CAPITAL AND LABOR.

Evening Star, Issue 18698, 29 July 1924, Page 7

CAPITAL AND LABOR.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —There is no need to deal at length with the latest letter of “ D.C.” Its manifest absurdity, the ingenious conclusions drawn from erroneous premises, are sufficient in themselves without reply. I will therefore content myself with the latter part of your correspondent’s letter, where ho makes a pretence of answering my three questions regarding (1) the means to be adopted to change the existing system to Socialism; (2) the hours of labor which the State would require to carry on under socialistic rules; and (3) tlio rate of 'remuneration which would bo given the several forms of labor which always must exist in production. None of the questions have been, answered by “ D.C.” by arguments which would deceive a Sixth Standard schoolboy. Tabs the first question and his reply. I asked how was it proposed to secure the transference of all capital from private to State ownership. The reply of your correspondent, to this poser was “ by the workers realising that capitalism was not in their best interests.” The simplicity of it! Apparently the workers have only to bo educated up to a certain point by a band of paid agitators and fanatical idealists and the wealth of the world will automatically transfer itself to the worker, I did not ask “ when ” the capital the workers covet will pass into their ownership, but “ how ” this object was to be accomplished. And it shows deliberate evasion on the part of our Socialist friend to give the answer he did. However, I will help him a little, and put it in simpler language, so that there can be no mistake this time.

To secure the transference of all capital, both money and machinery, from private to State ownership (assuming for the sake of argument such a course would be justified) two courses are open to the Socialistic Government. They are to buy this capital from its present owner, in which case it would be making things much worse than at present, inasmuch as the present owners would bo left in possession of vast wealth and no responsibility, while the socialistic authorities would bo compelled to rc-empioy a great percentage of these capitalists in order to continue production. From this arises the second difficulty of our Socialists—namely, the rate of remuneration to be given to these directors of manual labor. They would undoubtedly demand a higher rate of remuneration than that received by the labor they direct, and no power of the socialistic State could force them to work otherwise. On the other hand, if the policy of confiscation bo adopted, the directors of industry would certainly not have the wealth to" lie back in idleness, but they could and would join the ranks of manual labor. Either way, they could indefinitely _ defy the State to force them to use their organising and directive ability without what ' they considered fair remuneration. So ye ,seo .that yhtolmyeS fipjaag iKftopted

by the' Socialist, buying the capital or confiscation, the men possessed of organising and directing ability—elements so necessary to production will always have the last word. From this we see that, no _ matter what change is made in society, there will always exist a wealthy class ami a poorer working class, and that these tilings could not bo otherwise even if we wished it Of course, I have left out of < all consideration the possibility or the wisdom of buying out the present owners. A moment’s consideration will show that it is impossible from all points of view. The only course then left is confiscation, which means as it has in Russia—chaos. —I am, etc., E.W.P.

July 28. [This correspondence is now 1 closed.— Ed. E.S.]