Of course, it meant utter stagnation in shipbuilding; it was death to advance an improvement. The Socialist, in his shortsighted and narrow view, aims at the same thing over again, on a universal scale, with all its dire and retrograde results. He would reduce the well-found, well-equipped and speedy vessel to the level of the most lumbering tub in the human fleet. * * * * * =Painter, Franklin Verzelius Newton.= (Author and College Professor.) If Socialism is what its friends say it is, it should be commended; if it is what its enemies say it is, it should be condemned. In developing a sense of social obligation, Socialism accomplishes a fine work; but in expecting a thorough human reformation from altered social conditions, it betrays the weakness of illiterate credulity. In seeking greater justice and equality in economic conditions, Socialism rests on a strong moral basis; but in seeking no more than greater material ease and comfort, it betrays the presence of mortality. In demanding individual sacrifice for the common good, Socialism emphasizes an important duty; but in totally submerging the individual in society, it is guilty of an ancient wrong. The truths of Socialism are rapidly finding expression in life and government; its errors will prove its ultimate destruction. The fundamental defect of Socialism is its materialism; for there is that in man which transcends food and raiment. * * * * * =Thayer, William Roscoe.= (Historian.) I am opposed to Socialism because I have seen no explanation by any of its various, and mutually antagonistic advocates, of the way in which it can safeguard the individual. The purpose of life is to produce individuals, each of whom shall be trained to the highest efficiency--manual, intellectual and moral--of which he is capable. Socialism, having only the welfare of all (an abstraction) in view, must logically slight or suppress the individual. So, logically, it must destroy the family--the unit of civilization--and reduce mankind in their sexual relations below the level of the beasts. What I desire is not crazy Nietzsche's superman--individualism run mad--nor Socialism which denies the individual. * * * * * =Nevin, Theodore Williamson.= (Editor.) I am opposed to Socialism principally because of its impracticability. Theoretically it is beautiful, but until human nature changes radically from what it is at present, the plan will not work out in practice. Go into any of the small Socialistic societies, see the petty wrangling, the striving for domination--bossing by the stronger leaders, the self-seeking efforts of all, weak and strong; and it will at once be seen that the theory is not a success there. If not successful in these smaller experiments, how can it be expected to be in the larger field of a nation?