THE INHUMANITY OF SOCIALISM

The Case Against Socialism & A Critique of Socialism

Two papers, the First Read Before the League of the Republic at theUniversity of California, December the Fifth, Nineteen Hundred andThirteen, and the Second Read Before the Ruskin Club of Oakland, California, Some Years Earlier

By Edward F. Adams

"And finally, let each of us according to his ability and opportunitypractice and inculcate respect for the law, the maintenance of order, regard for the rights of others, admiration for the successful, sympathywith the unfortunate, charity for all, hope for humanity, joy in thesimple life and contentment therewith. "

Foreword

One might write continuously while he lived for or against Socialism andyet at the end of a long and misspent life have said nothing that othershad not said before him. 

Nevertheless, new generations come on and have to learn about Socialismas they learn about other things, for there always have been and alwayswill be Socialists. It is a habit of mind which becomes fixed in acertain number of each generation; and succeeding generations seem toprefer fresh statements of the theory to the study of the ancient texts. Besides, Socialistic endeavor, while its ultimate object in all ages isthe same, assumes different forms at different periods and is best dealtwith in terms of the day. 

I am opposed to Socialism because of its inhumanity; because it saps thevitality of the human race which has no vitality to spare; becauseit lulls to indolence those who must struggle to survive; because thetheories of good men who are enthralled by its delusions are made theexcuse of the wicked who would rather plunder than work; because itstops enterprise, promotes laziness, exalts inefficiency, inspireshatred, checks production, assures waste and instills into the soulsof the unfortunate and the weak hopes impossible of fruition whoseinevitable blasting will add to the bitterness of their lot. 

Some years ago I was invited to dine with and address a charming groupof Socialists comprising the Ruskin Club of Oakland. We had a joyfulevening and I read to them "A Critique of Socialism" which forms thesecond part of this volume. It was published in 1905 by Paul Elder andCompany, but almost the entire edition was burned in our great fireof 1906. As there are still inquiries for it, it is thought best torepublish it. Obviously it was primarily intended to amuse my hosts, butthere is some sense in it. 

A few months ago I was asked to present "The Case Against Socialism" tothe League of the Republic, an organization within the student body ofthe University of California, it being the last of a series in whicha member of the Faculty of Stanford University and a much respectedSocialist of the State took part, neither of whom, much to my regret, was I able to hear. What I said seemed to please some of the morevigorous non-Socialists present who thought it should be printed. Those who prefer pleasant reading should skip the "Case" and read the"Critique. "

Edward F. Adams

San Francisco, June Nineteen hundred and thirteen

THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM

The postponement of this address, which was to have been delivered twoweeks ago, was a real disappointment to me for I did not then know thatanother opportunity would be arranged. As one approaches maturity, itbecomes a joy to talk to a group of young people in the light of whosepleasant faces one seems to renew his own youth. Youth is the mostprecious thing there is--it knows so little it never worries. 

It is difficult for me to be here at this hour of the day and it hasbeen impossible for me to hear those who have preceded me in thiscourse. What I have to say may therefore have too little relation towhat has been presented from other points of view to be satisfactoryin what seems to have been designed as a debate. Nor have I, in recentyears, read much Socialistic or anti-Socialistic literature of which theworld is full. From my point of view, as will presently be seen, perusalof this literature would be a waste of time for none of it that I haveseen or heard of discusses what seems to me essential, but in sayingthis I must not be understood as disparaging either the sincerity or theability of writers on this subject. 

When I was more or less familiar with Socialistic controversy theSocialistic propaganda was devoted in different countries to theaccomplishment of the immediate program which in the respectivecountries was considered the essential thing to be done next, verylittle being said about the ultimate end which it was hoped to reach indue time. Thus it happened that in some countries what was called theSocialistic agitation was directed to the accomplishment of what wasalready established by non-Socialists in other countries. That isdoubtless so still. Those discussions do not interest me and I have notfollowed them and shall not discuss any of them here. I shall consideronly the ultimate aims of theoretical Socialism and whether ifaccomplished they probably would or would not make for the generalwelfare and especially for the welfare of the least efficient. 

The ultimate aim of Socialism is the nationalization of all land, industry, transportation, distribution and finance and their collectiveadministration for the common good as a governmental function and undera popular government. It involves the abolition of private profit, rentand interest and especially excludes the possibility of private profitby increase of values resulting from increase or concentration ofpopulation. The majority of Socialists would reach this end gradually, by successive steps, and with compensation to existing owners. A violentminority would reach it per saltum, by bloodshed if necessary, and byconfiscation--"expropriation" they call it. All alike conducttheir propaganda by endeavoring to create or accentuate the classconsciousness of manual workers who constitute the majority of humanbeings and whose condition, it is insisted, would be improved undera Socialistic regime. The violent wing promotes not merely classconsciousness but class hatred. 

I have no time to split hairs in this discussion and it may be assumedthat I understand that Socialists do not expect to absolutely controlall personal activity but would leave all persons free to pursue anyvocation which they might desire and to have and hold whatever they mayacquire by personal activity and enterprise so only that they make noprofit on the work of another or absorb for their own use any gift ofNature. No Socialist that I know of has attempted to draw the exact linebetween activities to be wholly absorbed by the State and those whichwould be left to private enterprise. No wise Socialist I think--if thereare wise Socialists--would attempt to draw such a line at present. Thereis a certain vagueness in the Socialists' presentation of their case. 

And before we proceed further let us get rid of the intellectual fogwhich envelops and shelters the advocates of Socialism. It is the fog ofhumanitarianism. I see and hear no advocacy of Socialism whose burdenis not the uplift of humanity. Now, humanitarianism is perhaps themost beautiful thing there is. There is no more ennobling and inspiringsentiment than desire for the uplift of our fellowmen; but it has nolegitimate place in the discussion of Socialism. For an advocateof Socialism to even refer, in presenting his case, to humanitariansentiment is to that extent to beg the question. 

For if Socialism would improve the lot of mankind, or of the majorportion of it, that settles the whole matter. The quicker we get to itthe better. Opponents of Socialism insist that it would benefit nobody, and that as to the least efficient in whose behalf Socialistic doctrinesare especially urged, it would be deadly. As to the strong or the fairlyefficient we need not concern ourselves. They will get on anyhow. What it is important to consider is the probable condition of the lessefficient, and especially the submerged class, under a Socialist regime. And consideration will be useful only if it is in cold blood, absolutelywithout sentiment, and especially without even sub-conscious assumptionor imagination that the condition of the unfortunate, or less fortunate, would or would not be improved by Socialism, or whether mankind can orcannot be made happier by attempts to control economic conditions byinterference with the natural working out of economic results as theresultant of opposing pressure of individual interests. And do not callme a brute if I reach the conclusion that human selfishness is the hopeof the race. 

Because selfishness inspires to energetic action which means the largestpossible aggregate production which is the first essential prerequisiteto abundance for all. It is useless to talk about better distributionuntil the commodities exist to be distributed. And there is no othersuch spur to production as the expectation of personal profit. Thepieceworker with more satisfaction to himself and profit to the worldwill produce far more than he would turn out under a daily wage if hisearnings are thereby increased. And there are no others who give solittle for what they receive as those who work for the public. 

The first count in the case against Socialism is that by making themajority of workers public servants without the stimulus of selfishnessit would increase human misery by reducing the aggregate of productionand therefore the possible per capita consumption. 

