The sun., 1919-06-22

DOOh hOhiD -cU- Np neie oh
my isolated, not TO say individualistic,
farm, remote from books and without ac-
cess even to my file of Books and the Book
World, cannot attempt 10 reply cate
gorieally to the charge of Mr.. James Mac
Kaye in his letter which you published In
your issue of June that | misquoted him
in stating that in his book, AmericGniEed
Socialism, he listed as the three institu-
tions of privilege, monarchy, slavery and
private property. Doubtless he is right;
he probably used the vague MARKHAM term
capitalism" instead of private prop
erty" 1t makes the Socialistic programme
sound less revolving to the man who still
has a shirt TO his back 10 say that il pro-
poses to abolish capitalism" than to say
that "private property is TO be wiped
out
Whatever apology is due Mr.. MacKaye
is hereby rendered. But since nothing
adds so much to the zip and zest Of life
rs q controversy, and it looks now as
though after July l it were going to be
more difficult than ever to start an argu-
ment, may / not have the privilege Of
your columns to take a whacE at some Of
Che other things Mr.. MacKaye says in his
letterf
First, let me say that 1 hope his pub
fishers sell million copies Of the book.
If every one who has been brought UP IN
an American community, reared to the
American tradition Of individual liberty,
were to read this frank. concise and IN
derstandable statement of the aims and
purposes of Socialism, nobody need have
any fear for the future Of Americanism.
If every propaganda were as honest as
. Mr.. MacKaye there would be nc excuse
left for those who would suppress them.
1t is conceivable, though hardly prob
able, that the American people might be
trioked into adopting The Socialist pro-
gramme by being lied to about its ulti-
mate objects and methods: it is incon-
ceivable to me that the American people,
knowing the truth about Socialism, will
ever adopt it as their scheme Of govern
ment.
Right here is where the clash between
Mr.. MacKaye and myself begins-in our
respective definitions of Americauism. I
accept his definition of Socialism; it is as
concise as any have seen, requiring not
more than four hundred pages for its ex-
preston. My whole contention is that his
definition of Americanism, so far as this
may be deduced from his book, is incor-
rect.
l believe the American people would
agree by an Overwhelmingly majority
with a definition of Americanism stated
somewhat like this:
"a scheme or plan of organized social
existence in which each individual is guar
anteed the right to life, to liberty and to
the pursuit of happiness; it being under
stood that the individual is responsible to
the State only to the extent that no act
of his, performed in the exercise of his
individual rights, invades or trespasses
upon the rights of any other individual
TO life, liberty and the pursuit Of happi-
ness, and that the State, being responsible
TO each individual for the protection Of
his individual rights, may, by the common
consent of its members, call upon any or
all individuals TO assist in enforcing the
observance of these rights by those Who
would invade them and punish individuals
so trespassing by depriving them Of any
or all of the rights aforesaid"
Of course, this definition takes no cog
nizance either of capitalism or Of private
property. 1t assumes, as every American
assumes, that if the acquisition of private
property is essential to any individuals
personal conception of the proper way to
pursue happiness it is his inalienabls