A somewhat lengthy letter to the editor published in the October 28, 1908 NYT suggests, once again, that there are not many new problems in the world just our problems. The letter might well be submitted today with only a few name changes:

They [Socialists] decry competition and call for more, and ever more, co-operation -- co-operation on a scale municipal, State, and National. They tell the propertyless that, in the nature of things, by the historical development of industry, it isn't possible for each man to be economically independent, for clearly each spinner cannot own a cotton factory and each engineer a locomotive, in the way each farmer started by owning his farm. So, they say, if you want a voice in managing your business, you spinners and engineers, you must get the factories and railways owned by the community, so that you can cast a vote in selecting the managers and fixing the wages and rules of your work.

While it might not be economically practical for each individual spinner to own his own cotton factory, what with economies of scale and all, it is possible for spinners to own parts of cotton factories if the cotton company is publicly owned via shares. Of course, many firms in 1908 were private just as they are today, but it is not necessarily the case that the individual spinner can't own a portion of the factory (to the extent that the worker wishes to bear the risk inherent in owning the means of production). Ownership by the public (i.e.,. shareholders) and ownership by the community (i.e., state ownership) are two very different animals. Ownership by the community does two things: it forces risk on those who would otherwise choose not to bear it and it politicizes firm decisions in a way that ownership by shareholders does not. State ownership changes the objective function of the firm - usually away from profit maximization.

The letter goes on:

That doesn't seem to me very alarming, unless one is afraid of democracy, for this programme of public ownership will inevitably be submitted piecemeal to the voters for judgment, and if it's found impracticable, wasteful, or immoral it won't be adopted. In a Nation as big as ours the danger is never that changes will come too fast. The Socialists will find that it is a terribly slow business to overcome the inertia of 80,000,000 of people.

It is indeed a slow process. It might take, say, one hundred years to overcome the inertia. However, I wonder how easy it is to "repeal" state ownership if it is found to be wasteful or immoral? Examples from other countries suggest that it isn't as easy as the letter writer assumes.

The letter writer then fires a broadside against the "free marketers" of the day:

The principle of competition which the Socialists flog has already been discarded; they are whipping a dead horse. No trust promoter believes in free competition. Moreover, most of the Rooseveltian policies - the arid land reclamation schemes, the National forests, the leasing of coal and mineral rights, the renting of grazing lands, the construction of the Panama Canal by direct employment, the development of water powers under public ownership and control - are in strict harmony with Socialist principles....The faith of our forefathers in the sacred principle of competition as the self-acting force which yielded ideal justice and rendered to every man according to his deserts, has departed as surely as the belief in witchcraft. So why be alarmed because Socialism is inculcating with some success a political philosophy that means the conscious adoption of the method we are already, empirically, trying? There is no advantage in preaching one principle and practicing another, as do some good Republicans and Democrats.

Wow - what an amazing paragraph and one that could be printed today with very little modification.

The letter writer goes on to castigate the wealth redistribution schemes of the day:

"But," reply the nervous ones, "the Socialists want to abolish rent, interest, and profits; and when they succeed where will you be?" Probably in my grave. I'm not worrying. They can't threaten me worse than Theodore Roosevelt does with his inheritance and income tax schemes and the social workers of New York with their ever-increasing demands on the city budget. "There's a good time coming, boys," has been the song of radicals in all ages, and always the heaven of their hopes has receded as they advanced - though they won a little brighter earth. If capitalists were really shrewd they'd really encourage the Socialists to talk about their heaven, the blissful time when the capitalist lion will lie down inside the proletarian lamb and the earth will bask in the peace of universal brotherhood, for the Socialists are formidable only when they make concrete proposals for immediate adoption. And when they do their schemes will have to stand sifting and criticism exactly the same as the schemes of other parties.

The letter writer's point that action is more important than rhetoric might provide some insight as to what is happening in this year's election.