MERRIE ENGLAND.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9321, 23 January 1896, Page 3

MERRIE ENGLAND.

TO THE BIIITOR 03? THE. PRKS". Sib, —In your issue of the 3rd inst. you again attack the doctrine of Socialism, bat, although you are very ready with quota*

lions, you do not appsar to tmd-oreUiKl the real aim of those who bolievo that its adoption would remove moat of the bocial ovils from which so many of the workers softer. They know that, as no two men 8 features am alike, so they differ in their mental abilities and in their tastes and predilections. They claim that economically an approach to equality should bo scoured, which would assure greater lomiro and, consequently, tho opportunity for each to develop his own ego and mako him feel that work was not the. solo aim of existence. You have failed to catch tho epirib of "Murrie England," or you would not descend to twit " Nuuquam" with not having written something new. Hie aim in writing his book was to present a simple state of the case to simple people. in speaking of revolution you, perhaps, unmlentionftlly, display bias ; Socialists sooli to preach tho Gospel, aud trust to oducatlon and evolution to bring it about. These forces, added to thoso of tho rack-rootor and sweater, will undoubtedly effect their object in time. For tho present we oan wait; but should the present evils not bo gradually eliminated, the timo will doubtlees come when earnest men will raise the red flag aud march to the " Marseillaise ; but the time is not yet. Socialism claims that the great majority would bo able to secure the object of thoir choice as regards tho kind of employment, they take in hand ; and this is quite natural, for if all did some useful work there would bo such short hours that youths could romaiu at school until oighteen or twenty, and with universal technical education each could choose the employment most congenial to him, consequently each would perform his duties with greater zest than at present, tho only incentive to which is a meagre livelihood. You say that if tho land of the United Kingdom wore nationalised it would give twopence per day to caoh individual. That may be true, but it is a most impotent conclusion. If nationalised, it would be used with the result that all its people would be employed and properly fed and have a surplus, instead of, as at present, its lands idle, a tenth of its people on tho verge of starvation, and the produotiou of its necessities employing peoplo of other lands. If you will think for one moment you will easily bco how competition does both raiso and lower prices. It simply depends upon whether the market is overstocked with labour or commodities. Your reference to tho British Post Office proves nothing if it bo as you say ; it only proves that the details require adjustiug. But why go so far from home ? Does not our local department prove that large affairs can be carried on efficiently and economically upon socialistic linos t Aro you prepared to advocate that it bo handed over to " private enterprise ? You believe so religiously in that fetish that I fear yon have forgotten America, which owns a thonsandmilliociures and millions of paupers. If the wealth which has made the former

(mostly unearned increment) had gone into the State, and had boeu righteously ad* ministered, thero would not be a pauper today in the United States except those who would not work. Your syrnpathioe are all with the "Fat Man," many of whom look upon and treat the worker as a chattel, but 2ftx 6ft will accommodate both some day; a system which makes it possible for one to spend £5000 upon a supper whilst his father's employees aro starving because they demand a few peuce per day extra ; a system which eliminates all humane feelings from a man, that he can tell them "to starvo mid be damned." As I said before, Socialism was taught by Christ, and no ono should dare to call liiinscli a Christian if ho is too selfish t be ready to apply the principle.—Yours, &c. Socialist.