Fifty years in Wall Street
labor, and so increase the stability of our money market and improve and
fortify the machinery of the whole monetary system, while giving more
elasticity to the currency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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