That, however, is on the surface. Let us bore a little deeper toward thecore of the subject. It is a fundamental fallacy of Socialism thatall gain is the result of Labor and that therefore all gain belongsto Labor--the term "Labor" in practice meaning the great majority oflaborers who are manual workers[1]. 

Of course Labor is essential to production--so is Capital, which weshall come to later--and as between two things, both essential, it isperhaps impossible to conceive of one or the other as superior. 

But there is another element, also essential, but in a class so muchabove the other two essential elements, that it is not too much to saythat without it there could be no production adequate to sustain formore than a brief time any great population. And that element is Brains. It is not to Labor but to the human intellect as developed in theexceptional man that we owe all that exists, outside of Nature, which wecount valuable, and the ability to so use the resources of Nature as toenable mankind to live. If products were to be divided among mankindso that each should receive according to his contribution to thepossibilities of production, after the exceptional men had receivedtheir just dues, there would be very little left for the rest ofus. When European races first discovered this continent it probablysupported less than one million souls, and the number was notincreasing. That it will ultimately support some hundreds of millionsis due to the dealings of the human intellect with Nature. Brains do notget, do not ask, do not expect and could not use what would rightfullycome to them. 

But intellects vary in character and usefulness, and let us try bydifferentiation and elimination to isolate and consider those particularclasses of intellect whose activities bear most directly on thequestions raised by Socialistic theory. The chiefs are the devotees ofpure science--the Galileos, the Newtons, the Pasteurs, the Faradays, theKelvins, and the innumerable company of those like them, many known butmost unknown, who spend their days and nights in the search for truth. They deserve and get the greatest of rewards which is the respect andadmiration of their fellowman. As for material things, they desire andget very little. Following them are the magnates of applied science, the Watts, the Stephensons, the Bells, the Edisons, and their like, who apply to beneficial use the discoveries of the great lights of purescience often with prodigious material profit to themselves. The patentoffices know them all, big and little. They perform a magnificentservice, are highly esteemed in their day and generation and theirmaterial rewards are great. And upon the whole the world does not grudgethem what they get. 

But there are others. Next after the magnates of applied science inpublic estimation, but of equal economic importance, I would place theCaptains of Industry. Without their grasp of human necessity and desireand their organizing and directing ability, Labor would grope blindlyin the dark by wasteful methods to the production of insufficientquantities of undesirable products. The Marxian[2] conception of aneconomic surplus wrongfully withheld from Labor which produces it isthe disordered fancy of a fine intellect hopelessly warped by thecontemplation of human misery and humanitarian sympathy with humandistress. All economic discussion is worthless if tainted by humansympathy. The surplus value in production is trifling and seems largeonly because concentrated in comparatively few hands. The surplus ofages is concentrated in the structures which we see all about us, andin the commodities ready or partly ready for consumption and whichwill disappear in a short time. The annual accretions are small for anenormous amount of human effort is wastefully directed. That more effortis not wasted is due to the increasing necessities of an increasingpopulation stimulating the most competent by the hope of personal gainto provide new means and new methods whereby those necessities may beserved. No stimulus other than the hope of personal gain has everbeen found effective to inspire this effort, or make it successful. Government administration invents nothing. It copies tardilyand administers wastefully. Direction falls to those who competesuccessfully in talk not to those who demonstrate resourcefulness andmasterfulness in forseeing human requirements, utilizing available meansfor supplying them, and effectiveness in least wastefully directinglabor in the use of these means. Our Captains of Industry are thosewho for the most part starting life with nothing but a sound mind ina strong body have risen to the direction of great affairs throughunrestricted opportunity to strenuously compete through long hours ofhard labor and the mental and bodily strength to endure it. There isno reason to suppose that any other method than the same strenuousand unrestricted competition would produce men equal to suchresponsibilities, or that any inspiration but the hope of personal gainwould induce such effort. The contention that the honor of direction andthe applause of the multitude would incite to the necessary competitionis not sound. In the first place long years of inconspicuous servicebut with the same eager effort are essential preliminaries to the greatplaces which but few can reach, and secondly the honor would go as itdoes now in public affairs, not to the man efficient in industry, but tothe man efficient in talk. The one stimulus to personal exertion whichNature supplies, and the only stimulus which operates powerfully, anduniversally and continuously is the desire of personal gain coupled withthe instinct for construction and accomplishment. Since the desire isfor the largest possible production it is folly to try to withdraw thatstimulus and substitute an emotion which, however powerful in a fewpersons and for uncertain periods, operates most strongly on thoseindustrially least capable. 

For I venture the assertion that there is not now and never has beenamong Socialists a single person who has demonstrated the ability to sodirect the Labor of any considerable number of men either in productionor distribution that the aggregate of yearly accomplishment at marketvalue is as great as the aggregate cost at current wages. 

The second count in the indictment of Socialism, therefore, is thatfor lack of the sole stimulus which Nature supplies, and the lack ofopportunity under a system of equal tasks, with ideals of leisure, direction of production and exchange under a Socialistic regime wouldbe so much less efficient than now that the aggregate waste would befar greater than that of the parasitism which has always existed incompetitive Society. 

A social parasite is a person whose contribution to the social productis less than the cost of his or her keep. If obviously defective weshall, at least for the present, let humanity override the economicinstinct which suggests their removal--an instinct which has effectivelyoperated in some overcrowded communities and take care of them. Butthe world has no use for the able-bodied parasite who during his or herworking period of life does not contribute to the social dividend bypersonal exertion sufficient to pay for the kind of life which has beenled. In opposing Socialism I am not defending parasitism. That can begot rid of when it becomes worth while and will be. But to jump out ofparasitism into Socialism would be jumping out of the frying-pan intothe fire. And we should have parasites still. 

So much for the Captains of Industry whom we need. But there is stillanother class which could not exist in the Socialistic state, andwhich a great part of mankind holds in profound disesteem, but whichis essential nevertheless. This is the man with the instinct ofaccumulation and whom we stigmatize as the "Capitalist"--the man whograsps what is within reach and holds it; who often gets the mainprofits of the inventions of the inventor; who forsees the future valueof unused gifts of Nature and acquires them while they can be got cheap;who combines with others like him to control everything controllable andmakes mankind pay roundly when it wants it. He is really the man to whommankind is most indebted of all for without his beneficent if execratedservice, in vain would the scientist toil in his laboratory, theinventor struggle through poverty to perfect his machine, the Captain ofIndustry conceive great accomplishment, and the laborer delve and grindat his daily task. The one supremely useful man is he who accumulatesand holds. 

If you say that this is an unlovely person the answer is that sometimeshe is and sometimes he is not. If you say he is selfish the reply isthat we are all selfish--he merely being able to make his selfishnesseffective. If you say he accumulates by devious ways and by grinding theface of the poor the reply is that sometimes he does and sometimes hedoes not. In these human aspects he is about like the rest of us. He itis who makes happiness and helpfulness possible. 

But to these and all other assaults upon the character and methods ofthe accumulating man there is one general reply and that is that fromthe economic standpoint they are of no consequence whatever. It makes noeconomic difference what he is or what he does so only that he performshis accumulating office. 

