torturing, burning, and committing crimes without sense, aim, or hope. It put one in mind of the most horrid visions of Dante's Hell. Socialism in Practice. Independent testimony such as this would be enough to make the world appreciate the truth about the Commune even if we had no evidence from other sources. But we know from a hundred tongues the infamy of this essay in So- * cialism. We know that unarmed citizens were fired upon, that a reign of terror was established, that innocent people were seized and massacred in revenge for the killing of Communards by the Government troops, that these massacres were carried out with refinements of ferocity, and finally that if plans had not miscarried the Commune, in its defeat, would have burned all Paris to the ground. Scores of cases might be cited of attempts to establish Socialist conditions. on smaller lines than those tried in France at the Revolution and afterwards, but in each case failure would have to be reported-ludicrous, complete failure. Such is Socialism in practice. Is Marriage a Failure? "If it be asked, is marriage a failure? the answer of any impartial person must be monogamic marriage is a failure-the rest is silence. We know not what the new form of the family, the society of the future, when men and women will be alike economically free, may evolve, and which may be generally adopted therein. Meanwhile, we ought to combat by every means within our power the metaphysical dogma of the inherent sanctity of the monogamic marriage principle."-Bax, in "Outlooks From a New Standpoint," p. 160. The Press Under Socialism By Rev. T. M. Crowley. HAT about the press, the "palla about the jum of our liberty," as Dooley calls it? What about it in the Socialist plan? Well, the Socialist himself, dres not seem to have any well-defined dea of what the "emancipated press" might be. Indeed he is a little more hazy here than on most other subjects. He denounces a capitalistic press; he tells us that under Socialism the press will be free. With Kautsky he enumerates, in the blessings of Socialism, an emancipated press. With Vandervelde we are told that "it will introduce men to a larger freedom in every relation of life." Bernard Shaw, in his "Industry Under Socialism," is obliged to confess to difficulties "in connection with the industries concerned in the production of books and newspapers." And this And this is the way he would solve the difficulty, "the printing committee might be left free to publish any communication it thought valuable. . the arrange ment with the author being to purchase outright, or royalty on copies sold, in each case so much to be put to his credit in the communal bank." All Left to Committee. The freedom therefore would be left to the committee and if the committee did not deem it valuable, the publication would not issue from the press. It strikes me that is pretty much the same kind of freedom the press has now, except that the committee happen to be the private owner and not a communal committee. And, then, Shaw goes on to tell us that what was not acceptable to the printing committee, they would be compelled to publish upon the payment of cost covering publication. And, finally, "newspapers might be issued on similar terms; and it would be always open to individuals, groups of individuals to publish anything they please on covering the cost of publication." And this is the freedom of the press allowed by Socialism. First, a committee would decide what is valuable and what is not. But by what magic power is the criticism of the committee to be regulated so that it will always select what is valuable and what is not? What is valuable from one standpoint or to a large number might not be considered valuable from another standpoint or to another large number. A learned treatise on Christianity might be considered valuable to a large number who would still retain faith in Christianity. The same treatise would most likely find its way into the waste basket of the Socialist committee. As Bebel puts it, "a great deal of the rubbish which now flood the book market would never be published." What Is Rubbish? That might be a distinct gain, but there remains the question: What is rubbish and what is not? A most valuable scientific work, especially if it contravened the teachings of Socialism might be considered rubbish. The freedom of the press is rather a delicate subject to handle and in the present condition of things the Socialists at least show prudence in "fighting shy" of the subject. In the vague little that they do give us, the freedom so loudly boasted of is somewhat illusionary and phantomlike. But what the printing committee would reject as invaluable could be published by covering the cost of publication and that despite the committee. Even the freedom of the committee is then endangered and much of Bebel's "rubbish" would find its way into print and things might be worse than they now are, for even then the cost of production is forthcoming. Moreover, since in the socialistic scheme, the printing presses would be communal property, by what arbitrary right would the committee reject one production and accept another? The equality of right that Socialism prates of might soon lead to complication that would inaugurate the reign of bedlam. Socialists Not In Harmony. At the present time not all Socialists. are in entire harmony. Recently Herr Bebel in the German parliament found. himself at loggerheads with Herr Timm and Herr Frank. The revolutionists and revisionists or reformists are frequently diametrically opposed to each other. In case each party desired to publish the news under the supervision. of a Socialist committee, the said committee might find itself in a sad plight. If the committee were made up of one party or the other it is safe to say that the party not represented would receive. but scant notice. And the same would be said if the majority were of one party or the other. If they even were evenly divided it is to be feared that publication on a definite subject would cease. Even Mr. Wells tells us that "the freedom of writing may be impaired if the state becomes the universal publisher and distributor of books and newspap.ers." Socialists like Dr. Menger, rail against the evils of the press at present but no one seems to decide how a free press could exist in a