THE LAND AND POVERTY

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21258, 1 September 1934, Page 19

THE LAND AND POVERTY

( i»trospon<l™t< »)i'J 'lu nut rom|.]y . rulo» »»t out m tl»« liifcl column of our t°«dßr fas® *•*'•'"*> " s i' r, "» -noticingijisir leH® l "-

.JO TIIJE BIHIOU or 'IUV. IT.KSa. Sir.—Tlic mo* I interesting item ol I parliamentary news which has apcarcd to date in the columns of "The Logs" id th'.; report of the Sanioan ( v -' ilic ' a inlei ' ij.;'."The social system of the Samoa n topic ~u» t poverty cannot, because ot (he fact, of all the TiiiJiej b<;i 11;-', well endowed with 1 f'ici Othcn.'i.x\ the report refers to .< excdlcn'. housing conditions entnycd' by Ihe natives, and to their freedom .from arduous toil. w The contrast between the position in c, mo a and the position, in New Zcaiind is striking. In New Zealand the •ocial system is such that poverty i«; ot only possible, but inevitable; iithousands of citizens eke 'lit an cM:-teni'e on the meagre pithiicc of the l.'nemploymcnt, Board, i'lus" the tit moralising assistance of nblic chaffy, while thousands move .ndiu'c a lite of constant, unremitting f:i vi'ith inadequate remuneration •; tlie compulsion of fear of. want. | rj-he contrast is more apparent when it is see'-i 'bat nio'-i fatni'ies in this eountry arc certainly not well endowed with land: indeed, most possess j,o land at all. and in consequence *• (jepend for their right of access to the natural opportunities of life upon the yjll and caprice of a landlord. When the position between the two countries j? fully studied, it becomes a matter of conjecture whether it is overbearing arrogance or sublime ignorance which .leadi-! us to piesume 1.0 ,°y>v< > n Sam o3 * or evident that tl:e Sanioans have out stripped us in social development inasmuch as the.v have j^nished,poverty from their m'ul;,t. The San oan -lUiatiott occasions 1:0 surprise- It is uuviw.s (hat any people have an unrestricted, acces.-- to land—the n .iti 11 a) storehon.-.e of wealth - must eri,i>>.y' prosperity. Such a people must eiijo.v no 1 only (Veedom from poverty out al-o pc-K-e: for -a im e every person liu» a right to the land of his country, 'he has al once an assured means of .'livelihood and an inalienable right to the full fruits cf '}iis labour. Oppression, extortion, and the fear of want being' thus banished, together with their natural, consequences, hatred, suspicion, and diptrust, the foundation is laid for the establishment of co-operation and goodwill—the essentials of peace. 1 The report refers to the trading difficulties of the Samoans but it need not be inferred that this is due to any weakness in their social system. Rather, it i;; due to the fact that their commercial neighbours are so lacking in social ideals that they allow the majority of their citizens to be submerged as a pauperised proletariat as well as to their lack of plain, common sense in committing national suicide through the erection of trade barriers. If the people of New Zealand and of other countries enjoyed the same freedom to produce and consume as do the Samoan people, there would be no lack of commercial contacts. In the meantime the Samoans are prospering, even though they are short of cash. it is significant that the report fail t to mention the existence of any class •.iistinctions or of any wealthy section. ,Alt can be assumed that none exists. Social differentiation and. stratification are not the product of aix < inherent natural superiority but of unjust social privileges such as the private ownership 01 land. In a country such as New Zealand, where the land is owned by a relatively small number of people, it is inevitable that class distinctions shall arise and that the community shall be dominated class whose superiority is due to its ability to levy toll upon the industry of the majority. In a system such as obtains in Samoa 110 man need call another master and no man can acquire wealth or power at the expense uf the community. Several years ago Henry George, appalled at the social conditions of the lime and seeking a solution of the uaradox of increasing poverty in Hie face of advancing progress, saw the connexion between landlordism and poverty., He saw, too, the essential injustice' of the system which, while making land ownership the perquisite of a small majority, reduced the masses of men to a condition of economic servitude which is worse than chattel slavery. He recognised that the continuation of this system meant the eventual disruption of society; that (he increasing exasperation and resentment of the dispossessed masses constitute a growing and irresistible force which will expend itself in destruction. He proposed as a remedy that the land should be made common property through the simple method of state appropriation of the full economic rent. Were this done in New Zealand we too eoulcl say that the social system of New Zealanders is such as to made poverty impossible. Before closing it is worth while alluding to another aspect. Here is a simple Polynesian people— according to the League of Nations a backward people—who have, in making poverty impossible, achieved a solution to a problem which has baffled the astute and learned professors, and have done it seemingly without the aid of graphs, statistics, and the thousand and one other aids to economic profundity. One wonders whether it is the Samoans or the professors who are guilty of economic heresy.—Yours, •U:., , 11. J.E. August 21, IS)u4.