Socialism, The Slave State
The State and Trades Unions Contrasted.
What has that got to do with Socialism? Who cannot see that if the
trades unions cannot control their officials, that then Socialism
would find it utterly impossible to control them?
Now this quotation shows first of all that trades unionism finds
it impossible to control the growing power of its officials.
Consequently, they try an elective assembly as a means for that end.
In some favored unions this has had some success, but even in these
unions it carries within its own bosom the seed of decay, for the
number of officials who are elected to the controlling assembly
becomes larger and larger.
Mr. and Mrs. Webb themselves doubt whether an elective assembly
can control the bureaucracy of a Socialized State; but when you come
to inquire into it, when you come to compare the officials of
unionism with the bureaucracy of the Socialized State, you must see
that there is not a shadow of a hope that it can be controlled by an
A union is a voluntary body, which men can join or not join, as
they please, and they can leave the union without making a very
great sacrifice. At any rate that is true in all those countries
where they have not yet adopted compulsory arbitration. If then a
minority of the members of the union become dissatisfied with the
conduct of the affairs of the union, there is nothing to prevent
their leaving the union and setting up another union; and if a
majority of the union become dissatisfied, they can discharge the
whole of their officials and appoint new ones.
This fate will all the more certainly overtake the officials of
the union if they are arrogant or tyrannical, because, compared with
the members of the union, there are very few of them, and they can
have but few relatives and interested friends among the members of
the union; because there is no general organization embracing the
whole of the officials of unions, and because the nion having little
patronage, they have very litle power of bribery and intimidation
over the members of the union.
Now in all these respects the Socialized State and bureaucracy of
the Socialized State contrast absolutely with the unions and the
officials of the unions. The State is not a voluntary body. Men
cannot leave the State and set up another State when they become
Therefore, the dissatisfied minority can do nothing, and even a
dissatisfied majority could not escape tyranny and oppression by the
officials, because those officials are numerous; they have numerous
friends among the regulated masses; they have unequalled power of
interference, of bribery and intimidation, and there are several
Factors in Bureaucratic Power.
A regulative agency grows at the expense of the regulated masses.
Every unit transferred from the people to any class of officials
increases the power of aggression of the officials and reduces the
resisting power of the people.
But this transfer of power is very much greater than the number of
the transferred units would indicate, for it is a transfer from an
unorganized mass to a carefully organized class, and it includes the
relatives and friends of the new officials, most of whom now
transfer their sympathy and support from the masses of the people to
the official class.
This official class, exceedingly numerous, closely organized,
carefully graduated, centrally commanded, supported by a still
larger number of relatives and friends among the regulated masses,
holds within its hand the whole of the land, the whole of the
capital and all the wealth that has been produced in the country.
With the one hand, therefore, they excercise unrivalled power of
intimidation. For these officials, as I have already pointed out,
also must have power to determine the occupation which any man or
woman shall follow, to transfer them from one place to another, and
to decide whether they work with sufficient energy and efficiency.
What, then, is to prevent the officials separating from his wife
any man who has become dissatisfied and has given expression to his
dissatisfaction; to separate brother and sister?
What is to prevent the officials from separating father from
daughter, sweetheart from sweetheart, under the pretence that the
condition of production requires it?
How is any man who has been so treated to show that he has been
How can a man who has been sent from an easy occupation to a
harder occupation, who has been sent from a pleasant place to an
unpleasant place -- because perhaps he has excited the anger of the
officials -- how is he to prove that it was done unjustly, when the
officials alone can judge what the changes of industry require?
Clearly, then, if gratitude for favors received and to come does
not silence every expression of dissatisfaction, fear of vengeance
may well do as.
An Official Press and Post Office.
But the power of the officials does not stop even there.
As I have already pointed out, Socialism can no more permit a
capitalist to carry on and profit by the publication of newspapers,
than it can allow a capitalist to carry on and profit by the
manufacture of boots. Therefore, the officials have a monopoly of
the production of books, of newspapers, of magazines and all other
How then can their acts be criticized by anybody?