bureaucratic state such as Socialism could bring about. Again, if Christianity is not to be abolished, the law of God again comes into play with regard to the press, for the press after all is nothing but public speech, and is subject to the same restrictions to which speech in general is subject. The restrictions are not always observed but the tolerated licentiousness of part of the press does not do away with the inherent right of God; even the press has no liberty to publish what is contrary to the laws of God. Some Difficulties Suggested. Here a socialistic printing committee would find difficulties heaped up mountain high. If it suppressed the works of Byron, Eugene Sue and George Sand, whose prurient pages have certainly worked havoc in the youth of either sex, the literati might be offended; if it admitted Paine's "Age of Reason," or Volney's "Ruins," orthodox Christians would be up in arms whilst agnostics and atheists would applaud. And in the socialistic state both would have equal rights and the arbitrariness of the committee of its complaisancy to both. parties would soon stir up "high jinks.” The question is, as I have hinted above. a complicated one, and whilst Socialism declaims forcibly against a capitalistic press and promises us as one of the untold blessings of Socialism, a free press, the blessing (?) remains still untold, for Socialism throws but little light on how that free press is to exist when the great era of Socialism shall have been established. A little more light! exclaimed the dying Goethe. A little more light, Socialists, on the free press question. Capitalists' Profits In The Call (April 4), there was an editorial entitled, "A Lesson in Dividing Up," which says: "We are not after the capitalist's profits. They are too small and petty to bother with." Of course they are, but what about the Socialist "statisticians" who are constantly juggling the census reports to try to show how the capitalist robs the worker of "eight dollars a day," etc? In speaking of the profits of the express companies, The Call can not understand about the $70,000,000 which the railroads received from the express corporations. It seems to think that the workers in the employ of the express companies in some way produced this seventy million. He can not get it through his head that this sum is the cost of transportation-i. e. rent of cars and cost of haulage. It was railroad labor that received 49 per cent. of the $70,000,000; the coal miners received some of it; the machinist, the carpenter, the painter, the bookkeeper, and so on, received their share of these millions. That is to say, the total revenue of the express companies was $146,000,000, and the total expense was $131,000,000 leaving a balance of $14,500,000. The Call seems to realize that if all the profits of the capitalists engaged in manufacture and transportation were divided, there would be but a "miserable amount" per capita for the worker, yet the editor, along with the rest of the red flag philosophers imagines that, under Socialism, production would be increased sufficiently to enable them to make good on their promises. This is where they make their tremendous blunder. Capitalistic management is unrivaled unrivaled for two things-economy and enterprise. Under a Socialist State the worker would have no personal interest to make him labor energetically or economize prudently, and neither the quantity nor the quality of production could be maintained. -F. G. R. Gordon, in THE LIVE ISSUE. T Socialism and Natural Law By William M. Bradbeer. HE accepted definition of political Socialism involves the fundamental reconstruction of society. It means not merely a friendly interest in our neighbor's welfare; but a formal and forcible one. Ignoring inherent self-regulative forces it would prescribe everything mechanically. Such a radical change must necessarily be coersive, and not evolutionary. Socialism as Socialism as a political framework would not only be fatal to evolutionary social development, but paralyzing to industry. Under our present National system the certainty that a person may possess and enjoy the fruits of his toil is the great stimulus to production, enterprise and prosperity. Would Remove Incentive. In fact; the condition of civilization or barbarism among nations is in proportion to the security and inviolability of individual property rights. But under Socialism the fruits of a man's industry would belong to "the State." Even the choice of a person's occupation would be dictated by the officeholders. Socialism would remove the incentive for personal effort; and, consequently, the average person would make a living with as little effort as possible. When the theoretical Socialist descants upon the unequal distribution of wealth as attributable to the present order he appeals directly to the envy and avarice. of the ignorant and selfish. They are taught to believe that the real reason why they have not as much wealth as some one else is wholly because they have not had their rights. But Socialism is not a question of the poor against the rich. It would be as disastrous to the former as to the latter. It is a question of industry, economy, and character, against incompetency, shiftlessness and envy. Socialism minimizes character and magnifies the value of Externals. It antagonizes the operation of natural law, which is but another name for the method of the Creator. Webster defines natural law in the domain of political economy as "a rule of human beings established by the Creator and existing prior to any positive precept." Natural law, therefore, embraces in its scope all human instincts. It is a living force, persistent, reliable, and pressing to do its work. An observation of its immutability should impel us to comply with its conditions, since its warfare is only with error. It is a truism that human nature cannot be changed by human law. Must Admit Natural Law. Though Socialists, as a rule, sneer at morality and religion, they must acknowledge the visible operations of natural law even if they ostensibly attempt to override it. Most of their virulense is directed against the "profitsystem" and "property". The former, they avow their intention to destroy; while the latter they denominate "robbery," notwithstanding the fact, that our "profit-system" became operative |