The one essential fact is that he assembles within his grasp the savingsof Society, prevents their dissipation in personal indulgence, appliesthem to beneficial use, and enables the laborer to produce under thedirection of the Captain of Industry by means of the devices of theinventor applied to the formulas of the scientist what is needful forthe welfare of mankind--and to live while he is doing it. It is theaccumulating man impelled by his instinct, or if you please his lust, for wealth and power who makes it possible for poor men to live in anygreat number. If he happens also to be a Captain of Industry, whichusually he is not, it is merely one middleman cut out. His essentialfunction is that of the money-grabber. It is by his exercise of thatfunction that most of us exist. 

The third count in the indictment of Socialism is that by obliteratingthe Capitalist, accumulating by interest, profit, rent, and theexploitation of Nature for private gain, it would make life impossibleto half the population of the world and not worth living to the fittestwho should manage to survive. 

I trust I make myself understood for there is more and worse to come. 

This discussion is necessarily didactic and assertive for it isimpossible to prove or disprove any of these postulates. It is for thatreason, and the lack of time that I cite no instances. They wouldbe merely illustrative and not probative, for the human intellect isunequal to any adequate inductive study of the subject, and human lifeis too short to classify, master and digest the data even if they couldbe assembled. All that can be done is to state conclusions reachedupon such observation and experience as is to each of us availableand commend them to the judgment of others upon their observation andexperience. Whatever can be proved at all can be reduced to a syllogismbut agreement upon premises is in this case impossible. 

But some things we do know and among them is the awful fact that man ispowerless before Nature which deals with man precisely as it deals withother forms of life. Man can dodge Nature as the scale insect cannot, but higher forms of life can, and man the most effectively of all. Butin the end she will get every one of us. Those will live happiest andlongest who best know how to work with Nature and not against her. Andindividualism and not collectivism, is Nature's way. If our own objectis the greatest aggregate of human comfort, we should realize that thegreatest possible aggregate can only be attained when each individualunder the stimulus of self-interest gets the largest measure of comfortfor himself. 

In the dim future which we shall not see, this may lead to conclusionswhich one shudders to think of. It may be that the time will come onthis planet when in a decreasing population struggling for existencefrom the remains of an exhausted Nature, the greatest good of thegreatest number will be found by the deliberate extinction of thoseleast fit, that what is available may be reserved to those who can makebest use of it. Astronomers tell us there are probably dead worlds whosespectrums tell us that they are of the same material as our own planetand presumably once the abode of sentient beings, for it is unthinkablethat of all the worlds which occupy space which has no confines, the small planet which we inhabit alone supports sentient life. Whattragedies darkened the last centuries of life in those dying worlds orwhat may happen to our own remote descendants happily we cannot know, but human experience does not enable us to conceive of any physicalstructure which does not ultimately resolve itself into its primalelements. On our own planet we know of forms of once vigorous lifewhich utterly perished by reason of physical changes which we cannotcomprehend, and that high civilizations one after another have risen, flourished, faded and become extinct while yet our own world was young, and who shall say what is in store for our own civilization?

If this is gruesome why should one be asked to present a subject whichcannot be adequately presented without showing what pygmies we are andhow helpless in the grasp of an all-powerful Nature. 

And the application of it all is that when Nature's sole and universalstimulus to progress is the love of self which she has implanted inevery soul, it is folly to assume that we can better Nature's workby substituting for the universal stimulus to effort a more or lessfleeting emotion which takes hold of but a very few and persists withbut a still smaller number. Whatever scheme of collectivism we mayestablish, we know in advance that every member of the collectivegroup will continuously strive to get for himself to the utmost limitregardless, if it could be discovered, of what is rightfully due. And aplan of Society which each member of Society is striving to subvert isdoomed from its birth. 

And the fourth count in the indictment of Socialism is that it iscontradictory to Nature to such a degree as to make its permanenceunthinkable because destructive not only of human comfort and happinessbut of human life. 

Expressed in briefest form the four counts are as follows[3]:

I. Public servants produce less for consumption than private workers. Decrease of consumption means increase of human misery. Therefore, Socialism, making all of us public servants would increase human misery. 

II. Brains, not Labor, creates the social dividend. Ability isdemonstrated only under strenuous competition inspired by self-interest. Therefore, Socialism, excluding competition inspired by self-interestwould obliterate the social dividend. 

III. The accumulating man inspired by selfishness is essential toany social saving. Social saving is essential to the support ofan increasing population. Therefore, Socialism by eliminating theCapitalist would make life impossible to many who now live. 

IV. To fight Nature is to die. Socialism fights Nature. Therefore, Socialism would destroy the race. 

It is a matter of premises, and I have already said that the premises inthese syllogisms can neither be proved or disproved. People, I suppose, will continue to fight over them but I shall not. No human life is longenough and no human intellect strong enough to demonstrate or disproveany one of them. Experimentally mankind is always somewhere trying outone or the other of these postulates but success or failure only provesthat they did or did not prove true in that particular case. 

An underlying fallacy of Socialism is the concept that poverty or atleast extreme poverty, can be banished from the world. It cannot. Itis impossible for the effective to produce and save as fast as theineffective will waste and destroy if they can get at it. No truth inthe Bible is more profound than the saying: "The poor ye have alwayswith you. "

The concept is based upon an unfounded belief in the competence of theaverage man. He is not nearly so competent an animal as he has taughthimself to believe. We read our Nordau and with but the very slightestability to judge what he says we declare him a libeler. We read our LeBon and declare off-hand that it is absurd and wicked to say thatthe crowd has no more sense than a flock of sheep. When we hear ofan alienist who cites the increase of murder, suicide and insanity asevidence that mankind is losing its mental balance, we declare that theman is crazy himself. 

I do not say that such men are or are not right or anywhere near rightin the views they express, but I do say that they are writing in coldblood in the light of a great deal of exact knowledge and certainly aremuch better judges of the truth in those matters than most of us whodispose of them so brusquely. 

The fact is that man, like other animals, differs greatly in individualability but he differs from other animals in that the difference betweenthe most competent and the least competent is enormously greater thansuch difference in any other species. The highest type of man is almostGodlike in the scope and keenness of his intellect. The lowest typereaches depths of degradation not touched by any other animal. There isno degradation so utterly degraded as a degraded mind. 

If you ask what all this has to do with Socialism, the reply is thatit has everything to do with it. The sole object which I have in thisaddress is to impress upon you the concept of man as an animal in thegrip of an all-powerful Nature, and differing from other animals solelyin his greater ability to dodge and evade, and so prolong the processesthrough which Nature will surely get him in the end; to conceive of himalso as subject to the same law which enthralls other animals, wherebythe fittest who demonstrate their fitness in the economic struggle shallsurvive while the least fit shall perish; to conceive of him as preparedand inspired for the struggle by the love of self which Nature hasimplanted in his soul in order that the race may endure to the utmostlimit possible for it, by the survival of those having the greatestcapacity for happiness. 

And, having fixed this conception in your minds, form your own judgmentof the probable outcome of a contest which would begin by eliminatingfrom man the one principle--selfishness--through which he must surviveif he survives at all. 

Thus far, I have dealt with the subject in icy cold blood as a purelyeconomic problem wholly excluding all considerations of humanity. Itmust be dealt with in that way if we are to deal with it intelligently. What must be will be, however dearly we may wish it otherwise. But we donot wish to go home with ice in our souls, and let us see if we cannotfind some reflections more comforting. I am sure that we can. 

