The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1946-11-15
| O. M. THOMSON. willernie. MINI

IlfuflHS ana denying vehement
denying-that socialism, even in the:
highly chronological and monopolist
times, would serve or would not sery
humanity better than capitalism.
Why must we always be quarrelin
children? Since all the rest of tn
world is turning more or less to tn
left, why not make a test case. VIII
must we be continually guessing, h.
pothicating, stubbornly resisting? VIII
not be practical, be scientific? Homes
scientists do not set out to prove tha
a certain action will result in Gel
| tain, definite reaction. They test
certain cause to see what will be tn
/ effects. Then they know what the
are talking about. They experiment
over and over. They are willing, evel
eager, to try new experiments.
Since practically the whole world i
turning more or less to the left (Which
may be, after all, the "right'D W.
super-minded rulers and wreckers O
civilizations, destroyers of property
and killers of people, ought to give
socialism an honest try-out Maybe
we'd find that the proponents were moi
as stupid as the wise" ones say they
are. If it turned out that the wise ones
were correct we could abandon the
experiment and go back to capitalism
Watt And Fulton Also "Crazy"
We experimental with steam and
found that it worked" though the
smart ones said Watt was a fool and
Fulton was crazy. We put the internal
combustion engine to the test, while
the masses said Henry Ford was as
batty as the Mammoth Cave. We har-
messed the ether waves, amidst much
sneering and snorting, and now can
hear man whisper around the earth.
We put on wings and fly around the
earth, though most people said man
was an earth-bound animal.
Why not settle this socialism ques-
ton by sane, experimental process
The battle of words has been raging
for century and yet we do not know
for certain any more than we did when
it started. We hurl smear words, such
as free love, communism, bolshevism
and even throw in fascism (the very
opposite, economically speaking) and
shut our eyes and stop our ears to
everything new.
True, we have a few socialistic
Kings, such as the postal service, the
common highways and the public
schools. But these, are not fair tests
People do not have to use postage
tamps, nor travel much, and only
hildren have to go to school But
wen so it is doubtful if we would en-
oy the freedom" to shop all over
own for our mail, to plod along pri-
ate foot-paths and educate our child |
en- in private schools.
Besides we could live without get |
ing letters and speeding up and down |
ublic highways. We could live, sort |
animal existence, without education.
We have done it. A lot of people do
vithout any large measure of those
lings even now. Indeed we could get
y, after fashion Thought it would
OF be very fashionable) especially
uring the summer, without two of
lose elementary necessities Marx
lentions, namely; clothing and shell
II. But we could not last through thru
ne summer without food.
Why Not SociaIize Food?
So why not, as an honest expert
ent, socialize food-the essential
ODDS? Let, say, there be set up {
Iblic food monopoly. Let it buy all {
'imary foods at the source, paying (
rmers, stockmen, fishermen, vege- t
BILE and fruit-growers, price plus i
st, plant upkeep and depreciation, :
r such products. This would make
rmers secure from mortgages and
oney-lenders. They would still be
rec and Independent" as most of
EN- prefer to be-until they become
nants. v
Instead of cluttering up the country a
tn duplicating stores all selling the v
me foods under different patented v
mes in expensive containers ICON d
iners, especially small ones, often e
sting as much as the contents) let il
ere be distributing centers, wisely q
aced and conveniently located In il
cad of flocks of delivery wagons e
liling each other up and down the
me street, let there be system of =
onomical service, just as we now i
Inc Of nj
lie brands Of extensively advertised A
Oducts of corn, wheat, oats and rice, u
bearing fancy wrappers and palate G.
,riguing names, let there be two or :,
rec grades of each in simple mex u
nsive containers. r
Take the outstanding example of !.
Tx. We blame (too often) the farm O.
for 18-cent-a-quart and 97-cent
tier. But the farmer doesn't get ri
use prices. A large part of it goes Il,
deliveries, not to men, FL
n the big "cuts" of the food trust u
ich occupy a wide area between ~
,ducer and consumer. Such competi- -,
. delivery is responsible for a third r.
the cost of milk. The same picture in
presented when we see three or four "
lie retail stores, thanked by a chain nc
re or two, serving a community q,
t could easily be served by one n
ge distributing plant. We would
tainly be scandalized if we had two
three post offices at every village
two or three RID mail carriers tn
ling each other on every route. tn
'es, common sense tells us (if we IN
I'D only listen to it, that we ought to
make an honest experiment in the TO
cessing and distribution of food. W
would not, as an experiment, be ne re
sary to publicly own mills and sd