Fifty years in Wall Street
they teach.
It will also be very noticeable that the people comprising the
Socialistic audiences at such meetings are mostly foreigners who,
seeking better social and political environments, emigrated to America,
a large part of them within the past decade or two. As discontented
aliens they become as dangerous as the firebrands they listen to, but
there is no spirit of self-sacrifice among them. Moreover, they are
slaves to what is worst in Socialism and blind followers of a false god!
That this peculiar condition of things should exist in this country
seems almost paradoxical. It is something that a patriotic American
cannot tolerate, and mainly an outcome of Russian oppression, imported
by those who have fled from it, and who fail to understand or appreciate
the new conditions under which they live. We can well understand and
appreciate how, in a country ruled by a despot, whose heel of oppression
and tyranny is ever on the necks of the down-trodden people, the masses,
desiring some measure of free action and equality, would revolt against
these 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—an
imaginary 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. Such a government will, of course, never exist. It
is simply impossible.
But the spirit of revolt, which, in that case, may be patriotism,
becomes ridiculous, and open to the charge of insincerity, when its
worst doctrines are transplanted and cultivated upon American soil by
our foreign population. When it appears here it is really more like
Anarchism than Socialism, and I emphasize this.
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.
With further reason, also, must we question the sincerity of the violent
type of Socialist, who, leaving oppression behind, emigrates to this
country, where tyranny and despotism are unknown, and yet continues to
echo Socialism’s war-cry of destruction, wrung from his heart by the
cruelty of his old-time oppressors. When he does this he becomes an
enemy of our Republic, unworthy of citizenship.
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. He is a sharer in the equality
possessed by all, the right to share in the government such as the
electoral franchise and eligibility to public office. He is possessed of
the civil rights enjoyed by all citizens in the equality of material
conditions—that is, the right to acquire wealth and all that wealth
implies.
Every opportunity for him 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 engage. 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 not only wealthy but 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. He must be an ingrate who would fail
to appreciate the splendid boon.
Does it not, indeed, sound like a paradox to hear this cry of Socialism
still rending the air while every avenue of fortune lies open to
everyone? It is a glaring anomaly of the times, an offence to American
institutions, a poor return for our national hospitality. Vague and
illogical as the theories advanced by the doctrinaires of Socialism are,
there runs throughout all their teachings and preachings bitter and
radical opposition to individual accumulation of wealth and individual
competition in industry.
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 achieve success as the result of individual
effort. They would reduce us all to a barren uniformity.
Think of this monstrous proposition! Why, the very thing that the
Socialists attack as untenable and wrong in government, namely,
individual competition, has done more than anything else to make us what
we are as a nation; has kept alive the precious fires of liberty and
freedom, and preserved the institutions of our country. Take away the
progressive spirit of Individualism from the people, and you at once
eliminate the American spirit—the love of freedom—of free industry—and
free and unfettered opportunity—you take away indeed freedom itself!
The state of society the Socialists seek to establish might be
beneficial to a class which, under any conditions, lacks frugality,
thrift and self-reliance; but just where the general mass of humanity
would be bettered or elevated socially, morally or politically, is a
point not satisfactorily explained, and never will be.
If you render equally accessible to each and every member of the human
family the benefits of civilization, all holding “properly in common,”
why should a man rack his brain or strain his muscles in producing
something which he expects to prove remunerative or beneficial to
himself in some way, but which under the Socialistic state would
contribute to the equal financial benefit of all? The highway to
distinction and opulence would be closed.
As illustrating the inconsistency of some poor specimens of human
nature, when put to the test of Socialism, I will tell two stories:
Jerry Sullivan had proclaimed himself a Socialist, and was being
interviewed by his friend, Mike Casey.
“Jerry, do you believe in dividing up everything with your neighbor?”
“Indeed, and I do that.”
“If you had two horses (Jerry had none) would you give one to your
neighbor Flanagan?”
“I’d be only too glad to.”
“And if you had two automobiles, would you give him one?”
“Sure, Mike, I would. We should have share and share alike in this
world.”
“And if you had two Angora goats (which Jerry did have) would you give
one to Flanagan?”
“What, give him one of my goats! Not by a jugful! Let Barney Flanagan
buy his own goats.”
One of my millionaire clients, on his return from a trip abroad, called
upon me to pay his respects. In the course of our conversation he said
he had become a confirmed Socialist. I expressed surprise, and said,
“Then, of course, you are going to divide up all your properly with your
less fortunate associates?” He said, “Oh no, but I want all the other
fellows to do it.”
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, that is, better off, particularly as
indicated by the savings bank deposits. The common people and the
savings banks were never before so prosperous as they are now. Labor has
made great strides, and the uplift in the lower walks of life in all
Christendom during this generation and particularly during the past
twenty years has been beyond precedent. Give us wise and just
legislation, and complaints of the inequitable distribution of wealth
will quickly disappear. Let us put down and keep down the revolutionary
Socialists and Anarchists.
Of course, if the unrest of a people is prompted by a desire to promote
the good of the greatest number of their fellow beings it will be
productive of lasting benefit to all in the long run. But if any
combination of capitalists, laborers, politicians, or religious bodies,
has for its aim the particular good of only a certain class or party,
such action as they take will be prompted by selfish desire, and will
work for evil and injustice. The great mass of the people of this
country, outside of the big cities, are not allied with either the
members of labor unions or the very large capitalists, and the feeling
of discontent is largely bred in cities, where it is magnified by the
prominence given to it by agitators and the newspapers.
The wage earner in the cities is more or less disheartened by the high
prices of food supplies, the higher rents and the higher rates of
interest on mortgages, and he argues that his pay has not advanced in
the same proportion as the price of home necessaries. Mechanics and
other laboring men are receiving higher average wages than ever before,
but the display of wealth in modern palaces for the rich, and the
abundance of automobile and kindred luxuries among them, have kindled
envy and whetted their desire for things beyond their means or hopes of
attainment. While no law can change the nature of a man, and while we
cannot expect an ambitious man with an elastic conscience to always
become a benefactor, or a labor union leader, filled with hate, to
become a saint, I hope that the agitation now existing may lead in time
to a more general observance of the Golden Rule, to do unto others as we
would they should do unto us.
I may say here that I believe nine-tenths of the dissatisfaction of the
masses is based upon mistaken ideas. Few men are capable of judging
impartially of the rights or the motives which actuate those upon whom
Fortune has smiled: Success may be often a matter of luck and
opportunity; but it cannot be denied that judgment, mental force and
courage are the factors which are bound to insure success.
I now speak not only of success from a monetary standpoint—for many of
our most useful, intelligent and influential citizens are comparatively
poor—but of all success. Our larger cities are the hotbeds of unrest.
The older generation, being anxious that their sons shall have more, and
know more, than themselves, and enjoy the good things in life which they
have desired but have not been able to obtain, now try to give their
children a liberal education and fit them for what they consider more
congenial or higher-class occupations than their own.
The outcome of this is that the younger men, when their education is
completed, drift into the cities, where they think they have a better
chance of getting on in life. It is the same with farmers, laborers and
mechanics. Their children desire to rise above their early environments,
and wish to occupy positions where they can use their brains rather than
their hands. Hence the many deserted farms in New England and in the
State of New York, for poor soil is not sufficient cause for their
desertion. It can be made good by fertilizers, and where there’s a will
there’s a way.
This discontent is producing a superfluity of clerks and other brain