s.

The Socialists often argue from some successful results in government
ownership of public utilities to the success of Socialism itself.
Though it cannot be denied that government ownership of public utilities
has in some instances been a success, still anti-Socialists can just as
well argue the failure of Socialism from failures in government
ownership, which are entirely too numerous to require comment. If in the
future it should become evident that great benefits would accrue from
the national, state, or municipal ownership of certain public utilities,
which are now privately owned, our present form of government, without
becoming Socialistic, could take them over, just as many of our cities
have already taken over water, gas and power plants. But the number
would have to be limited, for it has already been shown in Chapter XVII
what terrible consequences would follow from adopting the scheme of
Socialism, whereby the people would collectively own and manage all the
principle means of production, transportation and communication. Public
ownership on such a large scale, so as to conform with the plans of the
revolutionists, implies that the vast majority of workingmen would be
government employees. The result, as has been shown, would be a terrible
reign of discontent, strife, crime, revolution and chaos; whereas the
prudent purchase of a small number of public utilities, under the
present system of government, would entail none of these evils, since
most workingmen could refuse positions that they did not care for or
where the wages would not satisfy them, and do this without injuring the
government.

The Socialists, especially when they appeal to the less educated,
frequently argue that since their party platform says nothing concerning
the teaching of a certain doctrine, for instance free-love, it is
evident that the party does not advocate it. Such a method of reasoning
is, of course, absurd and utterly unworthy of men who style themselves
scientific; for by arguing in exactly the same way, it would follow that
their flag is not the red flag because there is no plank in their party
platform stating that it is.

Although many Socialists have written an abundance of anti-religious
literature, other members of the party have composed books, pamphlets
and articles that in no way attack the church. Some of the
revolutionists, in their endeavors to make their movement attractive to
Christians, go so far as to clai