LABOUR AND LENIN.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19529, 11 July 1925, Page 4

LABOUR AND LENIN.

THE WAY OF PEACE AKD THE WAY OP WAR. By Constant Header. “Wo Conservatives of this generation share with the Socialists, quite as honestly and truly, the most ardent desire and determination to attempt to remove economio disabilities which cripple the poor in our midst. But we distrust their method, which is—that the State should become the common owner of the means of production. In other words, in the old phrase, they are in favour of nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. If this implies anything, it implies the possibility of transferring the ownership and direction of industry to the nation, operating through bureaucrats and committees, and that by that means we should get rid of the evils that beset us; we should multiply the amount of goods to be shared out; we should be rid of unemployment; we should achieve equality of opportunity; and we should have freedom and fraternity. That is the millenium promised to us. I believe that to bo a complete illusion. It is an illusion, in a lew words, because men ore not yet good enough for a state like that; and when they" are, they will not need it.” This extract from a speech delivered by Mr Stanley Baldwin at Leeds on March 12 last—and now bound up with two other speeches delivered in the same month in the House of Commons and at Birmingham respectively under the title of “Peace and Goodwill m Industry”—defines and illustrates the theme which occupies every thoughtful l mind to-day. There is a pressing economio problem calling loudly for solution; Mr Baldwin points to a way which be behoves to be the way of Peace and Goodwill. At the parting of the ways stands the grim figure of Lenin, pointing to the way of war, the way of Bolshevism. Labour is at the cross-roads and there is being poured from the presses of all lands a flood of literature exhorting, counselling, porsauding, appealing, warning Labour as to which way she shall take. In three speeches,; now brought together within convenient compass, Mr Baldwin outlines his ideas as to the policy which the situation calls for. He speaks in general terms _ only, scarcely descending even to essential’ details. He admits that the greatest .difficulty confronting statesmen today is the creation of an atmosphere “in which forces hitherto hostile can be brought to negotiate amicably.” Bue he exclaims:— If we can onlv create in this country such an atmosphere as I desire we shall make the powers of nature, the inventions of our scientists, the 1 abilities of our managers, and the skill of our workmen subserve the common purpose of elevating our people. It can be done. If, instead we nourish a spirit of class selfishness and mutual hatred, we shall not only infallibly prevent the possibility of any revival in trade, but we shall with certaintly ultimately destroy that industry, the careful preservation of which affords the only means by which the lees fortunate people in this country can hope, with the goodwill of all classes, to share in all the gifts that our civilisation has to offer them. Few will be found to dispute that the dominion of New Zealand furnishes an ideal held for the fostering "of such an atmosphere of essential confidence as Mr Baldwin desires. Already the elements of such an atmosphere are to be found, ready to mingle. It is natural and fitting, therefore, that a Now Zealander—Mr S. E. Brent, public accountant, of Dunedinshould come forward with proposals for a “Causeway of Capital and Labour” as a factor! in securing industrial peace. Mr Brent does not propose anything new or startling; his “Causeway” is built of measures which have already stood the test pf actual experience; the novelty consists in so organising all the parts of on industrial machinery so as to form them into a harmonious whole. The system propounded is “a combination of sound economio movements” such as profit-sharing, co-operation in production, minimum wages, and State pensions. It is claimed that all these measures are necessary to the success of the combination in order that “the produce of industry may be divided in just proportion to each individual.” Mr Brent makes large claims on behalf of his proposals:— It is a system that will enrich all workers. It is a system that will restore to capitalists more than that which it appears to take away. It is a system that will bestow gifts outside the limits of material wealth. Under this system labour will be raised from a state of depressing drugery to intelligent enthusiasm. Under this system the bitter feelings between rich and poor will be replaced by strong mutual respect. Under this system and equitable land laws the vexed problem of the unemployed would so far vanish as to cause no distress . that could not be met by providing temporary work. It is a system that will instil into the minds of men a high form of discipline: not a discipline born of tyranny and power, but a discipline of which men will see the utility and of which they would recognise the advantage to themselveg. It is a system that will bring industrial peace and make for the peace of the world. It is a system that will bring the bright sunshine of life into millions of homes and create the proper atmosphere' in which men’s best qualities may be nurtured. It may