I have said that humanitarianism has no legitimate place in economicdiscussion and it has not. But it has a very large place outsideeconomic theory and often in contact with economic results. 

There may be economic gains which ought to be and will be surrenderedfor social gains, as long as we can do it and live. A very reliable testof the prosperity of a Society is the extent to which it can withoutdistress, surrender economic goods in exchange for social goods. 

I have attacked Socialism, not Socialists. Multitudes of Socialists aremost charming men and women, and the aspirations of pure Socialism arethe noblest of which the human mind can conceive. How impossible theyare of realization I think they are, I have endeavored to show. Butthere are individualists whose ideals are equally noble. Any conceptionthat Socialists as a class are upon a higher ethical plane thanindividualists may be dismissed. Personally, I fear that at present theaverage ethical plane of Socialists is below that of opponents for theallurements of Socialistic theory have attracted to that cult a greatnumber of the economically impotent, but nevertheless greedy, who knownothing and care less about Socialistic theory but lust for that whichthey have never earned. It is they who promote class hatred as wellas class consciousness. They are an effective offset, morally, to thegreedy and consciousless employers who nevertheless perform a usefuleconomic function which the greedy among the Socialists do not. 

But, my controversy at this time is not with them, but with theSocialistic idealists moved by the loftiest conception of the welfareof mankind and the most earnest desire to promote it. And now let usintroduce somewhat of humanitarianism, which, while it has no placein economic theory, is that which most ennobles and beautifies humancharacter. And here let me register my last attack upon Socialisticcontroversy, which is, that fundamentally it tends to degrade humancharacter by adopting for, and applying to the manual workers of theworld a contemptuous epithet. When Marx, if it was he, I am not sure, shouted: "Proletariat of all nations, unite" he said a very wickedthing. It is not my conception of the manual worker that he is a mere"child getter, " but rather that he is as such, morally and socially theequal of any of us, from whose ranks there are continually emerging theleaders of thought, of discovery, of direction and of accumulation towhose abilities and activities all human progress is due, and I cannothear without indignation suggestions from his own would-be leaderswhich impair his self-respect. I wish, for a concrete example, that theworkingman should pay his poll tax and contribute to his occupationalinsurance with the rest of us, not to relieve Capital of a burden, butthat the character of the working man himself may be strengthened by aconscious contribution to the upkeep of Society. 

Our emotions are stronger than our reasoning powers, and as a matterof fact, collective human action is and during any period which we needconsider will be controlled by humanitarian instincts and not by therigidity of economic theory. Individually, we do and always shall, seekeach his own particular interest. Collectively, we invariably considerthe welfare of all. This has been particularly impressed on me duringthe last few years, during which I have presided over the deliberationsof a large body of good citizens, probably about equally divided betweenthe accumulating and non-accumulating classes. Whatever the individualpractices and tendencies of the respective members, whenever afterdiscussion the collective opinion is expressed on any social topic thevote is invariably substantially unanimous for that policy which thosepresent believe will make for the general good. It is not true that therich desire to oppress the poor. It is not true that there is any realconflict of interest between classes. It is true that there is a generaldesire for the general welfare. And it is also true that the generalwelfare will be surest and soonest attained by cooperation, and notconflict between classes, under the direction of those proved to bestrongest and wisest. 

I have said, and I am sure you must agree, that man economically differsfrom other animals mainly in his greater ability to evade the operationof Nature's own laws and to make use of the material resources andforces of Nature to assist him in so doing. And he does it mainly bycollective action which is displayed most effectively and beneficentlyin those great economic organizations which we hate and stigmatizeas "trusts" and which every one of us longs to get into as our bestassurance of economic stability. 

The problem is how to so regulate these economic regulators of Nature, that each shall get from their beneficent operation, not that which ishis ethical due, for that we can never determine, nor would it be forthe general welfare that each should receive his due, but that whicheach can receive without injury to Society. 

It is certain that each will get less as the ages go by unless by ourhuman ingenuity we can make production keep pace with population. Atpresent, production greatly varies in different parts of the world, and the condition in each country is indicated by the amount of leisurepossible to the average man. As population increases, leisure mustdecrease. If we work in a crowded community but eight hours per day, some will die among the weaker who would have lived if all had workednine hours. The best index of the economic condition of any country isthe amount of leisure which can be enjoyed by the average man withoutnoticeable increase of mortality among the least efficient. Themortality tables have not yet been studied in their relations to thissubject, but in time they will be. In Australia, mostly unsettled, theeight hour day is easy. If enforced in China the mortality would beawful. But then China has great but untouched natural resources to bedeveloped by machinery devised elsewhere, and whose development willdecrease mortality, while at the same time, at least for a long period, permitting more leisure. These conditions tend to equalize themselvesthroughout the world and in time the contest between humanitarianinstincts and economic pressure will reach a world-wide equilibriumthrough the operation of natural law. What will happen then I do notknow. Neither can any of us know. 

What we do know is that in each generation the aggregate of humanhappiness will be in a direct ratio with production per capita, up tothe limit of the ability of the earth to produce food. We also know thatthe rate of production per capita will increase or decrease in a directratio with the amount of human energy devoted to production and notwasted in conflict, whether individual, class or international. 

Each generation must work out its own problems in its own way. Aspopulation grows denser, individual freedom must more and more giveway to collective restraint and direction. We in the cities have lessfreedom than those of the country, and the greater the city the more theindividual impulse must be subordinated to collective control. 

But we must never attempt to supplant individual selfishness, inspiringindividual initiative and energy by any form of community ownership ordirection which destroys or lessens opportunity for the more competentand especially the economically exceptional man. You would createthereby a machine operated by machinists for the accomplishment ofmachine purposes which are the purposes, good or bad as the case may be, of the individual operators who have never been and are not likely to bethe economically competent. 

For our generation the problem is, while not restricting either theopportunity or the reward of the economically competent, to compel thepredatory and extortionate among them to behave decently, so that othersof their class may do so without ruin--to which end, in my judgment, jail sentences and not fines will be most effective. 

And likewise, to compel the ill-disposed and violent among theeconomically ineffective, to obey the laws or suffer the consequences. 

To bother our heads much less about Social theories, whose premises itis impossible to establish, and much more about the practical relief ofthe unfortunate by both individual and collective action and suppressionof parasitism among both rich and poor. 

To encourage and promote the organization of interests, not forcontention, but for cooperation. 

To fully recognize, that only by personal exertion according to hisability does any one earn the right to live, but that the reward ofexertion will be and should be apportioned, not in the ratio of energydisplayed, but in that of its effectiveness and usefulness to Society. 

To learn to differentiate between that reasonable discontent which isthe mainspring of human progress, and that unreasonable discontent whichis the destruction of Society. 

And finally, each of us according to his ability and opportunity, topractice and inculcate respect for the law, the maintenance of order, regard for the rights of others, admiration for the successful, sympathywith the unfortunate, charity for all, hope for humanity, joy in thesimple life and contentment therewith. 

