South Dunedin, September 23.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22067, 25 September 1933, Page 11

South Dunedin, September 23.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Your, correspondent "Tyro" in Saturday's issue of the Daily Times says there seems to be a great deal ot confusion as to what is really meant by the word " Socialism," and in your editorial note you seem to agree with him, as you say that " a definition of Socialism satisfactory either to Socialists or non-Social-ists has not yet been devised. As 1 natt no difficulty-in understanding what is meant by the word Socialism, I thought it would be as well to look up the dictionary and see if my idea was right. The dictionary definition agrees exactly with my conception of it. It says: " Socialism is the name applied to theories of -social organisations having for their aim the abolition of that individual action on which modern societies depend, and the substitution of a regulated co-opera-tive action; especially a system that makes communitv of property a necessary condition of political improvement. In your footnote to "Tyro's" letter, you state that Mr Neilson's description of'Socialism would be more applicable to Communism. ,1 turned up the dictionary .definition, also, of Communism, and I tail to find any difference between the one and the other. Here it is: " Communism is the system or theory which upholds the absorption of all proprietary rights in a common interest; the doctrine of community of property." There certainly is a great deal of confusion in connection with the theories about Socialism, but l cannot understand how any honest person can have any doubt or confusion about the real meaning of either Socialism or Communism. The Russian, German, and Italian theories profess to be either Communistic or Socialistic, but the moment force, either by militarism, or unjust political legislation, is introduced into Socialism or Communism it ceases to be either the one or the other and becomes nothing less than despotism. /It may, or may not, be a milder form than monarchical despotism, but it is despotism all the same. Apart from voluntary Communism I consider the democratic theory or system is the one best suited, in the meantime, for humanity. If the advocates of dictatorship were dragged through the mire as the words "Socialism" and "Communism" have been they would be sorry looking creatures—l am, etc., James Braid. Stafford avenue, September 24.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —" Tyro "in your issue of Septein--23 says "there seems to be a great deal of confusion in the minds of many as to what Socialism means," and he further asks you " to try to elucidate the issue by granting some space to such a question." Yon, Sir, add a footnote stating that a definition that would be all-inclusive and suit everyone is almost impossible, and therefore you do not feel disposed to pursue the issue. I have looked up my letter in which I gave, what seemed to me, a fairly full meaning of Socialism. I gave that meaning, because so many do not seem to understand the usual phraseology of "the socialisation of the meaus of production, distribution, and exchange." I claim my definition is a very fair and full one. You say: "It savours more of Communism than of Socialism." Then it. occurs to me that it is up to you now to give your readers, the reason why you make this distinction, and give your definition of both Communism and Socialism. There is one factor on which I think all Socialists and Communists of all brands are agreed, and that is this, "that Socialism or. Communism rests on a basis of common ownership and control for use through a system of co-operation, while Capitalism, our present system, rests on a basis of private ownership and control for profit and dividends through a system of competition." It is true that the present system is working towards a partial regrouping (rationalisation), so that overhead costs, etc., will be cut. down in the interests of greater profits, but is also creating more unemployment—a thing which Capitalism in its very nature cannot eradicate. —I am, etc., September 23. P. Neilson. [Mr Neilson and Mr Braid write of Socialism and Communism as though they are indistinguishable. The former's political party does not hold this view. It professes to exclude Communists from its ranks—Ed. O.D.T.]

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l am somewhat surprised by your remarks on this subject prompted by your correspondent "Tyro." Commenting on Mr Neileon's letter, you inferred that his description of Socialism was more applicable to Communism than to that which it purported to describe. You now include Marxian Socialism (which is another name for Communism) in your references

to Socialism as one of its forms. If one 'accepts the rather confused diagnosis of Socialism in Saturday's issue, the implication of which is that Socialism is the genus and that Communism or Marxian Socialism is one of the species, then, logically, Mr Neilson's description, from his own point of view at any rate, is quite applicable to Socialism. _ It is true that Socialists differ among themselves as to details and as to the methods of obtaining their objective, but it must be borne in mind that some wno are regarded as Socialists have no conception of any definite objective and that their political views would be better described as radical .or liberal. As one who has made considerable study of the subject, I would express the opinion that, fundamentally, there is no confusion and no divergence among Socialists as regards their objective. This, concisely stated, is the substitution of public co-operation for private enterprise in supplying all social needs, thus putting into practice the principle held by all Socialists, namely, that the materials from which labour produces wealth should be the property of the community. I do not think that any reasonable person—either Socialist or non-Social-ist—will disagree with this description, which I claim may fairly be regarded as a' definition of Socialism. ■ How this is to be put into operation is quite another matter, and if the means of attaining the objective constitute the grounds on which confusion among Socialists is alleged by both " Tyro and yourself to exist, then I am in entire agreeUnfortunately for the successful realisation of Socialism, it does not appear to the observer that many of the members of the Labour Party are inspired with the same self-sacrificing idealism which seems to actuate men like Mr Neilson, and until a radical change is effected in our human nature I am afraid that we must be content with our present anarchic system oi individual competition. It we are going to make any progress, we must conform our ideas to actual circumstances and face facts in the light ot reality—hot distort them with visions ot an impracticable Utopia.—l am, etc., Philosopher.

[Our reference to Marxian Socialism was made simply to illustrate the confusion that exists concerning the meaning of Socialism. To show this, we repeat the reference: "Marxian or so-called scientific Socialism is, in the view of its exponents, very far removed from Utopian or even State Socialism, again in the view of lte exponents."—Ed., O.D.T.]