New-York tribune., 1920-01-22
The Case for the Assembly
4 Letter Of Sincere Criticism
From a Fau-Mnded Reader
Copyright. 1920. New York Ttibun. Inc {,

the kind OF Socialists that believe in
force. But where will Mr.. Stimson find
Socialists who in ler hearts do NOT
believe in force? You said a few days
ago:
ANY ore who would substitute gov
ernment by force for one of consent and
common counsel is not in any true sense
Socialist"
Is this really so? What authority has
The Tribune for this proposition? The
real, honest Socialists will not thank
you for that! can quote you the
highest authority against that conten-
ton Of yours Leninc, with brutal
frankncss, said last March:
mo Socialist or anarchist-call him
what you like-dares to say in any gath
ering you choose to name that one can
arrive at socialism without civil war
onless he has lost his reason. You may
look at the entire literature of all more
or less responsible Socialistc parties,
factions and groups, and you will not
Socialist entertaining such nonsense as
that socialism can ever come in other
wise than by civil war. That Ia a de-
gree Of simplicity that borders on i'm
becility."
What Lenine says no Socialist or an
archist dare say, The Tribune and Mr..
Stimson do say! But it is refreshing to
find that this high priest of socialism
so naturally associates anarchists with
Socialists and uses them as interchange
able terms. Mr.. Lenine also calls those
"senseless Utopians' who believe that
socialism can be put into practice peace
fully and who suppose that Socialism
is possible without compulsion and with
out dictatorship" and reminds us that
it implies even greater disorder than
external war; Trotzky's frankness has
not been any less. Now, what becomes
of your distinction between an "evolu-
tionary" and a revolutionary Socialist 9?
There is no such animal as an "evolu-
tionary" Socialist. All experience Of
history supports Lenine's contention,
Fourth: You, Mr.. Hughes, Mr.. Stim-
son, et al, also take for granted that
the Socialist organization in this coun-
try is political party. Here is your
gravest mistake. The Socialist organiza-
ton is not political party in the true
sense of the word. 1t is an ultra-con-
sttutional organization, the majority of
whose paid membership are aliens, ca
mout1aging their evil intents and sinister
purposes under a few sperious and
mainly false economic theories. Colonel
Aoosevelt called it "a Thoroughly Ger
manized annex of the Prussianized mil
itarlstlc autocracy Of the Hohenzol-
lerns' and put it on par with the
, bolsheviki in Russia. Therefore, gcnu-
Inc members of the organization are no
more fit to sit in our legislative halls
than are tho members of the I. w. w
or the Black Hand organizations;
neither is the Socialist organization en-
titled to place on the ballot as a party
1T IS no moro political party than
Mahometanism is political party. 1t
IS cult. 1t is an immoral institution.
1t Is an abomination---an infection. 1t
stands for nothing that America stands
for. 1t is against the purity Of mother
hood and the virtue Of womanhood. It
stands against the integrity Of the
home, Of family, of Church, of State and
nation. 1t does not belicvc in the
American flag as other real political
parties do. 1t has flag Of it's own
the red fag--and there is room in AL
bany only for tho American flag. A
man cannot be true American and a
true member OF tho Socialist organisa-
! tion in America, Hs is either ono OF