A SOCIALIST PARTY.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4427, 6 August 1901, Page 4

A SOCIALIST PARTY.

The formation of a Socialist party in New Zealand has attracted but little public notice. What, the people treat with indifference to-day would have startled the world almost out of its senses a century ago. It may be the fact, as expressed by the King, when Prince of Walesa ‘‘Wo are all Socialists now”—that enables us to view with complacency the formation of a socialistic organisation amongst us. Socialism is, however, a significant phenomenon of the present age. It owes its origin to the French Revolution, and while its advocates have never attained their ideal, something of its spirit has taken possession of the people in all civilised countries, and enabled them to improve their social, moral and political conditions. It is not necessary here to sketch the rise and progress of Socialism. All students of political economy know of its aims and hopes, of its defects and failures. Some men like Robert Owen have sunk fortunes in endeavouring to give practical effect to their theories. From “Harmony Hall,” an institution established by the Scottish philosopher, which brought disgrace upon its occupants and opprobrium upon its founder, by attempting to undermine the bulwarks of morality and religion, to “New Australia,” wnere disaster overwhelmed the Socialists of that settlement in South America, most endeavours to give a practical turn to socialistic eoncep - tions have failed, because these dreamers omitted to take adequate cognisance of one of the strongest,attributes in hilman nature —selfishness. The aim of the Socialist to-day is not to interfere with religious beliefs or destroy family life. Owen used to advocate the taking of children from parents, because, he argued, parental affection was too strong for justice to be done to the community by parents in the formation of their children’s characters. That blow at the continuance of family life has been submerged, or judiciously held in the background, in all up-to-date socialistic endeavour. Still, the communistic ideal is retained, and is set out in the constitution of the new Socialist party, which was formed in the Alliance Rooms the other evening. It is part of the Socialist creed that selfishness will cease to exist for the want of an edequate motive to produce it as soon as all things are possessed in common. The object of this new party is therefore expressed in new language, but in itself is as old as the diction of the first socialistic advocate, The New Zealand Socialist Party says its object is “to work for the organisation of New Zealand as a co operative commonwealth, in which the land and all the instruments of production, distribution and exchange shall be owned and managed by the people coEectively.” The methods by which this object is to be attained are not so aggressive as one might expect from men who believe that the spread and acceptance of their convictions were essential to the well-being of the community. The qualification for membership to this newly-created party exhibits, however, something.of the destructive element in all similar organisations. “Only such persons as will build up and conserve the definite and inde. pendent character of the party” are to be admitted. The strength of the chain is its weakest link. If a socialistic organisation is to build up and conserve an independent character, its individual members must themselves have independence, and that quality comes with the possession of something to conserve. True Socialism, of course, must seek to secure to all persons the full result of their labours, for men and women can have no incitement to industry if they are liable to be called upon to divide their earnings with the loafer and the humbug. It is the hope of reward that sweetens labour, and Socialism has to solve the problem of how this hope is to perpetuated under a system of communal ownership. The “advanced” Socialists contend that people should receive recompense, not according to their deeds, but according to their wants. Who is to measure his neighbour’s wants? If one people as a mass were to possess every instrument of production, distribution and exchange, all industry would tend to flag, and continuous strife and heartburnings would arise, as in other communistic colonies, which would bring min and disaster to the commonwealth. This is the history of the past, and human nature has not changed. It is admitted that socialistic or collective principles are in operation in the conduct of our railways, telegraphs and tramways. And it is to be hoped that, whatever pub lie services-in the hands of'monopolies are used to the detriment of the people, they will be taken possession of by the community; but that would not deprive a farmer of his farm nor the labouring man of his quarter acre section, the

rewards of their frugality and industry. We cannot go the whole length of social, istic advocates, but wherever the application of principles such as they support has adjusted those grievance?/ which have sprung up along with the development of modern industry, and been to the interests of humanity, all must accord them acquiescence and support. It is certain, however, that the adoption of pure Socialism in this country is, for the reasons we have stated, far distant, and Socialists themselves should take warn, ing by the Premier’s words, used in another connection, that their hobby horse may be "ridden to death.”