GIVE BOTH SIDES OF SOCIALIST QUESTION

Declaring himself as heartily in favor of discussion on the subject of socialism, Professor A. B. Hart '80, Eton Professor of the Science of Government, disagreed with the statement of Professor O. M. W. Sprague appearing in the CRIMSON of yesterday, in which he scored as futile any discussion on socialism. Professor A. N. Holcombe '06, Professor of Government, and W. E. Hocking '01, Alford Professor of Natural Religion and Civil Polity, agreed with Professor Hart.

Professor T. N. Carver, David A. Wells Professor of Political Economy, however, sided with Professor Sprague, and characterized as "temperamental rebels" those people who advocate the establishment of a Socialistic form of government, or who contend that socialism is the goal of economic evolution.

Says Evolution is Away From Socialism

Declaring himself as unalterably opposed to the principles of socialism, and contending that we are evolving away from socialism in our economic progress, Professor Carver agreed with the statement of Professor Sprague that discussion of the subject of socialism was futile.

"I have never heard a socialist open his mouth, said Professor Carver to a CRIMSON reporter last night, "without speaking of monopoly, inherited wealth, or wealth accruing from a rise in real estate values. I have often said that I would vote the socialist ticket if they could base a logical argument on socialism without referring to these principles. When the socialist thus states his case honestly, I don't need to answer it, for its fallacies are apparent immediately.

Interest on Investments is the Question

"Any discussion of socialism always comes down to the question of interest on investments, or interest on money in the bank. If capital earns the money it receives as interest, then nobody can be a socialist, then we must all be Socialists, because the small investor receives interest from his deposit as well as the large depositor.

"Take the illustration of the socialist when he declares that it is the workers in a bakery, for instance, who deserve the credit for making the bread. That same socialist refuses to discredit his man who works in a munitions factory, which he believes is a capitalistic venture. In one case the worker receives the credit, and in another similar case the employer the discredit. This is obviously unfair.

Calls Socialists Temperamental Rebels

Professor Carver declared that advocates of socialism were "temperamental rebels", who often refused to investigate the question with the care and study which are necessary. In this respect, knowledge of economics was an absolute necessity, he said. According to Professor Carver, the following definition of socialism is the only one which will definitely divide the socialist from the non-socialist: "Socialism is the ownership and operation of all means of production by government, public, or community, whichever you prefer to call it."

Sees Socialistic Government Coming

"It is much safer to observe than predict" was the comment of Professor Holcombe when asked to express his views on the question of whether socialism was the goal of economic progress, but we seem to be moving in that direction. Three hundred years ago, it would have been regarded as the product of an extreme socialistic imagination, if one were to predict a government like the one in this country, where freedom of the will and all the other features of this democracy are enjoyed. It is natural that we will progress, and in my opinion, this progression will be towards a scientific form of government.

"During the war" said Professor Holcombe, "the Inter-Allied Maritime Transport Shipping Council of the World was formed, and managed with excellent results along socialistic principles. These men had a stronger incentive than the goal of personal profit, a stronger incentive than the idea of personal gain it was to serve their country. This incentive was productive of astonishing results, and was economical and efficient.

Says Desire for Money Must Give Way

"If it was only possible for men in times of peace to desire something strongly besides money-making, a socialistic organization might be practicable at the present time, or at least as practicable as it was six years ago. There is no doubt of the added economy, and efficiency in socialistic government rightly administered. During the war we supported an army of four million men in most cases better than they had ever been supported before. The Percentage of our idle rich can never approach that proportion.

"All evidence shows, however," he concluded, "that it is much easier to get people to hate, than love one another, with equal intensity, and without a development of good will among people of the state, such as economists and efficientists secured during the war, a socialistic form of government could not be reproduced. An incentive to dispense with profit-making would insure this."

Hart Wants Radicals to Speak Here

"I am heartily in favor of discussing the question of socialism" and Professor Hart, "and personally wish it were possible for men in this University to hear the most rabid socialist in the country. Then they would see the utter fallacy of his argument. What is Harvard College for if not to stimulate men to think for themselves?

"If students here in the University are not to form any judgment, then at least 15 courses in this college are useless." Because the present wording of the question seemed a little vague, and ambiguous, Professor Hart outlined a wording which would confine the discussion within the desired bounds, and yet would leave a definite place in which to take issue. The following is the change which Professor Hart suggested:

"Resolved, that there can be no permanent settling of pending economic conditions except through a socialistic community." Professor Hart committed himself in favor of the above question.

Professor Hocking declared last night that he considered the question of socialism an excellent one for the Debating Union to consider at this time