CORRESPONDENCE LABOR AND CAPITALISM.

Evening Star, Issue 18121, 10 November 1922, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE

LABOR AND CAPITALISM.

TO THE EDITO*. Sir.—Your criticism of the political addresses of Messrs Moss and Gilchrist contains sonic points of interest quite apart from the political issue which is to be decided at the General Election. You make special note of the fact that Eibor has not hold (he reins of Government in this country, and (hen you go on to deduce that because Labor has not yet been tried it is an excellent reason why it should not be tried: which is equivalent to crying a curse on all new things. There is one point, however, which you did -not stress, and one which might have been stressed —the glaring fact that Masseyism and liberalism have between them got the country into such a deplorable state that to risk almost any experiment would he a saner policy to follow than to put either of them on the Treasury benches again. Still you seem to argue that because thev abused all the power they ever had they*ought to bo given all tho power there is to have. Your criticism, however, was- not so much a condemnation of Labor as a defence of Capitalism. You jfiacc side by side two statements of Mr Gilchrist —one in which ho said that Labor men are not red revolutionaries, and tho other in which ho urged his hearers to bo progressive and destroy Capitalism. You seem to think that the two statements involve a contradiction; that anyone who would destroy Capitalism must of necessity lie a revolutionary; that anyone who would destroy Capitalism could nut bo progressive. Now, all the mem of light and leading throughout tho ■world wh o ha,vo studied economics are at one in the belief that Capitalism is a plague. These men arc not confined to Socialists and Communists : thev arc men wtlio have watched the abnormal growth of the system, and have noted how it_ has gradually developed into a huge international octopus that is simply squeezing the very life out of .humanity. Sir lam Ghiozza, Money, in his ‘Defence of Capital,’ tells us that Capitalism has had a long run, and it has been chiefly successful in, tho manufacture of poverty. Now, tho point I wish to stress is that Capitalism cannot ibe defended any more than a deadly disease can bo defended. If the supporters of Capitalism showed that Capitalism could bo altered, and would be altered by reasonable reform, there might bo some justification for their support of at; there might oven be some chance for them if they proved to us that it could not Imj altered, but must somehow ba tolerated; but- when they seek to show us that it does not need altering they.give an excellent reason for Be destruction. Capitalism, however, does not try to defend itself. It knows better. Pascal said that the masterpiece of hell is to deny its own existence. Capitalism resembles hell m this and many other respects. Thus wo find leading ‘Capitalists, not defending Capitalism, but denying the existence of Capitalism. Some time ago the 1 Daily Telegraph ’ replied to Air Henderson’s phrase about the possessing classes _ : by suggesting that there were no possessing classes, and to prove its case at cited a large number of shareholders, which is a.s if a man had denied slavery in pagan Rome by pointing to a, large number of freed men. But you, sir, are bolder than the ‘ Telegraph’—yon admit the existence of Capitalism, and', holding it up in sight of (he multitude, seek to defend it.—l am, ete.. <L Robinson. November 8.