Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1921-12-08
IS SOCIALISM POSSIBLE?

American constitution?
This subject is often debated with varying re-
suits. 1t is frequently asserted that because the
constitution guarantees to each state a republican
torn OF government and contains some other pro-
visions which are not generally considered consist
ent with the principles of socialism, a socialist state
within the American union would therefore be a
constitutional impossibility.
In considering such a subject, one is confront
ed by the ever recurring fact that no two authori-
ties agree on just what socialism is. Policies and
principles which are held and advocated by one
socialistic individual or one socialistic group are
rejected by another as going too far or not going
far enough. Perhaps the one definition of social
ism that approaches most nearly to general accept
ance, among protested socialists is that socialism is
a system under which the means Of production and
distribution are owned and operated by the general
public. That definition is not universally accepted,
but perhaps 1t comes as near universal acceptance
as any one definition can.
1t Is not necessary to the adoption of such a
system which would certainly be socialistic to all
1ntents and purposes, that any particular form of
government should exist. Such a condition might
exist IN a pure democracy, in a representative re-
public, or in a despotism of the old type. 1t could
exist under the form of government prevailing in
any one of our states because the essence of it is
the ownership and management Of property, and
not the particular manner in which the affairs of
the government are conducted.
Accepting this as true, and it cannot SUCCESS
fully be disputed, there is nothing in the American
constitution to prevent any state from entering up
on a career of complete socialism if it desires to do
SO. In a decision rendered in a North Dakota case,
the federal court decided that the laws which had
been enacted in North Dakota providing for a num-
Der of public ownership experiments were entirely
within the limits of the federal constitution. The
court did not pass on the wisdom of these laws,
nor go into their merits in any way it simply took
tho. position that if the state so desired, it had the
right to enact such laws and operate under them.
hose laws provided specifically for a great num-
Der OF public ownership enterprises, and by impli-
cation, for the public ownership of everything
which the state might desire to own and operate.
1T goes without saying that the federal consti-
tuition would stand in the way of the formal adop-
ton by the state of the principles of socialism and
It's immediate application to the existing economic
agencies. There could be no such thing as the
contlscat1on Of land and movable property for the
purpose of having it owned by the state, but the
state may. if it desires, establish any industry and
operate that industry through its own agencies and
IN such manner as it may see fit. The state cannot
prohibit private trade or private industry, but it
can by gong into industrial and commercial life
drive individuals out of the competition. For in
stance, while the state cannot directly legislate the
private mercantile establishment out Of existence,
1t can legally establish stores in every city and in
every hamlet and operate them in such a manner
that private competition with them would be i'm
possible, and they would thereby be driven out of
business. In like manner, the state can legally
monopollze the entire field of ommerc and indus
try, and thereby become, through the operation of
the legal agencies which now exist as completely
socialiZed as is soviet Russia.
The question which arises in connection with
socialism in America is not as to the power of the
state to adopt this method, but as to the expediency
OF dong SO. Such experiments as have been under
taken thus far have demonstrated pretty effectively
that the principle is unsound, and therefore, un-
likely to be adopted on a large scale, but it seems
to be important that in considering the possibilities.
we must admit that SO far as our federal c%onstitr-
ton goes, 1t places no obstacles in the way Of the
complete specialization Of the state whose people
desire to socialize it.