bo objected that in propounding a panacea for all the economio and social ills of the time Mr Brent is attempting too much, hut he makes an explanation which disarms criticism. “This review,” he writes, “is not in any way a treatise on economics, but must be looked upon merely as an accountant’s report on the question, which ha now places before the public, because the conclusions appear to bo sound.” The problem is so pressing that any and everv sincere contribution towards its solution is welcome, and Mr Brent’s- “Oausewa v” clearly points a path along which progress may be made, soundly and securely. Among the many remedies for the economic breakdown so apparent since the war, what is known as the . “Social Credit Theorem.” of which the “only begetter was Major C. H. Douglas, has been actively convassed. Mr W. H. Wakinshaw, of New-castle-on-Tyno, has, in his leisure rime, •written si bnlky voiume entitled Ine coin* tion of Unemployment,” in which forth “the postulates and implications of Major Douglas's Social Credit Theorem. Mr Wakinshaw writes as an ardent disciple, and he says: — It was the pride of Socrates that he was only assisting to bring into the world ideas that all men were eager to accept and revere, if they could but gaze upon them. To-day in economics and civilisation wo are Wandering between two worlds—one dead The other powerless to be born, until the maieutic art is adequate to its task. This essay is an attempt to contribute to the solution of that task—which lies in the acceptance and practice of Douglasism. 'lbis is the scientific control and development of our money or distributive system, so that we may release and receive our full possibilities of production, with the consequent liberation of humanity into a new world and a new era that, by comparison, shall reveal even the ago of Pericles and the Renaissance a, but the fell gloom of “uncreated night.” It is not easy to oonve-v within reasonable compass on outline of the theory of Social Credit as elaborated by Us founder, but the three outstanding principles implicit and explicit in its working have been summarised as follows; — 1, The end and aim of economics is to provide goods and services for all, rather than profit and power for the few. These are only the basis of the “good life” —her., civilisation and culture. The conventional programmes of “employment” and “trade” are, therefore, merely and demonstrably fallacious. 2. All money is invariably and always nothing but goods tickets; its expansion

can bo indefinite, and should be exactly pari passu with production. If money is in inadequate supply, this is the limiting factor of economic development, and mankind may bo suffering, apparently, from inability to produce when there is, in reality, merely a shortage of coods tickets. Goods take time—sometimes weeks and months—to produce. Tickets are a matter of hours. 3. Now quite clearly there is only one point of intersection between goods and goods tickets—the price—and to avoid tho evils of inflation and deflation tho appropriate adjustment must be made in tho price. If there is a certain amount of goods in existence they require a certain amount of goods tickets (money) to circulate, distribute, or purchase them. Either more or less is wrong. Accordingly, if goods are at any time destroyed or consumed, the corresponding tickets should bo withdrawn or cancelled—so.as to maintain the exact equilibrium. But there is a not increase every time goods are made. Clearly, therefore, there should be a proportionate increase of foods tickets then, neither more nor less, his is obtained by the famous (Douglas Price factor, thus releasing us from an economic fallacy now swiftly hurrying humanity into a second and yet greater world conflict. The economic problem is world-wide; any attempt to solve it by revolution -would necessarily be world-wide; an evolutionary solvent must therefore bo international. The contributions of foreign authors should certainly be taken into account, and in this connection valuable aid will be found in an English translation of Karl Kautsky’s well-known work, “The Labour Revolution.” In a preface to this English edition the author explains that while bis book was prompted by German conditions and at first had only German readers in veiw, it applies “to all the capitalist nations of the West which had a middle class revolution behind them, as well as to tho countries of the East, especially Russia." He lias written, not for a particular nation but for Socialists and their friends in all countries, and ho says:— The economic structures of the various countries of capitalist civilisation are so very much alike that each country may learn a good deal from abroad, which of course does not mean slavish imitation All the Socialist parties of tho world have learnt important lessons from England, from the Chartists, from tho trade unions. The English working class was the pattern which Marx held up to the workers of the Continent. He called the English workers the prize-fighters of the working classes of the world. Since then the working classes of the various countries have approximated much more closely to each other. To-day the workers of a country have something to learn not from the workers of one particular country alone, but from those of the most various countries. Karl Kautsky’s book, viewed only