Evening Republican, Volume 14, Number 9, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 11 January 1910 — MEANING OF SOCIALISM. [ARTICLE]

MEANING OF SOCIALISM.

Word Now Too Often Loosely Used In Political Discussion. The indiscriminate use of the word “socialism” is making political discussion ridiculous. It lends Itself witlh fatal facility to that powerful and intellectual form of argument, beloved by schoolboys, which is called—after the maji who first used it, according to an American orator—a tu quoque. In Germany the term In general use I&social democracy, which has a definite*meaning, the London Times says, and In France other words —of which collectivism is the most common —are used to give a precision which is lacking to socialism by itself. These two words give the key to the proper meaning of socialism, as recognized now by all the socialist organizations. It is.that laid down in Schaeffle’s “Quintessence of Socialism” and since crystallized in the formula—the socialization or the collective ownership of all the means of production, distribution and exchange. There are minor shades of expression to which some of the sects may attach importance, but the broad significance is the same everywhere, and it is perfectly clear and definite. What the organized socialists aim at is the transference of property from private to public ownership. Some would trails-' fer all property, othera would draw the line here or there; but they all want to transfer property. This is the one definite and distinctive criterion, and though a man may call himself a socialist and say that socialism is this, that or the other, the that matters, that alone has force, coherence and a recognizable mark, is that which is concerned with the ownership of property and is transference in one way or another. This has always been the essence of the thing since the name was invented and adopted, which was long before the time of Marx. The confusion has arisen mainly from looking to the underlying motives or principles and the ulterior aims and then applying the word to anything which shares in any degree the same motives or alms. Thus, for instance, some people call the sermon on the mount socialistic — but What could be further removed from concern about the ownership of property, which is the heart of socialism? If the economic element is taken away from it there Is nothing left that Is not .common to a dozen other and much older movements. The question is not what its ulterior alms are, for they are of immemorial antiquity, but how It proposes to attain them. And the answer is, by the transference of property from private to public ownership. Anything which promotes that process consciously and on principle may be properly called socialistic in proportion as .lt does so; and that is the test by which the budget or any other political measure should he judged if any rational conclusion is to be reached on the point. Every interference with private ownership is not necessarily socialism, hut unless that element is present the term cannot be properly applied.