"In advocating these measures as steps in the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the Co-operative Commonwealth," it was stated, "we warn the working class against so-called public ownership movements, as an attempt of the capitalist class to secure. governmental control of public utilities for the purpose of obtaining greater security in the exploitation of other industries, and not for the amelioration of the conditions of the working-class."

One of the latest contributions to the literature of Socialism is the book on the "Elements of Socialism," by John Spargo and George Louis Arner. M.. Spargo is a member of the Executive. Committee of the Socialist party and an authoritative exponent of Socialism. Dr. McNeill would do well to take these words from this book to heart:

Extending Government Ownership.

"State ownership is not only not Socialism, but is not of necessity a step toward it. The failure of State Socialism to do away with poverty and other evils is therefore not a valid argument against Socialism. In general, however, Socialists favor the extention of goverment ownership. They look upon it as the development within the capitalist order of the political and industrial

forms which the proletariat will some day inherit and transform into the Socialist State."

To attempt to make Socialism a movement for the public ownership of public utilities is a distortion of the true nature of Socialism. With Dr. McNeill's third proposition we will not concern ourselves at length. The abolition of

poverty is, of course, the aim of Socialism, but as Spargo points out, State ownership can not bring about this result, nor would "real" Socialism, either.

The trouble with Dr. McNeill is that he looks upon Socialism as a reform movement. But, says H. G. Wells, a prominent English Socialist: "We must be clear about one thing; that Socialism means revolution, that it means a change in the every-day texture of life.. You must get absolutely clear in your mind that Socialism means a complete change, a break with history, with much that is picturesque."

Eugene Debs Testifies.

We may add the testimony of Eugene Debs: "To my mind the working class. character and the revolutionary integrity of the Socialist party are of first importance. All the votes of the people would do us no good if our party ceased to be a revolutionary party, or only incidentally so, while yielding more and more to the pressure to modify the principles and program of the party for the sake of swelling the vote and hastening the day of its expected triumph."

Dr. McNeill is very positive that there is nothing in Socialism that is in any way antagonistic to the teachings of Christianity. Nay more, with a truly marvelous vision he sees in Socialism the crystalization of the ethics of Christ's Gospel! Such being the case, the good doctor is at a loss to understand why the Church should oppose such a beneficient and Christian movement in the interest of the material welfare of mankind.

It may not be amiss to call Dr. McNeill's attention to the fact that the

Church is opposed to Socialism on fundamental religious and moral grounds, and the justice of this opposition can be fully sustained and substantiated from the writings of every Socialist, either in Europe or America, who is accepted by Socialists as an authority and has the right to interpret their attitude toward these questions.

The basis and foundation of Socialism is materialism. If this be true, and there is no room for denial, why should any sensible man think it mysterious that the Church should oppose Socialism? And, remember Socialists have made this materialism a cardinal feature of their system. It is the marrow of the thing -intellectually and economically.

A Silly Theory.

The idea that Socialism is simply a new "economic theory" to do away with the evils of poverty, and has nothing to do with religion, is as false as it is silly. Socialism is an absolute denial of God and the religious life. The philosophy of Socialism has, and can have, no place for God, or for immortality; therefore the Church has and can have no choice but to oppose it and labor to destroy it.

Socialism declares that the marriage in its present form is an "obstacle" to be abolished, and not a few prominent Socialists have given actual example of the logic of this teaching by their freelove abominations. Instead of being "the crystalization of the ethics of Christ's Gospel." Socialism, in its teaching and in its practices, shows that it is more correctly characterized as a "crystalization of the Gospel of Lust." It has no Gospel that is not "material,"

and to attempt to make the Socialism of Marx, Bax, Engels, Bebel, Sawyer, Herron, Blatchford, Kerr, Debs, Carpenter, Hillquit, the New York Call and the Chicago Socialist in any way resemble the "Gospel of Christ," shows a most woeful ignorance or a lamentable insincerity. If Socialism is a "reform movement" it is a "reform downward," and the older it grows the lower it sinks. Its morality is colored by the desires of the flesh, and can never be endorsed or accepted by those who believe in a spiritual Christianity.

Christ Not a Socialist.

There is nothing in the teachings of Christ that by dint of the widest stretch of the imagination, could be construed as advocating any of the political or economic doctrines that are the basis of Marxian Socialism. We have yet to discover that Marx or Engels or their followers have ever used or claimed to use the "Gospel of Christ" as a basis for the development of their new propaganda. John John Spargo asserts that "Socialism Christianized would be Socialism emasculated and destroyed." Instead of being the "crystalization of Christ's Gospel," Spargo holds that Socialism is a very different thing and a very superior thing!

If Socialism is what Socialists say it is, Dr. McNeill nor any other man who has respect for the "ethics of Christ's Gospel" can fail to understand that Christian support for such a movement is impossible.

We could fill this magazine with extracts from the writings of Socialists to prove these statements. A few characteristic samples must suffice.

Joseph Leatham, in "Socialism and Character," admits that there can be no harmony between Christianity and Socialism. "At the present moment," he said, "I cannot remember a single instance of a person who is at one and the same time a really earnest and intelligent Socialist and an orthodox Christian.

Those who do not openly attack the Church and the fabric of Christianity Christianity show but scant respect to either the one or the other in private."

Facts Finally Admitted.

men

Both Bebel and Liebknecht whom Dr. McNeill will recognize as authoritative exponents of the socialistic. philosophy-are equally frank in admitting that a deadly antagonism must keep Socialism and Religion apart. "It is our duty as Socialists to root out the faith in God with all our zeal, nor is anyone worthy the name who does not consecrate himself to the spread of atheism." And Bebel asserts that "Christianity is the enemy of liberty and civilization. It has kept mankind in slavery and oppression. The Church and the State have always fraternally united to exploit the people. Christianity and Socialism are like fire and water."

