LABOUR VIEW

Hokitika Guardian, 7 November 1936, Page 6

LABOUR VIEW

‘‘WHY I AM A SOCIALIST.”

VIEWPOINT NO. 3

(Contributed by' the Hokitika branch «. of the New ‘Zealand .Labour Party).

I 1 am a Socialist because I realise that a classless society would obvnito the needless-suljferfiig.whichjtUe majority of people havo to endure under capitalism.;. ...... ....... . .understand that tho inequitable distribution of ~ wealijh which . divides : society t into 'classes, is to .the fact that some gain their, income frpni o.wn- . ipg .the means , of and that others earn their living, by; selling their .'labour -tp. the property ,^holders. Tile qla.ss which owns, the .means of production'dn .capitalist society fig, qon> .a minorityj of ,the cojnmunity, ~and,.^ cc . or dhlg|y.j the . majority of the ? -people are .plaeed ip a,, state of dependence, { 'Upon,‘ tjie privileged,; few. It is ;.npt,.difficult .to comprehend that, the owners of the means of .production . occupy,; a . strategic advantage in bar/gaining with, their 'employees. Eco- : nomists affirm that-'over and above the maintenance and development factor' industry produces, a surplus. This sur-‘ ' plus is appropriated by the owners ol property not because they ..are ..justi‘fiably entitled to it; but slieerly because their privileged position .permits them to. do so. The discord engendered by'this injustice is 'the;basis of the class struggle between the. upholders of class privilege and the advocates oI 'equality.,' viW'-Liui 'tL .Vj Having idiscerned the, caus.e of .the ‘ mal-distribution of wegith, let us ponder upon its , concomitant evils. It is ‘ ail incontrovertible fact that the possession of wealth is the possession ot povver,, so. in. a capitalist society where ' the minority have , much, . and the majority little or up, wealth there, is no. such thing- as equality—our much $ yaunted dqmpcracy is, tinged with hy- - procrisy. Of' may appear to .be a..t00. sweeping indictment, of . capi- ’ ta}ism, jSO in',.order, to substantiate, my ■ assertion JL wilL.quote a statement of a reputable authority (1,. assume he >is. . reputable, a$ hefis .an opponent of the , . Labour ;-Government). ..d^,of essor Mur-; ; j phy j;: . the leading economist of .. New Zealand, c?taf eß to. "his treatise on economics that: — is-,, ‘‘Whatever: the pretence of the political aituqtiqn, capitalist, apcieties are intact-ruled .by a comparatively small group ,p,£ wealthy, able, financ.al entrepreneurs.” _ ;• • The Professor also states that “ ‘poor .man’s justice’ is a proverbial expression of scorn. There is no real eqqality bptween .rich and poor before- , the lavy courts., of any, country.” .. ,■ t itb?, okPOßse ,pf being charged with • ,blasphemy, I.have,the, temerity to sag- . gest that;, under, capitalist' democracy the,.masses ;qf. the people are the vicitipja...of, deception fiwhpfL they,,.are de- ■ luffed; into. .believing . that each .citizen - has equal share. ; in the .government }discrimination., .jpj the eyes of the law . between,the.,rich cnd,. j;b^-.JP t ¥ )r- ;;’f In ; fairness.l . wi]j,.concede that there is no. (I glaring. .disc.rinjinqtio.n - in... the jlasy. courts, byt, colloquially speaking, the, dice i.Tbe rich have • influence, they, obtain • the .services of advocates yylio ,are , cunning at- law, they, have the incon-: jtestible,,advantage, of. being ,able-• to Vcarry ,on litigation ,u.i\ti\.;their oppon-1 i ents succumb to financial .exhaustion. . Perhaps; any .contention that there; is no equality between rich and poor ..may- be regarded by some readers q& preposterous nonsense,,so I will justify ?my assumption by the following explanation. It is a dramatist’s task to interpret life not as he would wish i<sto be, but to show life as it exists. To my way of thinking John' Galsworthy represented all that is finest in the English character. It vwpuld .be gnfairpf anyone tq suggest 'that he displayed bias in his playq. In “The Silver Box’’-he portrayed life ■as it --exists...in ;reality;.. John. Barth-‘ wick is a .wealthy young' waster, and Jones is a, scrounger—the offence they i commit.., is. identical, ..yet. John. Bartliivyiejk evades,, the workiilg of justice,be- , cajise. of the influence of Ifis vy.ealthy parents. . Tjbua,.is, exemplified the iu- , ability- pf ,institutions; to iifijpartjustice ,topthose -occupying a subprdiiiate position in society,: ~ ( r J'he perversion of legislative a.fid judicial functions by. wealthy influences is inimical to the welfare of the •majority of people. With the spreading of education among the Working peo- ' ple if ifi logical to expect that this state of " affairs cannot endure lorlong. People are. already imbued with : tlie idea that political equality is niere•tfy the shadow of democracy, and that economic equality is . the real substance. Political equality signifies little to heavily .mortgaged farmers when butter is selling at Cd a lb., or to industrial workers when they are ’dismissed from employment because they produce too_ much.—the liberty , to.starve is'a reflection on . our economic organisation.

