WHAT WILL THE POOR DO WITH THE RICH?

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13876, 13 April 1907, Page 13

WHAT WILL THE POOR DO WITH THE RICH?

Br Tuos. J. I'EiinERTOJf. This question, a question asked' by Sir Henry U'rixou in his latest work '"l'he Pattern Nation," would on first sight appeal' to be an attempt at grim humour, but, if it is, it is the only sentence in the book wherein lurks a. suspicion of that saving grace. For the rest- it is a grave warning against too great a tolerance with the growing Socialistic tendencies of the times; a warning not against the ultimate ideal of State control of all industries, but against the _ seemingly unpleasant position of semi-Socialism. Seeing that New Zealand is apparently prospering uiulcr thiii state of affairs, one would think that we licki some claim lo •a judgment of it, but the author disposes conclusively of our claim in the following words:—"ln some of the dependencies of Britain, as, for example, in New Zealand, a cheering spectacle is presented to mankind. There indeed the people do rule, and all enjoy an easy .life. But they are only a handful of well-to-do settlers, full of industrial energy, surrounded by fertile lands that could support millions, blessed by all the naturalconditions of plenty, with no standing army or costly establishments to maintain, spending freely on wages to labour, a vast revenue, raised by high taxation both of property and imports and by profuse loans from abroad. The people are too well oft' to think seriously of the real tiling. The mass of poverty and the constant struggle for bread; which led up to social revolution in old crowded nations, are wanting there. The few years of early experience of this young, happy community can afford no light to the nations of Europe." We are so used to looking upon universal suffrage as the most effective type of representation, even though we realise that it is merely a makeshift for something that we do not yet know of, that any attempt to prove -its folly would not only be a hopeless task, but savour of an unbalanced mind. Still it is refreshing, to know that, in the face of all the Socialistic literature of the last 20 years, there arc writers and thinkers who maintain that universal suffrage, though adequate for the present generation, must in the natural course of events destroy the present civilisation. Ignorance multiplied by however large a denominator cannot produce wisdom. This principle, however, so long as it is confined to the region of politics pure and simple, is counteracted by other forces—the natural forces which make men unequal despite legislation. It is when it is employed in the social battle that the end must spell disaster. Tho true Socinlist faces the position when ,he declares that "political equality is a barren heritage if couplcd with social dependence, and that political power is valuable indeed, but valuable because it is aii effective weapon with which to fight the social battle. He 4vows,t-hat he intends to use his political power in order to destroy' the system of, free industry and place his system in its stead." The author goes on to remark that "you cannot have the Socialistic scheme and at the same time maintain our present system of civilisation. You may have cither plan of regulating human society but not both together; nor for any lepgth of time, in full-grown nations, a half-and-half system. If you maintain the freedom of industry and its reward, private property, von cannot have the Socialistic plan of life. But if you undermine the freedom of industry and the institution of property, you cannot get on without it." Then lie points out that in a half-ambhalf state the workers under State control have all the benefits and iione of the responsibilities. In every walk of life a man has to stand to gain or lose. He may bo a farmer and suffer under stress of a bad saeson. He may speculate in any other form of indusby. yet lie always stands a fair chance of losing everything he has. On the other hand those who are' directly tinder the Government lose nothing whether the season be bad or good, for when State, industry is not profitable the whole community is taxed to make up the deficiency. Thus the- private employers not only have to suffer when their own business is bad, but they have to pay out in the form of taxation the amount of money which Government loses on account of inadequate management. " Good," says the extreme Socialist; "it will induce him to throw in his lot with the State." And so the ingnrgithtion continues, one after another finding the struggle against State monopoly too exhausting. " All the while the State employees are still left personally independent) which they could not be under complete Socialism, and thus are able to combine the comforts of paternalism with the freedom of ■ individualism. No wonder that the semiSocialist condition is felt to be an agreeable one, and that State employment is preferred to private'' employment when the Government is a Government of the people. As far as the Socialist is concerned, he feels a sincere and reasonable jo.V as he sees in one industry after another the private employer ousted and the State installed™ his place. What more can ho ask than that you should go his road, and how can you go it except by taking one step after another? When the State has taken over all the industries the inurney is at an end. The thing is done. Tile force of Socialism can ho further go." The statesmen who have all along declared that they only meant to go part of the way, that the complete scheme is absurd, that, the sensible thing is to nationalise monopolies only, will find that they have been led bv a way that- they knew not to the very conclusion which they hadi repudiated." It lias often been pointed out that Socialism, is a Utopia which con never be realised, that when we are callable of adopting Socialism we shall not need it ; hiit before we can even attempt tho new order of things we must clear away the old one, and it- is this clearing process which will do the damage, especially if, when the industrial system is undermined, there is nothing to supplant it. Unfortunately it is this-very clearing process also which appeals so 'much to' the discontented. for it savours of philanthropy. It is good in itself if it led no further. "This work is easy, plausible, and includes a good deal of what has much to recommend it. at- first, sight—distributing •wealth, supplying men's wants, ea? : ng the struggle of life, and abolishing bv law all disagreeable conditions of industry. This