As Dr. McNeill will probably resort to the common Socialist practice of asserting that the statements quoted above are merely the expressions of individual opinion and do not represent an official utterance of the party, we want to call his attention to the following paragraph which he will find in the "official" manifesto on "Socialism and Religion," issued by the Socialist Party of Great Britain. In the second edition of this extremely illuminative manifesto, issued

and published by the party, the words quoted appear on page 27:

"It is, therefore, a profound truth that Socialism is the natural enemy of religion. Through Socialism alone will the relations between men in society, and their relations to Nature, become reasonable, orderly, and completely intelligible, leaving no nook or cranny for superstition. The entry of Socialism is, consequently, the exodus of religion."

And, again, on page 38, this conclusion is reiterated even more positively. Christianity," says the manifesto, "is the very antithesis of Socialism."

66

Advice to Dr. McNeill.

We might quote much more, if we deemed it necessary to do so, for the manifesto is filled with statements that refute Dr. McNeill. Instead of piling refutation upon refutation, however, we respect fully suggest that Dr. McNeill procure a copy of this phamphlet and read it carefully. It will enable him to get a clearer view of the real relations of Socialism and Christianity.

Dr. McNeill has not even touched upon the real fundamental principles of Socialism, for it is acknowledged by all authorities that the Socialism that alone is worthy of consideration is the Socialism of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

"The Socialism that inspires hopes and fears in the world today is the school of Karl Marx," says Professor Thorstein Veblen. "No one is seriously apprehensive of any other so-called socialistic movement, and no one is seriously concerned to criticise or refute the doctrines set forth by any other school of 'Socialists.""

What adds importance to this statement is the fact that it is quoted approvingly by John Spargo in an attempt to show that Marxism is the bedrock of Socialism. "The words 'Socialism' and 'Marxism' are practically synonymous in the vast literature of the subject which has been produced in the last thirty or forty years," he asserts.

With Marx and Engels.

A. M. Simons speaks to the same effect when he says: "It is with the work of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels that modern Socialism began to definitely take on the forms by which it is known today."

are

The fundamentals of Socialism not those presented by Dr. McNeill but the economic interpretation of history, with the law of concentration, the theory of collapse and crises, the theory of value and surplus value, and the class struggle. These theories of industrial evolution are necessary prerequisities of the Socialists doctrines. Industrial evolution in the direction indicated by these theories is to bring about collective ownership of the means of production. This is Socialism. This is the Socialism which THE COMMON CAUSE has been combating and will continue to combat. We cannot recognize Dr. McNeill as a better authority on Socialism than Spargo and Lewis and Hillquit. We see in him one of the many who sympathize

with Socialism not for what it is but for what they would like it to be. We are one with Hillquit when he says:

Hillquit on Marx.

"The International Socialist movement with its thirty million adherents, at a conservative estimate, and its organized parties in twenty-five civilized countries in both hemispheres, is all based on the same Marxian program, and follows substantially the same methods of propaganda and action. The 'diverse Socialism' outside the organized movement are represented by small groups of social and political dilettantes toying with problems of the universe and exercising no influence whatsoever on the course of the International Socialist movement."

THE COMMON CAUSE is concerned with Socialists of the real type, not with "dilettantes toying with the problems of the universe." We are not fighting McNeillism or any other kind of “ism" except Socialism, although we occasionally go out of our way to show erring friends, like Dr. McNeill, that what they accept as Socialism is not Socialism at all. In doing so we are still fighting Socialism, inasmuch as our efforts in this direction may be the means of preventing thousands of others from giving their support to Socialism under a mistaken notion of the full consequences of the Socialist philosophy.

HE recent elections in Germany

THE

made the Social Democratic party the strongest political power in that country. By many the success of the Socialists is considered a queer anomoly in view of the progressive labor legislation in Germany. There are not a few who scout the idea that the best method of opposing Socialists is by taking the ground from under their feet-that is, by removing the abuses which have caused the social unrest. Persons who take this adverse attitude point to Germany and declare: "Look to Germany where you have labor legislation and protection in plenty! Is it merely a coincidence that Socialism is strongest in the country where labor legislation is most progressive?"

The Belated Reforms.

The fact is that Socialism is forging ahead in Germany in spite of the great reforms introduced, not because of them. The inauguration of the reform era in Germany, though it antedated by years similar movements in other countries, was somewhat belated. The Socialists had too great a start. The man who retarded the movement for social reform

in Germany was the Iron Chancellor, Bismark. He plunged Germany into the so-called Kulturkampf. The FrancoGerman war intervened. Flushed with pride because of the dominent position he now had in the united Germany, Bismark proceeded to precipitate a religious strife. Ketteler was one of the first to resist the autocratic attempts of Bismark. The district Tauberbischofsheim elected Bishop Ketteler as its representative in the Reichstag. Together with Windhorst and Malinckrodt, the Bishop of Mainz fought for the principles of religious liberty of the newly-formed Centre party. After a struggle of several years the Kulturkampf closed, with Bismark the loser.

Outrageous Exploitation.

The Franco-German war and the Kulturkampf crowded out all attempts at social reform. In the mean time the industrial system introduced by economic Liberalism was reaching its full development. There was nothing to prevent employers from exploiting their workmen most outrageously. The working class lanquished under conditions that were almost intolerable. The So