The Clio messenger. (Clio, Mich.) 1907-current, 1920-05-13

common there can be no poverty. They
base this statement on their faith that
communism will Increase production.
They claim that competition shackles
production. They say that the COM
petitive system takes from the indi-
vidual the inducement to work-that
communism would give him an incent-
I've TO work; that II would be stimu-
liant; that under II men would work
better and produce more. They add
that the present system is bound TO
provoke an increasing number OF
strikes and that strikes stop produc-
ton, cause waste. increase poverty.
There is no doubt about the fact that
there could be no poverty In the so
cialistic state If communism succeeded
in stimulating men to work harder,
thus greatly increasing production, be-
cause there would be more TO eat, more
to wear. more TO use, and as the dis
tribution would be controlled by the
state, all of the people would receive
an equal share Of the great abundance.
all would have enough. For the sake
Of fairness to them, am conceding
be honestly and justly carried out, but
a better distribution. more equal and
just division would mean nothing II
the first, the fundamental promise Of
bolshevism-greater production-is not
fulfilled. Any plan which decreases
nrnHnRtinn q
things necessary TO life. If the boil
sheviks are wrong in their belief that
communism will increase production,
then bolshevism would make poverty
general, universal, and instead OF boil
shevism curing the cancer on the body
Of civilization, II would make the en-
tire body of civilization cancer.
If the claims Of bolshevism are well
founded, sound In common sense, csp-
able Of fulfillment, communism would
be the greatest blessing ever conferred
upon humanity. On the other hand.
If the bolsheviks are wrong. and COM
munism took from them the induce
ment to work, then Notwithstanding
the good intentions of the bolsheviks,
their communism would be the great
est scourge the world has known. This
is the simple issue in the case. If boil
shevism Is the good thing its advo-
Gates say it is. it will bring the mil
lennium, and every human being
should be in favor of 1t; but If 1t is
not practical, and will not work out,
then it is a danger, the red flag is its
proper signal, and the world should
avoid the danger signal as an engineer
charged with the safety of human life
would avoid running by q red light
on the track ahead.
Examine Before Condemning.
Going back TO the case of our friend,
the doctor who honestly and sincerely
believes he has cure for cancer, let
us consider what the scientific world
would demand before offering q judg-
ment as to the value of his proposed
cure. First, they would. free their
minds Of all prejudice. They would
be reasonable and patient as they
would be thorough in examining the
proposed remedy from every possible
angle. They would analyze the formu-
Ia, examine 1t, in the light of expert
ence. Why shouldn't we follow the
same sensible plan in considering boil
shevism? Won't we get farther If we
do? Hasn't such a course an advant-
age over quarreling about it? Why
should some of us accept it without
knowing what 1t is? Why should
others condemn ii without under
standing? And why should both these
groups get excited and irritated, call
each other names, learn to hate, and
add to the worlds unrest?
propose to follow the method Of
the scientist as nearly as can In ex-
aiming the patient, Russia, the world
cancer, poverty, and the remedy
bolshevism.
1. A complete family history, so
that we may know and understand
the constitution of the patient.
2. The physical and mental condi-
ton of the patient at the time treat
ment was begun. r
3. The formula-the remedy.
4. The theory Of the cure.
8. The methods used in applying the
remedy.
6. The history sheets showing the
effect Of the treatment upon the pa
tent.
Z. The condition of the patient after
more than two years Of bolshevism.
Copyright. 1920. Western Newspaper Union)