ORTHODOX SOCIALISM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13453, 1 June 1907, Page 1 (Supplement)

ORTHODOX SOCIALISM.

BY SIR ROBERT STOtTT.

There is, perhaps, no question in our social life that will be more vital in the corning years than socialism. It is a word difficult to define. Between the extreme individualist the administrative Nihilist as he lias been termed—and the extreme communist, who believes in a community of property and of wives, there are many grades of opinion. Some, no doubt, hold the extreme individualistic doctrine that the State should be a policeocracy, keeping the, peace between the citizens, and protecting them from foreign aggression. They say that the race can best grow and develop when this extreme freedom is granted. Strange tc say, they are closely allied to.the anarchists, who would have no government at all. There are others who believe that the organisation of the State can, and ought to be, used for the uplifting of humanity, and for caring for those who are too weak to battle in the struggle of life. They, support State education, State hospitals,' etc., etc. They do not call themselves " socialists." Who, then, are the socialists proper, the orthodox socialists? The reply given by the author of the book is, " Those who base their socialism, on some scientific principle, and who follow, the great apostle of the 'ism,' Karl Marx." " "

I do not intend to discuss whether the I individualists or the socialists, or those . who believe in. the State interfering in the affairs of life to help and guide men are right. My purpose is more modest. It is to bring to the notiee of those interested in the question a new book that will be illuminative te them of the subject. The | vast majority o* our citizens are, no doubt, like Gallic-' of old. They "care for none of these things." But surely in a democracy what the basis of our legislation should be cannot be uninteresting I to a good citizen.

The author of' the book is professor of I economics in tne University of Denver, in | the State of Colorado. 'This is not his first excursion into the literature .if what! the great Scotchman, Carlyle, called: the I | "dismal science." His work. "Monopolies, | Past • and . Present, ' has received warm j encomiums from the press and from that great American authority on Labour problems, Carroll D. Wright, ' The book is called Orthodox SoJcialism, ' and thus it differentiates the subject he has to discuss from the loosely | worded) and indefinite' •'socialism," of j which we often hear. If socialism has, - |however, a scientific basis at all. he contends it must be found ,in Karl Marx's great work "Capital. ' He accepts Marx's definition of socialism as "orthodox socialism." The professor has not, however, confined, his attention to Marx's writings. The bibliography, at the end of his book, enumerating the works he has consulted, shows that his reading has been wide,,and not one-sided. Xinetv-one books are referred to, and the works are not confined to one school or one country—English, French, German, Italian, and American authors have all been consulted. What then arc the socialist propositions or declarations of faith? They are thus summarised by cur author: — '•

. 1. The exchange value of commodities depends upon the amount of socially necessary labour-time required to produce them. i(This is the Marxian theory of value.) ; ''2. .Although. the working people, the proletariat, produce everything,' their wages tend to equal the bare cost of lining. (This is.what is called the. iron law oi.wj.ges.)- , '-*.': s;'Tb>v capitalists, tile" bourgeoisc, take' the greater part of: the values created by the proletariat in the .'form, of rent, interest", and profits. (This is called surplus value, obtained by exploitation or robbery.) "4. The introduction of labour-saving machinery # and improved methods of production creates a vast army of the unemployed and impoverishes the whole working class, while the capitalists acquire a mass of commodities . which they can neither use nor consume. (The result is chronic over-pro-duction and under-consumption, and periodical crises, which threaten the very existence iof the capitalistic system.)

'.'. "5. The desire for the : necessaries, and luxuries of life lias generally been the controlling motive in the history of individuals and ot'_ society. Under the influence of economic motives, and- by the incessant, struggle of opposing _ classes for the good things of life, society has evolved through the ■successive stages of slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. (This is the economic interpretation of. history and the doctrine of the class struggle.) "6. Capital is being concentrated into the hands of a few magnates, and the middle class is being rapidly eliminated. Soon there will be only two classes left; capitalists, and labourers, bourgeoisie and proletariat, the robbers and the robbed. But the' proletariat will be the more numerous class, as they are now; therefore, becoming conscious of their strength, they- will seize the political power and inaugurate the. social revolution.

7. When the proletariat have .taken the political power they will gradually or speedily abolish capitalism by organising industry on the basis of a common ownership and management of the means of production, with "an equitable distribution of the product, so as to abolish poverty and all the other evils of capitalism. "8. After the establishment of socialism human character will adapt itself to the ideal environment; all men, or nearly all, will be industrious and virtuous, and an era of peace, prosperity, and happiness will prevail until the end of time. # "9. The social revolution is coming and nothing can prevent it."

