LORD BALFOUR ON SOCIALISM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20290, 24 December 1927, Page 22

LORD BALFOUR ON SOCIALISM.

RUIN OF SOCIETY. REAL PATH OF ECONOMIC WELLBEING. (From Oue Own Correspondent.) LONDON, November 19. Lord Balfour spoke on th € subject ol Socialism at a luncheon given by the Individualist Bookshop at Hotel Cecil. One of the difficulties of any treatment of such a subject as Individualism on Socialism, he said, was that every one up ‘o a certain point was an Individualist, and also up to _ a certain point was a Socialist. Even Robin son Crusoe, before he came across Man Friday, and when he appeared to be a merely solitary individual upon an uninhabited island, even ne was dependent for all that he had scued from the wreck upon a society to which he had belonged, and which was 'tself the heir of other societies going back to an mmemorial past. All of us without excep tion, if we were going to be anything at all, must, in the strict and accurate sense of the words, be both Individualists and Socialists.

What was, then, the great controversy which, temporarily, he was assured, appeared to divide large numbers of men in all countries? Why was it that the word “ Socialism ” was being used in the manner in which it was used, and which, if accepted as covering the whole ground of social action, would be absolutely ruinous to us if carried to its logical conclusions ? It" never would be carried to its logical conclusions, he was certain, because, speaking for himself, the mere attempt to drive to a logical conclusion what was now called Socialism—the Socialism, of the books and the professors—would be stopped in midjourney by the ruin of the society which was attempting to carry it out. It would bo found that Socialism in ' nolitical sense was absolutely destructive of society in the sense in which society was, bound up with the general prospects and future of mankind. MOST CRAZY IDEA.

A political society was the very worst society for carrying out those industrial efforts on which, after all, ‘he very existence of the community lepended. The Socialist was in error, not because he talked about common effort, but beca- ie he put forward the wrong society for carrying out the work. No one wanted an Individualist post office. It was not competitive work. If one took the railways he did not know that in those countries where the railways wer e being dealt with by the Governments they were better dealt with, more economically or more efficiently, than they were ; n this country under private enterprise. If they left the great undertakings, which had always a territorial aspect, ana came to the vast and varied interests which mad© life possible in a country like ours, he could not imagine any man looking at the problem as a productive problem, who did not think that the idea of handing that over to a central authority elected for political reasons, was not the most crazy idea that could possibly occur to men of great 'ability and great pub’ic spirit. They seemed in that respect completely “ off the rails.” t?ln this connection could anything be wilder than the Idea that we were going to help the community at large by saying that progress depended upon making one class of pro ducers the enemies of another class? And to call that “ Socialism.” ! ReaPy, the fundamental question always came back to this—How were they going to make society increasingly productive ? INCREASED EFFICIENCY. He could not understand any rational man embarking on the r vperiment with out some evidence that State Socialism would succeed. It had not been tried m any rational sense. He vould like to put two questions : First, had this experiment ever been tried, and if the attempt had been made had it not always failed ? Secondly, did any one know of a really efficient modern industrial State where the standard of comfort ad not been higher than in any other country. He did not think there was any such case. The real path of economic well-being, along which we must seek to raise tho material conditions of our population, was increased efficiency of labour, and by that, of course, he did not mean manual labour alone, or mainly, but in a-»wido sense. We could not have too many rich men. It was quite easy ,to have too many poor men; (hat was a goal within the reach of the least competent political experimentalist.—(Laughter.) Ho was quite sure that the road to progress was to be found in improved knowledge, in the application of science, in improved organisation, in improved liar mony between all classes -ngaged in cooperation. Important as the question of distribution was it sank into absolute insignificance beside the greater problem of how the human race were to rtraci from the natural resources of the world the greatest amount of wealth icr human progress and human effort.

Scullery maids at Penshunst place—the historic Kentish house of the Sidneys, ami a scat of Lord de I'lslo and Dudley—were tfreatly scared on a recent Saturday after noon when a f (uh leaped through the pantry window with a pack of hounds at its heels. It was captured in the pantry by the huntmastcr.