Fifty years in Wall Street
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?
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
part in the plan of nature.
The Socialist is usually an unfortunate or misled individual. He has
probably suffered from reverses or unfortunate environment. He has
perhaps been roughly or cruelly handled. Perhaps he cannot get on
satisfactorily, or his ambitions have been disappointed. He is then in a
condition of discontent ready to swallow Socialistic—or any
other—sophistries which hold out the delusive promise of relief.
Socialism attaches too little importance to the fact that men are made
with an infinite variety of tastes, abilities, and capacities. No two
are precisely alike, and it is utter folly for poor, weak man to
undertake to equalize these differences. All progress in history has
been made through struggle and sacrifice; and Socialism, no matter how
beneficent its intentions, cannot change the inscrutable laws of nature
or humanity. All natural laws have their reverse side. Gravitation,
which keeps us firm on our feet so long as we are on solid ground,
knocks us to pieces if we attempt to walk off a housetop or over the
opening of a pit. It is not the natural law, but the attempt to ignore
it, that gives us trouble.
I most emphatically assert that we cannot get rid of competition, any
more than we can get rid of the law of gravitation.
The American inventor, mechanic, farmer, merchant, and financier, and
the worker in every profession, are, every one of them, proud,
respectively, of their skill, knowledge, and ability. Their ambition is
to excel—to produce the most and best. Experience, enterprise, and
courage create opportune conditions most favorable to the State and
Nation and to themselves. Each vies with his fellow man in producing the
best results, and is always willing to tackle any obstacle—no matter how
formidable—that stands in the way of success. In his whole compendium
and entire makeup, there is no such word as fail. He aids, by his
untiring and individual energy and effort, in making his country the
greatest in the whole agricultural, industrial, and financial world. He
reaps the reward of industry and accomplishment, and his home is blessed
with bounty; and he knows that his children have equal opportunity with
himself to learn and to achieve.
Shall he be asked to tolerate, or consider, the sacrifice of all these
things, so dear to him, for Socialism?
Shall he be led to believe in a foreign plan or system of government
that degrades skill, eliminates acquisition and thrift, and ignores
genius? I cannot think so!
These are the very qualities and attributes that he prizes so highly, as
essential to the prosperity of the home and nation. He knows (or should
know) that to do so would be to deaden and relinquish those God-given
qualities of heart and brain that have helped to make him and his
country what they are to-day.
He knows (what the nations of the world concede) that the American
people are the most prosperous of all on the face of the globe; and that
this high and commanding position has been attained under existing
conditions, and through the operation of our admirable system of
government.
Whatever, therefore, may be the pretexts used to make him dissatisfied
with his lot, his own experience tells him every day that the
Constitution under which he lives is a glorious one, and so implanted in
the hearts of the American people as to be impregnable against the
assaults of Socialism.
At the same time, he is appreciative of the fact that it is not in the
nature of things to expect in this world blessings pure and unmixed; but
he is thankful for the superior good that he enjoys under our beneficent
democratic form of government.
A state of Socialism in the United States would tend to drive all our
men of superior ability, skill, and power out of the country. The strong
would quickly seek other fields where the qualities which they possess
would have a free chance and an open field. They would promptly desert a
country that offered nothing better than a dismal dead level, with no
means of achievement in sight, and the nation would quickly fall into a
state of miserable inertia or decay. Our forefathers came to this
country to establish religious freedom; they next fought for political
freedom; afterwards they sacrificed a million lives for race freedom;
and now we, their successors, with such glorious traditions behind us,
must stand for industrial and social freedom. For, in the final
analysis, Socialism can stop at nothing short of industrial slavery and