[Footnote 1: See Note 2. ]

[Footnote 2: The accuracy of this reference was challenged by a youngSocialist, after the address. I have not read Capital for many yearsbut think I cannot be far wrong in my statement and, in any case, the conception as stated, whether accurately Marxian or not, is theconception of all who give vitality to Socialism in this country. Hence, I do not take the time to verify my recollection. I am a busy man and itis no light thing to tackle Capital with intent to extract its precisemeaning. Multitudes who have tried it have failed. Perhaps I was one ofthem. Of course Marx recognized the value of Labor other than manual, but his appeal was to manual workers and it is mainly they who haveresponded. ]

[Footnote 3: Some of these counts would bear subdividing but they wouldcome out all right. Any syllogism will come out all right when youassume the premises. ]

*****

A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM

To the Ruskin Club

When your Mr. Bamford wrote me that the Ruskin Club was out huntingtrouble, and that if I would come over here the bad men of the clubwould "do me up, " I confess my first impulse was to excuse myself fromthe proffered hospitality. In the first place, as I have never posedas a social champion I had no reputation at stake and I was horriblyafraid. Secondly, while my reading of Socialist and Anti-Socialistliterature is the reverse of extensive, I am very sure that nothing canbe said for or against Socialism which has not already been saidmany times, and so well said that a fair collection of Anti-Socialistliterature would make a punching-bag solid enough to absorb the force ofthe most energetic of pugilists. Finally, the inutility of such a sallypresented itself forcibly, since there is, so far as I know, no recordof the reformation of a Socialist after the habit is once firmlyestablished. But while at first these considerations were all againstmy putting on my armor, in the end the instinct of eating and fighting, which is as forceful in the modern savage, under the veneer ofcivilization, as in our unpolished progenitors, overcame allconsiderations of prudence, and here I am to do battle according to myability. I promise to strike no foul blows and not to dodge the mostportentous of whacks, but to ride straight at you and hit as hard as Ican. 

A Critique of Socialism

While it is doubtless true that no one can live in the world withoutin some degree modifying his environment, it is also true that theinfluence of a single person is seldom appreciable or his opinion uponSocial questions of sufficient importance to excite curiosity, but Iconfess that when I listen to an address intended to be thoughtful, Ienjoy it more or at any rate endure it better, if I have some knowledgeof the mental attitude of the speaker toward his general subject. Thinking that possibly those who hear me this evening may have the samefeeling, I begin by saying that I earnestly favor a just distribution ofcomfort. I suppose that if I should analyze the mental processes leadingto that wish, I should find toward the bottom a conviction that if eachhad his due I should be better off. The objection to the Socialisticprogram is that it would prevent a just distribution of comfort. 

Some years ago in a book of which I was guilty, I wrote the following:"There is implied in all Socialistic writing the doctrine that organizedman can override, and as applied to himself, repeal the fundamental lawof Nature, that no species can endure except by the production of moreindividuals than can be supported, of whom the weakest must die, withthe corollary of misery before death. Competitive Society tends to thedeath of the weakest, Socialistic Society would tend to the preservationof the weak. There can be no question of the grandeur of thisconception. To no man is given nobler aspirations than to him whoconceives of a just distribution of comfort in an existence not idle, but without struggle. It would be a Nirvana glorious only in the absenceof sorrow, but still perhaps a happy ending for our race. It may, afterall, be our destiny. Nor can any right-minded man forbear his tribute tothe good which Socialistic agitation has done. No man can tell how muchmisery it has prevented, or how much it will prevent. So, also, while wemay regret the emotionalism which renders even so keen an intellect asthat of Karl Marx an unsafe guide, we must, when we read his descriptionof conditions for which he sought remedy, confess that he had beenless a man had he been less emotional. The man whom daily contact withremediable misery will not render incompetent to always write logically, I would not wish to know. But it is the mission of such men to arouseaction and not to finally determine its scope. The advocate may not bethe judge. My animus is that I heartily desire most if not all the endsproposed by abstract Socialism, which I understand to be a perfectlyjust distribution of comfort. If, therefore, I am a critic of Socialism, I am a friendly critic, my objections to its progress resting mainly ona conviction that it would not remove, but would intensify, the evilswhich it is intended to mitigate. " That is quite sufficient in regard tothe personal equation. 

There appear to be, unfortunately, as many sects of Socialists as ofChristians, and if "Capital" were a more clearly written book I shouldbe of the opinion that it would be as much better for Socialists if allother books on Socialism were destroyed as it would be for Christiansand Jews if all books on Theology were destroyed, except the Bible. By Socialism I mean what some Socialist writers call "ScientificSocialism. " "Marxism, " it might be called. "Humanism, " I think Marxwould have preferred to call it, and I believe did call it, for he dealtwith abstract doctrine applicable to men and not to nations, and hispropaganda was the "International. " Incidentally, as we pass on, we maynotice in this connection the dilemma of American Socialists whichthey do not seem to realize. State Socialism has no logical place ina Socialistic program, for it merely substitutes the more deadlycompetition of nations for that of the individual, or even "trust"competition now existing, while Humanism, or Marxism, tends to a uniformcondition of humanity which the American proletariat would fight toothand nail because they would rightly believe that for them it would atpresent be a leveling down instead of leveling up. 

Karl Marx was, of course, not the inventor of Socialism, nor was he, sofar as I know, the originator of any of its fundamental doctrines, --thedoctrine, for example, that all value is derived from Labor was partof mediaeval clericism, --but be first reduced it to coherent form andpublished it as a complete and definite system, and upon the issues, substantially as he formulated and left them, must Socialism stand orfall. 

I must assume the members of the Ruskin Club to be familiar with theMarxian fundamental propositions, which I do not state because Ishall confine my attack to the three derived propositions about whichdiscussion mainly centers. We certainly do not want an exercise inserious dialectics after dinner, but I will say in passing that I donot think that any of his fundamental propositions are true, or that histheory of value has a single sound leg to stand on, and as for what hecalls "surplus value, " I doubt whether there be such a thing. At anyrate he has not proved it, nor can it be proved, without taking intoconsideration the enormous number of industrial failures, as well as themore limited number of industrial successes--and there are no data forthat purpose. I may also mention as what seems to me a fatal flawin Socialistic philosophy, its concentration upon the conditions ofIndustrial Society, without adequate conception of a provision forthe requirements of agriculture. Industrialism and commercialism aredoubtless conveniences essential to our present civilization; but ifevery factory and all commerce were blotted from the earth the worldwould go right along, and when the necessary millions had perishedin the adjustment, those remaining would be as happy as ever. Mankindadjusts itself to new environments very readily. We here in citiestalking wisely on these things are wholly unnecessary. The farmeris essential, because without him we should starve. Nobody elseis essential. We must not get the big-head. Economical farming onSocialistic methods is impossible, and any successful system of Socialbetterment must be based on the requirements of economical farming. Finally, to conclude this preliminary reconnaissance, the attitude ofSocialism to religion is wholly unjustifiable. I am profoundly convincedthat the groveling heathen, who in sincerity bows down to a "bloomin'idol made of mud, " as Kipling puts it, has in him the propagation of anobler and happier posterity than the most cultured cosmopolitan whois destitute of reverence. The Church and the Synagogue are the onlyexisting institutions of modern Society which are engaged in the work ofupbuilding and strengthening that rugged personal character which is theonly sure foundation of any worthy civilization. 

I do not discuss the fundamental Marxian propositions for two reasons. In the first place, it would be laborious beyond measure for me, anddreary beyond measure for you. For example, the bottom stone in thefoundation of the sub-basement of the Marxian edifice is the propositionthat the equation

X commodity A=y commodity B essentially differs from the equation

y Commodity B=X Commodity A. 

