Question No. 2. "Why shriek so childishly about patriotism? American people today are not very patriotic over their country which belongs to Wall Street." Answer. We should not take the trouble to answer this criticism if it had not come to us from so many different directions. As a matter of fact, the question answers itself. It would be "childish" to "shriek" about patriotism if we had no more patriotism than the Socialists who write this kind of letters. A philosophy that leaves no room for love of country in the hearts of its members is a dangerout element in national life-a party that permits and condones, when it does not actually glory in, any insult that may be offered the nation's flag, is so obviously a menace that it is waste of time to argue about such a question. As Jack London has told us frankly, Socialists "intend to destroy bourgeois society with most of its sweet idols and dear moralities, and chiefest among these are those who group themselves under such heads as private ownership of capital, survival of the fittest and patriotism-even patriotism."-From Contemporary Review, January, 1908. Question No. 3. "What authority have you for the statement that Socialism is antagonistic to organized labor?" Answer. Before this question can be answered, we must know what you mean by organized labor. If you refer to such an organization as the Industrial Workers. of the World, we have nothing to say, but there is all the difference in the world between the I. W. W. and the trade unions as represented by the American Federation of Labor. With the I. W. W. the Socialist is fully in sympathy, because the I. W. W. is a revolutionary organization that proposes to put an end to private ownership and the wage system, whereas Trade Unionism is an evolutionary, constructive movement, laboring to remedy the ills of the worker by building up, instead of tearing down, the nation's institutions. As a result, the trade union now stands directly in the way of Socialism, and, hefore Socialism can carry out its purposes, Unionism must be destroyed. That is the reason why the Socialist movement is making such strenuous, efforts to interefere with the work of the American Federation of Labor, and, as one of its methods of warfare, it is trying to build up its new organization, the I. W. W. For full particulars of the fight between Socialism and Unionism, see "Socialism as an Incubus on the American Labor Movement," by J. W. Sullivan and the articles and booklets by Peter W. Collins. Question No. 4. "What is your authority for the statement that Socialism is opposed to our marriage institution and the present status of the family? Answer. As authority for this statement we can point to every Socialist who has written comprehensively upon this subject. Engels asserts that "the present form of marriage" is blocking the path of human progress. Bebel says, "man and woman being animals, can we talk of matrimony on indissoluble bonds, and Bax, who is even more frank, admits that Socialists are "quite aware that in such a society (the Co-operative Commonwealth) the principle of rigid monogamy enforced by law and public opinion, as at present, must break down before a freer conception of human relationships," yet, he continues, "they are cxtremely chary of admitting this in so many words." Acting upon this idea, Leatham, in "Socialism and Character," states that he can "see no reason why we should not straight-way begin to have Socialist marriages in our branch organizations." Can our Socialist friends persist in asserting that marriage and the family would not be threatened by Socialism? If so, we can supply much more evidence to support the position. we have taken. Question No. 5. "Do you condemn the Republican party, and accuse it of being atheistic, because Robert G. Ingersoll was an infidel and a leading Republican? Then, why should you call Socialism irreligious because some Socialists are freethinkers? Answer. The It would, of course, be eminently absurd to attempt to make the Republican party responsible for the religious opinions of any of its members, but, unfortunately for the Socialist argument, the cases are entirely different. religious views of Mr. Ingersoll were no concern of the American people because they merely expressed his private opinions, whereas the dicta of the Socialist leaders and propagandists are not presented as expressions of individual opinion but are asserted to be the accepted teachings of the Marxist philosophy. The question recently arose in a debate between Socialists and anti-Socialists in Passaic, N. J., and Rev. Thomas J. Kernan exposed the fallacy of the Socialistic argument so clearly that we are glad to quote him: "If I find that Mr. Taft and Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Cannon and Mr. La Follette, not to mention numberless others, strenuously insist that American industries must be protected by the tariff," he said, "and if I find this same principle insisted upon by the great dyed-in-the-wood Republican newspapers from Maine to California, surely I am justified in concluding that protection is a Republican doctrine. In like manner, if I find the foremost thinkers and writers of Socialism asserting that the church must disappear with the oth er outgrown institutions of our present civilization; if I find the Socialist press incessantly preaching the same doctrine, I have logical warrant for the conclusion that Socialism is subversive of religion." Can a more logical reply be asked? Question No. 6. "Socialism is an ecconomic proposal, pure and simple. Why not refute its economic 'heresies' calmly and in a scientific manner and stop bothering about its being against religion and the family?" Answer. If Socialism were a purely economic movement, there might be some excuse for this question-some justification for the demand that we devote our efforts to the work of exposing its economic