is the criminal. Socialism is the inveterate enemy of Capitalism. Then these Socialists will conclude as follows: "Will Socialism destroy the home? Will it abolish those hovels and dens of misery that are called homes? Will it bring women and children back into the homes? Yes, Socialism pleads guilty to the indictment." The tenor of this line of argumentation is calculated to create the impression that Socialists are not the enemies but the defenders of the family. To Destroy the Family. Those making this argument either have not the faintest idea of the rules of logic or of the philosophy of Socialism. When it is shown that Socialism as a philosophy is incompatible with the Christian principles anent the family, does the Socialist attack on capitalism exonerate Socialism? Socialism is charged with being destructive of the family as a moral agency. Capitalism, granting the Socialist contention, at most acts as a physical agency in the disruption of the home. Thus both Socialism and capitalism, the one as a moral, the other as a physical agency, would be subverting the family. Then again, is it not true, that Socialism condemns the present introduction of women and children into industry. This phase of modern industrialism is exactly the necessary prerequisite to the establishment of the higher form of the family. If this is true, Socialists make an absurd exhibition of themselves when they denounce capitalism for drawing women and children away from the home into the factories, whereas they ought, according to their principles, to rejoice in this fact as speeding the day for the realization of a higher form of the family. That the present introduction. of women and children into the factor ies and their alienation from home life is a necessary process to effect the transition from the present form of the family to the freedom of Socialist marriage, we are about to prove by an appeal to Marx and Engles. Marx on Female Labor. Marx, in the first volume of Capital, dwells at length on the introduction of female and child labor into industry. Graphically he pictures the demoralizing effects on young women. Unmercifully he exposes the cruelty of child labor. Would be, therefore, have these tendencies of modern industry checked? Would he bring about a state of affairs in which woman would resume her former position in the home? By no means! Here is what he says: "However terrible and disgusting the dissolution, under the capitalist system, of the old family ties may appear, nevertheless, modern industry by assigning as it does an important part in the process of production, outside the domestic sphere, to women, to young persons, and children of both sexes, creates a new economical foundation for a higher form of the family and of the relation between the sexres. It is, of course, just as absurd to hold the Teutonic-Christian form of the family to be absolute and final as it would be to apply that character to the ancient Greek, or Eastern forms, which, moreover, taken together, from a series in historic development" -Capital, Vol. I, p. 536. Without further comment on this statement made by Marx in the "Bible" of Socialism, we will let Engels speak on the effects of modern industrialism on women. In the second edition of his work, printed in German, of course, Engels tries to establish the fact that man's supremacy over woman was the result of a division of labor outside of domestic sphere. When men hunted and in this manner gained their subsistence, there was a position of approximate equality between the sexes in the family. When cattle raising was introduced, this work devolved upon men. There was thus a new source of income, which was appropriated by the man. Thus the man became the woman's superior because of the fact that he was active in a sphere from which woman was excluded. This prompts Engels to make the following reflection: "At this juncture already, it becomes apparent that the emancipation of woman, her equalization with man, is an impossibility, and will remain such so long as woman is excluded from social productive labor, and is confined to the private domestic sphere of activity. The emancipation of woman will be made possible only then when she participates on a larger scale in production, and her domestic activity makes fewer claims on her. And this has been made possible only recently through the great modern industrial system, which not only admits female labor by means of convenient ladders of opportunity, but actually clamors for it and which strives to merge more and more private domestic activity into public industry."-Der Ursprung der Familie, zweite Aufl. Why Denounce Capitalism? In the light of these statements of Marx and Engels, how can any Socialist who knows his philosophy denounce capitalism for the exploitation of women and children? The introduction of women and children creates a new economic basis for a higher form of the family and the relation of the sexes. This feature of the present industrial system is a necessary stage of development for the realization of the higher form of the family. Here the doctrine of economic determinism comes into play. According to this theory there is a discord today between the ownership of the means of production and the process of production itself; the ownership is of a private nature, while the process shows collective tendencies. These collective tendencies are the socialistic forces which are taking the ground from underneath the present capitalistic system. The wholesale introduction of women and children into industry is a collectivistic or socialistic tendency. This process supplies a new economic basis for the family. A Luxury No Longer. one Thus female and child labor in factories is not at all an objectionable feature to "scientific" Socialists-no more so than the trusts of today. The trusts, according to Socialism, are socialistic tendencies. This trust development will continue until there will only be Big Trust, the Co-operative Commonwealth collective ownership of the means of production. Then the full freedom to marriage will be realized. Individual sex love will be the only bond of union. "Free love" will be enjoyed by all. Thus far "free love" has been a luxury only for a few. Socialism would put it within the reach of every one. Bebel hints at this in the following: "Why should that be the privilege of the 'great souls' only, and not of others. also, who are not 'great souls,' and can be none? No such difference exists to us. If a Goethe and a George Sand-to take these two from the many who have acted and are acting like them-live according to the inclinations of their hearts -and about Goethe's love affairs whole libraries are published that are devoured by his male and female admirers in rapt ecstacy-why condemn in others that which, done by a Goethe or a George Sand, becomes the subject of ecstatic admiration?'-Woman, pp. 344-355. From this exposition of Socialism, it is clear that Socialism has espoused the "new" sex philosophy and would carry it to its logical consequences, which are the more disastrous because they demoralize the masses. However, let it be emphasized that the Socialists were not the first Iconoclasts of the family. Their precursors were men "higher up." The Iconoclasts among the bourgeoisie sowed the seed. Socialism is the legitimate offspring of bourgeois Iconoclasm. The latter is to be held responsible for the "belly philosophy" and "barn-yard morality" of Socialism. The Eternal Verities "The moral law does not change, but is eternal. The Co-operative Commonwealth may declare that stealing lucrative property is not a sin, but it will be sin nevertheless. It may take the 'not' out of the commandment, which says, Thou shalt not steal,' and with the same assurance it may go a step further and take the 'not' out of the commandment which says, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' but stealing will be stealing still, and adultery will be adultery still. To declare the contrary is to set man above God, is to deny God's supremacy, and this is atheism."-Rev. W. S. Kress, "Questions of Socialists.” Socialism and Slavery. A leaflet entitled "Socialism and Labor Policy," and published by the Fabian Society, in 1906, makes it clear that the free man of today would under Socialism become a mere slave. It is thus explained: "Everybody should have a legal right to an opportunity of earning his living in the society in which he has been born; but no one should or could have the right to ask that he should be employed at the particular job which suits his peculiar taste and temperament. Each of us must be prepared to do the work which society wants doing, or take the consequences of refusal." "White Plague"-which is so difficult to cure and so fatal in its effects. At Lakewood, N. J., in July, 1909, a pioneer experiment was inaugurated to combat this disease by establishing The Tuberculosis Preventorium for Children. On March 18, 1909, Mr. Nathan Straus offered his half interest in the Lakewood Hotel property as a gift to the poor children, 40,000 of whom it was stated by him were living with tuberculous parents in New York City. A board of directors was chosen and the work was begun, but opposition to |