Communism

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 231, 12 September 1922, Page 7

Communism

(By “Senex” in “Otago Daily Times”) Most people will admit that the existing social system has many imperfections, and some think that the remedy lies in the adoption of communism. an idea which appeals to two classes. One consists of the generous souls who. distressed by the poverty and misery which exist, especially in the older centres of civilisation, and filled with the spirit of altruism, dream that these evils would be eliminated by the adoption of communism. The other, and very much the greater class, comprises the “have nots,” and | the lazy and envious, who imagine that they would fare better in a communiistic state, even though it were at the expense of other members of the community. Ebenezer Elliott, the CornLaw rhymer, indicates this class of person when he asks: — “What is a Communist? One who hath yearnings For equal division of unequal earnings. Idler or bungler, or both, he is willing to fork out his penny, and pocket your shilling.’’ From the earliest times there have been zealous seekers alter the better state of things. The Essenes practised community of goods before the Christian era. Plato also wrote his “Republic” two or three hundred years before the birth of Christ, in which be enunciated his views of the ideal state. The early Christians adopted practical communism, but even at the initiation d'f the system they had an Ananias and Saphira in their midst. Much later Sir Thomas More gave to the world his dream in “Utopia,” but none of these schemes or attempts bore fruit or proved to be of any permanent value. Coming to more modern times Robert Owen, a man of lowly origin, whose schooling stopped at the age of nine, but who subsequently became a successful cotton manufacturer, spent £60,000 in an attempt to establish New Harmony, a communistic association, in America. Early in the nineteenth century a wave of what may be called communistic idealism spread over America, begotten largely by the writings of Fourier, a French Socialist, who published several books at the beginning of the century, and many Socialistic communities were formed. Horace Greeley, by opening the columns of the Ney York “Tribune” in 1843 to the advocacy of Fourierism, did much to foster the movement. The results may be learned from “The History of American Socialisms,” by John H. Noyes, who recounts the history of nearly a hundred communities which were established in different parts of the United States. Except in the case of one or two of these, such as the Shakers, and the Oneida community, in which a religious afflatus permeated and bound together the members, none of the attempts were successful or lasted more than a few years. In most cases when resources began to fail the inherent selfishness of the members led to trouble and risruption. Noyes tells us that A. J. Macdonald, who was keenly interested in the movement, which lie studied by visiting many of the phalanxes, as the communities were called, confesses that he “had imagined mankind better than they are.” Owen, accounting for the failure of New Harmony, says “he wanted honesty, he got dishonesty; he wanted temperance and he was continually troubled with intemperance; he wanted cleanliness, and he found dirt.” The Yellow Spring Community, though composed of “a very superior class,” found in, the short space ot three months “that sell love was a spirit that could not be exorcised.”. At the meeting that dissolved the Northampton Community “some spoke of the want of harmony and brotherly feeling which were indispensible to success.” Others spoke of “the unwillingness to make sacrifices on the part of some members; also of the lack of industry and the right of appropriation of time.” John A. Collins. the founder of the Skaneateles Community, expressed a conviction “that the theory of Communism could not bo carried out in practice.” 11 such were the results of Communism carried out on a small scale, could any better be expected from it® institution as a national system? Assuredly not until man is perfect, for there is a good deal of egoism, even in the best of men. Alpha of the Plough devotes one of his pleasant essays to the subject. He writes: “1 cannot conceive a society in which private property will not be a necessary condition ol life. ... . The most true the equation of private and public rights is, the more sure 1 shall be in those possessions which the common sense and the common interest of men ratify as reasonable and desirable. It is the grotesque and iniquitous wrongs associated with the preditory conception oi private property which to some minds make the idea of private property itself, inconsistent with a just and tolerable social system.” There doubtless have been men who, with no thought of self, have devoted their energies to benefit mankind, but such men will always be very few and far between. If a man be deprived oi the fruit of his labour, whether of hands or brain, few will exert themselves. and progress will cease; for ambition, self-seeking though it be, has been, and will continue to be, the chief spur in the development of humanity. Sir Julius Vogel, in his many respects absurd picture of Society in “Anno Domini 2000,” recognises that inevitable weakness in Communism.

He says “that without approaching Communism, it had long since been decided that every human being was entitled to a share in the good things of the world, and that destitution was abhorrent. It was also recognised that the happiest condition of humanity was a reasonable amount of work and labour. For that very reason it was decided not to make labour distasteful by imposing it as a necessity. The love of work, not its necessity, was the feeling it was desirable to implant. Manual work carried with it no degradation.” One of the methods adopted to effect this was that “if men or women wished to be idle, and State pensioners, it was open to them to follow their inclination; but they had to wear uniforms, and they were regarded as inferior by the healthy body ixilitic. Thci aged, infirm, and helpless might enjoy State aid without being subjected to such a humiliation or to any disability.” As every one was entitled to the results of his labour, this system was supposed rather to foster, than to discourage, ambition, which was natural to man, but was least active amongst the povertycrushed classes.” Though at the present day manual labour does not carry with it “degradation.” we are all snobs enough to deem the man who works with his hands as occupying a lower social status than he who does not soil them with his labour. Nor is this feeling confined to the latter class, for it is too often the ambition of many a working man that his son should be engaged in some occupation which would enable him to wear a black coat and white collar while at his work, though the son would probably have been a better and happier man and of more use to -the community as an efficient tradesman than he would be as a mere clerical worker, if he lacked the brain or energy to carry him higher. Till we recognise that “labour is holy’’ and that all honest work is honourable, we shall not be freed from such snobbish folly, nor till we emancipate society from the present class distinctions which are now its bane can we look for for ven' much betterment of the social conditions. We must also discard the fallacious idea, too prevalent m some quarters, that all men are equal. The fixing of a standard rate of wages by our Arbitration Court awards tends to foster this idea, and is inimical to the clever work-

man, w'ho is deprived of any motive to reach any higher standard of excellence or expedition in his work, which is not beneficial for the man or for the community. To afford equality of opportunity to all should be the aim to striven for, never failing to recognise the ability of the better man, but each one humbly acknowledging the superiority of anyone who excels him. That society has improved in many ways and that we are still groping upward must be apparent to every thoughtful individual. We are still far from perfection or the nearest approach to it attainable, but, whatever the road taken, Communism does not lead that way.