Profits and Interest

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6519, 7 April 1931, Page 6

Profits and Interest

To tho Editor. Sir, —I was very glad to read “Digger’s” analysis of tho profits question. I freely admit, of course, that the question of abuses conies into tho theory of profits; indeed, I could not deny it, and have not tried to do so . But. of course, in my previous letter I had a fair amount to say, and could not go into details. I could only state a general case. The profit that I had in mind was that of the ordinary employer; and I am certain that it is just and equitable that the employer should be rewarded as well as the employee. Th.it is, I support the theory of profit as reward for service. Ido not, however, desire “Digger” or any other of your discerning readers to imagine that 1 support monopolies and great combines, save where they arc absolutely necessary; and even then I would have any necessarily big business douo by the .State, if it were possible to amend our system of government a little. Atid I entirely hate the. system of interest. If we need money, if the banking system be necessary in keeping us alive, I would have the money and the banking system supplied by the State; with, of course, tho proviso that 1 made before in the matter of the other big business of the Government. Then the usury question could bo fought and conquered. But it may be said that this is direct Socialism. Now, I deny that. Socialism would refuse the right of any individual to trade at all; Socialism is extremism, it premises that bccauso one thing is bad, everything is bad. And I premise that if a thing be bad, it must go; but there is no need for wholesale slaughter of things in tho system that have done no harm. And this brings up tho matter of Karl Marx. Marx desired the abolition of the “bourgeoisie”; and he stated that the members of the ‘ ‘ bourgeoisie” exploited the working class in order to obtain profits. That, of course, is wrong. I could prove by statistics that each of the two approximately equal sections of society, the “bourgeoisie” and tho “proletariat,” receive almost the same amount of income in properly balanced countries—those of tho British Empire particularly. It is not the “bourgeoisie” that menaces civilisation, it is the plutocratic class which has always been distinct from the “bourgeoisie.” For instance, in tho United States before the war, the plutocratic class was 9 per cent of the population and possessed 70 per cent of the total wealth. Surely this state of affairs is tho root of the whole trouble throughout the world and ever has been And yet Karl Marx cried out “Death to the bourgeoisie; abolish their private property!” We do not find him urging the proletariat against the usuary employed by plutocracy. And the reason I assign to this is that the backbone of plutocracy is and ever has been formed by members of the same race of which Karl Marx and Frederick Engels belonged; plutocracy is dominated by this race. These facts have even a greater significance than one might at first give to them. Mr. A. N. Field has gone into the whole matter in his book which has just been publised—“The Truth About tho Slump.” There was a quotation from this book in Mr o.ram’s last letter; and Mr. Atmore also quoted it in tho House.

J. said that Karl Marx was a mental degenerate; but it goes further than that. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were not mentally degenerated; they deliberately provided the path for the others, however. They preyed on human nature.

But even had they been sincere, would they have been right in adopting the attitude they did? We need only compare their work with Cobden’s work. Cobden saw that there was misery and poverty, directly due to the Com Laws. But did ho urge the people on to revolution? No, he did not; lie organised them properly for the achievement of a worthy object, incidentally spending all his fortune; he entered Parliament as a Liberal, and so fought for his ideal that he achieved something worthwhile. His achievement was not the destruction of a harmless division of society; it was the freeing of the poor from starvation, the easing of tho condition of the working class and the farmers; and it gave hope of prosperity to the middle class so that the working class might also flourish. There wc have the contrast. Can anyone, even putting aside the question of the sincerity of Socialism and Communism, say that the ono object of Marx and Engels’ theories was as much worth achieving as Cobden’s object was? Of course our system has abuses; in fact, it has become too open to abuse. Tho dissension and disruption caused by Socialism (which has sprung from Communism) and the consequent Labour polities form one great abuse. And weaknesses in true political parties have been seized on by plutocracy and big business make the abuses worse—and this applies as much to Liberal as to Conservative parties. But the system can be strengthened, and the abuses do not damn it. We must sweep away the abuses. To do this, we may need a different procedure to that adopted by Cobden; nevertheless, it is quite possible—but not at the present time, I am very much afraid. In short, we cannot avoid sacrifices and hardships now; but wc must obtain a guarantee against their further recurrence—that is my view of the matter. It is simple enough, and tho points that call for safeguarding are quite apparent. There is a definite programme, but only possible in the event of all worthwhile sections of tho community ' becoming more broadminded, and demonstrating their willingness to fight the common enemy. And this idea is probably as Utopian as Bernard Shaw’s Socialism. It is far more to bo desired, but it is in all probability just as impossible. At any rate, all indications point to this being so. I am, etc. H. W. KLEIN.