COMPETITION AND SOCIALISM.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7864, 15 May 1891, Page 3

COMPETITION AND SOCIALISM.

TO THK EDITOR OF TUB PRESS. Sir,—Bishop Julius's sermon has brought up again the question of competition, and there are many who, with the Bishop, are ready to deal hard measure to that phase of trade and industry. It seems to mc, however, that men are not always careful enough to define what they mean by competition, and that consequently thoy are too prone to alienate the sympathy of that unscientific and instinctive logic which is called common sense—for they must distinguish the kind of competition which merits such short shrift. Is it competition among traders, whether producer or distributorT Then, it is worth while remembering that while on the one hand there is the competitive tendency to get trade by underselling his neighbor, honestly or dishonestly, yet, on the other hand, there is the competition to secure labor in each several department, which competition must have a distinot tendency to maintain the wages of the laborer at a normal level, and even to raise them to a higher level } the vanishing point of profits being the only positive limit to the trader's employment oc labor, as the vanishing point of livelihood, should be the only positive limit to th* laborer's engagement for labor. Again. Is it the competition of the pur* chasing public, be he productive or unproductive consumer, that is so roundly rated? We often hoar abuse heaped on those who deal at cheap shops. Then, likewise, it is worth while remembering that while on tho one hand there is doubtless a blameworthy tendency to "great bargains" below the normal value, yet on the other hand, as every auction sale shows, there ia a diatinos tendency in the competition of purchasers to raise prices above the normal value. Besides which tho former tendency, though carried to blameworthy extent, really rests on the praiseworthy tendency to thrift. If the trader raises prices, and mind you prices can be raised without values being affected or wages increased, it reduces the purchasing power of the wage-earner, and renders him proportionately a poorer man. Or is it the competition of the laborer that merits castigation ? Upon this really seems to lie the whole blame attributed to competition. Here there is no upward tendency,, but all is downward, in such a out* throa'o struggle as to be a positive satin upon human sympathies. "A man must live," said a pauper to Talleyrand. "I don't see the necessity," was the satirist's answer; and it seems to be the opinion of many a competitor for wages. Herein seems to lie the remedy to the abuses in the two other spheres of competition. A trader won't offer "great Dar« gains " if the value and cost of production necessitates a great price. A purchaser can't buy a " great bargain " if the value and cost of production is higher than the price he is willing to give. But the value and cost of production will only become m guarantee of livelihood to the laborer employed in the production when a minimum of wage is definitely established at a love] sufficiently above starvation point to enable the laborers to live. In theory, this minimum is generally accepted as twice the cost of unprepared food for himself and family,. (See Cook's "Labor.") Now, herein lies the sphere of Union operations, and herein lies the inefficiency oi Union operations as at present orgartised. The Unions have done much, and they can do more; but not on the lines of their present operation. They will never do mors until they put into practice the theory of the new Unionism, until, in fact, it is not the Unionism of the employed, but the Socialism of all wage-earners. The new Unionism sees the folly of shutting its doors when its list is full, and is wideawake to the fact that such a course is but to perpetuate that wretched competition which cuts down wages to below the minimum of livelihood. And if it is asked how it is proposed, under such circumstance-, that work is to be found for every wage-earner, tho new Unionism answer* that it is prepared to suffer in the cause, not by the impoverishment of strikes, but by so shortening the hours of individual employment that in the twenty-four hours every wage-earner may take his turn in earning wages. It is impossible not to recognise the nobler platform of this new Unionism than of tho old. The stand it takes is based on humanity and operation on the principle of a minimum wage above the limit of starvation. It does not pose as a bully to the employer, or to the employed, or to the unemployed, but recognises the common social rights of tho brotherhood of man. But as yet I fear it exists only in theory, and not m practice. In this matter Trades Unionism has of late acted rather in the course of that Individualism which it so unsparingly abuses. Its aim has been target, and not to give] and the world has recently been edified by a Labor Conference at Ballarat defining ta« object of present day Unionism as thi attainment of a two-hour day, as they had attained already to an eight-hour day I TilBishop's rebuke to Individualism appliei with all justice to that of a class as to that of a person. Arrogance, sensualism, covetousness, and avarice, these are the faults of Individualism, and these are the sins whiclj the Bishop stated lay in the way as a hind* ranee to social progress, for " sin is lawlessness." •

The Bishop was doubtless right in deferring the full attainment of true Socialism until the time when sin, lawlessness, b* done away. But it is possible to translat* this with too pessimist a spirit, and so U construe it as even to discourage further and righteous effort. That time when sin shall be done away will be the time when all mea shall be conscious of the Kingdom of God, when "God shall be all in all" Bnt w« should all remember that the Kingdom of God exists now, and is to be attained by present effort. Only where there is lawlessness is the Kingdom neither recognised nor sought after. \ take it that law is evidence of a Kingdom, that is of authority; and we have a law of God, which makes for righteousness. What we have to do is to conform to that law, -whether as embodying it in our statute books, or to treasure it in our hearts. Speaking broadly, we may say that all law has an objective and a subjective relation. Objective in the responsibility of the subject; and subjective in his self-restraint. " No man liveth onto himself," and no claaa, and no nation. We have now, at this very time, the opportunity for acting aa ™IW* sible and self-restraining creatures, wily W using this present opportunity as such shall we attain towards that future state of real socialism, which is the Kingdom of God.-* Yours, &c t „ _■ Ai__r. Camp-EL- Yobj-B. Queenstown, May 12th.