McNeal-Sinclair Debate on Socialism (Barnes & Noble Digital Library)

By T.A. McNeal and Upton Sinclair

This is the text of a debate between T. A. McNeal, a Kansas newspaper editor and author of When Kansas Was Young (1922), and Upton Sinclair, the famous novelist and crusading reformer. Sinclair was pro-Socialist, as he ran twice in California on the party’s ticket. T. A., on the other hand, was more conservative—a debate well worth reading!

• Language: English
• Publisher: Barnes & Noble
• Release date: Mar 29, 2011
• ISBN: 9781411445802

Book preview

MCNEAL-SINCLAIR DEBATE ON SOCIALISM

T. A. MCNEAL AND UPTON SINCLAIR

This 2011 edition published by Barnes & Noble, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Barnes & Noble, Inc.

122 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10011

ISBN: 978-1-4114-4580-2

CONTENTS

First Article

Second Article

Third Article

Fourth Article

An Interview With Debs in Woodstock Jail 1895

First Article

By T. A. McNeal

Resolved: That the present system of society is more desirable from the workingman's standpoint than is the Socialist order.

In the issue of the Appeal of July 9, the editor says that it is evident I do not understand Socialism. Possibly he is right, and yet, strange as it may seem to him, I have at least been endeavoring to understand Socialism for full thirty years.

Inheriting from a Scotch-Irish father a profound love of liberty, justice and fair play, I have a strong inclination to espouse the cause of the under-dog. I think this passion was born in me, for my father in the maturity of his manhood kept a station on what was known as the Underground Railroad and risked his freedom and gathered the abuse, contempt and ostracism of the majority by helping many an humble and despised black slave toward the northland and freedom.

As a young man I noted the manifest inequalities and injustice which marred our civilization. It seemed to me that some received much more of the desirable things of life than they deserved, while others received much less. I saw luxury and inordinate wealth touch elbows with want and poverty. I saw some living in idle luxury, giving nothing in the way of service for what they received, while others toiled ceaselessly for a bare existence and in their age and helplessness found themselves the objects of either public or private charity. I believed that there should be a more equitable social order and began to read and study Socialism with the hope that it might offer the solution. The general promises of its literature of a coming order based on universal brotherhood and good will, in which men would cease to contend with each other and all strive for the common good: an order in which there would be no more poverty, no poor, and no idle rich: an age in which each would contribute to the extent of his ability in useful service for the benefits he received, appealed to me and I decided that if the theory, on full investigation, seemed to justify the promises of its advocates, I would devote the best energy of my life and whatever talent I had to the promulgation of that doctrine.

It was about that time that I had a conversation with Jerry Simpson, omnivorous reader and student, although handicapped by lack of education. He had joined about every radical movement both in religion and politics that had started in this country during his time and I naturally assumed that he would be interested in Socialism. So I asked him for his opinion of the theory.

I have studied Socialism enough, he answered slowly, to satisfy myself that it won't work.

That surprised me but did not discourage me. It was true, as I found, that practically every socialistic experiment from that originated by Robert Owen in England on down had failed, but I reasoned that this might be because of the concerted opposition of the capitalistic forces that, for selfish purposes, wanted to throttle any movement looking toward the more equitable distribution of wealth. So I proceeded as well as I knew how with my investigations, still enamored with the idea of an Utopian age. I found of course that the term Socialism was quite loosely used by persons who were not students of economics or social philosophy, meaning anything that was different from the already established order and that among these the terms Anarchy and Socialism were used interchangeably, although as it seemed to me the one was the antithesis of the other.

I discovered also that there was quite a wide variation among the writers on Socialism themselves, but that there was more of a tendency to turn to the philosophy of that remarkable German Jew, Karl Marx, as the scientific basis of the socialistic faith. I was not situated where I had access to the best libraries, but I read hopefully and rather enthusiastically such books and magazine articles as I could obtain and a little later quite copiously from Wayland's Appeal to Reason. As I read and pondered there gradually grew in my mind a profound conviction that the philosophy of Marx, remarkable as it was, logical as it seemed on its face, and just as was its scatching arraignment of industrial conditions, especially in England, was still unsound in theory and if put into practice must inevitably lead to the most galling and at the same time inefficient form of industrial despotism. From whatever angle I viewed the subject, along whatever road my investigation and my reason traveled, they led to the same conclusion, until I was forced to decide that notwithstanding the many and grievous faults of the present order with its inequitable distribution of wealth, with its often wasteful and inadequate system of distribution, it is still preferable to the conditions likely to exist if the Marx philosophy were actually put into operation, especially in a country like ours.

I assume that the readers of the Appeal are all reasonably familiar with the basic principles of the Marxian philosophy and therefore will not use the space allotted me in this discussion to a detailed description of his theories.

I am entirely willing to grant the editor of the Appeal has correctly and succinctly stated the basis on which the socialistic state will rest, if it is established. In the issue of the Appeal of July 9, in his criticism of an article written by myself, he says:

"Frankly, we see no solution of capitalism except its utter destruction. Partial ownership is a blind alley. If the workers of field and factory and mine are to become self-employing and thus receive the full social value of their labor, they will have to