UNSOUND POLITICAL ECONOMY.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 142, 17 June 1922, Page 17

UNSOUND POLITICAL ECONOMY.

COMMUNISM A FALLACY. (By S. D. LECKIE). It is said that in religion and in politics it is easy to get people to believe what they want to believe. The same m_>y be said of the science of political economy. This explains the frequent utterances of labour leaders, who explain to their hearers that we have only to destroy the existing social system in order to arrive at the millennium. In a recent speech Mr. Bloodworth referred significantly to the "failure of the capitalistic system of production and distribution." We have all often heard this kind of talk before. We believe in all practical methods that will tend to increase the comfort, welfare and happiness of the worker, but if there is one thing that can be proved, it is the fact that the substitution of communism for capitalism so far from benefiting the worker, will lead to his ruin: and this is evidently what Mr. Bloodwort'.i means. In every case where these theories have been put into practice they have led to disastrous results.

The evidence and object lesson afforded by the disastrous state o* affairs in Russia is a case in poini. Lenin and Trotsky preached the same doctrines as Mr. Bloodworth, and we know what was the result. "But," say the apologists for the communistic system, "Russian communism was on too large a scale." In reply, we may say that communism has often been tried on a small scale, and always with disastrous results. The unfortunate instance of the "New Australia" scheme, in which many New Zealanders-were involved, is a ca<se of communism on a small scale. What was the result? It was found that the communistic system, so far from giving the worker that freedom which he sought, turned out to be one of the worst forms of slavery under which he could suffer. It is with special reference to unemployment and itU attendant evils that Mr. Bloodworth looks to communism as a remedy. Under a communistic system, it is claimed, there will be no unemployment. Neither is there any unemployment under a system of slavery, and communism, whatever it may be in theory, in practice is nothing else.

Under a communistic system each worker is compelled to do what he is told; he cannot choose his own work nor bargain about his own wages; in fact, he is no longer a free agent. To refer again to the New Australia scheme. "It was well organised and under capable leaders, but the failure, as was ultimately owned by Lane (the leader) himself, "lay in the fallacy of the communistic doctrines. Before" any schemes of "human brotherhood" can be successful, human nature must be radically reformed. This is no easy matter, for human nature is full of weaknesses, in fact, as Sam Slick has slyly remarked, "there is a great deal of human nature in man."

Unler Lane's scheme of "human brotherhood" the wage system was abolished. The workers were paid by "credite," a system which seemed excellent on paper, but worked out very badly in practice. All workers were paid at the same rate; the manager tiie same as the labourer, the skilled worker the same as the "'duffer." The result was that the skilled workers soon

abandoned the communistic colony tc work for the despised capitalist," who offered them high wages, and they left the "duffers" to carry on the work — with disastrous results.

We live in a civilised age, and communism has everywhere been found incompatible with a high civilisation. All savages are more or less communistic; the Maoris were communists, so are the

Australian blackfellows to-day, and the natives of the Pacific Islands in so far as they have not been civilised. But as soon as a people arrive at a certain stage of civilisation, they throw off tha yoke of communism and allow freedom of individual action. Modern civilisation is baaed on the freedom of individual action. Abolish that freedom aud you at once abolish all incentive to enterprise. Can we imagine an inventor like George Stephenson or Marconi under a communistic system!} What incentive wou.\l a man have to invent anything ir he could derive no individual benefit from it?

These are a few questions which do not occur to the average theorist who talks vaguely about "the abolition of comsmunistic system? If there are unscrupulous capitalists by all means maKt, laws to punish them, but let not the workers as a body be misled by wild and impracticable theories, the mere attempt to carry out which would lead to their ruin. I speak from the standpoint of practice and not of theory, and have illustrated my case by actual examples.

With regard to the contention that the Government should find work for tiiv unemployed, this is a consummation

much to he desired, but it has its limitations. The French Government, actuated by communistic principles, during the middle of last century, established "public workshops" in which employment was found for wor,_ing men at relatively high wages. The result was that vagabonds flocked from all parts of the country to the centres where thi* workshops had been opened. Needless to say, work can only be carried on under such circumstances at a dead los 3to the Government, and it is only a question of how much the taxpayer is ready to pay in order to support unproductive labour. The French workshops had to be closed, as they proved too great a strain on the national resources. It was also found that the people who derived the greatest benefit from them werthose who least deserved it. Government relief work has been found to result in _, heavy burden on the taxpayer, in other countries besides France, even when such labour is employed on so-called "productive" work. The "viila_rc settlements" established by the New Zealand Government more than thirty years ago. were largely on a communistic •basis, and. I" ■ ; "- : -"" schemes in Australia, tbe\ . ! n failure.