WHAT IS SOCIALISM?

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 1 May 1926, Page 8

WHAT IS SOCIALISM?

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OR WIIAT? (Contributed by Welfare League.) To exactly define what Socialism means is most difficult because the definitions which have been supplied by professing Socialists are many and varied. The shortest answer to tlie question, ‘'What is Socialism?” would be “whatever Socialists say it is. That,, of course, gets us nowhere. The Communists say it is communism; avchists anarchism, the. State Socialists State monopoly, and so on with the Guild Socialists, Christian Socialists, etc. In his book oh “Socialism Critical and Constructive,” Mr <l. R. McDonald savS: “Socialism is a tendency and not a "dogma.” One may reasonably ask — A tendency towards what? In the Fabian Tract No. .13—What is Socialism? we read that: “Socialism is a plan for securing equal rights and opportunities for all.” In the “Case for Socialism'’.Mr Fred. Henderson . says: “The root difference between the Socialists and other parties is that the former do not- believe that the present state of things can be fundamentally altered within the existing social order.” That tells us the Socialists believe in the necessity for revolution, . but not what is Socialism — which is expected to take the place of “the existing state of things.” Mr. J. -Ramsay MacDonald in another part of his book, says: “No better definition of socialism can be given in gfeneral ■ terms tlian that it aims at the organisation of the material economic forces of -Society and their, control by 'the, human forces.” Certainly that.is wide enough to let the whole procession through. It reminds us of another “specific” statement of the same gentleman that liis party “was building on the horizon.” Mr . Bernard Shaw, spreads his definition out thus:—“Siiice inequality is bitter to all except the highest, and miserably lonely for him, men come greatly to desire that these capricious gifts of Nature might be intercepted by some agency having .the power and goodwill t 5. distribute, them justly according to the labour done by each in the collective*. search for them. This desire is Socialism,.’’ . , So from . these authorities we learn that Socialism is a tendency to—we know not what: a place for . securing equal rights and opportunities; a belief in revolution; the organisation of the rriaterial forces by the human; a desire for universal justice. After all do these several definitions get us ahy .fiirther tlian a general claim that Socialism is altruism, which- claim is made-by other schools of thought than those of the Socialists. It is evident that tlie Socialists have no idea of a. fixed state which can be named Socialism. To understand then, what is meant by “Socialism” we must- fall hack on what are the aims of those who name therfiselves socialists. Those airs .-.are concentrated in what is the cojntnon objective cf all the Socialists. “The socialisation of the means of production,: distHbqtion and exchange.” The Fabian Society says this means “the. emancipation of . land and • industrial ..capital, from individual and. class owiiershij), and the vesting of them in the community for the general benefit.”

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP AND CAPITALISM

. . The aim of the -Socialists then being to., abeijsh all . private ownership in i land-and capital, and making all such means of wealth . production State or communal property,., individuals should know just, where they stand with rej spect to,such aims. Do we want- to see ail land made State property? Do we wish,to see all capital,,industries, farms banks,' commerce, trade, transport, etc. taken over.-, by v the Government and Municipalities? As a political party exists in our Dominion, which affirms, definitely that it, is -Socialist, and these are its aims, the people should recognise they are facqd ■ with the,.practical issue, if they do riot want these aims carried out they should give no support to the party which supports them. Public ownership within certain limits does not injure,private capitalism.. The taking up I of services by the Slat? of Muiiicipaliv tics which cannot- he effectively liandlVecTiby individual initiative is not “socialisation” In the sense used by the Socialists. . . ylln nlhnyi instances the State’s collective; action in these directions, but widens , the?. fields of enterprise for private investment,, iniative and'enterprise. This---public,,'ownership can better be * described ,as; State Capitalism and it acts undoubtedly in general co-operation With private’.capitalism for the carrying out of. its object.: - It is coriimoii plea of, the'Socialists that all public ownership is socialistic. They point to publicly owned roads, railways, trams, post offices,, etc., and exclaim : “These are ‘socialisation.’ Why do you . obj jeet to socialism ?” In the recent Eden Dye-election tfiey refel-red t-ci the Auckland Tramway Service arid asked Sir James Guhson. “If you are- opposed to socialisafTon why did you purchase the / tramways?” The answer is that Auckland’s ownership of the trams is not in thosense they wish to conveb. The holding rests on private capital. Ownership by the municipality is a matter of public policy for city expansion and by such expansion- greater facilities are given to individuals in the ownership and use of land and capital. The real test in regard to public own- . ership, as to whether it is socialistic in tendency or not, rests upon whether it is .directed towards the suppression of . private capital and individual initiative or is rendering such general service in the public interest as will help to make capital more prolific and open up wider fields for private enterprise. The form'er of these policies is what the socialists aim at. The latter is simply social progress distinct in principle from so- ; cialism. In the final experience socialisation which is first presented as mere- ! ly an extension of the State’s regulative - function becomes in time communication ! with its suppressions of individual free- ! dom. Therein lies the danger of so- | cialism.