SOCIALISM AND PRIVATE PROPERTY

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22252, 17 November 1937, Page 4

SOCIALISM AND PRIVATE PROPERTY

TO TUB EDITOB OIP THE HJE3S. Sir, —The controversial method of the social creditor is a simple one: views other than those according to the gospel of Douglas are "disappointing" or "curious"; they are invariably dismissed without examination; and the old, familiar, fallacious dogmas of social credit are trotted out once again, on the Bellman's theory, apparently, that anything repeated three times becomes true. Good advertising psychology, perhaps, but pretty poor debating. "Sez You" is obviously unacquainted with the Socialist theory of the underutilisation of capital goods in a capitalist community, to which I referred in my last letter, and it is equally obvious that he has no intention whatsoever of bridging his ignorance. The latter point is proved by his complacent dismissal, without comment, of John Strachey's work, and the former by the unjustified and incorrect construction he has placed upon my own summary and necessarily inadequate statement of the theory. The occasion, however, he finds a useful one for the introduction of misrepresentation. "An erroneous conviction," he says, "is held by a school of Socialism that if incomes (including private profit) were levelled down to uniformity, then there would be plenty for all." This, I suppose, is the fifth or sixth gross misstatement of the meaning of Socialism that I have had occasion to combat in your columns. I know of no such school. Allow me to ask "Sez You" where is it to be found? What is its literature? Who are its leaders? What authority have they, intellectually or in any Labour movement? In short, where does he get that stuff?

"Russia is a pitiful example to cite on the question of Socialism and employment." This is a strange statement, in view of the fact that Russia enjoys a practically complete Socialist economy, and the fact that she has solved the unemployment problem. "Russia is still a land only emerging from scarcity and could do with millions more to overtake its needs more quickly." Millions more what? I presume "Sez You" does not mean foreign capital. If he means roubles, what is Russia to do with them? In what way will more roubles increase her consumption, since all her resources, human and material, are now being utilised to the utmost and in the most scientific way, and all her produce consumed? "Sez You" would do well to get down to economic reality, and provide a solid basis for his thinking by a perusal of such works as the Webbs's "Soviet Communism."

"Economic Democracy," another social crediter. is also on my trail. He professes to discern two complexes, a "work complex" and a, "revenge com-

plex," as the psychological springs of Socialism. As he fails to define this "work complex," and as I have not the slightest idea what he means, I cannot discuss it. As for the "revenge complex," his contention may be true to a partial extent of Communism, but it certainly is not true to any appreciable degree of Socialism. Can 'Economic Democracy" point to a single modern work on Socialism inspired by a spirit of revenge against the capitalist class? Both "Economic Democracy and "Sez You" are confident (dare I say hopefully confident?) that before long Russia will encounter the same problems of distribution and unemployment as are encountered under capitalism. This, of course, is an article of faith with capitalist economists, including Douglasites. It is a good example of wish-thinking. The contention, however, would be more convincing if any reasons were adduced in its support. Such reasons, it goes without saying, must be valid. An argument based upon the notorious A plus B theorem, which, although it is fundamental in social credit, has been torn to little bits time after, time by economist after economist; which is not even true of capitalism, much less of Socialism; and which is so demonstrably false that only a religious attitude towards it can account for its hold over certain minds; such an argument, I submit, except to those minds whose credulity is only exceeded by their entire lack of comprehension of the scientific method, is no argument at all.-Yours, w ete., ij ROBERTSON . Hokitika, November 15, 1937.