CHAPTER LXXVI.

INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS SOCIALISM.[4]

Footnote 4:

An address delivered by Henry Clews on Sunday afternoon, May 12, 1907,

at the Columbia Theatre, Brooklyn, in debate with Professor

Kirkpatrick, graduate of Albion College, Michigan, and former

professor in the University of Chicago.

In order that I may present a clear understanding of my view of the

subject, it is only fair, in the first place, to state that the system

of Individualism which I shall endeavor to uphold is worthy and

commendable. I hold it to be superior in every sense to any of the

various plans of Socialism offered by its advocates. By this I do not

mean Individualism in the extreme sense of the term, for, as we all

know, in no civilized country and under no form of government whatsoever

does, or can, extreme Individualism exist.

In the world of economics and politics Individualism has a distinct

meaning, as a name given to the theory of government which favors the

non-interference of the State in the affairs of individuals. It has also

been well defined, as the private ownership of the means of production

and distribution, where competition is possible; leaving to public

ownership those means of production and distribution in which

competition is practically impossible.

It will, then, be at once apparent that, in the consideration of the

forces helpful and necessary to society, the individualist believes that

competition which encourages merit and develops skill should remain

paramount. And right here the issue is made, between Individualism and

Socialism, the Socialist denying that competition is beneficial to

society, but contending rather that it is a deleterious and harmful

force.

Upon this issue, so joined, I stand firmly in favor of the principle of

competition, and that system of Individualism which guards, protects and

encourages competition. It is that system of government under which we

live to-day—a government of the people, by the people and for the

people—the United States of America—a free system of government, in the

best and broadest sense of the term.

Under this free system of government, whereby individuals are free to

get a living or to pursue wealth as each chooses, the usual result is

competition. Obviously, then, competition really means industrial

freedom. Thus, any one may choose his own trade or profession, or, if he

does not like it, he may change. He is free to work hard or not; he may

make his own bargains and set his price upon his labor or his products.

He is free to acquire property to any extent, or to part with it. By

dint of greater effort or superior skill, or by intelligence, if he can

make better wages, he is free to live better, just as his neighbor is

free to follow his example and to learn to excel him in turn. If any one

has a genius for making and managing money, he is free to exercise his

genius, just as another is free to handle his tools.

In this primary outline of the free system of Individualism, it is well

also to consider the good side of freedom or Individualism. It is an

axiom, well established, that the freer men are to choose their work and

to use and enjoy its results, the more work they are willing to do.

Their energy and enterprise are called out, their wits sharpened, their

hopes stirred. If any one wins unusual success, others are encouraged to

try better methods. If an individual enjoys his money, gained by energy

and successful effort, his neighbors are urged to work the harder, that

they and their children may have the same enjoyment.

Thus, every one accomplishes more in a condition of freedom or

Individualism, and the whole nation is richer, than if custom or a

Socialistic community fettered and restricted men, and compelled them to

work according to rule. With matured individuals, this is on the same

principle that children enjoy their sports better, when left to

themselves, than if a parent or teacher were to meddle and make rules

for them.

I believe that it can be stated, as an established fact, that whenever

men are, as individuals, free to work, to earn and to save and use their

earnings as they deem fit, the capable, the industrious, the temperate

and the intelligent everywhere tend to rise to prosperity. The skilful

are always in demand and at good wages. And remember, that a day’s wages

never purchased so much in supplies as it does in the United States,

where we use the individual or competitive system of work, because high

as prices are, wages are still higher.

As a further part of this summary of Individualism and competition, let

us also add the moral side, for it is a considerable and important item.

When men labor, earn or save with perfect freedom, they develop many

moral qualities, such as patience, self-reliance, self-sacrifice,

venturesomeness, integrity, generosity and respect for others’ rights.

If a Socialistic committee of the wisest men could manage and make rules

for the rest, and provide for every one’s necessities, men would not

acquire or exhibit these sterling qualities of manhood, as well as they

would by being thrown upon their own resources.

We know this, also, from the fact that the strongest characters have

been worked out in brave and patient competition and conflict, often

under difficult circumstances; whereas the men who have never been

thrown upon their own resources rarely amount to anything.

After this preliminary description of the worth and salient influence of

Individualism, under which our country has grown to be the greatest

nation of the world, let us now turn to Socialism—a system which, if

adopted, would call a halt to our progress, tear down our established

institutions, and turn our great prosperity into ruin and decay.

It is difficult to tell just what is meant by Socialism in the more

modern sense of the term.

It has appeared in the United States under five different and almost

totally disconnected forms. It has appeared as a movement towards the

establishment of Socialistic communities or communisms; it has appeared

as Fourierism, as German or International Socialism, as Nihilism and

Christian Socialism.