How can their misdeeds be made known outside of the immediate
circle of those that have witnessed them? The officials are the only
ones who can publish news and express opinions, and therefore no
news can be published and no opinion expressed from one end of the
country to the other. except that which is approved of by the
officials. Therefore, it is utterly impossible to organize
resistance to any act of the officials; to any excess of power of
which they are guilty; or to any acts of despotism which they may
If it is suggested that, in the absence of a free press, public
opinion can be stimulated and resistance can be organized through
the post office, and through personal agitation, the power of the
officials again stands in the way. For of necessity there must be
officials in every workshop, and every factory, every mine, every
farm, and every warehouse. Therefore nobody can express
dissatisfaction with officials; still less can anyone begin to
agitate, without the officials at once becoming aware of it.
What, then, is to prevent them harassing him by all the power of
What is to prevent them from opening the letters addressed to him,
as they pass through the post office?
As to personal agitation, when the officials have the power to fix
every man and woman in a place, or to shift them as they please, as
soon as any man begins to agitate, the officials will send him into
some desert where he is unknown.
Clearly, then, under Socialism agitation is impossible by personal
effort. Agitation is impossible through the post office; and still
more is agitation impossible through the press. Therefore there
absolutely exists no means under Socialism by which public
resistance to official aggression can be organized.
If, then, a comparatively small body of officials, having little
power of interference, of bribery and of intimidation, nevertheless
exercise enormous influence over the people whose servants they
profess to be; is it not obvious that the enormous body of officials
in the Socialized State, having unrivalled power of interference, of
bribery and of intimidation, holding also in their hands the whole
of the newspaper press and whatever armed force there may be, would
constitute a power absolutely irresistible to a widely scattered
people, having no settled policy, no accustomed habit of working
together, and absolutely no means of communicating with each other?
Parliamentary Control a Dream.
To control such a power as this by an elective assembly clearly is
an idle dream.
Even Mr. and Mrs. Webb see that, as the number of officials in the
legislative assembly of the trades union is constantly becoming
greater, the control over the officials by these legislative
assemblies must become farcical.
But what is to prevent the officials of the Socialized State
entering the legislative assemblies of the Socialized State, or to
send there men who are devoted to their interests? Clearly nobody
can be elected but those whom the official classes favor, because
nobody could become known to the people except those whom the
official classes favored. In Socialism there would be no
competition, and the whole press would be in the hands of the
officials. Therefore only such men could become known to the people
and get into the legislative assembly who are favored by the
The legislative assembly, therefore, instead of being a
controlling power over the officials, would simply be the keystone
in the arch of official absolutism. It would complete the work of
giving absolute power to the officials themselves.
Irresponsible Power Always Abused.
Socialism, therefore, possesses no means whatever by which it can
control the Fran-kenstein which it calls into being. Again,
therefore, I ask, what will the officials of Socialism do with this
Can any man who has got his five senses together doubt that they
would use this power to the advantage and interest of their class?
They are men like other men; actuated by the same motives as other
men; have the same vices and virtues as other men; and, therefore,
like other men they will be largely selfish and unjust.
Never yet in the history of this world has great power been
entrusted to a number of men, but that that power was exercised, not
benevolently, but for the benefit of those who exercised it. No man
or body of men was or ever will be fit to exercise absolute power.
Therefore the members of the socialistic bureaucracy must use their
power as men with even less power have used it in the past, for
their own advantage.
They hold in their hands the whole of the wealth of the country.
They will sooner or later appropriate more and more of that wealth
for their own use. The "equality of distribution," the "equal
reward of labor," will remain as regards the regulated masses,
the subject people; but in ways open or concealed the officials will
inevitably secure for themselves an ever greater share in that
wealth. The officials will live in Roman luxury, marked off in
startling ways from the correspondingly increased poverty of the
rest of the people.
Nor will any social reconstruction extinguish the love of their
children in man. You can make a picture for yourself of an ideal man
whom you will see standing at the top of Socialism, but when he gets
there he will not be an ideal -- he will be an ordinary man,
probably on horseback, with a sword in his hand!
I say, men are human, and, whatever change you make in society,
will desire to leave their children in as good or a better position
than they have occupied themselves. Therefore, the officials of
Socialism will inevitably try to prevent their children falling into
the ranks of the regulated masses, and will endeavor to get their
children to be officials as well.
As first, no doubt, it will be done in devious, concealed ways,
but ultimately it must become an hereditary succession. Inevitably
the officialdom of the Socialized State will become an hereditary
caste with a despot at the top, who will also be either hereditary
or elected exclusively by the members of the official class. Then
they will lord it over the subject people, reduced to a degrading
equality in poverty and deprived of every vestige of economic and
Corruption As Well As Caste.