impracticabilities. As Kirkup said, however, "Though the essence of Socialism is economic, the subject has an interest much wider. It is a human question intimately connected with the moral, social and political development of the present time." Is it possible that our Socialist friends. imagine that we are not acquainted with the details of the proceedings at the convention where this plank was adopted? Do they think that we do not remember the distinction that was drawn by those who upheld the plank and who finally secured its adoption? It was not a question of how Socialism stood on the matter of religion. At no time did the debate hinge on the agreement or disagreement of Socialism and Christianity, but the whole question was one of tactics, or, as Berger said, in a nation at heart essentially religious, it would be useless to hope for any substantial progress if the Socialist party was to go before the people with an anti-religious plank. Accordingly, "to silence the taunts of its enemies," as Hunter suggested, the party passed the resolution, and declared itself "not concerned with matters of religious belief," by the narrow margin of 79 to 78 votes. And this is all the foundation we have for the assertion that religion will be treated as This question has been "settled" so frequently, and by so many different writers, that it is difficult to imagine why any sane man should attempt to make use of it at this time. Every Socialist of authority-with the possible exception of a few extreme conservatives-admit that there is hopeless antagonism between Religion and Socialism, yet when you confront the ordinary propagandist with this mass of evidence he takes refuge behind the fact that the Socialist party platform provides that "religion be treated as a private matter -a question of individual conscience." a private matter under Socialism. Every perosn who has studied the principles of the Marxian philosophy knows what its effect must be upon religion and the home-that, as the Chicago Inter-Ocean has said, "the very first work of a triumphant Socialism would be contemptuously to brush aside, or to crush if it resisted, the Christian institutions"—yet is seems to make no difference how many times, or how forcibly, this fact is put on record. The relative position of Socialism to religion and morality has been shown again and again-real Socialists themselves admit that there can be no basis for harmony between Socialism and our present institutions-but, despite all this, the same lies pop up to meet us at every turn. Indeed, to quote a most appropriate paraphrase of a popular ditty: "The task before us is not to appeal to the capitalist class to do something, but to organize the workers for the overthrow of that class so that they (the workers) may do something for themselves. The battle cry of the workers' party is not 'The Right to Work,' but 'The Right to the Product of our Labor,' and that right waits only upon their might. That is the real revolutionary way."-Socialist Standard (Eng.), November 1, 1908. What Does It Matter For him (the Socialist) it is indifferent whether social and political ends. are realized by lawful or lawless means."-Bax, in "Ethics of Socialism." From the THE EFFICIENCY QUESTION. The repost of the House committee investigating the question of "scientific management" appeared too late for us to do more than announce the result in this number of THE COMMON CAUSE. In the May number, Mr. Ralph P. Wright, who has been conducting our inquiry into the efficiency problem, will devote considerable space to an analysis of this report and, will supplement its conclusions with many facts that he has discovered, all of which substantiate. the decision that the committee reached. No greater victory has been gained in several years. So far as the speed-up systems are concerned, the report brands them as impractical for all time, and while its immediate effect may be confined to Government shops, the fact that the impracticability of such schemes has been officially demonstrated cannot fail to exert an influence for good upon the general industrial situation. A scheme declared to be impossible when applied to Government works can scarcely commend itself to manufacturers who are anxious to secure the greatest amount and the best quality of production for their expenditure in wages. In view of the unassailable logic with which the committee has summed up the situation, therefore, it is safe to assert that the knell of the speed-up system has been sounded. To quote briefly, the report states: "There is a margin between the work performed by the loafer and the maximum task for a man, and in that margin lies a proper day's work. What constitutes a reasonable day's work can only be determined by practical experience and intelligent observation. It can not be wholly determined by a stop watch or any other time-measuring instrument used only for a brief period of time. By the stop watch you may be able to determine the time in which a piece of work can be done, but you do not thereby alone determine the length of time in which it ought to be done. The time study of the operations of any machine can be made with a reasonable degree of accuracy, because all of the elements can be taken into consideration in making the computation. A machine is an inanimate thing-it has no life, no brain, no sentiment, and no place in the social order. With a workman it is different. He is a living, moving, sentient, social being; he is entitled to all the rights, privileges, opportunities, and respectful consideration given to other men. He would be less than a man if he did not resent the introduction of any system which deals with him in the same way as a beast of burden or an inanimate machine. In making a time study of the operations of a workman, all of the elements can not be taken into consideration and consequently the computation can not be made with |