Professor Mallock, the eminent English writer, in his lectures in New

York, made a careful analysis of Socialism, and exposed its plausible

sophistries, some of which, Socialists boast, are grounded on our

defined principles of political economy, which the learned writer

asserts are rather incomplete. It may be admitted that this is so, and

that fuller and clearer distinctions could well be added to our text

books on the subject. But, joining the issue in a clean-cut way, between

Individualism and Socialism, obviates all necessity at this time of

further considering such distinctions, and clarifies our respective

positions in this debate.

It was noticeable that, during the delivery of these lectures, hints and

remonstrances were freely thrown out that the structure that Dr. Mallock

was attacking was not Socialism at all, in the modern acceptation of the

term, but something else that had long ago been abandoned.

Now, while I have no unfriendliness whatever with the honest Socialist

(mistaken, deluded and sadly out of place in this grand Republic, as he

may be), I do say, that this position is but too often the wily

subterfuge, sought to be taken advantage of by the insincere agitator or

pretended reformer, when he sees that he is beaten. His invariable

answer to an irrefutable argument is: “Oh, that which you talked about

is not modern Socialism!”

For the purpose of this discussion, however, we can agree that, as

contradistinguished from Individualism, Socialism opposes and denounces

competition as an injurious and unnecessary force in society, and

advocates the collective ownership, through the State, of all the means

of production and distribution.

Socialists would, in other words, fence up the great field of free

opportunity, deaden all incentive or inspiration for great achievement,

and not only curtail, but wholly remove, the right to compete and excel,

and make it impossible to write “success” as the result of individual

effort.

Just think of that! Why, the very thing that the Socialists attack, as

untenable and wrong in government—individual competition—has done more

than anything else to make us what we are as a nation to-day; has kept

alive the precious fires of liberty and freedom and has preserved the

institutions of our country. Take away the spirit of Individualism from

the people, and you at once eliminate the American Spirit—the love of

freedom—of free industry—free and unfettered opportunity—you take away

freedom itself!

And right here, I take the position and shall ever contend, that the

United States (of all countries in the world) is no place for Socialism.

Let us never forget that it was founded by the wisdom and patriotism of

the Fathers of the Revolution, and that it is blessed with a

Constitution, framed by men who loved individual freedom and national

liberty, and who risked their lives and sacrificed their property in the

struggle to overthrow injustice and oppression and achieve independence

and individual equality. Let us not forget its past one hundred and

thirty years of eventful history, replete as they are with many chapters

of severe trial, over all of which it has ever risen superior. This

splendid history has placed our system of government beyond the line of

experiment, and raised it to such an elevation of recognition and

respect, that it now ranks as the highest among all the nations of the

earth.

Born of the spirit of resistance to oppression, with the broadest and

freest constitution that the world has ever known—a land of freedom and

equality in the best and most liberal sense of the term—it would seem

that the sincere lover of liberty and equality could ask no better home

than this democracy of ours—whose glorious flag floats over eighty-four

millions of prosperous and enlightened people.

To further add, the term “contented people” might, perhaps, not be a

strictly true assertion, and neither would it, in my opinion, be a

desirable one to use; for to the spirit of discontent and ambition, so

predominant in the American character, are due largely the grand

achievements and the remarkable progress and advancement of our nation

in all things that make for greatness, strength, and public welfare.

However, we must be careful to draw a plain line of contradistinction

between that discontent which is really the mainspring of human

activity, and which, appreciating the solidity and soundness of our

foundation, aspires to build thereon to the highest ideals of perfection

and success—and that misguided or malicious discontent of Socialism

which arrays itself as an enemy of all civilized forms of government and

seeks their utter destruction.

We can well understand and appreciate, in a country ruled by a despot,

whose heel of oppression and tyranny is ever on the necks of the

down-trodden people, the feeling of the masses who, desiring some

measure of free action and equality, would revolt against such

conditions, and seek a reorganization of society. They would, naturally,

look as far away as they could from such a government of despotism—the

only one they had ever known—to the other extreme—a country where the

State should own all the land and capital, employ all the people, and

divide everything, share and share alike, among the community.

But the spirit of revolt, which in that case may be patriotism, becomes

ridiculous and open to the charge of insincerity when the tenets of its

doctrine are transplanted and cultivated upon American soil by our

foreign population.

With further reason, also, must we question the sincerity of the

Socialist, who, leaving oppression behind, emigrates to this country,

where tyranny and despotism are unknown, and yet who continues to echo

that war cry of destruction wrung from his heart by the cruelty of his

old-time oppressors.

He comes here from a land of want and thraldom to a land of plenty and

freedom. He may come without name, fame, or property, and he is received

with open arms. After a brief residence he is entitled to full

citizenship, and is then a part of the government, enjoying all the

rights and privileges of the native born. Besides the active or public

equality—the equality possessed by all, the right to share in the

government, such as the electoral franchise and eligibility to public

office—he has the rights of private equality. He is possessed of legal

equality—the equal possession of private civil rights enjoyed by all

citizens. Then there is the equality of material conditions—that is, the

right to acquire wealth and all that wealth implies.

