The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1920-02-05
HAnER GIVES VIE VS.
Tells of Controversy With Milaca
Times Man on Nonpartisan
League and Socialism.
Senator Sets Forth Reasons for His
Opposition to Socialist
Controlled State.
Milaca, Feb. 2. 1920.

Controlled State.
Milaca, Feb. 2, 1920.
Editor of the Union:
In the spring Of 1917 the writer had
more or less private discussion with
the editor of the Milaca Times. Among
other things we talked about the non
partisan league leadership, which we
characterized as socialistic and the
league itself socialistic movement
under more or less disguise He said
that he himself had studied socialism,
that he knew it inside and outside,
that he could debate the subject either
pro or con, but that his choice was for
socialism. He said that socialism was
only an extended application of col
lective ownership, and if it be good on
a small scale, as in a cooperative
creamery, why shouldn't it be good on
a statewide scale. He might have
said national, or international, and it
would still be within socialistic limita-
tions. am here merely stating these
things and not answering the argu-
ment
At that time the nonpartisan press
talked of their program in North Da-
kota as being cooperative. An edi-
torial in the Leader about two years
ago began as. follows, as near as I can
remember: "Another cooperative en-
terprise has now drawn the fire of
hostile criticism. This time it is the
Consumers United Stores Co." etc.,
but it was not cooperative in the COM
monty accepted meaning of the term.
Now the league press of that
state ventures to call things by their
more correct names and says that the
whole program Of the league is social
istic, and believes that they are strong
enough to ride down any opposition to
it because of such character.
In this state they have not yet
reached that point, so they talk CO.
operation, but inadvertently they re-
veal at times that their aim is some
thing beyond that and cooperation is
only stepping stone toward state So
clallsm such as they have in North
Dakota. We will presently give the
evidence as furnished by the league
press. -e>.
We do not favor the idea of state
socialism. We believe that it is a good
thing for the state to be equipped for
experimentation, such as is the agri-
cultural experiment station, the school
of mines, the mill authorized in the
last special session and the state
creamery at Albert Lea. But to make
all the creameries state owned and
managed, giving the supporters of the
business no direct voice, making the
manager and buttermaker political ap-
pointees-well here's where we balk,
and we would fight to the last ditch
against such proposal. Do you want
to know why?
Well, wesbelive that we who are the
supporters of the farmers creamery.
for example, and are most directly af-
fected by it's success or failure. can.
under the cooperative plan, operate it
more efficiently and economically than
it would be if turned over to the state
and operated under bureaucratic sys-
tenn such as it would be under state
socialism, and the men in charge would
be mere hirelings.
Those who are making the most
clamor for our national Industries to
be so operated, the railways for in
stance, are also making strenuous
tight for the right to strike, ETC., and
be exempt from the limitations and
restrictions of the system themselves.
A bureaucratic management of indus
tries would be all right so long as it's
pressure is applied to the other fellow,
but its advocates evidently contemplate
controlling the system and not being
controlled by it.
Here, then, is where the writer and
the editor differ He is socialist and
has expressed his preference for So
cialism. He can boost for co-opera-
ton, but he would have it lead to state
socialism. It naturally becomes a part
Of the socialist scheme to discredit and
attack any thing or person that advo-
Gates the continuance of the status quo
in cooperation; hence his continuous
attempt to discredit my attitude to-
wards cooperative business.
This discussion was suggested by
an editorial in the Times last week.
Its literary character is such that we
seriously doubt its home authorship.
Probably it was one that was Canned"
It league headquarters and distributed
over the state to local editors. In such