SOCIALISM IN NEW ZEALAND

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 June 1906, Page 4

SOCIALISM IN NEW ZEALAND

(To the Editor.)

Sir,- In your issue of the 50tb inst. appeared u letter on (ho above subject from the pen of .Mr Edward Tregear, Secretary of the Department of Labor, in which he makes the trend of political affairs in Ibis colony correlative with the programme of (he Socialists, or at least with that of one American Socialist. I have not read •Mr Deacon s book, so I cannot deal v illi ii here, li is Air Tregear's coupling the events in ibis colony and claiming them to be the accomplishments ~f the Socialists 1 would like to touch on. Says Air Tregear; “] sometimes think we Socialists arc the onlv sane people in a world of lunatics. . . Tleiv in New Zealand we keep pegging •IV. *-»y. . . . Me got arbitration upon its sturdy legs. . . . Vie have again a crusade against the landlords, ' ete.. which is suflicicnt to show that the writer claims (he ad- ' a need legislation of the New Zealand • lovernnnnl to bo part and parcel of Socialism. I’font what 1 know of Socialism it means the abolition of (bat individual action on which modern society depends and (lie substitution of a regulated system of co-operative action; capital ami interest are monarc Its sworn to be slaved, and the Slate is to own, work, and manage every concern, lie it a factory, shop or product of any kind. Xow. I would like to know how much this ideal has bad to do with the passing of recent b'gUlai ion in New Zealand.’ 1 look owr the Pa ilia men (ary roll list and know of no candidate entering the House on such a ticket : neither have the Socialists caused even passing not ice during eleetions. Premier Seddoit declares himself to bo no Socialist

--;is the term is known in party politics. The labor ami land legislation of ibis colony is no more (be work of Socialists Ilian (be Hague Arbitration Conference is; nor are our land laws any more the work of Socialists than of Land Nationalists or Single Taxers - if as ninch. Mr Tregear’s letter to bis friend afar otf reminds mo of the < Mfmc oiu ra ijnofatiun J?' ] il.iv.s «tnil in irj-.'rTM’k thoi*, SKim milk inah«|UOJ\'ul».'s as cream.’' \o cajiilal ! No inlmvst! No private ownership! “Wo take voluntarily, by sale, or compulsorily, lands near towns —to again cpioto Mr Tregear. les, “we take them,” but wo pay for them ; wo borrow the money to purchase them, and we also pay interest on the borrowed money. Capital and interest are both essential hero to carry out lids progressive measure, and how Mr Tregear can claim such laws to ho the work of Socialists, or even part of their programme, is perplexing. Mr Tregear may well ask when the people will learn that “there is only one issue—that between the robber and bis victims?” My opinion is that New Zealand, nor an)' other country, will never attain the ideal of •Socialists —for it is beyond the sphere of practical polities. Tlioro is a solij dit.y and completeness in a political system which lias acquired maturity by slow degrees and long struggles that can never belong to any new svstem suddenly substituted in its stead. Socialism revolutionises; a nation’s progress is essentially slow. The evils of capital, interest, private ownership, etc., may bo further checked, but to say that the State shall wholly replace them is an impossibility, for such means confiscation, compulsory resumption of all industries without compensation or reward. I fail to see how such a programme con! 1 ho tolerated or seriously entertained. For instance, say the State, under a Socialistic Ministry, decrees that all land shall become the property of the State, how will they resume it if capital is not brought into requisition? And how can capital be obtained without interest? Failing capital, failing borrowing, confiscation is evidently the modus operand! of ideal Socialists. Trusting I have not trespassed too much on your valuable space.—Yours, etc., ANTI-SOCIALIST.