Infestation Of The Socialist Bug In NH

by Robert Hanaford Smith, Sr.
Weirs Times Contributing Writer

Back in April of 1906 a Berlin, New Hampshire woman, Alice Frost Lord, wrote a letter to the editor of the Laconia Democrat newspaper in which she objected to the “lamentable ignorance or willful meanness in misrepresenting a subject which is now coming so prominently before the country- socialism.”
She asked for and received space in the newspaper to correct the ignorance concerning the beliefs of “those that are afflicted with the socialistic bug” as they had been described.
There seemed to be agreement that socialism was a topic that was gathering interest among the people, but there did not seem to be any agreement as to what socialism actually was and what the result of its implementation on society would be.
The letter writer expressed her desire to give the view of the scientific socialist which she suggested was in conflict with the newspaper’s opinion that the first desired act of the socialist was to “deprive the rich aristocracy of their enormous wealth and divide it equally among the people.”
Alice Lord stated that it was not only socialists that thought something had to be done because the “present social and industrial order is sick,” insisting that the whole country recognized that fact. She said that there were some who thought that the answer was government control, but indicated that such action would end in failure and that government control is a failure.
The scientific socialist does not believe in taking money from the rich and dividing it up among the people. Neither did the writer advocate getting rid of monopolies, even though she saw them as a problem, but thought that the monopolies should be run by the people.

She wrote about using the science “which has been applied to production, which has done away with competition and evolved different lines of industry into big monopolies should be applied to distribution by the ownership by the people of these big monopolies; and that these monopolies shall be operated by the people in somewhat the same manner as our post office, municipal water and lighting plants are operated, etc.
This “scientific” socialism would not do away with monopolies but leave them in the hands of the producer, which I guess, if I understand the concept right, would amount to the workers also being the owners of industries. To the “scientific” socialist competition was not a good thing either. Alice Lord described it as a wasteful thing. She wrote, “monopoly under private control brings about the social and industrial evils at which the people everywhere today protest.” Competition would be succeeded by cooperation under the ownership of monopolies by the people who would then work together for the good of everyone.
The editor of the Laconia Democrat while acknowledging that the letter from Berlin accused the press (today usually referred to as part of the media) of ignorance and malice in their reporting, seeming to have a different understanding of socialism, especially on the matter of government control.

He quotes his dictionary as defining socialism by saying “…in common usage the term socialism is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.” I would guess that was not the only definition of the word given in his dictionary, but a good example of picking out the parts that support one’s viewpoint while omitting others.
“As we understand the matter,” wrote the editor, “the advocates of socialism would have the government take the railroads, the express and telegraph companies, and we presume the telephones; in fact all public utilities such as street railroads, water service, electric lighting plants, gas plants, and coal mines, we think.”
In the opinion of the newspaper editor the adoption of socialism would eventually bring about governmental control over about everything. He reasoned that if one went to the government to obtain coal for his coal stove that another would have to go to the government to buy wood for his wood stove.

He wrote “… in due time the American citizen would not only go to the post-office for his mail, and the government express office for his packages, but would stop on his way home at the government distribution bureau to get a pack of government flour, a few slices of government beef, and perhaps a government woolen shirt, besides of course a package of government tobacco.”
His vision of socialism was a society in which all private run businesses would be a thing of the past and everyone would work for the government. Men like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie would not be allowed to accumulate wealth and would be reduced to the same class as carpenters and clerks.
The newspaper editor in the year 1906 agreed with the newspaper letter writer that there was then a leaning towards socialism, though they didn’t agree what it looked like; however, he didn’t anticipate that America would soon become a socialistic country.
Concerning socialists, he wrote, “we doubt if all of their plans materialize until nature is reformed so that big fish decline to eat the little fish.”
Part of purpose of revisiting the past is to learn from it, so there must be something we can take from the exchange of ideas concerning socialism in the past that will enable us to make good decisions today.
One source I visited for the definition of socialism indicated that the word has been tossed around so much today that it has about lost all meaning. My 1958 dictionary says it is “a theory or system of social organization by which the means of production and distribution are owned collectively and controlled through the government.”

Robert Hanaford Smith, Sr., welcomes your comments at danahillsmihs@yahoo.com

Click below to read the entire publication online now…