as an epitome of modern socialistic movements, is most valuable; it includes a careful examination of the economic fabric, and the conclusions are those of a cautious thinker. Prom its very nature it is authoritative and profitable for study. The point Is made that “Socialism must connote an advance upon and not a retreat from Capitalism.” This ia preceded by a significant statement: — Socialism is called upon to remove the degrading effects of money. They arise from private property in the source of life and in the socially created wealth, which has hitherto been closely bound up with money. The abolition of this private property will make an end of the curse which has hitherto aattachcd to money. But we must avoid going so far as to abolish the great things which money has created, the extension of the division of labour, variety of production, and freedom of personality. Karl Kantsky’s final word Is noteworthy. With the admission that Socialism stands on the shoulders of industrial capitalism, he says: “Whatever shape the Socialist society make take, it will not be able to maintain its existence or prove adequate to its great historical task—the development of the achievements of capitalism to higher forms of life—unless it brings to the whole of humanity not merely bread and security of existence, but also civilisation and freedom.” There is much talk of Karl Marx and tho doctrines he sought to inculcate, but there are few to be found who have patiently wnded through the numerous pages of “Das Capital.” One reason frequently given for this omission is that all English'versions of Marx’s masterpiece teem with inaccuracies. Tho issue is timely of “The Marxian Economio Handbook and Glossary,” prepared for the use of advanced students as well as beginners by Mr W. H. Emmett. ■Mr Emmett explains that the aim of his handbook to popularise and at the same time clarify the main message of Marx’s “Capital.” He alleges that there has much misunderstanding of this “epochal* work.” He says somewhat trenchantly: Let us have what Marx really did teach, instead of tho rattling trash that hitherto has been pushed forward as Marxian, and thence has been handed round as '"Marx’s theories” ! Let us also have Marx’s ideas in simple diction as far as may bo. Mr Emmett is an able apologist, and he makes out Marxian Socialism to be quite a different thing from what is ordinarily understood by the term. It is doubtful, however, whether ho will be able to convince the average student of economics. Dr A. S. Rappoport is a professional book maker; his books give evidence of patient research, but they lack the impress of personality, Often useful for reference, they fail to attract the general reader, and this mainly because of the absence of any charm of stylo. Yolumo I of “Labour, Social Reform, and Democracy” deals with the history of Labour Legislation,” taking within its scope • India, China, and Persia, the Mosaic Cotie. the Jewish Talmud, going back to tho old Greek philosophers, and including the social message of Christianity. This first volume stays at the first centuries of tho Christian era; it is to be followed by a second volume dealing with tho Middle Ages, the Reformation, the Renaissance, and tho French Revolution. The book is illustrated, but tho illustrations have small bearing upon tho contents. The publishers of “Lenin,” by Leon Trotsky, allege that it was tho issue of this book which brought about Trotsky’s exile from Russia. They also state: “Trotsky may be questioned as to facts; his conclusions may be assailed; but there is no doubt as to the value of his testimony as to the manner of man who dominated Russia during the fresh years, when the repressive face of Tsarism was removed from tho organic structure of that strange political patchwork which until March, 1917, was called the Russian Empire.” In a day when so great contradictions are published as to tho condition- of Russia under a Soviet Government, this biography is valuable as reflecting the thoughts , and ideas of the two men who were mainly instrumental in initiating- the Bolshevist regime. Lenin and Trotsky were in the inner circle; Trotsky admired Lcniij to the full, and was in close association with him. Trotsky says in a foreword to the hook: “Above all things one must not look at it for a biography or character study of Lenin, or a complete exposition of his views or methods of action. This work offers some sketches, fragments, outlines for future work of others, possibly also for a book by the author of those lines.” lie also states that the most important part of tho book consists of his recollections of two periods between which lie 15 years: Ihe last half-year of the old Iskra, and the decisive year in the middle of which the October revolution occurred—that is, from about tho middle of 1917 to tho autumn of 1918. For tho English reader tho book is valuable as affording a capital insight into the working of the Russian mind; it also conveys a vivid picture of tho influences, hereditary and environmental, which moulded the characters of Trotsky and Lenin and mado them the men they were and in Trotsky’s case —are. The impression left on tho mind of tho reader, so far as Britain is concerned, is that whatever economic and social changes nre in store for the Empire, Bolshevism can never bo acclimatised under tho British flag.