A NOTE OF SOCIALISM

Grey River Argus, 17 January 1928, Page 8

A NOTE OF SOCIALISM

The Alternative of Capitalism Capital multiplies indiscriminately. Labour does the same. The result of the former is wars; and of the latter insufficient wages (writes James Lawlor in the American “New Leader"). Until mankind exercised its collective reason in its own behalf, until the disinherited and deprived of earth make an intelligent, unified effort, to proportion supply to demand, and make reward coincide with merit, the present instability of men and money must inevitably obtain. As the affairs of society are now administered, far too muc himportanee is attached to the possession of money—or what amounts to the same thing—its manipulation and control.

It certainly cannot he successfully maintained that the ability to accumulate wealth is a necessary concomitant of the ability to garner wisdom. Indeed, it is quite feasible for the unintelligent to rapidly acquire vast sums of money Professional pugilists, channel swimmers, sensational divorcees —these can ' —and do—-become rich with breath-tak-ing case,, the inherent arbitrariness of the existing system tending unconscionably to that end. And all this goes on while legitimate talent is ruthlessly exploited. its reward being not infrequently the inverse ratio to its communal worth. And since money represents power, the menace is that in the hands of its ignorant possessors it may be used to further short-sighted schemes and illadapted measures whose ultimate result may well be detrimental to the welfare of mankind. Viewed from the vantage ground of the present, and in the light of recent events, applied Socialism seems rather remote—a phenomenon due in part to the fact that our national resources still hold out, and to the craftily nurtured illusion that the boot-black may in time become President, that the poor man may eventually become rich. A capitalistic dictum which is possibly true in its individual significance, but utterly spurious in its relation to the mass. . . .

A rail-splitter became President, Al Smith is now Governor, and once was not Henry Ford a poor man? That Socialism is still regarded as a chimera is due to man’s egregious capacity for assimilating bunk. The retardation of Socialism is explicable on the basis of Herbert Spencer’s observation: “The worse the condition of society, the more visionary must a true code of ethics appear." And capitalism is not interested in making society better. One does not kill the goose that lays golden eggs — at least, not intentionally—which ’s quite another matter. The attempts to lightly dismiss Socialism as a Utopian dream, a vagary cl'.aracteristic of adolescent minds, ar? so ludicrous that one hesitates seriously to refute them. However, since it is a truism that man needs to be reminded more than he needs to be informed, we will devote a little time to considering that phase of the matter. That Socialism numbers among its ardent advocates the elite of the modern intellectual world is certainly not without its significance: George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, H. G. Wells, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Romaine Rolland, Mossis Hillquit, Scott Nearing, Upton Sinclair, Thorstein Veblen—besides the illustrous dead, Anatole France and Jack London —surely these names are sufficient to refute the absurd claim that socialism is but a vagary of immature minds.

It may be argued that it is all a question of idealism and realism, of theory and practice. So it is. But since practice is ever an approximate projection of theory the relation cannot be denied. This is not the crux of the problem, however. Fundamentally, the difference between those who favour Socialism and those who oppose it is due to an attitude, a manner of regarding life. The advocate of capitalism seeks to arrogate to himself much that he is not entitled to. And he would justify this by the theory of the exceptional man. Whereas, the Socialist thinks in terms of humanity.

Now, it is tenable to argue that the relationship between the.individual and society is a reciprocal one. But always the former is indebted to the latter. Even in the case of exceptional minds — of genius itself —this still holds true. For no matter how talented one is, be his . contribution to progress ever so great ,thc fact still remains that he is obligated to society, since without the advantage afforded by the corporate whole his genius would be futile. It is conceivable that Shakespeare might have written magnificently among savages on a desert island. But to do so he must first have emigrated from his native land .taking with him the culture and tradition of his surroundings. What is more, he must revert to thxj original environment in order to find that appreciation without which « fruits of his extraordinary ability would be as wind among the waste. This is the axiom almost entirely overlooked in the unrestrained individualism of to-day. After all, in a country whose motto is “E pluribus ununi," it is sophistry to try to maintain that importance of Gie parts transcends that of the whole. Hence the fundamental theory of SocialIsm is sound. That it loses much of its integrity in practice is due to the conflicting interpretations of its own advocates and the subtle opposition of the status quo. Obviously, much of the clamour against Socialism emanates from a partisan source, a detached, philosophical attitude being extremely

