MR. TILLETT'S SOCIALISM.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 253, 23 October 1907, Page 8

MR. TILLETT'S SOCIALISM.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—ln your leading article on the "New Gospel," your sneers at Mr. Tillett would have been more justified had you given a verbatim report of his speech on "Environment and Character." Your article, unfortunately, reaches a larger public than had the privilege of hearing Mr. Tillett speak. You say, "We do not propose to enter into a" detailed argument as to the merits of Mr. Tillett's special brand of Socialism." Are you justified in such a sneering remark? Mr. Tillett does not speak of "special brands" of Christianity, or the "special brand" of the "Star's" Liberalism. You do not give any argument to show why Mr. Tillett's "contention that character is determined, by environment is altogether fallacious and delusive." I think that Mr. Tillett does '"mean that one's circumstances have a great deal to do with the formation of one's character." and agree with you that "there is something to be said for his theory." You say, "our circumstances mean" nothing to us except in so far as we interpret them to ourselves; and it would be infinitely more accurate to say in this sense we make our environment than that it makes us." I cannot see how anyone can make hie environment, possibly one may cultivate it. Every word one reads, every word one hears is environment. Cultivate a taste in a child for good reading or for bad. will not that influence the child's character? The child does not make the environment ; it is made in the books it happen 3 to read, in the words ajid acts of its playfellows, and the people it cpme3 in contact with. Mr. Tillett did no); touch directly on heredity, but I do not think he overlooked the fact. May I say that I do not consider that Mr. Tillett was "only repeating mechanically the pseudoscientific jargon about environment that has been popular with superficial thinkers for many years past." But that he gave to his faith, and a "belief that will grow," not by "pseudo-scientific jargon," but by men facing the facts of life. Mr. Tillett says that "capitalism i is responsible for the deplorable conditions that induce poverty, vice, and crime," and I think he would agree with you that the "capitalists and the millionaires may logically reply that they are merely the creatures of circumstances which have raised them to opulence. an<«. reduced their weaker brethren to poverty," but not "that these same omnipotent circumstances effectually prevent them from listening to any argument that does not appeal to their own sense of enlightened self-interest." It is even possible to show a millionaire that co-operation is better than competition., although it would be better and easier to enlighten one who had not been so long under the pressure of an environment which goes to make a millionaire. I think you mistaken in saying "It is perhaps too much to ask the Sorialists to take a lesson in cardinal virtues of loving kindness and self-restraint from the religion that they are so anxious to discrown and dethrone."' I have not had the pleasure of metting any Socialist, who was perfect, or who professed to be, but I do think the majority try to take lessons in the "cardinal virtues of loving kindness and self-restraint," and whilst they may wish to dethrone dogmatism, have nothing to say against any religion that teaches man to lova and see justice done. The Encyclopoedia Britannica says: '"The ethics of Socialism are the ethics of Christianity.*' Socialists do not fear arguments, but have a right to ask for toleration.—l am, etc., W. H. WATERHOUSE.