A Critique of Socialism

Mankind adjusts itself to new environments very readily. We here in cities talking wisely on these things are wholly unnecessary.

The farmer is essential, because without him we should starve.

Economical farming on Socialistic methods is impossible, and any successful system of Social
betterment must be based on the requirements of economical farming.

Socialism is not based upon the Marxian theory of value, but the Marxian theory of value was evolved in an endeavor to fix a scientific basis for a popular movement already fully under way.

Socialism is not based on reason, but emotion; not on reflection, but desire; it is not scientific, but popular.

If every Socialist on earth should concede that
the Marxian theory of surplus value had been knocked into smithereens, it would have no more effect on the progress of Socialism than the
gentle zephyr of a June day on the hide of a rhinoceros.

Socialism must be attacked in the derived propositions about which popular discussion
centers, and the assault must be, not to prove that the doctrines are scientifically unsound, but that they tend to the impoverishment and debasement of the masses.

These propositions are three, and I lay down as my thesis - for I abhor defensive warfare - that

Rent is right,
Interest is right,
Profits are right,

And that they are all three ethically and economically justified, and are in fact essential to the happiness and progress of the people, and
more especially to those who labor with their hands.

Profits - Private profit is far less a private right than a public necessity.

Its absence would involve a waste which Society could not endure.

With individual operations controlled by fallible men enormous waste is inevitable. It is essential to Society that this waste be minimized.

No industrial or commercial enterprise can go on without risk. Profit is the compensation for risk.

Whitney died poor, but mankind has the cotton-gin.

Bell died rich, but there is a profit to mankind in the telephone.

Socialists propose to assume risks and absorb profits. I do not believe Society could afford this.

I am profoundly convinced that under the Socialist
program the inevitable waste would be so enormously increased as to result in disaster approaching a Social cataclysm.

This is an old argument whose validity Socialists scout. Nevertheless I believe it sound. The number of these whose intellectual and physical strength is sufficient for the wisest direction of great enterprises is very small.

And great effort can be secured only by the
hope of great reward. Until human nature changes we can expect nothing different.

Socialism implies popular selection of industrial leadership.

Wherever tried thus far in the world's history there has usually been abject failure.

The mass can choose leaders in emotion but not directors of industry.

The selection of experts by the non-expert can be wise only by accident. If the selection is not popular, then Socialism is tyranny, as its enemies charge.

If it be popular, or in so far as it is popular,
direction is likely to fall to the great persuaders and not to the great directors.

Never did a "peoples party" yet escape the control of the unscrupulous. No political movements result in so much political and Social rascality as so-called popular movements originated by earnest
and honest men.

I see no reason to suppose that the Socialistic
direction of industrial affairs in any city would be directed from any other source than the back rooms of the saloons where political movements are now shaped.

If the Socialistic program were to go into complete effect tomorrow morning there would be here tonight neither lecturer nor audience.

The good dinner would remain untasted in the ovens. Every mortal soul of us would be scooting from one Social magnate to another to assure that we were on the slate for the soft jobs and that nobody was crowding us off.

I have no faith in human nature except as it is constantly strengthened and purified by struggle.

That struggle is an irrepressible conflict existing in all nature, and from which man cannot
escape. It is better for mankind that it go on openly and in more or less accord with known rules of warfare than in the secret conspiring chambers of the class which in the end controls popular movement.

All serious conflict involves evil, but it is also strengthening to the people. I wish misery could be banished from the world, but I fear that it
cannot be so banished.

I have little confidence in human ability to so
thoroughly comprehend the structure and functions of the Social body as to correctly fortell the steps in its evolution, or prescribe constitutional remedies which will forever banish Social disease.