Si Ojf '2l Zj? vA e < ' » » r-TJ difficult where private profit is involved. In this connection it has been pointed out that not a few young Socialists have become older exponents *of capitalism. The fact -is readily admitted. However, this right-about-face is apt to reflect on the character of the proselytes more than it does on Socialism. Mak ing due allowance for the fact that wise men readjust their opinions in the light of newly discovered evidence, it still remains that since capitalism appeals to nothing so much as to a man’s cupidity such a reversal of sentiment cannot escape suspicion. Further, when a man betrays a tendency to measure life by his own puny yardstick rather than by the collective rule it is safe to assume that self-interest and not philosophy motivates his actions.

Is it not significant that in spite of all the optimism that is preached and printed, in spite of all the marvellous inventions and increased productivity, mankind is, by and large, no happier than before? “Produce! Produce! Produce!" Always we hear that clarion cry. And what is the result—w T hat have the producers got to show for their increased '?ffort? Who are the beneficiaries .of this augmented industry, this “unprecedented prosperity?" Well, according to the Government’s own figures, 207 up-and-coming Americans have each an annual income of one million dollars or over. One per cent of the people pays ninety-five per cent of the income tax—while eighty two per cent do not make enough to pay any income tax at all!

So long as the beneficiaries of the present system can convince the majority that Socialism is a menace to our gr-r-reat and glor-r-rious ideals, that it stands for summary abolition of all private property—the absolute and indiscriminate communization of everything from tooth-brushes to wives, so long as it can hoodwink the mass of mankind as they are being multifariously hodwinked to-day, Socialism must indeed remain ‘ ‘a Utopian dream," a fantasy conjured up by “immature minds. ’ ’ Is there no limit to mortal gullibility? Is mankind to be interminably bamboozled by plutocrats and politicians and their subsidised hirelings of the platform and the press? Are we to docilely acquiesce in all the hifalutin hokum of hope deferred? Are we to continue indefinitely to console ourselves with the empty promise of heaven when we die? Is it for this that the overwhelming majority suffers hell on earth? The question is often asked: Conceding the faults of capitalism, have we the collective intelligence to administer the affairs of society for the common good instead of for private profit? Not infrequently the above query carries with it the preordained conclusion that we have not the collective) intelligence, hence Socialism is impracticable. Is this conclusion tenable? If you think so, just consider any organised system in operation to-day. It is not primarily a question of aggregate intelligence, but of competent leadership, of capable guidance and co-ordination oi the whole. Surely it is not at all necessary that every man on an ocean liner be a skilled navigator! If there can be captains of industry and finance under capitalism there can be captains of humanity under Socialism .

Nor is it exclusively a matter of intelligence, since even the most unscrupulous minds may have that. Brains are a prerequisite of course; but unless they function in harmony with the dictates of conscience and with a just regard for the welfare of the other fellow the result is bound to be what it is to-day. Fundamentally then, it is a question of minds and motives, and on this issue the advocates of Socialism and the defenders of capitalism are diametrically at variance. (Specifically and categorically the differences are as follows: Capitalism is chuavinistio. Socialism believes in the Brotherhood of Man. Capitalism is selfish. Socialism is magnanimous. Capitalism believes in the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few. Socialism believes in mutual co-operation for the benefit of all Under capitalism it is quite feasible for drones to wax fat and lusty while workers pine and starve. Under Socialism the drones must either produce or be eliminated . Capitalism being exclusively interested in private profit is not concerned in proportioning the number of jobs to the number of applicants —obviously the reverse, since the more applicants there are in excess of jobs the lower the scale of wages. Socialism is scientific. Capitalism is emperic. Socialism equally emphasizes the importance of brains and character. Capitalism idolises the former and disdain.” the latter. Capitalism naively subsidises organised education. Education seeks to inculcate a belief in the glories of Capitalism. Socialism seeks to inculcate a belief in the attainable glories of life. Capitalism belives in the subsistence minimum. Socialism believes in paying a worker what he is worth. Capitalism racks the bodies of little children in its mines and mills even while its hired men preach: “Suffer little children to come unto me." Socialism would save the children from the maw o f Greed. Capitalism is for law (as enacted by itself). Socialism is for impartial equity. Capitalism excites hatred. Socialism would inspire love. Capitalism regards labour power as a commodity. Socialism regards labour as life. Which will you have?