Now, a discussion whether there is between these two equations adifference which it is Socially necessary to take account of, is a thingto be put into books where it can be skipped, and not imposed in coldblood even on intellectual enemies. Personally I do not believe thereis, for I do not think that Social phenomena can be dealt with by therigorous methods of mathematics. One can never be sure that theunknown quantities are all accounted for. But whether this or similarpropositions are essential to the discussion of the theory of surplusvalue or not, I do not describe them because they are of no particularimportance. 

Socialism is not based upon the Marxian theory of value, but the Marxiantheory of value was evolved in an endeavor to fix a scientific basis fora popular movement already fully under way. Socialism is not basedon reason, but emotion; not on reflection, but desire; it is notscientific, but popular. If every Socialist on earth should concede thatthe Marxian theory of surplus value had been knocked into smithereens, it would have no more effect on the progress of Socialism than thegentle zephyr of a June day on the hide of a rhinoceros. Socialism mustbe attacked in the derived propositions about which popular discussioncenters, and the assault must be, not to prove that the doctrines arescientifically unsound, but that they tend to the impoverishment anddebasement of the masses. These propositions are three, and I lay downas my thesis--for I abhor defensive warfare--that

 Rent is right, Interest is right, Profits are right, and that they are all three ethically and economically justified, andare in fact essential to the happiness and progress of the race, andmore especially to those who labor with their hands. 

Now, first, rent: I confess that I have no patience with any one whoclaims, as an inherent right, the exclusive ownership of any part of theearth. He might as well claim ownership in a section of air. In this Iam very certain that I have the hearty concurrence of every member ofthis Club. I am so sure of this, in fact, that I am going to makethat assumption, in which we all agree, the starting point of a littledialogue, in which, after the manner of Plato, I will put Socrates atone end of the discussion, and some of his friends, whom we will supposeto be Phaedo, and Crito, and Simmias, and the rest at the other, and wewill let Socrates and Phaedo carry on the conversation, which might runas follows:

SOCRATES--We are agreed, then, that no man has any right inherent inhimself to the ownership of land. 

PHAEDO--Certainly, we agree to that. Such a thing is absurd, for theearth is a gift to the human race, and not to particular men. 

SOCRATES--I am glad that you think so, and am sure we shall continue toagree. And if no one man has any right to exclusive ownership of land, neither have any two men, since it is plain that neither could conveyto himself and another any right which he did not possess, nor could twomen together by any means get lawful title to what neither was entitledto hold. 

PHAEDO--You are doubtless right, Socrates. I do not think any man coulddispute that. 

SOCRATES--And if neither one man nor two men can acquire lawful title toland, neither for the same reason could any number, no matter how great, acquire lawful title. 

PHAEDO--That certainly follows from what we have already agreed to. 

SOCRATES--And it makes no difference how small or how great a portion ofland may be. No man and no number of men can acquire lawful ownership ofit. 

PHAEDO--That is also so plainly true that it seems hardly worth whileto say it. It certainly makes no difference whether the land be a squarefurlong or a continent. 

SOCRATES--As you say, Phaedo, that is very evident. The earth belongs tomankind, and all men are by nature sharers in its benefits. 

PHAEDO--I trust that you will understand that I agree with you in that, and so make an end of it. 

SOCRATES--It is perhaps best that we be very sure that we agree as we goon, so that if we should at any time disagree, we do not need to go farback to find where our difference began. The earth is the property ofmen in common, and each has an undivided share in its possession. 

PHAEDO--That is another thing too plain to be disputed. 

SOCRATES--And when men hold property in common, each has as much rightto all parts of it as another. 

PHAEDO--To be sure. I do not see why we need waste time in mentioningthings so plain and so trivial. 

SOCRATES--And when men own property they may do with it as they please, and property which men own jointly they may visit and remain upon, theone as much as the other. 

PHAEDO--Unquestionably that is so, and we should do better to go tosleep in the shade somewhere, than to spend time in repeating things sosimple. 

SOCRATES--Be patient, Phaedo, and in time we may find somewhat whereinwe do not so perfectly agree. But, whatever property men have the rightto visit and remain upon, they are always free to use in common withtheir fellow owners. 

PHAEDO--Certainly. Will you never, O Socrates, have done with this?

SOCRATES--And Chinamen, therefore, have full right to come and live inCalifornia. 

PHAEDO (and the rest)--We will all see them in hell first. 

And I am very certain that every Socialist in California will agree bothwith the premises and the conclusion. 

But we might try another course of reasoning by which we may perhapsmore easily reach the predetermined conclusion, and we will let thesame parties carry on the dialogue, which is a most delightful way ofreasoning when, as in the case of Plato and myself, the same personconducts both sides of the discussion. It might run in this way:

PHAEDO--We have come, Socrates, to discuss with you, if you will permitus, the question of the ownership of land. Crito and Hippias and myselfand others were considering that subject the other day, and we were notable to agree. Hippocrates, whom you know, has lately returned fromthe region of Mount Olympus, and as he was hunting one day on the lowerslopes of the mountain, he came, haply, upon a beautiful vale, fertileand well watered, wherein was no habitation or sign of man. The softbreezes blew gently over the rich green plain whereon the red deergrazed peacefully and turned not at his approach. And when Hippocratesreturned from his hunt he found upon inquiry that no man of the regionknew of that vale or had ever heard thereof. So, as he had marked theentrance thereto, he returned thither with the intent to remain therefor a space. And remaining there through the warm summer he fenced inthe vale and the deer in it, and built him a house, and remained therea full year. But certain concerns of his family at that time constrainedHippocrates to return to Athens, and since he can no more live in hisvale he offered to sell it to Hipparchus for a talent of silver for aplace to keep summer boarders. And Hipparchus was content; but when theyrepaired to the Demosion to exchange the price for the deed, Hippocrateswas unable to produce any parchment showing his title to the vale. Andwhen he was unable to do that, Hipparchus would not pay down his silver, until he could make further inquiry. The next day, we all, meeting atthe house of Phidias, fell to debating whether Hippocrates owned theland and could sell it to Hipparchus. And some said one thing andsome another, and in the end we agreed that when some of us were nexttogether, we would go to the house of Socrates, and if he were content, we would discuss the matter with him. And today happening to so meet wehave come to you, Socrates, and would be glad to hear whether you thinkHippocrates owns that vale, and may sell it or no. 

SOCRATES--You are very welcome, Phaedo, and your friends, and as for thematter you name, I shall be glad to talk of it with you and see if wecan come to some understanding of it. But before we can proceed in thediscussion, it will be necessary to find some starting point upon whichwe can all agree, because until we agree, at the beginning, upon someone thing pertaining to the matter, as certain and not to be doubted, discussion is useless, but if we can find such a thing, which none ofus doubt, we may be able to make something of the matter. I propose, therefore, O Phaedo, that you propound someone statement which all youwho have been discussing the matter believe. 

PHAEDO--Of a truth, Socrates, we discussed the matter till the sun wentdown, but I do not remember any one thing to which we all agreed exceptthat there is such a vale at the foot of Mount Olympus, as Hippocratesdescribes, and that he lived therein for a year. That we believe becauseHippocrates so told us, and all Athens knows Hippocrates for a truthfulman. 

