The Wrangell sentinel., 1920-06-03

comm"n 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 1t would he stimu- lant; that under 1t 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- tion, 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. I am conceding that the distribution program would he honestly and justly carried out. but q better distribution, n more equal and just division would mean nothing if the first, the fundamental promise of bolshevism-greater production-is not fulfilled. Any plan which decreases production causes a shortage of the things necessary to life. If the hol Sheviks are wrong in their belief that communism will increase production, then bolshevism would make poverty general, universal. and instead If bol- shevism curing the cancer on the body of civilization, it would make the en- tire body of civilization a cancer. If the claims of bolshevism are well founded. sound in common sense cap able of fultillment. 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, tllell tOllIiHuhlSih "ouItl bt ilit est scourge the world has known. This is the simple issue in the case If bol- sheviSm is the good thing it's advo- cates say it S, II will bring the mil lennium, and every human being should be in favor of It; but if it is not practical. and will not work out. then it is danger the red flag is its
 .Lo ,-l1 ,hn n,,1I I avoid the danger signal as an engineer charged with the safety of human life would avoid running by red light on the track ahead.
 Examine Before condemninq.
 Going back to the case of our friend. the doctor who honestly and sincerely believes he has q cure for cancer, let us consider what the scientific world would demand before offering a 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- la, examine it in the light of eXperi- ence. Why shouldn't we follow the same sensible plan in considering bol- shevism? Won't we get farther if we do? Hasn't such course an advant- age over quarreling about 1t? Why should some of us accept it without knowing what it is? Why should others condemn it 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?
 I propose to follow the method of the scientist as nearly as I can in eX- amining the patient, Russia, the world cancer, poverty, and the remedy bolshevism.
 l. A complete family history, so that we may know and understand the constitution of the patient.
 9 The physical and mental condi- tion of the patient at the time treat ment was begun.
 3. The formula-the remedy.
 4. The theory of the cure.
 5. The methods used in applying the remedy.
 6. The history sheets showing the effect of the treatment upon the pa tient.
 '. The condition of the patient after more than two years of bolShevism. Copyright 1920. Western Newspaper Union) Monarchs Tire of Switzerland.