Economic growth

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32874, 24 March 1972, Page 8

Economic growth

Sir,—The desire to correct the misprint which changed “many Socialists are arrogant over-simplifiers” in my letter into “over-implifiers, may perhaps give me a chance to clarify, another point When I said an “aristocratic” fonn of society is potentially most “ideal,” most able to “grow” in ways beneficial for all, I imagined, not aristocracies of the corrupt and extravagant eighteenth century sort, but something more like the way scientists who do outstanding work are elected to the Royal Society, combined with the way some of the eminent in England used to make a semi-organised effort to recognise and encourage talented young persons. As for “M.C.H.’s" claim that “Marx . . . utterly refuted Malthus,” that, at a time when the world’s poorly nourished population is expected to increase by 1000 million in the next 10 years, indicates the unreality of some of “M.C.H.’s” ideas.— Yours, etc., MARK D. SADLER. March 23, 1972.

Sir, —Under socialism the principle “From each according to his ability to each according to his need,” would apply. Because the means of production would be owned and controlled by the workers there would be no money to have to save, as money is

bnly a symptom that an owning, exploiting class. exists. In a world of abundance such as socialism would be, there would be sufflcieht for

everybody regardless of how much each individual might produce. I hope this answers some of H. Griffiths’s questions.—Yours, etc., EDWARD W. HICKS. March 22, 1972. Sir,—l was very much taken by that bit at the end of “Jim Abelson’s" letter about H. Griffiths expecting greater rewards for the more industrious not only here but probably in heaven, too. I wonder what H. Griffiths’s reaction was to “K. H.’s” letter about the City Mission and the Bishop’s comments which followed. I wonder, too, if the fact of the matter is mat H. Griffiths is one of those people who cannot help being industrious (any more than Mr Goodall) and, if that is so, to what extent he should ffien expect to be rewarded more than others. On the other hand, if he is only industrious of the "rewards,” he is merely succumbing to temptation, and this is a very different matter, one which, incidentally, Mr Goodall is trained to help people find a way of overcoming. The whole matter is surely one of society’s most pressing current issues.— Yours, etc., G. C. SUGGATE. March 23. 1972.

Sir,—Marxism does not oppose the masses to the individual, as Mark D. Sadler would know had he but read the Communist Manifesto wherein Marx describes the new socialist society, “ . . . in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” Aristocratic societies have been discarded by history as obsolete; latter-day revivals (Nazi Germany’s aristocracy of race) and survivals (South Africa’s aristocracy of skin colour) are notable for anything but greatness and heroism. All class-divided societies in their relations between rulers and ruled, between exploiters and exploited, reproduce in human society the relations obtaining in nature between predators and their prey. Socialism will usher in an era—in which free and equal relations between all human beings will be securely based on a crisis-free, rational, expanding economic growth which will ensure a level of existence for all its members far exceeding anything within capitalism’s capabilities.— y ° urs - etc.. MC Il March 23. 1372. [This correspondence is now closed.—Ed., “The Press.]