SHOULD SOCIALISTS BE RICH?

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 43, 21 February 1927, Page 15

SHOULD SOCIALISTS BE RICH?

SINCERITY DISCUSSED. AN ADROIT TWIST. VIEWS INDEFINITE AXD ! VARIOUS. (By HARTLEY WITHERS.) Owing to the prominence given to the 1 proceedings at a recent by-election, and subsequent correspondence in the "Times," the question of the sincerity of rich Socialists has lately been the sub- ; ject of a good deai of discussion. And the discussion has been very adroitly j twisted in the wrong direction by the ! Socialist champion who started it. He. ■ in effect, asked not the difficult question i with which I have headed this article. but one which is much easier to answer, namely whether rich men should be Socialists. Mr. A. Ponsonby, M.P.. opened the i ball in a letter to the "Times,*' raiding | the question of the "presence in the Labour party of men of means, aristo- r crats. and those who have no claim to be regarded as working men and women." | and was very easily able to show reasons : why no useful purpose would be served ! by the exclusion from this party of j everybody except members of the arti- j san class, and he went on to assert that 1 the result of including other* is that , •"the Labour party is the most compre- ' hensively representative party that has ever appeared in British polities." This is a claim that will hardly be conceded by members of other parties. In the days before the formation of the Labour party the L.berals certainly included . quite as many varieties of men and • women as the Labour party of to-day— ' a fold that contained Mr. Gladstone, the Marquis of Hartington. and Mr. Bradlaugli must have been of pretty elastic construction. And the fact thjt at the last general election the Conser- ' vatives gained an enormous majority is ' fairly convincing proof that millions of working-class men and women must j have voted for it. The mere fact that ' so much discussion is raised because a ' comparatively small number of rich and titled folk and of social "brainworkers'' ha\e joined the Labour party, is surely sufficient proof that it »s not yet nearly .as comprehensive as the others; and one of the most obvious criticisms of it and its objects is its definite claim, by the name that it has chosen, to represent ■'>ne class only rather than the interests of the nation as a whole. j A Sound Political Slogan. Obvious as this criticism is, it is one | that is very easily answerecf* by ineruI ben of the Labour party, who can reply : that the working classes are so great a ! majority in every nation that as long j as their claims to a better share in the j good things of life are genuinely furJ thered, there will not be much amiss .! with the state of the nation as a whole. afijßMpS idea that a country a | wholesome political existence if its acti- | vfties are devoted to the support of the | interest of one comparatively small class jis a sdead as Queen Anne. The "greatj est happiness of the greatest number" was a sound political slogan long before the Labour party was ever heard of, and a population enjoying plenty of comimodities and services well distributed i throughout all clases„ so that mental , and bodily health and strength may be j within the reach of all, is now generally , admitted to be the ideal to be aimed I atj Socialists have thus no monopoly in their desire to improve the lot of the . working classes. If they had, thousands jot people would join them who at preI sent are quite sincerely convinced that ! they can serve this end much better by ; supporting other parties. The mono- ! poly that Socialists suffer from is the | curious delusion which makes them l believe that they can improve the lot | of the working classes by handing proj duction and industry over to State control, and by abolishing or undermining the rights of private property. On this point their views are indefinite and various, and in fact it may be said that their whole creed is so fluid that criticising it is as difficult as handling an underdone poached egg. Bat most Socialists will admit that subordination of the individual to the State in production, distribution and possession is the chief meaas by which thev hope to achieve their object. After all that we have seen of the results of State action during and after I the war, it seems curious that anv large j body of intelligent people can * really ] believe that the great growth of wealth i which is necessary for widelv-diffused i comfort can be secured bV j industry up in red tape; and " the ! answer that one gets when one | raises this doubt—that the State i under Socialism would be some- : thing quite different—is a weak assump--1 tion on which to base a political creed.' involving the overturnin? of the present' I fabric of society. Creed and Practice I But because a man is rich and what is called "well born," there is no reason i why_ he should not cherish anv political | opinion that may suit his fancv, and the j fact that if his creed is put 'into pracj tice he will lose his privileged position makes it all the more honourable for him to support it. The implication often ' put forward in criticisms of the wealthv I j Socialist, that he is simply a politica"l' I self-seeker eager for no'toriety and I j office, is generally a very unfair gibe at : , sincere and earnest men" who are^siving' ; devoted work to a cause in which thev | believe. ' j i But when we put the question the i | other way round, and ask not whether j rich men should be Socialists, but wbe- . ther Socialists should be rich, we put j those who are both these things into an I awkward corner. If the poverty of the . masses is, as they imply, due to'the fact that some people are better off. and if i the existence of private property is an j evil that ought to be rooted out, then it ! is very easy for the rich men who think j so to begin by abolishing wealth as far j as they are concerned, by devoting their j wealth to puolic purposes, of which there j are always plenty which need funds, in- ] stead of enjoying it by spending it j on comforts and luxuries for themselves, i And such action would have a tremen- : dous moral effect. Those of us who j believe that the interests of all classes j can best be served by leaving private j enterprise to work for the general good I by providing an ever-growing mass of j wealth for the general consumption, at least are not guilty of the glaring inconf sistency of those who think that private j property, is a social evil and yet conj tinue to enjoy its advantages. " j