Can anyone say that these propositions do not fairly state the socialists creed? No doubt there are socialists who found Utopias not on an economic basis. We have had all kinds of socialistic societies. Some few still survive whose basis has been some religions cult. Perhaps the only society that has been fairly successful is the at present the Shakers feel hard-pressed, and are not so successfid as they were 20 or 3C years ago. The Oneida Creek community has had to become a joint stock concern, and the record of the failures of religious socialistic organisations is already large. Professor Lc ; Rossignol is not dealing with all kinds of socialist organisations. He is as an economist, seeking what is the foundation on which "orthodox" socialism rests, and testing the soundness of its basis. It appears to me that the important proposition is the first. If that is not sound, the soundness of the others is of little moment, The first is the basic proposition. If it fails, the others crumble into dust. .. Our author takes enly eleven pages to criticise this first proposition. He states Marx's proposition fairly, and gives Marx's reasoning. After criticising Marx's statement, lie shows there are many exceptions to it, and he sums up his criticisms by saying. " Neither land-cost, labour-cost, nor capital-cost can be regarded as of prime importance in determining the value of the product, which is due first of all to utility, or the power which commodities have to satisfy human wants." The assertion of the socialists, "without labour no product," is true, but also, without land no product, and without past savingwhich is capitalno product. And our professor goes on to point out that the, value of the product when obtained is not) only the cost of the labour, but also the utility, and that both these factors have to be considered, and he adds "Utility and cost are the two factors which, determine value, and of these utility is chief." " The business man, whose profits arise from an excess oi revenue over expenditure, and whose losses come from an excess of expen-

<>'• Orthodox Socialism," by James Edward Le Rofsicnol,' Professor of Economics in the Uni- . versity of Denver. New York. Thomas T. Crowell and Co., 1907. ,the demand of the,market as upon cost of

ditnre over revenue, knows well that the th value of his goods depends as much upon ac production to himself or his competitors, hs . ■ . .A useless article has no exchange to value, no matter how great its cost." th Did Marx, then, say that labour alone th made value? No, he said the labour must « be expended in a " useful article." Again ti< Marx said:— Value exists only in articles at of utility, in objects. If, therefore, an at- m tide loses its utility it also loses it value." us Our author takes these admissions, and le says they are inconsistent with the first m socialist proposition, and from the admissions he concludes:"Utility is more es- th sential to value than labour cost, as in the or case of land,, which has value and utility, d< but no labour cost." Again sc "Socialists, or any other economists who or lay chief stress upon cost of production °\ as the determinant of value, are reversing VI j the material order of things, placing that a first whith should' be second, una that s " second which by nature is first. All com- °* modities which have value—cotton, wheat, ™ silver, land, labour, or intangible utilities sP —have one common property, utility, ~ which is the cause and measure of their f value. Most, commodities have another ** common —labour-cost, which aids .' in the determination of value by limiting " supply. But labour-cost is the means, and " utility is the end of the productive process, "" and "logically,- a:; well ah practically, . the end is of greater consequence . than the means. It is utility that determines demand, sets in motion the / wheels of production, and gives value to the land, capital . and labour which are the means to the final end purpose of economic q activity." "And so it is social service that is K the test of value, and not the expenditure of a certain amount of labour-time." y If, then, the first proposition fails, the if third proposition cannot be maintained, says c the professor, and an economic basis tor ti socialism is gone. How the author dealsjai with the other propositions must be learned p from the book. . ■_; f< There is in the book a calm and philosophic p discussion of socialism. There is no abuse, fl no hurling of epithets. The matter is discussed as if it were a Euclidian proposition, o And those who wish to consider the subject r< cannot do better than to study " Orthodox t Socialism." The book is not a mere dry-as- :b dust discussion of economics. '" It is lighted ti up here and there with Hashes of wit and t humour, and it is so clearly and succinctly v expressed that no one will weary in perusing h its pages. The author is clearly American, Jo for does he not write about "an alderman;t bartering for gold that . intangible thing >e which lie calls his conscience," Does thati ii j over happen out of America? And he canjs reply to those who sneer at? political econo-js mists, as witness this sentence: —"It is re- v freshing to:turn from gloomy theories like these to the consolation of statistics, com-T piled, socialists say, by parasitic professors t of political economy, but for all that, more g reliable, than the pipe-dreams of German \y pessimists." Has the political economist it then no hope pitched as high as the "pipe- jo dreams" of the socialists? He has. He t also thinks the golden age is' ahead of us, t : and that through struggles and' difficulties s mankind is advancing, the labourer of to- t day is better off than the labourer was,so r years ago, and human existence is on a high- a er plane. Social evolution "is moving, al- 1 ways imperfect, but perfectible, to a distant t ' and ever receding goal—the welfare of # the s human race "—and these economists believe 1 '. that socialism instead of helping mankind c ' forward will retard his progress. ; I I know no book, and I have read scores of c works, both for and against socialism, that r deals with the economic theories underlying 1. . what may be termed "orthodox, ■. or I c ! should have preferred "scientific," socialism, i ' so succinctly and so clearly as tins work t of Professor Le Rossignol. It is worthy t ' of perusal bv us all, whether we are.indivi- < ' dualists, socialists, or reformers. We are J able to grasp the problem, and we may be - helped to its solution whatever opinion we J ! many ultimately arrive at. ,:■;•.■