SOCIALISM IN PRACTICE

Evening Star, Issue 18281, 22 May 1923, Page 2

SOCIALISM IN PRACTICE

TO TUE EDITOH.

Sir, —One aspect of the case against Socialism I take to be the undoubted fact that all complex experiments in that direction hitherto undertaken have been abject failures, and have resulted in more or less starvation. In about one hundred attempts there has not been ono single exception to this mournful rule, and as every experiment started with the confident hope that those living under it would be vastly better off than under our usual system, tho results are very discouraging.. These comparatively small experiments in full Socialism have had one advantage over a nation-wide trial that is simply incalculable, and that is that they were composed of a picked membership. A nation, as Carlyle remarked, is “mostly fools.” When tho famous New Australia Socialist Settlement was started some two thousand people went there. Good laud, good climate, good rainfall, and capital in plenty they had to start with. Only those were taken who professed to bo enthusiastic Socialists, determined to make a shining success of the settlement, so that it. would be a beacon light and an object lesson to tho whole world. They hoped that others, seeing their success and happiness, would; go and do likewise. The records of all intending settlers were carefully examined, and none but those of the highest standard as to morals, work, and health were taken. Consider what an advantage this is—a settlement with no aged and infirm,, no thieves, welshers, bookmakers, or publicans and sinners generally—all of whom an ordinary capitalistic community has to carry on its back somehow or other. With such an advantage'one would think that any and every political and economic system ever devised by the wit of men could not fail to do excellently, and yet in the end. tho members of tho Now Australia Socialist Settlement were brought back to capitalistic Australia by public charitable subscription. They were sadder and wiser people, and very glad to get there.

Production seems to be the rock on which Socialism splits, as under that system it has always gone steadily down and down to starvation point. But let us suppose wha.t has never happened yet—namely, that production under Socialism remained tho same as under Capitalism, that all incomes of £SOO a year and over were confiscated, and that they were equally _ distributed over the rest of tho population. The increased income would be between 5s 6d and 3s 9d per head per week.

It is not worth risking; it is too much like putting a pound on tho “ tote ” on the off chance of getting a dividend of twenty shillings and threepence.—l am, etc., May 22. Caheful.