THE DANGERS OF SOCIALISM

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21971, 21 December 1936, Page 16

THE DANGERS OF SOCIALISM

TO THE EDITOR Of THE PRESS. Sir,—One has grown accustomed to reading in your editorial and correspondence columns about the menace involved in the socialism preached by the Labour party. One of the reasons why the pcblic remains unmoved by this propaganda, however, is that the party you support, if it does not • preach, certainly practises socialism when it gets the opportunity! The proof? There is ample evidence, and here is some of it: A few years ago the Coates Government fathered legislation of which the object and cflcct were to prohibit competition with municipal tramways, and in the result, not only' were municipalities given a monopoly of passenger traffic. but a number of companies j were driven into liquidation. Had this been done by a Labour Government there would have been a most vehement outcry, as in tact there was when the Lang Government initiated like legislation in New South Wales, Mr Lang might have met his critics who decried socialism, however, by quoting the precedent afforded by the Coates Government in New Zealand! Thus it i= as Mr Hilaire Belloc argues in “The Servile State," that the real propagandists of socialism arc the politicians who denounce socialism! Cavour said once that any fool could govern under martial law, and it may be said with equal truth that no business acumen is required to run a transport sendee when the law enforces a monopoly. Adam Smith lay s it down as an axiom, however, that monoply is always the enemy of good management, and the great Scotsman still holds the field despite our selfsatisfied economists—blessed wordwho affect the incomprehensible fromulae of Karl Marx or the stodgy sophistries of G. . H. Cole and G. B. Shaw. , There are several reasons for this promulgation of alleged socialism by men who affect to oppose it, though these reasons are never professed First, the policy offers no challenge to vested wrong. Hence it arouses no real opposition, and politicians love to take the line of least resistance. Second, it wins support and popularity from people who are really socialists and who imagine that every increase In Government control is a step towards the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, whatever that may mean, and so the policy enable's its promoters to achieve political power. Third, it offers a tempting bait to the land monopolist who sees in it a means of side-tracking the demand for landvalue taxation—the most fundamental and necessary of all reforms—as well as the reduction if not the abolition of the small quota of land-value taxation we have already achieved. Should any of your readers think that I am exaggerating I would refer him to the conduct of the city corporations of Wellington, Dunedin, and I regret to add, Christchurch, in applying surplus lighting profits in reduction of rates—in giving the richest ratepayers, who are a minority, a dividend at the expense of the smaller ratepayers and the non-ratepayers who pay rent. Tbps what is styled socialism is made to defeat the very object of its advocates in that it involves dearer lighting and dearer warmth than ■would be the case under free competition, to say nothing of the gross injustice involved in further entrenching land monopoly by reducing rates. Such is socialism in practice, and It remains to be seen whether the Labour party is going to allow the trading profits of municipal enterprise to be utilised as a means of buttressing the interests of land monopoly. In the meantime let it be borne in mind that the opponents of the Labour party who denounce socialism are themselves the most efficient protagonists of socialism in practice.—Yours, etc P. J. O’REGAN. Wellington, December 16, 1936.