Why the Socialistic State is Impossible.

 By Edgar T. Wheelock, Chief Editorial Writer, the Milwaukee Sentinel.

The charm that attracts converts to the cause of socialism is to be found in statements of the objects which socialists seek to attain. It has been said that the principles of socialism may be reduced to the abstract statement :" From every man according to his ability; to every man according to his needs." And socialists take pride in pointing to the fact that their plan of government is devised for the sole purpose of providing for the adequate production of material comforts which are to be distributed with even-handed justice—or what they term justice—to all individual members of society.

In sharp contrast with this pleasant picture of plenty without responsibility or apprehension for the future, socialists point to the evils that have grown up under the present political system, and the suffering, poverty, ignorance and vice to which no man honestly can close his eyes. The fact also is pointed out that under the so-called capitalistic system one man rides in his carriage, dresses in purple and fine linen, and fares, sumptuously every day, while another is barely able to provide for himself and family the necessaries of life ; yet the former, it is asserted, produces nothing, while the latter adds to the wealth of society by the work of his hands. In the struggle for existence, it is eloquently contended, the prizes do not go to those who earn them by the sweat of their brows, but are appropriated by the designing, selfish, scheming financiers, by the unproductive middlemen, and by the politicians whose very existence has become a reproach which utterly condemns the present political system.

 

GOVERNMENT NOT TO BLAME FOR EVIL.

But it should be remembered that the fact that evils of this character have developed and spread in the existing social order does not prove that they can be abolished by changing to another system. As a matter of fact, the conditions complained of are directly chargeable to human nature and not to our political system. He who reads the constitution of the United States and of the several states, the common law principles that were established by English jurists and that we have inherited as a foundation for our jurisprudence, and, finally, the statutes enacted by our legislative bodies, will experience some difficulty in discovering in them the germs of evil, real or imaginary. They are not there. The entire scheme of government is designed to protect each individual in his natural rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—and to leave him free and untrammeled in the exercise of these rights. Whatever of evil, whatever of injustice, whatever of inequality in the distribution of wealth, whatever of crime, suffering, selfishness, and vice there may be in this country to-day can no more be charged against the political system than can the charity, human kindness and love of justice that distinguish so many men who were born, educated, and developed to admirable moral proportions be credited to the form of government under which we live.

DIFFICULT TO MANAGE THE NEW STATE.

It is proposed by the advocates of socialism that we attempt to remedy the faults they complain of by doing away with personal inequalities and by bringing all mankind to a common level. They advocate the adoption of a form of government which they especially have designed with a view to bringing about that result. That government is to take over by right of eminent domain the means of production and the agencies of distribution, and all citizens are to receive from the producer, the state, an equal share of the necessities of life and the luxuries as well, without distinction of any kind, and that share is to be liberal enough to supply all their needs. It is believed that by this plan the evils of " capitalism " will be abolished, and, the incentive to greed and opportunities to gratify that base passion having been done away with, society will settle down to a peaceful state that will continue through the ages like a dream of bliss in which the wicked will cease from troubling and the weary will be at rest. This is an attractive picture.

The system under which this is to be accomplished is one in which the state, as has been said, will own and manage the sources of supply the products of industry, and the agencies of distribution. All land will be public property and every grain of wheat raised will be owned by the government until it is ground into flour and apportioned to a citizen for his private use. Every shop, factory, foundry, mill and mine ; every engine or piece of machinery of whatever character ; every locomotive, and car upon every railroad ; every steamboat upon the waters; in fact, every item of property except the personal belongings of the citizens such as their clothing, household furniture, libraries and pictures; will be owned by the state. Every citizen, male and female, will be employed by the state during the years following graduation from school and preceding the time of retirement. There can be no private enterprise of any nature.

It will thus be seen that the proposed socialistic state is to be a great industrial enterprise and in order that it may be successful it must be organised like an army, each individual fitting into his place like a soldier in the ranks of his company. The nearest approach to such an organization of which we have any knowledge, aside from military bodies, is the Standard Oil Company and the United States Steel Corporation, both of which great trusts have absorbed many small industries and have branches extending into nearly every state in the Union. The plan of management adopted by these two capitalistic enterprises is so perfect in all its details that the work performed by their hundreds of thousands of employes goes on with the order and regularity of a perfect mechanism. It is thus the advocates of socialism would organize their industrial state. What would be the result ?

Can you imagine an enterprise of this magnitude and character being successfully managed without first reducing its details to a system and order that shall approximate the perfect organization of the great corporations mentioned ? There must be a head whose authority is absolute, and he must have under him departmental heads and bureaus to whom all subordinate officials and private individuals must render obedience. Any lack of discipline, any insubordination or independence on the part of those who are subject to superior officers, would introduce an element of uncertainty that would go far toward bringing about discords miscarriages of plans that would prove to be dangerous menaces to the stability of the government upon which the people must depend for their food. It must be remembered that no member of society would be in a position to shift for himself. Every pound of food; would be produced by the government acting through its agents, its bureaus of officers, who would direct the energies of the workingmen—for there would be workingmen in the socialistic state. If those workingmen became so dissatisfied as to rebel against their superiors and strike, and if the government did not have authority and power to enforce discipline and compel the men to do its bidding, what would happen ?

WOULD ONLY MEAN A BARBAROUS DESPOTISM.

Without such authority the socialist state would fall like a house of cards, and the age of the physically strong— barbarism—would return and reign until order could be brought out of chaos. With such authority the state would soon establish itself as a despotism ruled by men who under our system have sought and are still seeking power through political or financial  supremacy. And the despotism would be still more powerful because the individuals who under our democratic system are guaranteed life, liberty and the right to pursue happiness in their own way would have lost their liberty. Their only hope of employment would be in the government service; the only source from which they could draw the necessaries of life would be the government warehouses ; their only chance of obtaining both employment and food would be in sustaining the government which enslaved them.