But apart from these organized aggressions, there inevitably will
come unorganized aggressions dictated by the selfishness, dishonesty
and the evil passions of individual offlicials, and which will be
sheltered by all the power of the official organization. In addition
to the spirit of caste, there must come even more powerful motives
as the inevitable corruption makes way.
At the present time when a man in a factory has incurred the
ill-will of manager or foreman, or if a woman is persecuted by the
unwelcome attentions of one of them, they can leave the factory and
go into another, and thus get rid of the consequences.
No such evasion is possible under Socialism. They have to work in
the place which is assigned to them, and they cannot leave it
without official permission. Therefore the life and liberty of every
man and the honor of every woman is at the mercy of the officials;
you have a tyranny such as never yet existed in the world.
Now let me show you that even to-day in the United States, where
the number of officials is comparatively small, and where they
exercise a very small power, compared with the power which would be
exercized by the officials of the Socialized State, the officials,
nevertheless, ride rough-shod over the people. From the mass of
evidence at my disposal, I will only bring before you two facts (and
I have a whole lot of them), one a misdeed by the police of Chicago,
and which is equalled in every city of the United States; and the
other referring to the miners' strike now proceeding in Colorado.
The police of Chicago is a democratic body. The mayor is elected by
adult suffrage; he appoints the chief of police as well as every
other officer in the force, and has the right to dismiss any one of
them. Therefore, the mayor living under the control of the electors
and controlling the police, the police are practically controlled by
Official Brutality in America.
Now let me show you what this democratically controlled body of
officials is capable of. I am quoting from a pamphlet issued by the
late Governor Altgeld, of Illinois, in which the City of Chicago is
situated. (Governor Altgeld was one of the finest democrats who ever
lived; he was not a "single taxer" -- that was the one
blot on his character.)
"There was a strike on the West Division Street Railway, and
some of the police, under the leadership of Capt. John Bonfield,
indulged in a brutality never equalled before. Even small merchants
standing on their own doorsteps, and having no interest in the
strike, were clubbed, then hustled into patrol wagons and thrown
into prison on no charge, and not even booked.
"A petition signed by about one thousand leading citizens in
and near West Madison Street, was sent to the mayor and the City
Council, praying for the dismissal of Bonfield from the force; but
on account of his political influence, he was retained."
That is what happens in the United States today. The police, the
servants of the people, lord it over the people; they kill the
people when they please, club them, and send them into prison
whenever they please, provided they are poor and powerless.
Let me give you another example, the mining strike of unexampled
brutality in Colorado (in 1904). The people of Colorado, by a
referendum, determined on an amendment of their constitution in
favor of an eight hours' day. The amendment ordered the Legislature
to pass an eight hours' bill in the first session of the new
Legislature. The Legislature, bribed through the "bosses"
by the combined mine owners of Colorado, failed to pass that bill,
and when the miners applied to the Governor of the State to call a
new session for the special purpose of passing it, the Governor
Then the miners went on strike for an eight hours' day. The
Governor telegraphed to the Sheriff of the County whether he should
send troops, and the Sheriff wired back: "No, no necessity; no
violence. I hold the people fully."
Nevertheless, the Governor sent the militia of the State, and
quartered them in the places where the strike prevailed, and I am
now going to show you that it was this lawless act and the
subsequent lawless acts of the militia which have brought about the
brutality of that strike of which I have already spoken. I will read
an extract from the "Milwaukee Daily News," dated June
"A state of anarchy exists. Outrage invites outrage. For the
condition that exists in Colorado, the responsibility cannot be
charged entirely to the mine owners or to the union miners. Both
have tried to gain their ends by coercion, intimidation and outrage;
but the existing condition of affairs may be traced as much as to
any one source to the course that has been pursued by Governor
Peabody and the State authorities. Instead of using the power of the
State to preserve order and maintain justice, the Governor and the
other authorities have been partisans of the mine owners."
Let me show you what the militia did. The "Public," of
Chicago, June 18th, 1904, contains the following statement:
"They have suspended the civil law, have driven
officials out of office and put mine owners' tools in their place;
they have censored the newspaper, and even destroyed its plant; they
have gutted co-operative stores and destroyed the goods they
contained. They have arrested men in shoals, and then deported them
from the State by scores, for nothing but refusing to join the mine
owners' union. They have even closed a competing mine where there
had been neither strike nor disorder, and have forbidden the owner
to re-open it with any other men than such as hold orders from the
combined mine owners permitting them to work."
