30
ciate that; the others may not. But to take a man fresh from the Capitalist press, put him on a Socialist paper and tell him to explain the Socialist philosophy would be equivalent to telling him to write an essay in Greek. He couldn't do it. It's a simple thing to change from "Taft's a good man. Vote for him," to "Bryan's a peerless man. Vote for him." But to plunge a writer deep into "Economic Determinism," "Materialistic Conception of History," "The Class Struggle," etc., is an altogether different matter.
Secondly, not more than three Socialist papers in the United States can pay a man anything like what the Capitalist press will pay him. So there is not the monetary incentive for him to espouse Socialism.
Thirdly, immediately a man steps off the Capitalist press and comes out strongly for Socialism, he's done for. No capitalist paper will again employ him. He's black-listed. You'd ought to know without me telling you that no Republican or Democratic paper in the country would pay me five cents a century—now. Yet they used to give me good salaries. But I've violated the law of the editorial sanctorium. I'm telling the tricks of the trade. I couldn't go back if I wished to.
So I say it does not follow because a man jumps from a Republican to a Democratic newspaper, then to an Independent one; and loops the loop back and forth, that he can do. the same, or that the Capitalist press would allow him to do the same, after he declares himself, strongly, for Socialism and exposes the trickery of the Capitalist press.
It frequently happens that a publisher or publishing company will own and operate both a Republican and a Democratic newspaper in the same city. This phase of the newspaper game is illustrated in a little story of a hare-lipped man who entered a barroom early one morning. He greeted the bartender, and then said:
"N'ay, old 'port, fix me up a little drink."