This is not an attractive picture, I am aware, nor is it the picture painted by socialists; but it is difficult to see how any other conclusion can be reached when it is remembered that the socialists advocate according to their own admissions, the strongest possible form of paternal government; and the management of that government must be entrusted to men who, they assert, under this free democratic system, without any of the advantages offered by a ready-made despotism, have succeeded in enslaving the workingman and depriving him of a portion of his earnings.

NO CHANGE IN THE PEOPLE, HENCE NO CHANGE.

When the socialists start the experiment—if they ever do start—they will take the people who are now here, with all their imperfections, jealousies, selfishness and 'general cussedness,' as material out of which their ideal state is to be constructed. The system will be changed, not the people. They will then proceed to organize their stupendous industrial enterprise, a description of which has already been given, and for the sake of getting on with the argument, it will be conceded that they will be able to accomplish their purpose without breaking up in a row, a concession that means a great deal when it is considered that there will be some very attractive positions to be disposed of, carrying with them more or less honor, and within certain limits, autocratic power. Having perfected their organization, it will be found that each man and woman has been assigned a place in the industrial army and large numbers of those who are to-day marching in the ranks of the socialist party under the impression that they will all draw capital prizes under the new dispensation, will discover that the only change in their condition is that they have surrendered freedom for slavery, with a possible betterment, in some cases, in the character of food and clothing received in exchange for their work. This may sound like exaggeration in the ears of a socialist, but it is nevertheless true. The socialist state, which is an industrial empire, would not endure twenty four hours except through the exercise of despotic power lodged in the head of a great organizer, a captain of industry like John D. Rockefeller, or a board of managers, and extending down through all the subordinate bureaus until it reached and acted upon the rank and file like the ukase of Alexander of Russia upon the soldiers who do the will of the " great white Czar " without stopping to question or complain.

The man who enters the employ of the Standard Oil Company or the United States Steel Corporation does so voluntarily. At any time he may become dissatisfied with the rules laid down for his guidance or the conditions under which he works, he is at liberty to leave the service of the company and look elsewhere for employment.

Under the socialistic form of government there would be but one employer in the land—the state. The rules of service would have all the force and effect of law. The employe who refused to abide by them would be a law breaker. He could not withdraw from the service because there would be no other way in which he could make a living. He could not get into the country and live upon what he could raise from the soil because he would be cut off from the source of supply by government ownership of land as well, as government ownership of himself.

HUMAN NATURE ALWAYS THE SAME.

Is there any man who will presume to say that a mere change in the form of government would work the miracle for purifying mankind and removing selfishness, jealousy and discontent from the human heart ? It is possible that universal satisfaction will follow immediately upon the change from a democratic to a socialistic system ? Yet discontent with one's assignment to work would be disloyality to the government and a refusal to obey would be rebellion, a crime.

I am aware that socialists will contend that these statements are exaggerated. They will say that their state will be governed by all the people, that the man who digs in the sewer will have as much as influence as the one who holds the most exalted position in the state, because each will have but one vote. But we may say that about our democratic form of government, and it is not literally true. At least, our socialist friends say it is not. How then can we be sure that they will furnish the people a better opportunity to make their influence felt,particularly as they would substitute bureaucracy in place of democracy. Men of great powers as orators, statesmen, political organizers and managers, always have and always will influence their fellow men. From the time when primitive men formed themselves into tribes, the rank and file of mankind have followed leaders, and they will continue to do to until the end of time. Whenever conditions have so shaped themselves that the leaders could become masters they have, as a rule, discovered that the best interests of the people demanded that a strong central government be formed. For nearly a century the constitution framed by the founders of this republic set a limit beyond which the ambition of the leaders dare not go, and the time has not yet come when it will be safe to abandon that organic law.

SOCIALISTS UNDER THE SWAY OF THE STRONG

As an evidence that the success of a socialistic experiment would depend upon the adoption of a despotic form of government it is only necessary to refer to efforts that already have been made along those lines. History tells of many attempt to establish communities and colonies in this country, in Europe and Australia upon the socialistic plan. Some have failed while others have succeeded. Those that were wrecked were the ones that attempted to run a socialistic community on the democratic plan. They gave to each member of the community an equal voice in the government. Sooner or later dissensions crept in, and in spite of the fact that these colonies invariably have succeeded in making money, have been industrially successful, they were wrecked by jealousies and bickering.

On the other hand, there have been communities modeled in some cases on socialistic ideals and in others on those of the communists that have been successful for long periods, and some of them are in existence to-day. In every one of these cases the success recorded has been due to the fact that some central cause —a religious belief or the personality of a strong man who dominated his followers and controlled their wills—has taken from the members of the community any disposition they originally may have had to think or will for themselves. These colonies have been petty despotisms and the members outside of the governing boards or the supreme head, as the case may be, served terms of mild slavery ; but the slavery was real nevertheless.

Reason and experience therefore teach that an attempt to establish a socialistic form of government will result either in a despotic bureaucracy or in a state torn by revolutions which will bring about a condition little if any better than anarchy. The statesmen who directed the course of events that finally resulted in the reign of terror in Paris were inspired by the highest motives, and were far from suspecting that they were digging a pitfall for the French nation. The motives that inspire the teachers of socialism may be admirable, but it does not follow that their plans are practicable. It has been said that ' hell is paved with good intentions.'


Port Pirie Recorder and North Western Mail (SA : 1898 - 1918), Saturday 10 December 1904, page 1