Because a small body of officials with limited power exercises it
illegally, unjustly and brutally, Socialists want a large body of
officials, with increased power, in order that they may be guilty of
still more brutal and illegal conduct.
The Danger Glimpsed by Sydney Webb.
It is not the fault of a particular official. It is the fault of
the constitution of officialdom. It is the acquisition of such power
that corrupts men; and you will never find any man who will remain
uncorrupted when he does possess such power.
Some prominent Socialists show, at least occasionally, that they
have a glimpse of this danger themselves. Let me again quote from
Mr. and Mrs. Sydney Webb's "Industrial Democracy":
"Though it may be presumed that the community, as a whole,
would not deliberately oppress any section of its members,
experience of all administrations on a large scale indicates how
difficult it always must be, in any complicated organism, for an
isolated individual sufferer to obtain redress against the malice,
caprice, or simple heedlessness of his official superior.
"Even a whole class or grade of workers would find it
practically impossible, without forming some sort of association of
its own, to bring its special needs to the notice of public opinion,
and to press them effectively on the Parliament of the nation. ...In
short, it is essential that each section of producers should be, at
least, so well organized that it can compel public opinion to listen
to its claims, and so strongly combined that it can, if need be, as
a last resort against bureaucratic stupidity or official oppression,
enforce its demands by a concerted abstention from work."
Here, then, you have the admission by leading Socialists of the
danger of oppression and injustice from the socialistic bureaucracy.
You have this confession of it, and yet they blind their eyes to it
and enter into it without even considering it.
And the suggestion that men under Socialism can strike against
official oppression shows in a startling way the blindness of
Socialists to the concomitant changes that must be brought about by
the establishment of Socialism. For how are men to strike against
the overwhelming power of the officials?
The officials hold in their own hands the bread, the meat and the
vegetables, the coffee and the tea, and every other kind of food.
All these things are in government warehouses. They hold all the
fuel and all the light, and everything else that a man, woman or
child may want, again in State warehouses. Therefore, if men were to
go on strike against socialistic officials, even if these officials
did not use any direct punishments, all they need do is to issue an
order that goods are not to be issued to the strikers or to their
wives or children, and either the strike would be at an end within a
week, or the death of all the strikers and of all their families
would have ended the troubles of the officials.
State Nurseries and Socialist Characters.
Now I have brought before you arguments to show that the powers
which Socialism must confer upon its officials if honestly used,
nevertheless in themselves constitute despotism on the one hand and
slavery on the other; and I have also brought before you arguments
to show that these powers must inevitably be used dishonestly, must
be used for the benefit of the officials themselves; that these
officials will inevitably grow into an hereditary caste, lording it
over the whole of the people.
But these tendencies, arising from the industrial organization,
will be largely supported by .the formation of character Socialism
must bring about amongst the people.
I have pointed out before that when every man and every woman is
obliged to work a certain number of hours every day in industrial
employment, they cannot rear their children themselves. The children
must be separated from their parents at a comparatively early age,
and they must be reared in State nurseries and boarding schools.
From earliest infancy, therefore, children will be exposed to
influences far different from those that would have surrounded them
and shaped their character in their parental home.
For the training through love and sympathy, there would be
substituted the training through fear. The elastic bounds to the
natural wilfulness of children which parents accommodate to the
character of each child would give way to fixed rules to which all
children must accommodate themselves. Breach of these rules would
bring about punishment, but no expression of love or sympathy would
provoke and meet repentance. The dawning intelligence of childhood
prompting to constant questionings in the endeavor to understand
would be repressed and confined to fixed and uniform lessons.
At the very time, therefore, when the emotional nature is being
formed, when the intelligence of the future men and women is most
easily impressed, when, as a consequence, the foundation of
character is being laid, influences are at work that must seriously
deteriorate character. Absolute non-questioning obedience; abject
fear of authority; selfishness, dishonesty and cowardice must be the
attributes of men and women whose child-hood has been passed in such
This form of character will be further developed by what happens
in the future life of these people; for in a community where every
action of life is controlled and regulated by officials, where every
man and woman from earliest childhood has been compelled to act in
obedience to the orders of officials, the consciousness must be lost
that men can shape their own lives from their own actions. Any idea
of independence must be lost.
