ass alignment that is the very first
requirement, if the rule of property in all its forms is to be ended, or
equal opportunity secured for the lower as well as the comparatively
well-to-do middle classes.

Similarly the essential or practical difference between the "Socialism"
of Mr. Roosevelt's editorial associate, Dr. Lyman Abbott, who
acknowledges that classes exist and says that capitalism must be
abolished, and the Socialism of the international movement is this, that
Dr. Abbott expects to work, on the whole, with the capitalists who are
to be done away with, while Socialists expect to work against them.

Dr. Abbott claims that the "democratic Socialism" he advocates is
directly the opposite of "State Socialism ... the doctrine of
Bismarck," that it "aims to abolish the distinction between
possessing and non-possessing classes," that our present industrial
institutions are based on _autocracy_ and _inequality_ instead of
liberty, democracy, and equality, that under the _wages system_ or
capitalism, the laborers or wage earners are practically unable to
earn their daily bread "except by permission of the capitalists who
own the tools by which the labor must be carried on." He then
proceeds to what would be regarded by many as a thoroughly
Socialist conclusion:

"The real and radical remedy for the evils of capitalism is the
organization of the industrial system in which the laborers or tool
users will themselves become the capitalists or tool owners; in
which, therefore, the class distinction which exists under
capitalism will be abolished."[36]

And what separates the advanced "State Socialism" of Mr. Hearst's
brilliant editor, Mr. Arthur Brisbane, from the Socialism of the
organized Socialist movement? Has not Mr. Brisbane hinted repeatedly at
a possible revolution in the future? Has he not insisted that the crux
of "the cost of living question" is not so much the control of prices
by the private ownership of necessities of life (as some "State
Socialist" reformers say, and even some official publications of the
Socialist Party), as the _exploitation_ of the worker _at the point of
production_, the fact that he does not get the full product of his
labor--phrases which might have been used by Marx himself?

The _New York Evening Journal_ has even predicted an increasing conflict
of economic interests on the political field--fa