s
in the very material fact of the economic development from
competition to monopoly; in the breakdown of capitalism itself.
You have probably learned by this time that Socialism does not mean
either doing away with all government or making the government master
of everything. Later, I want to return to the subject, and to the
charge that it would reduce all to a dull level. I shall not waste
time answering the objections that it is a scheme and that it is not a
scheme, further than I have already answered them. And I am not going
to waste your time arguing at length the folly of saying that
Socialism has been tried and proved a failure. The Socialism of to-day
has nothing to do with the thousands of Utopian schemes which men have
tried. Before the modern Socialist movement came into existence,
during hundreds of years, men and women tried to realize social
equality by forming communities and withdrawing from the ordinary life
of the world. Some of these communities, mostly of a religious nature,
such as the Shakers and the Perfectionists, attained some measure of
success and lasted a number of years, but most of them lasted only a
short time. It is folly to say that Socialism has ever been tried
anywhere at any time.
And now, friend Jonathan, I want to consider some of the more vital
and important objections to Socialism made in your letter. You object
to Socialism
Because its advocates use violent speech
Because it is "the same as Anarchism"
Because it aims to destroy the family and the home
Because it is opposed to religion
Because it would do away with personal liberty
Because it would reduce all to one dull level
Because it would destroy the incentive to progress
Because it is impossible unless we can change human nature.
These are all your objections, Jonathan, and I am going to try to
suggest answers to them.
(1) It is true that Socialists sometimes use very violent language.
Like all earnest and enthusiastic men who are possessed by a great and
overwhelming sense of wrong and needless suffering, they sometimes use
language that is terrible in its vehemence; their speech is sometimes
full of bitter scorn and burning indignation. It is also true that
their speech is sometimes rough and uncultured, shocking the sensitive
ear, but I am sure you will agree with me that the working man or
woman who, never having had the advantage of education and refined
environment, feels the burden of t
|