Under Socialism the regulated masses of the people never have been
allowed and never can be allowed to do anything except what some
official has ordered, and these officials themselves are subject to
strict regulations which cannot be altered or suspended except by an
appeal to higher officials; and if the matter is at all important,
then an appeal must be brought to still higher and still higher
Men who all their lives have thus been accustomed to act in
accordance with official dictation must lose all idea that
independent action is possible, and must come to rely absolutely and
with the fullest unquestioning confidence upon the orders of all
officials. Independence, enterprise, self-reliance are thus lost to
the whole people. The only sentiment that will be followed will be
the most slavish obedience to and reliance upon orders of the
Apotheosis of the State.
This tendency will be still further strengthened by the total loss
of the perception of impersonal causation in social affairs.
The rise of mankind from barbarism to civilization has not been
brought about by the conscious compulsory action of the State. On
the contrary, it has been a process of unconscious evolution akin to
the evolution which has produced all forms of life. The mastery over
nature acquired by man, the differentiation of labor resulting in an
ever increasing number of social structures, each constantly
becoming more definite; the growth in knowledge and morality, which
is the main distinction between lower and higher forms of human
society; all these have arisen independent of the State, though it
has constantly hampered their growth.
Even in the peculiar sphere of the State, the sphere of
law-making, conscious evolution vastly predominates for most laws,
and all the good laws have been enacted for the purpose of giving
sanction to customs which previously had arisen independently among
the people themselves. The recognition of self-regulation in social
processes which as yet is very incomplete, as the very demand for
Socialism shows, is, therefore, of the utmost importance for the
well-being of mankind.
When, however, all social affairs and all social processes are
regulated and controlled by officials, then the very idea that they
can be otherwise regulated must disappear. Hence will arise a still
further belief in and dependence upon the omnipotence of the State,
and therefore the total loss of the perception that social
ameliorations can be brought about otherwise than by the compulsory
orders of the State and its officials.
The Death of Freedom and Triumph of Grovel.
With this lose of independence, and loss of self-reliance, there
must come further losses. The perception of personal rights in man,
of equality of rights in man, the sense of justice, the love of
freedom and independence -- all these have arisen from the relation
of contract between men.
In this relation of contract, every man knows that if he renders a
service to any one he is entitled in return to a service of equal
value, and if he receives a service then he knows that he ought to
render in return a service of equal value. The hourly and daily
recurrences of these exchanges under agreement, and the consequent
settlements give rise to a constant maintenance of self-rights and a
sympathetic recognition of other people's rights, and from these
ultimately arises the notion of equality of rights amongst the
contracting parties. Thus the state of contract gives rise to the
recognition of equality of rights, of justice, of freedom, and of
But under Socialism all this must be lost; for Socialism does away
with all contracts, substitutes status for contract, and, therefore,
must do away with the sentiments which have arisen from the relation
of contract. With the cessation of contract must come the loss of
the perception of the equal rights of the contracting parties; with
the loss of the perception of equal rights there must come the loss
of the perception of all rights.
Above all there will be lost the feeling that all undue exercise
of power and injustice must be resisted even by others than those
against whom these acts are directed; that they must be resisted by
every man who loves freedom and independence. With this loss of the
feeling that aggression must be resisted, aggressions will become
multiplied, and the more they multiply, the more will the sense of
justice become overclouded; the more will resistance to oppression
decline; the more will the community lose the perception that
official acts may be wrong, and absolute obedience to official
commands will become the only rule of life.
This tendency will be still further supported by the substitution
of compulsory co-operation for voluntary co-operation, by the
substitution of the universal "you shall" for the now
existing "I will."
For under Socialism it is no longer impersonal necessity that
compels men to labor, but personal authority. The will of officials
determines for all persons the hours of labor, the nature of their
labor, the place where their labor is to be carried on, and no man
amongst the regulated workers can possibly tell the reason why those
orders are given. Whether they arise from necessity or caprice;
whether they are dictated by benevolence or malevolence --
they must be obeyed all the same.
Therefore, again you have the loss of all independence, the loss
of all that makes men men, and ultimately every order of the
officials will be regarded as law, every one of their acts will be
regarded as sacred. Resistance to official acts, however unjust,
will then be branded as disloyalty, and the only cardinal virtue
will be absolute slavish obedience to official commands.
