OCR Text |
Show ! RATIONAL ANSWERS TO : j SOCIALIST INQUIRY t I Socialization of Private Property as to the j I Means of Production Is I'ujust v - and Impracticable. J (Catholic I nnm and Times.) ! In your last issue tf the Question Box you have , endeavored to show that the .socialization of private property as to the moans of production is unjust and , Impracticable. Hut how can it be unjust and imprac- ! j ik able in view of the historical fact that the first i 'in istians ohaiiffd their private property into social 3'in;.!iy and possessed everything in common, whilst ',v,'ii now tin- niemtrs of Catholic religious orders p"ssiss no private property and are quite incapable f I ' 't possessing" any personal properly? 1 J. There is an impassable gulf beiwecn social ism mi 1I10 011c hand and the tirsr' Christians and lite ("at Ik. lie religious orders on the other. ..The i;rs! ( 'hrislians at .Jerusalem and the members of . 1 religious orders voluntarily renounced and re- 1 lioiinco their property. There is no injustice in 1 such free action. But the social democrats intend I rb people against their will of their lawful I property. This is -downright injustice. '2. When men who devote thoinselves to the service serv-ice .f (, and of their neighbor, renounce all van lily goods and unite in common life, there may bo community of goods without, discord and con tention: nay. such a system in that case will prove most beneficial, as it will relieve the individuals of ihe care of providing: for their earthly wants. But jts men generally are. few are able to rise to such a height of self-denial and to devote themselves ; exclusively to ihe pursuit of self-perfection and i th'- service of God and man. And in this they are upheld by the highest motives. Under these ir- 'iiiiistances. then, ihe renunciation of private prop--; i'ly is perfectly practical. .Vow, social democracy (I) aims at the universal uni-versal introduction of a system which of its very future is suiled only for the few in the present order of things. Consequently it is thoroughly impracticable and unreasonable, attempting: to force men sreuorally to renounce t h -ir private property prop-erty and violently weld ihem together into a me-eiian;cal me-eiian;cal organization for the purpose of production. produc-tion. - (-) Wlitl-t the greatest detachment fromcarth- lv s Is ..f a small' number "of strong-willed and hiiili-iuinded men and women' can l maintained for life only upon the highest religious motives and with an eye fixed constantly upon the life to come, social democracy has destroyed all religious mo-lives, mo-lives, all belief in (!od and a future life, and thus destroyed the level which might lift up men to higher ideals, and reconcile them with the loss of tliei" property. (.'.) Socialists plead that they do not' demand ihe renunciation of property; that ihey only desire de-sire to establish property on the basis of justice. These are fair words, but without meaning:.' "Who ever wishes to abolish private property in all the j materials of labor strikes at the root of all prop- riy a nil substantially and radically destroys pri- i rate ownership. Property in mere articles of use f is noi sufficient to secure to man the necessary . freedom of action and movement. Deprived of pri- (! vate property in the materials of labor, man is 1 hereby made an integral part of The great public I industrial machine, and thus loses .ill independence j 'f -ction. The analogy of religious orders can afford ro argument for the confiscation of the means -f production', or the abolition of private property, for in religious orders communism is based on eclil.aov. Perfect poverty or the renouncement of I . all t-mporal goods Js incompatible with married f .lite mm! with the duties which married life entails. 1' :- utterly irreconcilable with family life in the y present state of humanity, and therefore utterly ' I inspraet iejil. What is the second point of the programme of Po- f i a I di 110 k. racy ? . 'I i be removal of the capitalistic niethifd of pro- ! f dnetion. and its rejilacement by . the socialistic j 1 n t j 1. , I arric on by and for human society.' t is the capitalistic method of production? f It is the method of -the present social order, in' ; vhieh the means d" iroduct ton. factories, niachin- 'i- . money, bonded property, houses, etc., are in tlie po-.sessj,.n of private owners, and a large por- . tioti of the population, personally free but without ; ) s session, is coinjulled 1o enter the service of the ;- owner- of th" means of iiroduction (capitalists). ' Hoiilii the abolition of jirivato ownership remove j ; 1 he capitalistic method of production? The capitalistic method of private owners would he removed. Put in the place of many tMpituIits one gigantic cajiitalist would succeed the-state. Wetij. 