: -“The advance of Socialism is not due to moral suasion alone, but is, based on the fact that changes in the methods of production are ushering in a socialist society. “The History ol Man is'fhe. history, of ( his tools.” There was.a time when , a ’ man could say : “ I made -this,, ; commodity,,.,and, as it if the product -of my own labour. I am entitled to it,”,but to-day he only adds Utility;, to -a, commodity, in the process of production. Specialisation in,.human, activities has placed the -majority, of 'people , in a position ;of interdependence, hud dk it it .imposfciblk to dis-

tiiiguish indiyiclual contributions to tlip , production ~0l wealth. it is .obvious that production is now a social function. To draw the logical conclusion glaring inequalities should not be permitted in society—especially, in society which, professes} to be, democratic. For. a thing to be regarded as wealth it' must possess utility, i.e. power to satisfy desire, its supply must be scarce in relation to demand, and also it must" be transferable in lawv

Now under capitalism the owners of the mean’s of production do not strive, to as much goods as possible, but aim to become wealthy by creating as. much value t as possible. The paradox of value is that it. offjen benefits producers to sell a smaller, quantity of goods at, a high price, than to soil a greater quantity at a low price. , (This explains why coffee is being ( burnt and pests let Johse on wubber plantation). As an’i illustration of the , shackling of the powers of production, I 1 will quote G. D. H. Cole, the re- • nowyjed, economist: — “Nationalisation is reacting unta-v- ---: ourabjy •in two distinct ways on the \ volume of employment, whatever may rbe \ its. beneficial reactions in other respects. It is in the first* place diihiuS isliing directly the amount ot labour required for the production of a given volume of goods, both by causing labour to be concentrated in those places 1 where the least labour will be, needed, aud it is in the second place tend•ing to restrict. artificially the quantity of goods produced, and so refusing ' any outlet through increased production to tlie labour displaced :: by the 1 ftfst method.” , ‘

This culminates in , perifianeiit 'Unf employment. The estimate for New Zealand is that 30,000 efficient men

(not ’unemployable men), have ho prospect of getting back into private employment. Even the leader-writer of “The Times” asked readers to understand that under capitalism a high percentage of permanent unemployment is unavoidable.

/ Considering the constituents of wealth, are we going to permit scarcity to be overstressed by allowing artificial restrictions to be imposed on ; production so that the minority of the community can become wealthy by creating as much' value as possible for themselves, or .are we, going : to emphasise the aspect of paramount .importance—that the sole aim of' production should be fx) satisfy human needs. The issue ds clean cut. We have to choose between capitalism wherein production is for private profit or socialism which would be ■ motivated by production for use. I have no doubt as to which- system .will serve the interests of the majority of people.

In socialist society, economic planning could achieve a high level of economic security for the people, whereas under capitalism not only. are there glaring disparities of income' but we are. not utilising . the resources at our disposal. The marginal utility, of money is greater to a poor man than to a rich one, so if pur r chasing , power were equitably apportioned it Avopld be used by individuals to satisfy their, more pressing needs, ;thus the , maximum satisfaction would ;be derived.-from the wealth produced, tand the .efficiency of the workers would be increased' and the volume of production would expand accordingly.

Needless to say the incentive to, production finder socialism would be: “If you don’t work, you ,don’t eat.” ,

i You will glean from the expression of my opinion as set forth above “Why I ani a Socialist, *’ and in conclusion ■fiiay I say that the shortcomings of 'capitalism cannot be dispelled by Ben■ito Mussolini playing “Bill Sykes” m Abyssinia and, the policeman in Europe, by Adolf Hitler shouting “Guns are better , than butter,” or Oswald Mosley'and his hoy scouts screeching “Kill the Jews.” ; Our ‘ job is to remove economic inequality wliifelr divides society into the rich -‘'arid the poor; to achieve democracy in a true form we must first establish socialism.