Return to the Vices of Slavery.
With this loss of recognition of personal rights and of the sense
of justice, of love of freedom and independence, there must come
hand in hand the loss of honesty and truthfulness. "To speak
the truth and fear not," are co-related sentiments.
Truthfulness arises from self-respect, as self-respect arises from
the maintenance of personal rights.
When, as is the case under Socialism, those rights are denied and
lost sight of; where every man and every woman is constantly, from
their earliest childhood, under the command of a power which
regulates and controls every one of their actions; where compulsory
labor is substituted for voluntary labor; where fear of punishment
is the only incentive to exertion; there honesty and truthfulness
must also disappear. For deceit and lying will be the only weapons
of defense under Socialism as under every other form of slavery, and
as these have become the traits of every subject population, of
every enslaved people, so must they become the prominent traits of
the people sunk in the slavery of Socialism.
Socialism, endowing its bureaucracy with an overwhelming power,
will thus ultimately extinguish every desire among the people to
resist that power. Slavery will then have become the natural
condition of the people of the Socialized State, just as it has
become the natural condition of several Oriental peoples, because of
its congruity with the social sentiments which have been developed
The ultimate outcome of Socialism is, therefore, deplorable in
Industrially it means retrogression, enormous loss of productive
power, and poverty for the whole of the people.
Politically, it means absolute despotism on the one hand, and
absolute slavery for the great majority of the people on the other.
Socially, it means the loss of the monogynic family.
Ethically, it means the loss of all the virtues that a thousand
years of the struggle for freedom have developed amongst the nations
of the world, and a return to the vices which distinguish slavery
Will We Undo the Work of Runnymede?
I recognize that the freedom which we enjoy to-day is as yet
incomplete. It must be incomplete because our natures, not being as
yet adapted to the higher social state, we are not yet worthy of
But the measure of freedom which we have attained is the result of
a struggle which our ancestors have fought for over a thousand
years. Of all the nations in the world, the British people have been
most stubborn and most successful in this long-drawn battle for
freedom. Is there a man of British blood, speaking the tongue which
has carried the message of freedom over four continents, who,
looking back upon this glorious struggle, does not feel his heart
beat with enthusiasm at the thought that he also is of the line of
men who knew how to die for freedom!
On the glorious field of Runnymede the flame was lit that no
tyrant could since extinguish. It steadily burnt on through all the
dark times of the Tudors; flamed higher and higher under the tyrant
breath of the Stuarts, till it utterly consumed them. From that day
to this its brightness has grown steadily, "Freedom broadening
down from precedent to precedent"; illuminating and brightening
the way for the people of Great Britain, America and Australia,
serving as a beacon to the other and less fortunate nations of the
Wherever in modern times a nation has overthrown its tyrants,
wherever by more peaceful means it has gradually extended its
freedom, the inspiration has always come from that little island in
the Northern seas, its freedom has been the star by which they
Dare you then extinguish that flame? Will you prefer slavery to
the limited freedom which sons of that long line of heroes?
I have shown that Socialism cannot improve the economic condition
of the masses of the people. I have shown that it cannot increase
the amount of wealth which will come to the poor and lowly of this
world, But even if it could improve their condition, I say that the
price to be paid for it is too great if it involves, as I have shown
it involves under Socialism, the loss of all freedom and the loss of
the advance in morality which has come to us through growing
I have fought for years, and I shall go on fighting, for this
elementary justice -- that wealth shall belong to him who makes it;
that every worker by brain or hand shall obtain for his own use all
the wealth that his labor contributes to the common stock. But I
look to that attainment of justice not through further restriction
of our incomplete freedom, but through the extension of freedom; not
through the further extension of governmental interference, but
through the restriction of that interference.
Not capital, but privilege is the enemy of labor. All the special
privileges that have been granted by the Legislature, the special
privileges that you are constantly helping to create, they are the
enemies of many whom special privileges cannot reach. Abolish
special privileges! Give to all equal access to the inexhaustible
storehouse of Nature, and wealth will distribute itself in exact
accordance with justice without any interference by government
Equal rights and equal opportunities, through greater freedom,
these are the ideals that I would place before our people instead of
the will-o-the-wisp of socialistic despotism.
to Part 2