Every opportunity to achieve success and happiness abounds on every

hand, and every incentive to industry and accomplishment awaits him; and

if he is energetic and skilful, there is nothing to hinder him from

becoming prosperous, or, in other words, successful in whatever vocation

in life he may pursue. With qualities that commend themselves to his

fellow men, there is no limit to the possibilities of his achievements,

and very soon (as has been very often the case) he may become a leader

of men. If, therefore, he is sincere, surely he must agree with me that,

in view of these conditions, this is no place for the Socialist. And

does it not sound like a paradox to hear this cry of Socialism still

rending the air—while every avenue of fortune lies open to every one?

[Illustration:

_D G Reid_

]

Socialism is self-contradictory, and opposed to deep-rooted and

ineradicable human instincts. Its origin is, of course, purely selfish;

but there are two kinds of selfishness—the enlightened and

unenlightened. Unfortunately, Socialism belongs chiefly to the latter.

It is often overlooked that the identical love of gain which seeks to

equalize the distribution of wealth will not be satisfied with equality.

A desire for gain will still remain and seek to acquire. The most

commendable object in Socialism is the uplifting of the down-trodden and

poor. Yet that great commoner and tribune of the people, William

Jennings Bryan, tells us that under Individualism we have seen a

constant increase in altruism. That the fact that the individual can

select the object of his benevolence and devote his means to the causes

that appeal to him has given an additional stimulus to his endeavors.

And Mr. Bryan pointedly asks the question: “Would this stimulus be as

great under Socialism?” Let it not be forgotten that by means of present

tendencies and existing economic laws the poor are constantly growing

richer. They were never so prosperous as to-day. Labor has made great

strides, and the uplift in the lower walks of life in all Christendom

during the past twenty years has been beyond precedent. Give us wise and

just legislation, and complaints about the inequitable distribution of

wealth will quickly disappear.

The state of society that the Socialists seek to establish may be

beneficial to a class which, under any conditions, lacks frugality,

thrift, and self-reliance; but just where the general mass of humanity

is to be bettered or elevated, socially, morally, or politically, is a

point not satisfactorily explained. A society in which all human beings

do right, for the simple reason that it is right, cannot exist unless

human nature is recast and reconstructed. Human nature must be treated

as it is found in the general makeup of man, and, therefore, a society

in which all special desires, all ambition, and all self-esteem have

been eliminated, precludes development and progress. It reduces

everything to utter shiftlessness and stagnation. In such a Society

there can be no incentive to great achievements in art, literature,

mechanics, and invention. If all are to be placed on an equal footing,

the ignorant with the educated, the dullard with the genius, and the

profligate with the provident, what encouragement is there for special

effort?

If you render accessible to each and every member of the human family

the achievements and benefits of civilization, holding “property in

common,” why should a man rack his brain or strain his muscles in

producing something which he expects to prove remunerative to himself in

some way, but which, under the Socialistic state, would go to the equal

financial benefit of all?

Just for a moment, stop to think of the effect of bringing all men as

near to a dead level as possible, for I recognize that not even

Socialism would secure the equality which it seeks. If one physician is

more skilful than another, who could insist that he receive no better

reward than the less skilful, when many would be willing to offer it? Or

how else could he avoid having all the patients in the community upon

his hands except by charging more for his services than an inferior

physician? If one lawyer shows greater ability than another, is he not

entitled to a larger fee for his talent? And how else is he to protect

himself from taking all the business from the lawyer of less ability?

Again, if the skill of the cabinet maker is higher and rarer and worth

more than that of the carpenter, how can the latter expect the same

compensation as the former? To put both on the same plane would be

unjust, and would lead to one being compelled to work beyond his

strength, while the less skilful would probably be insufficiently

occupied. Socialism, you thus see, would often place a premium upon

laziness and inefficiency.

Socialism would benefit the shiftless and lazy at the expense of the

thrifty and industrious. Is that a good system to advocate and follow?

Which of you would be willing to share your hard-won provision for your

own family with another family, the head of which you knew to be lazy,

incapable, and dissipated? What incentive to struggle would remain if

the results of that struggle were to be taken away from you and given to

others who sat idly by? What would be the effect upon the United States

of throttling the ambition to achieve? Take the necessity of struggle

out of life, and we should quickly weaken human nature. Civilization

would decline and national decay quickly follow. True, the competitive

system works harshly upon the weak and incompetent. This, however, opens

a channel for development of benevolence, kindness, and patience,

without which human nature would be exceedingly one-sided and

forbidding. The indigent, unfortunate, and weak will always be a charge

upon the stronger, whether in the family, the municipality, or the

state. It is folly to think that life can be lived without struggle; and

that is one of the chief delusions of Socialism which would quickly

impair our national manhood and endurance. Trouble and pain have their