SOCIALISM AND ATHEISM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13649, 17 January 1908, Page 8

SOCIALISM AND ATHEISM.

VIEWS OP CORRESPONDENTS.

Wk continue to receive a large number of letters on Socialism, from which we give the following selection.: — Sir,— appeared in the Herald last week, under the hejt<fing of "Socialism and Atheism," a letter signed by Walter Petty, ■who is a mem of the socialist, party. I trust you will allow me, as a fellow member of that organisation, to point oat that he is speaking for himself, and has no right to implicate other members or even socialists. The first point that struck me about his letter was that it was an excellent one for an opponent to publish, because of its narrow sectarianism. In referring to the charge of being atheists, he says: "That is quite true and we are proud of it. Anyone who knows anything about the socialists in any country knows that the best workers in the movement are mostly atheists; we need no Christians to help us in this all-red route to socialism." Now, I have been a member of socialist organisations in Britain and New Zealand for 15 years, and I deny that we need no Christians to help us, and that most of the beet workers are atheists, although it may be true that, perhaps, most of them do not trouble about Christianity because they believe it to be ineffectual in its work and teaching. All of my experience (which is at least longer than that of my comrade) points out that the best workers are generally, though by no means always, those who leave Christianity and atheism alone, and work directly for socialism. Our great, worker/ Keir Hardie, I believe is a Christian, although his parents were atheists. I think that if I were to tell my comrade, Walter Petty, that all the best socialist workers were Theosophists, because I happen to be one, ha would instantly be up in arms against such a statement. Wellington. * Jack Griffiths.

Sir, —All true socialists are not atheists. I am a true socialist, but would scorn the soul-damning theories of the atheist, namely, that annihilation completes all things. But are all professing Christians true Christians? It is not the first cause which we socialists wish to destroy so much as the spurious matter which the Old Testament contains, and is said ' to be divinely inspired. Such crude ideas are fit only for a barbarous age, and utterly unworthy of serious thought. As allegories and mystical stories .they have answered their purposes, but now, when we have advanced into a clearer vista, we have adcovered that there exists a new heaven and a new earth. A better idea of God and Christ has come into our 'lives, and we seek to erase for ever the sorrow and pain, the sin and shame, which for upwards of 2000 years has disgraced the world. If Mr. Wilks' contentions be valid, we commit a crime when we attempt to destroy poverty, pain, and misery, which are ever with us, for by so doing are wo not destroying the means by which happiness is made possible? To state the position is to refute it. To the" socialist, justice is a principle born of man's social life, which he certainly does not find in cosmic processes. Besides, the love of truth surely counts for something, and this love has been sufficient to inspire men to such heroic deeds, such patient self-sacrifice on behalf of their fellow

men as to constitute a nobility of life of the very highest order. The (true) socialist sees, as Huxley put it, that the foundation of morality is to have done once and for all with lying, to give up pretending. to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibility of knowledge, and seeing this, he shapes his course so that, as far as is possible, his conduct shall accord with the principles he professes. ■

Edward GOULDING liODEX. January 12. -[We have been obliged to greatly condense o»r correspondent's letter.Ed.]

Sir,—Your correspondent, Mr. Wilks, seems to forget that we humans are a little more advanced that the Norway rat, as he illustrates it having almost exterminated the black rat of this country. We socialists have come to the conclusion that there is no need for individuals to

compete one with another for a mere living when there is abundance and to spare, especially when we see ship-loads of foodstuffs purposely destroyed every year to regulate the prices on the market, when people go hungry for the want of it. Is this likely to convince people that a Supreme Being is watching over us? I think not, and I notice that the believers in this Supreme generally see that their material wants are first seen to, and that they are of the best, which means a sound body is most likely to produce a sound mind. We socialists believe that this bad distribution of these material things is the main cause of the misery and suffering in this world. Mr. Wilks writes about the audacity in which I declare myself and other comrades to be atheists. What else can we be ? We know nothing about a first cause. The only cause we know of is the socialist cause. Surely if we have solved the problem of production this last , century we can solve the problem of distribution in the near future, and if Mr. Wilks can show us a more economical way than socialism then let us have it. Calling us ignorant and selfish will not hurt us in the least. That' day is past. Wo are now respectable, which means a great dec! in this Empire. Furthermore, if, as Mr. Wilks suggests, the various religious bodies organise themselves to fight the socialists, they will find that the bee in the socialist bonnet can sting every time. Walter Petty. Rotorua. .

