What, nothing more? Is that really all? Well, then, we shall try and sat | sfy ourselves with the assurance. But in the meantime we have a ques- 1 ion or two to ask. If this is all there is in it, a new | lorified and much more secure form ! If exploitation, why was it not put | trough long ago? If it really has no 1 nore import than this. why all the | position to it in years gone by 9 Why was it represented everywhere slavery to the state" instead of ] oubIed security for profits? Why it that the steel min owners, the acking plant proprietors, Oily John nd all the other ma gnates' do not,
 these unsettled times. swamp the ate in order to get double security r their dividends? Their business,
 the late deceased Archbold says. ito clamor for dividends" and if ose dividends, instead of being di- finished by the state control arc !, ther increased, and at the same ne 'doubly secured" why isn't the te rushed with applications? For nerations now we have been delug-
 with whining about the risks of pital," but here is the risk elimin- d as far as it is humanly possible do it. Why, then. this reluctance come in out of the wet ?''
 Why do they wait to exchange un- tainty for certainty? Why do they
 ard this policy as a calamity
 her than a blessing? It has not
 remotest connection with Social
 ? What, then is there to fear?
 y this coyness, this shrinking re-
 ance, this acceptation of state
 trow as a last desperate resort,
 cad of a secure haven of refuge
 at does the capitalist glimpse in
 thing that holds him back? Can't
 see, as this Socialist contributor
 ps to see, that it hasn't the re-
 est relation to Socialism? Per-
 he does. Then what is it that
 es him? Or is it that he sees
 danger signal in it that the
 alist doesn't see, and is not com
 d by these assurances? Why
 l't he make his mind easy and
 pack doubly secure in the enjoy
 of his dividends?
 merely propose this question.
 shall not answer it here. It is a
 question, a logical deduction from
 point of view of state socialism"
 is apparently put forward as
 |lete view. Who can tell us 1?