PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2455, 3 April 1901, Page 67

PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

SOCIALISM— OR WHAT? Last week's Witness lias an illustration or two showing the procession of tramcars ■which inaugurated the taking-over of the tramlines by the Dunedin City Council. Much has been said for and against the purchase of the tramlines by the ratepayers. Personally lam very much in lavour of it ; and the Mayor is evidently prepared to go a great deal further, for he is hoping to see the City Council take over the Mornington and Roslyn lines also. But that isn't all. He nearly took the breath away of many Dunedin folk when he added that he saw no reason why a city council, us representing the ratepayers, shouldn t own all the ground the city is built on. And why-aot? At present there are, 1 suppose, hundreds of houses in Dunedin built on ground vested in the council, and, as far as I am aware, there is no reason why this practice should not be indefinitely extended. "Oh, but that's Socialism, says someone. Well, it may be. But ■what is Socialism? . It is impossible to give a single definition that will find general acceptance, because the word is used by writers of authority in different senses, in each of which it 'is somewhat vaguely applied. In the -widest sense of the word, Socialism is any scheme of social lelations which has in view a more equal distribution of wealth. Thus it embraces co-operation, such legislation as •we have introduced in New Zealand to asBist farmers by State loans, etc., the granting of pensions, the establishment of Arbitration and Conciliation Boards, and so on ; but perhaps the following definition taken from "Socialism New and Old," in the International Science Series, is more concise .\nd will suit us better just now: — ' Socialism is that system, economic and (political, in which the production of wealth is carried on solely by the State, as the collective owner of the land and the instruments of production, instead of by private capitalists or companies." Put another way it is briefly this : Socialism is collective or State ownership taking the place of private ownership. When there •were riots and great distress in Great Britain some time after the passing of the Reform Bill in 1832, the late Queen, is represented as asking the Duke of Wellington what had caused the great upheavals and as having received the reply. "The reforms, your Majesty." So with the introduction of any socialistic experiment. All sorts of disasters are foretold, but somehow we don't seem to be much the worse off for our experiments. We have our trams, gasworks, waterworks, and slaughter yards belonging to the' Dunedin Council ; and the New Zealand Government own the railways, telephones, telegraphs, and postal ararangements. Now, isn't it a comparatively easy matater to go farther step by step? In India, the Government controls the salt and opium industries ; France, the match industry ; Spain, the tobacco manufacture ; and I daresay other examples can be given. When a country gives a shipping company a subsidy to get a fast service, it means in effect that "private enterprise Hoes not fully answer the country's needs. At the present moment it really seems that piivate enterprise is giving way to State-subsidised industries, for France, Germany, America, and Japan, our rivals in the world's markets, are giving a large amount of State assistance to their producers and exporters ; and a keen observer of events, and a gentleman occupying a high social position in Dunedin has said that, as a Socialist (he is in a large capitalist business) he is glad to see State aid being extended in so many | directions, and also the formation of the big trusts which are one of the curses of modern times ; because both are preparing i Governments to extend socialistic practices, the former by making the Governments, in effect, part proprietors ; the latter, by i-eir iniquities, forcing the Government in time to take over the industries controlled by these combines. Now there is a great deal to be said in

favour of much of the social legislation which so many cry out against ; and also in favour of the State and municipal ownership of the means of production and even of distribution. On our 1 ail ways, we have it in our power as taxpayers to insist on fair wages and working conditions ; and in councils we can see that tram, gas, and other employees receive like consideration. But there is another side to the question. To what extent will State or municipal ownership undermine that sturdy independence of character so much to be admired? | The man or woman who depnds on St..te | aid will not be so effective as a colonist or I as valuable as a citizen as he who forces his way unaided ; and many look upon | our leaning upon Parliament to give us help in this, that, and the other thing as one of the signs of decay. If that be so, there are more nations than ono in a decadent state. On the other hand, noninterference with the activities of brainy men means the advance of a few, at the cost of the crushing of the many ; and it 'becomes a question to what extent the ambitions of the few are to be curbed and kept within bounds, and how can those with no ambition fee stirred to greater energy. How to act to make every State unit develop his or her greatest effectiveness is one of the many problems we are called upon to solve. But in our trend towards Socialism there is one point which seems to escape observation. Most of our socialistic legislation is for city and town populations. The farming industries are not being hemmed in by labour restrictions as are urban industries, and the result is a flocking to centres of population, which is a distinct evil from a national point of view, and which must in some way be worked against. I have lived both in the country and in the town, and I far prefer the latter; and as many more are like me, there must be some compensations provided to entice the population towards a rural hfer i ■