ANTI-SOCIALISM IN BRITAIN

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6027, 11 October 1906, Page 6

ANTI-SOCIALISM IN BRITAIN

Although New Zealand is generally measured by the outside world in terms of Socialism, and although no Englishman or American, would dream of doubting that we are an intensely Socialistic community, sustained by an accidental sanity, yet this country, almost alone amongst the countries whei © social progress is alive and active, as ono which does not know Socialism as a “bogey,” and certainly the only one in which Socialism as an issue is dead and buried, if, indeed, it ever existed. Mr Keid’s “ anti-Sooiadism. ” campaign in Australia has ceased even to amuse New Zealanders, hut m Franco and America the public m'ind has "in these last rapid years begun to stir uneasily at the prospect of a conflict between the forces of Socialism and Individualism. Fiance and America, however, are Republics, and are, therefore, ahv;ays sensitive and fluid, and liable tp rapid movements and rearrangements of public opinion such as are never expected in a country so firmly-set and long-established as Great Britain. There is, therefore, something strange and novel in the sudden turn taken by party politics in England—the hitherto unheard-of intrusion of auti-Socialism into the programme of Liberalism. In our cable news .the other day w;o reported a remarkable speech delivered by Mr Haldane, the Minister for War, in which a challenge was issued to the advanced .Labour party. “If Mr Keir Hardie," Mr Haldane is reported as saying, “ or anybody else, brought forward abstract propositions conflicting with the principles of the Liberal party—if ho wished .to nationalise land, capital, or anything else—the Liberals would cross swords with hhn. . If the Socialists wished to deny the right of private property, let them say so, and the Liberals would take a square Issue on that proposition. Personally, he was not afraid of the Liberals degenerating into Socialists.” The master of EUbank and Lord Lansdewne have joined in the chorus, and the Scottish Liberal Association has declared that the Liberal party must oppose all candidates of Socialistic sympathies.

' All this makes sad reading for the colonial democrats, who rejoice in the return of Liberalism to power in England, and especially in the growth of a stimulating Labour party. If, as seems not unlikely, the Liberal party is to be split in two, there are prospects of Great Britain experiencing the threeparty system, and perhaps’ of coming onoe more under a Unionist regime. The present is not the first occasion upon which tho master , of E-libank has, raised the “ anti-Socialistic ” standard. Speaking at AVest Lin ton on August 25th last-, ho said that “ tho old party linos and landmarks were rapidly passing away,” and that the Independent Labour party, “ whom ho would prefer to call by their real name, the Socialist party,” bad opened war on the Liberals. “Liberalism,” ho went on, “had never

thriven on Socialism. Liberals did nob believo that capital and labour were necessarily antagonistic. They did not believo that it was the right of every , man to obtain labour from the State, or that it was the duty of the State to give labour when there was not a demand for it. Unless tho Liberal party stood upon its own logs, its very vitals would bo consumed, and it would fall between two stools and disappear as an active force in British politics.” Naturally, this grotesque overstatement of tho differences between Liberalism and tho legitimate aspirations of labour attracted great attention throughout England. If wo -except tho extrorno Collectivists, whose ideals aro so purely impossible that argument about their goodness or badness is simply waste of time, the demands of tho people at whom the Liberal Government has hurled an agitated defiance are a littio less than have been quietly granted in the very nature of things in Now Zealand.

■ England is still alarmed at the sound of “Socialism,” as with Russia close by she well might be, and time alone can soothe the minds of which Mr Hal-' dane's is representative. The Socialists may very well be allowed to “deny the right of private property,” for it Karins nobody. But when a responsible British Minister declares war on anybody who may ‘‘ wish to nationalise land, capital, or anything else,” ho must surely have forgotten that the Post Office, the Indian fetato railways, the Government factories, the schools, and the numerous municipal enterprises carried on at Home, arc Collectivism in concrete form. Tho Liberal party in Great Britain was based upon the -purest individualism, of a thoroughly unprogressive sort. Years and events have forced every British party to move on, however unwillingly, and the Liberal party liae moved with the times.' There, still appears to be room for a great deal more progress, and if it never 'does anything else, tho llndependoivt Labour party will act as a very' necessary spur. We in New Zealand “are all Socialists nowadays,” but wo call ourselves “Socialists” with a rather posturing bravado which we keep for tho family circle. We are all in tho joke. But, when circumstances ask seriousness of us, as, ‘for instance, when an outsider asks what wo are, we tell him truly that we are just “progressive Individualists.” There is no occasion for alarm lost the absurdities of Mr Keir Handle—a type of extremist for whom the colonial radical has an irritated distaste as a dangerous and ill-balanced'person—may do real harm to the cause of Labour; but nothing, not even the unwisdom of Labour, can arrest the development of progressive individualism in Any country with a “democratic! constitution. In New Zealand “nationalisation” has found deliberate and definite expression, but this country has learned, or rather has unconsciously felt, where to stop, and the result is that there are more individualists per cent. -in Now Zealand than in England. The only difference is that our individualists have sloughed the skin of obscurantist class prejudice. • ,