1 p not be better if the state would be the only producer, instead of private persons? il -N". for in this supposition nobody would like to do an honest day's work, because it would be - impossible for him to earn any real private prep- i ertv. Pesidcs if the state would be the only pro ducer, the state would necessarily assign to each i and every laborer his part of ihe common work . j. j ' nl thereby destroy all individual liberty. i What are we to think of the abolition of the right ef inheritance? The abolition of the right of inheritance' by the socialistic slate would be superfluous, unjust jj and injurious. , , It would he superfluous because under the sup- j position of the abolition of private property in all ihings save consumable goods, there would be very lit.tle left 10 inherit. Therefore many social democrats demo-crats do not even mention this point. It would be unjust, because an orderly and well- regulated hereditary succession corresponds, like ' 1 ; ' Continued on l'aic 4.) : I T RATIONAL ANSWERS TO SOCIALIST INQUIRY (Continued from Page 1.) private property, to human nature, and is willed by God, the. Creator of human nature. The state " has no right to arrange things in a way which contradicts con-tradicts the will of God. Thus, for instance, it is in the nature of things that children should inherit the property of their parents, in case the parents make no other disposition of their property. It is injurious, because the abolition of this right, like the abolition of private properhv would destroy powerful motive for diligence and economy econ-omy For, if parents know that their diligence thrift and economy will do no good for their children, chil-dren, they will bo far less anxious to work and to save. Many who had made some savings would spend them before their death if they knew that their children could not inherit the fruits of their li.bor. How does the social democracy intend t obtain honest work from men who cannot earn any produc-the produc-the goods or any capital in money, either for themselves them-selves or for their children? ; They intend to obtain this result from compulsory com-pulsory work for all. The state is to assign to cadi his task and to reward the active and punish the lazy. The entire industrial system of social democracy de-mocracy is to build up on this basis of compulsory What- would be the effects of this industrial system of sonal democracy? j-iem ! A "le army of officials would be necessary to. practically assign to each inhabitant the work he haw to do, to supervise the workers, to accent the finished work and to reward or punish the laborer la-borer as he deserves. l f:iThH f my ?f ?fficials uW cost so much hat-thc state and with the state the whole population, popu-lation, Avould become impoverished. 3. Partiality and bribery could be practiced to an extent heretofore unknown, and would be prac-ticod, prac-ticod, if according to the plan of social democracy affafrU abolished or declared a private 4. The state, by such regulation, would become a productice society at large, and would be subject sub-ject to similar or even greater disadvantages than those which heretofore wrecked all productive societies, so-cieties, even those which were richly subsidized by theh state. , t . In as far 'as not only reward, but abx punishment, pun-ishment, would compel the citizens to work, as it would be absolutely necessary in the industrial order or-der of social democracy, the statc- would becorn. a great slave holder, and the inhabitants its slave-. 1 ( b. A terrible tyranny would overshadow the en- v tire population. For under the industrial system of social democracy nobody could freely choose Iim own vocation or occupation, but-every one would have to accept the vocation or work assigned him by the state, or rather its officials. For if the state would leave the choice of vocation frer. everybody would choose a pleasant, easy or honorable honor-able occupation. How many would be left to sei. the unpleasant, unhealthy, dangerous or repul.-ivr occupations 4 And yet the latter avocations a;-often a;-often as necessary for the welfare of human society soci-ety as the former. It would therefore be necesMir;- . either to oblige all to undertake such unpleasan: tasks in turn, to be chimney sweepers, sewer cleni j ers, etc., etc., in succession, or to allow each one !., I choose, his own calling. In the first case the ?t;r i would exercise an unbearable tyranny: m the sr,'-ond sr,'-ond case the whole indusbtrial order of sei;il . -.moeracy would tumble to the ground. 7. For this reason there would be no prit : in the social democratic state, for in the most favorable fa-vorable case religion would be only a private ;if fair, and for a private affair the state would imt train and employ any of its citizens. All the yountr men would be drafted for non-religious labors, -, now young men. even seminarists and youn" priests, are drafted into the armies o ftho Masotii.-kingdoms Masotii.-kingdoms of Europe. Rut if there were no long"-any long"-any priests, Catholic worship would cease, and nnr of the sacraments, especially the sacraments of th-dying, th-dying, would be no longer administered. And rro!; in case that one could practice his priestly duric-: to some limited extent during the free time, which the great slave holder, the social democratic star , would allow him for his rest, it would be hard Impossible Im-possible to find candidates for the priesthood. K-r all the children in the state would be educated by the state and educated without religion. Therefore, There-fore, hardly any young people would conceive tin-idea tin-idea of studying for the priesthood in addition to the secular task assigned or to be assigned to them by the state. - |