ARE STATE ACTIVITIES SOCIALISM?

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 11 August 1928, Page 11

ARE STATE ACTIVITIES SOCIALISM?

(To tbo Editor)

Sir,—Some time ago the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Mr 11. E. Holland AI.P., declared himself a Marxian revolutionary socialist. He is, however, far too wily to preach Marxian socialism either iii the House or on tho bustlings. As opportunist politicians the leader and others of the New Zealand Labour Party have watered down their socialist doctrines to make them appear as. innocent and innocuous as possible. The class conscious revolutionary sou-* ialism of the earlier period is laid on the shelf for the present. What they are presenting now as socialism is either general proposals of assumed social reform or appeals for extensions of State control. As a means of inducing the public to believe that socialism is quite all right they are defining it as meaning anything belonging to the State. State railways, Post and Telegraph Department, Insurance Department, State schools etc., all of these they name socialist. In the House Mr 11. ly. Holland spoke as follows "The Prime Minister has said lie opposed socialism, and yet the Government Life Insurance Office was a sociajvistic institution.” It is time to challenge the correctness of this assertion that all State Institutions are Socialist. It is a sophistical plea, which,-when examined, is found to be at variance with facts* Were if true that all tilings belonging to the State are socialist then wo should have to class tho Defence forces, the police, hospitals, schools and colleges and all other Government services or institutions as Socialist. The assumption in some directions really becomes 4 absurd. The monarchy under this wide definition, appears as socialist, yet strange to say the very people who put forward the idea prefer to sing “Thto Red Flag” rather than “God Save the King.” State hotels would he socialism, and Air J. McCombs, ALB., as a good socialist, should support their establishment. The new slogan of Mr H. E. Holland “everything Stale is socialist” is simply nonsense 'though it can be used to mislead people into believing that socialism is something other than it really is. 'film State Insurance Office has nothing to do with the ownership of the means of production, distribution or exchange. It, is but a vStato regulated svstem of mutual aid.

There may be difference of opinion as to whether the State should do this business or not, but in any case it is not socialist. The business is capitalist in design, and its purpose is to encourage individualism on tho part of citizens by the cultivation of thrift and providence. It is the case also with other State institutions that they strengthen individuality/ and extend private ownership much more than it is replaced. _ What is socialism? It is a political creed which affirms that Society in general, or the proletariat class, should own and direct all the material means of life and subject all individuality to such control. The tests of whether a policy is socialistic or otherwise rests on tho ground of whether it is calculated to destroy or subverso the institution of private property. There arc State institutions which are questionably on the grounds of general economy or social effects without the question of Socialism arising. There aye also such institutions which are simply regulative and protective in their inception, but are allowed to expand in. directions which trench on the rights of private ownership and enterprise, thus taking a socialist trend. A sound rule to follow is that the State shall be tho servant of its citizens and not their master. By tho application of such rulo liberty will be preserved personal initiative (most valuable factor) duly protected, and the functions of the State and individual citizens more clearly defined. 1 o think loosely of the State, nation and socialism as if they wero identical, or oven related terms, is a weakness of reasoning which wo fear is all too common.

It is a fallacy our peoplo should get away from in order to clearly understand the real meaning of the political doctrine named socialism. State regulation is not socialism, though we can. have too much of it. State ownership is socialistic in so far as it destroys the right of private ownership, but not otherwise. Socialist advocates are really amusing when at one time they talk of the capitalist State, aiicl at another refer to all State activities as socialism. This is hut the sophistry of political opportunism.—We are, etc., i N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE.