SOCIALISTIC DOCTRINES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 101, 29 April 1912, Page 2

SOCIALISTIC DOCTRINES.

Two addresses on Socialism were given in the city yesterday. \b the meeting of the Men's Brotherhood, in the New Theatre, the Rev. E. 0. Blamires spoke on "Socialism—materialistic and Christie." The differences which existed between Socialists and the Churches, he said, were in a very great measure dua to bainar "not understood " Both sides were guilty in this respect, but, in any case, to whichever party one might belong, the masses would always have no difficulty in deciding which was the true and beet to follow. "By their works ye shall know them.' To-day there were men preaching So cialism who did not < know tho first thing about it. Such men made rambling statements, putting people astray, and giving them wrong ldeta. Unless Socialism was identified' with Christianity, it was not true Socialism, and the sooner Christian Socialism became the faith of the entire community the better it would be for mainkind. Tho Socialism that cut at the roots of the belief in God wa« one that cut at the home-life, too, whether it bo in the pal« ace or the cottage. , At the King's Theatre, Mr. E. Hartley, of Bradford, dealt with what he described as Bomti current miwoneep tione of Socialism. Mr. Hartley ie a member of the Bradford City Council, and he gave instances of how municipal enterprise, or collective ownership, had worked there. He said that municipal tramways were Socialistic rather than active Socialism. They provided sn example of collective ownership with capitalistic management, but peopli were foolish to olect representatives on the council who ran trams at a profit. The idea of profit from municipal works was entirely mistaken. Land values in New Zealand were ten times as high as they were in England, and yet this was said to bo a socialistic! country. The powers of the ) city as well «s the whole of the capital or the city should be used and controlled by its citizens alone. Socialism did not jneah the dividing up of all available wealth a-nd property as some people imagined. Only by collective ownership could people secure the right* to which they were entitled.