SOCRATES--That is something, for all truth is useful; but it does notseem to me to be such a truth as will well serve for a foundationfrom which we may penetrate, as one might say, the very bowels of thesubject. I pray you to propound some other. 

PHAEDO--Truly, Socrates, I cannot, nor can we any of us, for uponnothing else pertaining to the matter are we able to agree. 

SOCRATES--If it please you, then, I will propound a saying and see ifyou agree with me. 

PHAEDO--We shall be very glad if you will. 

SOCRATES--I suggest, then, that we begin by agreeing, if we are able todo so, that the gods have given the earth to man for his use. 

PHAEDO--Surely that seems to be true. 

SOCRATES--I am glad that you think favorably of it, but that is notsufficient if we are to reason upon it, because that upon which we foundour argument must be what we accept as absolute truth. 

PHAEDO--I think the earth was made for mankind, but if in ourconversation something should also seem true, and yet contradictory tothat, I know not what I should think. 

SOCRATES--Let us, then, think of something else: The earth is at anyrate surely for the use of some beings. The mighty Atlas would neversustain it upon his broad shoulders if it did nobody good. 

PHAEDO--That, at least, is certain, Socrates. 

SOCRATES--And it must be for beings who can make use of it and enjoy it. 

PHAEDO--That also is true. 

SOCRATES--And beings which can use and enjoy the earth must be livingbeings. 

PHAEDO--Nobody will deny that. 

SOCRATES--And there are no living things except the gods, mankind, thelower animals, and plants. 

PHAEDO--I agree to that. 

SOCRATES--And it is plain that the gods did not build the earth forthemselves, for they do not live upon it, except on Olympus, and nowheredoes the earth produce ambrosia and nectar, which are the food of thegods. 

PHAEDO--That is true, for the gods live in the heavens and in the netherworld, and not upon the earth. 

SOCRATES--And the plants do not use the earth, or enjoy it, althoughthey live upon it, but they are themselves used and enjoyed by man andbeasts. 

PHAEDO--Certainly the earth was not made for the plants. 

SOCRATES--And surely as between man and the lower animals, the earth wasintended for man. 

PHAEDO--Certainly, that is what we think, but I do not know what thelion and the horse and the ox might say, for they certainly use theearth and enjoy it. 

SOCRATES--But man is superior to the lower animals, and the superiorcannot be subordinate to the inferior. 

PHAEDO--I do not know how we can tell which is superior. The primordialcell in differentiating out of homogeneity into heterogeneity developeddifferent qualities in different beings, and of the organs integratedfrom the heterogeneous elements each has its use and many are essentialto life. In man the brain is more powerful than in the ox, but in the oxthe stomach is more powerful than the brain, and while both stomach andbrain are necessary, yet is one with a weak brain and strong stomachdoubtless happier than one with a weak stomach and strong brain. Is itnot, then, true that the stomach is nobler than the brain, and if so, then the pig and the lion and the goat, which have strong stomachs, nobler than man, whose stomach could in nowise digest carrion, oralfalfa, or tin cans, and therefore may it not be that the earth wasmade for the lower animals, who can use more of its products than man?

SOCRATES--That is a deep thought, O Phaedo, which shows that you arewell up in your Spencer, although shy in your surgery, for it is truethat the stomach has been removed from a man who lived happy ever after, while neither man nor beast ever lived a minute after his brains wereknocked out; but, is it not true that it is by the function of the brainthat man makes his powers more effective than those of animals strongerthan he, so that he is able to bear rule over all the lower animals andeither exterminate them from the earth or make them to serve him?

PHAEDO--Yes, that is true. 

SOCRATES--And we cannot say that the earth was made for beasts whichthemselves are made to serve the purpose of man, for as plants areconsumed by beasts, so beasts are consumed by man who acquires for hisown use and enjoyment whatever power is generated by the organs of allother living things. 

PHAEDO--That is true, and I can now see that the earth was not made bythe gods for themselves, or for plants or beasts. 

SOCRATES--Therefore, it appears to me that it must have been made forman. 

PHAEDO--That is true, and I now agree that the earth was made for man. 

SOCRATES--Then, since we have found a common starting point, we may goon with our conversation. We have proved that the earth was made forman, because man, by powers inherent in himself, can overcome all otherliving things on the earth and subject them to his uses. 

PHAEDO--Yes, we have proved that. 

SOCRATES--And the real source of his kingship is power. 

PHAEDO--That must be true. 

SOCRATES--And force is power applied to some object, so that power andforce may be spoken of as the same thing. 

PHAEDO--Certainly. 

SOCRATES--And where power lies, there and there only is sovereignty, andwhere power ends sovereignty finds its limit. So that, for example, ifthe lion could subdue man and the other animals, the earth would be forthe use of the lion. 

PHAEDO--That is plain. 

SOCRATES--And if a company of men should find an island and go and liveupon it and be strong enough to subdue the wild animals and keep outother men, that island would be for their use. 

PHAEDO--That follows, because sovereignty goes with power exercised inforce. 

SOCRATES--And so if one man should find a vacant space and takepossession, it would be his. 

PHAEDO--That is true. 

SOCRATES--And what belongs to man, man may dispose of as he will. 

PHAEDO--All men agree to that. 

SOCRATES--And, therefore, since Hippocrates has found a vacant spaceon the earth and taken possession thereof, and no man disputes hispossession, it is his and he may sell it. 

PHAEDO--That is certainly true, and I do not doubt that Hipparchus willnow pay down his talent of silver and take over the vale in the Olympianforest. 

SOCRATES--And if instead of finding an island the company of men hadfound an entire continent it would be theirs if they were strong enoughto keep it. 

PHAEDO--Surely that is so, for power is but concentrated ability toenjoy, and where most power lies, there lies most ability to enjoy, and therefore the highest possible aggregate of human happiness, in theattainment of which the will of the gods shall be done. 

SOCRATES--And if a company can take part of a continent, but not thewhole, whatever they are able to take is theirs. 

PHAEDO--Undoubtedly. 

SOCRATES--And what is theirs is not the property of others. 

PHAEDO--By no means. 

SOCRATES--And if it does not belong to others, others may not lawfullyuse it. 

PHAEDO--Surely not. 

SOCRATES--And they who do own it may prevent others from entering it. 

PHAEDO--Surely, for hath not the poet said:

"That they shall take who have the power, And they may keep who can. "

SOCRATES--Therefore it is plain that the United States may keep Chinamenout of America. 

PHAEDO--There can be no doubt of it whatever. 

SOCRATES--And Chinese may keep Americans out of China. 

PHAEDO--That is another story. One must never let his logic get thebetter of him. 

And so we might play with these great subjects forever, with reasoningas leaky as a sieve, but good enough to catch the careless or theuntrained. 

One of the most interesting lectures which I ever listened to wasone before the Economic League of San Francisco on the "Dialectics ofSocialism. " The lecturer was a very acute man, who would not for onemoment be deceived by the sophistry of my Socrates and Phaedo, but, who, himself, made willing captives of his hearers by similar methods. I wasunable to hear all his address, but when I reluctantly left, it appearedto me that he was expecting to prove that Socialism must be soundphilosophy because it was contradictory to all human observation, experience, judgment and the dictates of sound common sense--and hislarge audience was plainly enough with him. 

