WHAT’S THE REASON?

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18512, 24 March 1922, Page 2

WHAT’S THE REASON?

There are scores of people who drag out a miserable existence without realising the cause of their suffering. Day after day they are racked with backache and headache; suffer from nervousness, 'dizziness, weakness, languor, and depressjon. Perhaps the kidneys have fallen behind in their work of filtering the blood, and that may be tho root of tho trouble. Look to your kidneys, assist them in their work —give them tne help they need. You can use no more highly recommended remedy than Doan’s Backache Kidney Pills —endorsed by people all over tho country. Mr R. Coulter, 11 Glasgow street. North Dunedin, says: “Some five vears ago, when working as a butcher and slaughterman, I suffered terribly from an aching back. A friend advised me to take Doan’s Backache Kidney Pills, so 1 got a bottle to try them. The result was marvellous. After using half the bottle the pain was a good deal easier, and by the time I hod finished it I was cured, all .-igns of backache having entirely disappeared My cure, lam pleased to say, has proved permanent, for I have been free of backache since 1 gave up taking Doan’s Backache Kidney Pills about five years ago.” Six years later, Mr Coulter says: “1 have not suffered with backache since Doan’s Backache Kidney Pills cured me 11 years ago. This remedy cures to stay cured, and is splendid for backache and other kidney ailments.” 1 Doan s Backache Kidney Pills are sold by all chemists and storekeepers, at 3s per bottle, or will be posted on receipt of price by Fostor-M’Clellan Co,, 15 Hamilton street, Svdney. • But, be »ure you get DOAN’S.

MARXIAN SOCIALISM. TO THE EDITOR. 1 Sib, —1 have never read the books by Boris L. Brasol and Dr J. Shield Nicholson, reviewed by Sir Robert Stout in your issue of th© 9th inst., and I can only deal with the quotations given from them,'and with the remarks of Sir Robert in support of them. Th© quotations used by Sir Robert Stout are concerned, solely, with descriptions of th© Russian Revolution. It is the old story of tho failure of Communism in Russia—the inability of tho proletariat to manage even his own affairs, let alone to govern the forces of production. The charges against Marxism are only a revival of tho old worn-out arguments of former anti-Marx critics, which have been answered long ago. Th© point which Sir Robert wishes to be accepted—and he points to Russia to prove such point—is that Communism aa a social order is not. as its adherents claim, the antidote to Capitalism, but infinitely worse. Sir" Robert says: “If it is true that a tree is judged by its fruit, we know what the fruit of Marxian communism has been in Russia—hunger, poverty, tyranny, ‘waste.'’ Capitalism, then, itself stands condemned, for are these not its fruits ? What Sir Robert Stout conveniently overlooks in his anxiety to prove his case is that fruit which he, along with Brasol, Nicholson, and others, judges is the fruit of the tree of Capitalism and not of the tree of Communism. The conditions existing in Russia, as elsewhere, cannot bo said truly to be due' to communism, but can only be attributed to capitalism. since communism, as a state of society, never existed, in Russia or elsewhere. The conditions in Russia at the present time are due, to no mean extent, to the policy adopted by the Allied Governments in order to prevent the revolution from attaining its erdt They organised the fores of reaction and supported them with all the power at their disposal. Viscount Grey, in a speech at Bristol, as reported by th© Daily Times, said: “Th© policy of the French and British Governments in supporting one section of Russians against another had proved itself a costly failure.” This in itself is sufficient proof that the Allies did, in spite of repeated denials by their Governments, connive to break down the Russian revolution, and so bring about tho present conditions which they are so anxious to attribute to communism. At the same time, they failed to realise tho boomerang effects of such a policy, which now they are forced to admit. Hunger, murder, poverty, disease, war, prostitution, etc., aro evils of capitalism, and such evils continue to increase enormously, and are inseparable from capitalism. That is a truism which Sir Robert Stout cannot deny. Brasol ssks, “What, then is Socialism as expounded by Marx, and as developed by modern Socialists ? What is its aim ?” He answers as follows; “Its aim is to abolish private property, the extermination of the capitalist class by force,” etc. Th© demands of Socialists are based on the inevitable breakdown of the capitalist mode of production, which we daily see approaching its end. A scientific understanding of the capitalist mode of production leads to Socialism. Socialism does not and cannot abolish capitalism, for capitalism is fast abolishing itself, and has from, th© first carried within itself, like all finite tmngs, the germs of its own negation. The truth of th© Marxian theories, as applied to the capitalist mode of production, is plainer to-day than ever. Marx says; “The capitalist is Uis own grave-digger, but it is not likely that he will officiate at his own funeral. The proletariat will need to ace him buried.” Socialism—production for us©—will be the form of society to take the place of capitalism. Th© aim of Socialism is to prepare tho workers for the time when capitalism will bo defunct to take over th© means of life in the interests of all, and so reduce the chaos which would follow the breakdown of capitalism without such knowledge. Brasol says, “The aim of Socialism is to abolish private property.” How can Socialism abolish private property, since copitalism has already abolished private pr*porty for more than six-sevenths of the people? Socialism does not seek to abolish private property in tho sense meant by Brasol. Socialism will abolish private property in the means of life, and not the few personal belongings of private individuals. to th© question of force, Marx says, “Force is tho midwife of any old society pregnant with a new society.” The present ruling class owe their present position as a ruling class to force, and retain it by force, and will in turn be swept away by force—a force created by themselves. Ever since classes have existed in human society there has been in existence a class struggle, and such struggle can only end with the elimination of classes from human society. “Socialism will abolish classes,” says Brasol. How can he reconcile this with th© statement that, under Socialism, th© other classes will bo denied a vote or have any say in th© management? —when such classes as he refers to will bo non-existent. —I am, eto., Geeo.