is that part of the new dispensation which the Socialist, at present has in hand. The work of lcconstruction is postponed." Thus this rreomblanee and ambiguity is of great.! assistance to the early development of the Socialistic movement, for ft enables it to go far on its road under the cloak of philanthropy, awl the ignorant masses of mankind, each man honoured with a vote, gather round Iho standard. Two roaik may lead lo 'the cast for many miles, but presently there is a gentle divergence, and before very long one is leading dircctly north, the other directly south. The roads will not greatly diverge ill onr own time, but. it is the life of the nation, ar.d not- the life of the individual that should be considered. "It is not necessary to tell lis that such a stupendous change as Socialism proposes cannot be. bvouaht about at once. Wo are concerned for those who will como after lis in our national life, which combining the present with the future is one united interest. Itis for the most part the result of materialism, the finite idea of life. The desire in one fell swoop to alter the condition bo as to get as much as possible in this world for fear that when we ciie we remain very dead for all time." It is very evident then that ;md:-r universal suffrage any heresy with apparent' beneficence in it's initial stages will flourish. The contest between Socialist and Capitalist ebbs and flows with regard to inconsequential issues. Tlio capitalistic press eaters' for a public who for the most part are anxious only for to-day and to-morrow, and even the most bitter opponents of Socialism are compelled to carry on an inadequate warfare in the regions of the apparent.; though important conclusions can only be arrived at with the aid of speculative philosophy which is far too deep for the rank and file of the voting public. Tho Socialistic movement has been so vigorously carried on and so widely advertised that every man who has benefited by the. improvement of Labour laws is apt to imagine that ho is dircctly indebted to Socialism, and even though ho is absolutely ignorant of whatsit means he feels that lie is in honour bound Jo proclaim himself one of that, faction. It is hard for him to realise that industrial conditions are developing quite independent of any kind of "ism." Sir Henry Wrixon points out that just "when tboso industrial evils began to be keenly realised the Socialist broke away from tlio free system and proclaimed that tlio'only remedy was to adopt his new scheme of industrial life. Thus just when the reforming period set in men's energies were dissipated from earnest and concentrated efforts to solve by action under the free system the problems of industry by winch wo were pressed. Freedom was not given a failtrial. Industrial reform took' a political turn and became a matter of Caucus Bossdom an<J State Paternalism." The time is approaching when the Socialist will not only take the credit of all Labour improvements, but. will direct them to suit his ultimate aim ; for even Mr J. Keir Bardie, writing in the North American Review of August, 1903, tells us that the " Independent Labour" party is a Socialistic, and not, as its title might seem to'imply, a_ purely working-class organisation. j.t aims at the creation of a co-operative crtmmonwealtli founded on socialisation of land and capital. Also we read that the Labour Representative Committco has formally resolved that their purpose is the overthrow of the present competitive system of capitalism and the institution of a system of public ownership of all the means of production, distribution, anil exchange. It would seem from these statements that the writer of " The Pattern 'Nation " has something very real lo contend with. The advent of such treatises on so vital a question is a sign that the spirit of freedom is not dead in tlio nation, and that though evil often accompanies ranid development there is enough energy left to separate the chaff from the graiii / (To-be continued,)