Sir,l do not desire to enter into any controversy with Mr. Geo. Wilks about socialism. Perhaps I believe as little in State socialism as he does. But it seems wrong to allow certain statements and inferences of his to pass unchallenged, for I consider them to be equally faulty both in fact and logicto be repudiated alike for their matter and their tone. And especially would I protest against tho premises and conclusions of the argument in his last letter, viz., that there is a law emanating from the " Supreme Being" called the "law of competition," and that those who do not believe in this "law" are "atheists." - Who ever heard such nonsense? Let us see how Mr. Wilks reasons it out. In effect this is how it runs There is a "law" existent j called the "law of competition;" that "law" was made. by the "Great First Cause." It has existed for millions of years, and so .far as we can see will last for ever. It is proved—(a) by the grasses in ■ the paddocks; (b) by the trees in the forest; (c) by the flowers "striving" to draw the attention of bees and other insects; (d) by one species of rat destroying another species; (e) by the ! Romans destroying the Greeks; (f) by the Anglo-Saxons " wiping out" the Red Indians ; (g) by the fact that both the English and Germans are building ships; and (h) by the further fact that the English, French, and Germans are trying to construct navigable air machines. As this notable law, evidenced by such notable proofs, emanates from the Great First Cause," it is plain that he who does not believe in it does not believe in the " Great First Cause," and is, consequently, an atheist. I deny altogether that the ' law of competition" is a supreme factor in life, or that a belief in its unlimited range is inseparable from a belief in a " Great First Cause." _ I affirm that facts drawn from observation of the relative growth of weeds and trees have only a. remote analogy to sociological facts. I deny that flowers "strive" for anything, and I think that the words of Christ about them are more scientifically true than the statement of Mr. Wilks. I deny that the Romans destroyed the Greeks, and challenge Mr. Wilks to prove it. I assert that the Red Indians are not " wiped out.';" and, finally, I cannot find my belief in a "Great First . Cause" strengthened by remote considerations connected with what Mr. Wilks calls "the naval supremacy of the world" and " supremacy in the air." So far as mankind is concerned, co-operation, not competition, appeal's to mo to be the great law which, life The whole body is

a grand co-operating machine. It wasl speak as a man—because men banded together that they overcame every obstacle and natural difficulty which confronted them, and every home, every business, every community, bear 3 witness to the truth that we are members one of another. "Competition"— not let us^ confound the word with "emulation —is wasteful, short-sighted, and cruel in its methods; and even if it operates to a certain limited degree among the plants and lower animal;, there is something frightful in the persistent attempts that are being made to identify mankind with the lower orders of creation. I have always noticed that those who insist on a vigorous and rigorous application of Darwinism to mankind, select the lowest and gloomiest illustrations. What lias man— so great, by virtue of his wonderful past, and so glorious in the promise of a still more wonderful future —in common with the Norway rat? Were I disposed to use harsh words I should be tempted to stigmatise as atheistic indeed the nightmare conception of a world where all — the lowliest plant up to man— represented as engaged in a merciless and unceasing struggle against each other and against all. But I forbear, remembering gladly that if men often in practice fall below their creed, they as often rise above it, and amply demonstrate that their faults were those .of the head and not of the heart. One remark more. Mr. Wilks has something to say about the "great" French Revolution. This great event— and such indeed it was—is always a convenient flogging-horse.' But of course Mr. Wilks is all wrong in his history. The French made no attempt to substitute the "Goddess of Reason" for "competition," and the leaders of the Revolution disapproved of the action of the "Em-ages," and speedily sent the worshippers of the "goddess" to the scaffold. Anyway, it is certain that whatever Chaumette and He'bert may have meant by their orgies in Notre Dame, they had no idea of protesting against competition or demonstrating in favour of socialism. And now, in conclusion, let me say again that I am no believer in State socialism, but neither am I satisfied with our present methods of living; and Ido claim, speaking as a man among men, that " we"— in the words of that great and good Emperor who was the glory at once of paganism and Rome— We are made for co-operation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth," and in proportion as we realise this, and dare to act upon it, will our burdens be removed, and our lives made worthy of that high vocation, and goodly heritage to which we are called. January 11. J. Morris.

SOCIALISM AND COMPETITION. —May I be allowed briefly, through your columns, to point out what to me seems difficult reasoning on the part of your correspondent, George Wilks. In your issue of Friday, 10th, be condemns socialism because it will, as he asserts, destroy tl>e competitive system, to illustrate and support which system he says: " If we examine a paddock of grass, say, in the year 1908, A.D., and ascertain the number and kinds of grasses in that paddock, ■we shall find, if the field is left for 10 years, that certain gfasses have disappeared. They have been shouldered out of existence by the competition of stronger grasses." Your correspondent is right so far, but, unfortunately, it is generally the best grasses that are shouldered out. He may have read the " Origin of Species," but if so has failed to grasp its significance under practical application. Applied to society it would turn our civilisation into a mass of animality, as the man who could look you in the face and without a quiver of betrayal lie, cheat, and deceive, would be in the winning section, and would have the light to shoulder out every man of honour and truth. I have in my mind a paddock sown a few years ago with cocksfoot, rye, and white clover, which to-day is over-run with rat-tail. The stronger has certainly shouldered out the weaker, but the stronger is little better than a weed. Before your correspondent seeks to apply the principles of biology to the economic conditions of society, it would be well for him to take into account the clement of moral responsibility, and inquire, firstly, whether, in order to obtain the best results, _ it is -necessary to infuse into human relationships another and controlling principle, discriminating and directing in the subversion of the weeds, the curtailment of the overgrowths, and the freeing of the submerged into the activities of life, under conditions and with opportunities which will allow of their development; and, secondly, if there is not a possibility that the function of socialism may be to contribute this controlling factor to our civilisation. C. Reid. Cambridge.