SOCIALISM.

Evening Star, Issue 18669, 25 June 1924, Page 6

SOCIALISM.

TO THE EDITOR. Kir, —If the reply to my letter which is signed by “E.W.F.” is the best that he can do to prove that Socialism is an “nnrcalisablo idea,” then it is a very poor best,. Ho has not made even a beginning with the attack. His previous contribution was not a criticism of Socialism, but rather a long-drawn-out statement that idealists were not practical mem This was admitted and answered by Mr Lippman, whom I quoted, who contended that the social conditions as we see them are the result of the operations of the practical men. His article really demanded that wo should now pay some attention to the idealists. Every change, every new thing is first of all imaged in the mind by some kind of a dreamer before it takes concrete shape. Socialism has not failed anywhere. It is in the same position as the essentials of Christianity—it has not been tried. Various collectivist experiments have been made in colonies, and societies have from time to time met, some with failure, some with success. I will instance in tho latter case tho co-operative movement of Great Britain. But all these experiments were not Socialism. The practical men have got hold of things at present, and are preventing Socialism from having a trial. Their opposition, however, is weakening the world over, as witness the success of the Labor Party in the elections. “E.W.F. 1 ” has not yet attacked Socialism. But in the meantime will he name a principle of Socialism which advocates the class war? Will ho describe a form of wealth—that which is produced from tho raw material to the finished product for human consumption, wear, or shelter—which has not been produced by manual labor? Of what use would the possessor of directive ability be in the production of wealth without the manual workers? Where docs he find Socialism deny the value to the community of the man possessed of directive ability? Where does he find Socialism slate that “might is right”? That there have been harrowing conditions of work and living, and that these conditions have been worse in many places in the past,and arc now in many places as bad as they have ever been, is not lost sight of by Socialists; and when the.se conditions have been mended a little bit it has been duo to the work of the idealists, and has been done in the teeth of opposition from tho practical men of the world. The practical men are constantly declaring tho impracticability and undesirability of change. They arc content to ignore the law of Nature—that of constant change. _ And in regard to human nature nothing has shown itself .so adaptable to change. Socialism will not require angels to realise itself, it will be realised by men and women, just as have all other human systems. “ E.W.F.” would place the man of directive ability in such a position that he would be able to define what to him would constitute an adequate remuneration for his services. Socialism ceric Lilly denies him this power. “E.W.F.” lias pointed out at the beginning of his letter that in this world of practical men directive ability is ignored or afforded only a secondary place in production. Seeing that ho is os important —wc will admit this for the sake of argument —-but not more so than tho manual laborer or workers, then there is no reason why he should receive more remuneration. .Socialism would relegate him to his proper place, and not, as ho is to-dav in the world of practical _ men, second to the shareholder or dividendhunter. The manual worker is fundamentally and vitally more- necessary to society than any other. Directive ability is a dead thing, and unable to function without tho manual workers. I wait a reasoned answer, and not a senes of dogmatic assertions.—l am, etc., John Gilchrist. June 25.