The dialectics of the schoolmen or their equivalent are useless inSocial discussion. Social phenomena do not lend themselves to therigorous formulas of mathematics and logic, for the human intellectis unable to discern and grasp all the factors of these problems. Mytravesty of Plato was intended to illustrate the difficulty of closereasoning on such topics. 

Neither, on the other hand, are we to blindly follow the impulses ofemotion which lead us to jump at a conclusion, support it with whatreason we can, but reach it in any event. Emotion is the source ofSocial power, but power unrestrained and undirected is dangerous. Energycreated by the sight of distress must be controlled by reason or it willnot relieve distress. And by reason I do not mean Social syllogisms, of whose premises we are always uncertain, but conclusions halfunconsciously formed in the mind as the result of human experienceoperating on human feeling--the practical wisdom which we call commonsense. Human conduct, individual and aggregate, must be regulated anddetermined by the consensus of the judgment of the wisest made effectivethrough its gradual acceptance as the judgment of the majority. Privateownership of land, with its accompanying rent, is justified, not by animaginary inherent right in the individual, which has no real existenceand so cannot be conveyed, but because the interests of Society requirethe stimulus to effort which private ownership and private ownershiponly can give. And here I shall leave this point without the furtherillustration and elaboration with which I could torment you longerthan you could keep awake. And with the other two points I will confinemyself to the most condensed forms of statement. 

Interest--Socialists and non-Socialists agree that what a man makes ishis. Socialists and I agree that every man is entitled to his just shareof the Social dividend. I believe, and in this I suppose the Socialistswould agree with me, that when a man gets his annual dividend he may useit, or keep it for future use. If, while he does not use his dividend, or the product of his labor, he permits others to use it to theirprofit, it seems to me that he is entitled to some satisfaction incompensation for his sacrifice. I believe it to the interest of Societythat he have it. By individual thrift Society accumulates, and it iswise to encourage thrift. 

If I build a mill and, falling sick, cannot use it, it is fair thathe who does use it shall pay me for my sacrifice in building it. If Iforego possible satisfactions of any kind, those whom I permit to enjoythem should recompense me. And that is interest. Its foundation as aright rests not only on those natural sentiments of justice with whichthe normal man everywhere is endowed and behind which we cannot go, buton the interest of Society to encourage the creation of savings funds tobe employed for the benefit of Society. 

Profits--Private profit is far less a private right than a publicnecessity. Its absence would involve a waste which Society could notendure. With individual operations controlled by fallible men enormouswaste is inevitable. It is essential to Society that this waste beminimized. No industrial or commercial enterprise can go on withoutrisk. Profit is the compensation for risk. One of the things which Ibelieve, but which cannot be proved, is that from the dawn of historylosses to individuals by which Society gained have exceeded profits toindividuals, and the excess of these losses is the Social accumulation, increased, of course, by residues left after individuals have got whatthey could. Whitney died poor, but mankind has the cotton-gin. Belldied rich, but there is a profit to mankind in the telephone. Socialistspropose to assume risks and absorb profits. I do not believe Societycould afford this. I am profoundly convinced that under the Socialistprogram the inevitable waste would be so enormously increased as toresult in disaster approaching a Social cataclysm. This is an oldargument whose validity Socialists scout. Nevertheless I believe itsound. The number of these whose intellectual and physical strength issufficient for the wisest direction of great enterprises is very small. Some who are interested in our great industrial trusts are said to carryheavy insurance on the life of Mr. Morgan, lest he die and leave nosuccessor. If the natural ability is found its possessor will probablylack the knowledge which Mr. Morgan[4] has accumulated, and in thelight of which he directs his operations. It is essential that greatoperations--and the business of the future will be conducted on a greatscale--be directed by great wisdom and power. The possessors of highqualities we now discover by the trying-out process. They can bediscovered in no other way, and great effort can be secured only by thehope of great reward. Until human nature changes we can expect nothingdifferent. Socialism implies popular selection of industrial leadership. Wherever tried thus far in the world's history there has usually beenabject failure. The mass can choose leaders in emotion but not directorsof industry. The selection of experts by the non-expert can be wise onlyby accident. If the selection is not popular, then Socialism is tyranny, as its enemies charge. If it be popular, or in so far as it is popular, direction is likely to fall to the great persuaders and not to the greatdirectors. Never did a "peoples party" yet escape the control of theunscrupulous. No political movements result in so much political andSocial rascality as so-called popular movements originated by earnestand honest men. I see no reason to suppose that the Socialisticdirection of industrial affairs in any city would be directed fromany other source than the back rooms of the saloons where politicalmovements are now shaped. If the Socialistic program were to go intoeffect tomorrow morning there would be here tonight neither lecturernor audience. The good dinner would remain untasted in the ovens. Everymortal soul of us would be scooting from one Social magnate to anotherto assure that we were on the slate for the soft jobs and that nobodywas crowding us off. I have no faith in human nature except as it isconstantly strengthened and purified by struggle. That struggle is anirrepressible conflict existing in all nature, and from which man cannotescape. It is better for mankind that it go on openly and in more orless accord with known rules of warfare than in the secret conspiringchambers of the class which in the end controls popular movement. Allserious conflict involves evil, but it is also strengthening to therace. I wish misery could be banished from the world, but I fear that itcannot be so banished. I have little confidence in human ability to sothoroughly comprehend the structure and functions of the Social bodyas to correctly foretell the steps in its evolution, or prescribeconstitutional remedies which will banish Social disease. If I were aSocial reformer--and were I with my present knowledge still an ingenuousyouth in the fulness of strength with my life before me I do not knowthat I would not be a Social reformer--I would profess myself a Socialagnostic, and prosecute my mission by the methods of the opportunist. Iwould endeavor to direct the Social ax to the most obvious and obtrusiveroots of the Social evil, and having removed them and watched theresult, would then determine what to do next. Possibly I would endeavorto begin with the abolition of wills and collateral inheritance, and solimiting direct inheritance that no man able to work should escape itsnecessity by reason of the labor of his forefathers. I might say thatI recognized the vested rights of the Astors to the soil on ManhattanIsland, but that I recognized no right as vested in beings yet unborn. I might say that it was sufficient stimulation and reward for the mosteminent Social endeavor to select, within reason, the objects of publicutility to which resulting accumulations should be applied and tosuperintend during one's lifetime their application to those purposes. I might think in this way, and might not, were I an enthusiastic Socialreformer in the heyday of youth, but it appears to me now that at anyrate we shall make most progress toward ultimate universal happiness ifwe recognize that out of the increasing strenuousness of our conflictthere is coming constantly increasing comfort and better divisionthereof, and if we direct that portion of our energies which we devoteto the service of mankind toward such changes in the direction ofthe Social impulse as can be made without impairing the force of theevolutionary movement, rather than to those which involve the reversalof the direction of the force with the resulting danger of explosion andcollapse. 

[Footnote 4: This was written and originally printed long before thedeath of Mr. Morgan, but there is a general feeling that he has left nosuccessor of his caliber. ]

*****

Here ends The Inhumanity of Socialism, being two papers--The CaseAgainst Socialism and A Critique of Socialism--By Edward F. Adams. Published by Paul Elder and Company at their Tomoye Press, in the cityof San Francisco, and seen through the press by John Swart, in the monthof June, Nineteen Hundred & Thirteen