REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISM

Otago Witness, Issue 3414, 20 August 1919, Page 21

REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISM

ADDRESS BY ARCHDEACON WOODTHORPE. At the monthly meeting of the Otago Institute on the 12th Archdeacon Woodthorpe delivered an address on "Revolutionary Socialism" before an audience of about 25 ladies and gentlemen. The Hon. d. M. Thomson occupied the chair. Archdeacon Woodthorp© said socialism had had a remarkable history. On the one side there had been great thinkers who had tried to imagine mankind reaching its greatest happiness in organisations or states more or less socialistic, and, on the other side, the economic schemes of modern Socialists, Social Democrats, and Syndicalists. Ho went on to trace the movement in England, which was mainly the outcome of the effects of the industrial revolution. Dealing with what socialism meant, he said it was the common ownership of the instruments of producing; not the common ownership of all property, but of those kinds of property which were used for further production—that was, land and capital. It also meant the collective management of production, the distribution of income by public authority, and private ownership of income. Each ope was to bo allowed to do as he pleased with his income. Some advantages claimed for socialism were the elimination of waste involved through competition and the want of a_ plan of industry. By providing employment for every able-bodied member of society, it aimed at opening opportunities for useful service for everyone and abolishing the idle classes of society. It aimed at justice in distribution, and desired to give each one all that was necessary to satisfy • real legitimate needs, and thus to promote in every _ way the highest development of the faculties of _ all. In speaking of the weaknesses of socialism, he said that in some departments of industry it was easy to seo how great monopolistic undertakings like railways, etc., could bo brought under State control, but when we came to manufactures and to commerce the difficulties increased immensely. When we reached agriculture we touched the most difficult problem of socialism. No Socialist had yet been able to suggest any rational plan for collective management of agriculture. It 'was not easy to see what plan of distribution could be worked out which would meet with general approval and socuro the cordial approval- of all social forces, and without that cordial co-opera-tion socialism, would inevitably be a failure. The domination of a single industrial principle was open to s&rious objection. If we had a sphere for private employment and a sphere for public employment we would have a richer, fuller life, and each sphere might be made to strengthen the other. There was danger 1 to liberty from an exclusive domination of either ' sphere; the' public or private. The two should be complementary. There was great danger that the requirements by those persons interested in the higher pursuits would ' be underestimated, and there was danger that the importance of those occupations which contributed most to the advancement of civilisation would fail to secure adequate appreciation. The Archdeacon proceeded to refer to the socialism of Marx and to some of his works, and to the social democratic movement, and said that the development by Labour in England was part of a larger movement, and had in its later years been influenced by social and economic theories. Speaking- of the Syndicalists, he said they wished to put themselves or the workers in what they considered the favoured position of owners of capital. Thus they wished to seize the whole means of production for the benefit of manual labour, and of that only, to the detriment of all other sections of the community. This wave of Syndicalism had, however, soon passed, and when it receded there had been left two theoretical methods which showed signs of greater vitality in Great Britain; the first was Marxian industrial unionism, and the second guild socialism, or national guilds. He went on to refer to the development of these, and said that whether the interpretation given by Sorel, G. D. H. Cole, or the Hon. Bertrand Russell was accepted, there was a confession of a great want—the tendency to shrink from the higher interpretations of life This was clearly seen by Eucken in one of his careful studies of the Social Democratic Movement of Germany prior to the Great War. "From the philosophical point of view it comprehends three different movements, all of which it employs to further its ends : the democratic, the economic, and the politioal movements. It is a question in the first place, of the transference of the centre of gravity of social life to the masses, then of the elevation of the economic problem to bo the dominating soul of life, and finally of the recognition of the State as the sole vehicle of power and intelligence." With regard to the political, he said, there was a tendency to place the State first in all things and to grant it the leadership in the whole work of civilisaton and human culture. At any rate it was no accident that in Germany, with its tendency towards the omnipotence of the State, the Social Democratic movement had made peculiarly rapid progress, while it had spread much more slowly among the Anglo-Saxon nations. But the Marxian movement in Australia during the last few months had altered the whole character of the Labour movement, and had itself been modified by coming into close contact with it. The Ono Big Union was the resultant of two lines of forces, one of which ran through craft unionism, and the other through the Marxian bodies. For at least 40 years the old unionists had attempted to effect a closer federation of the craft unions throughout Australia. The. first Labour Congress was held in Sydney in 1879, the object being to bring about a unity of plan and- action for unionism throughout the -x>lonies. That was Labour's answer to the growing forces of Capitalism, which had always succeeded in being moreunited than Labour. But the craft unions were too divided in their interests, and it was left to the I.W.W. to show that the unification must bo built upon the basis of industries rather than of crafts. The 0.8. U. had adopted this principle, which was the constructive element in the I.W.W. construction while it had rejected many of the I.W.W. negative doctrines. The 0.8. U. was to consist of six departments: (1) Building and construction ; (2j manufacture; (3) transportation; (4) agriculture. land, fisheries; (5) civil service and public utilities; (6) mining. The 0.8. U. took over the following Marxian principles: (1) Industrial Democracy, in which classes would bo abolished. The workers were to take over ihe industries as a whole. (2) The class war. The struggle was how to

become international (3j To accept the Marxian economics, (4 It had modified the Marxian plan of action. The Syndicalists and the I.W.W. stood for direct action —the irritation strike, the sympathetic strike, the general strike. The 0.8. U., however, intended to "fight with taotih hands," and would make a bid to control the political machine. Here were two quotations from the organ of the 0.8. U., published February, 1919: " Given control of the parliamentary machine the whole executive power of the State is at your disposal; the police are under your direction, and so are the military." " And when tha great day comes, and the workers are sufficiently organised to undertake the task of controlling industry t then the control of the political machine- will enable you to take that industry, if not entirely peacefully, then at least with the minimum of saorifi.ee." The fatal difficulty of the Marxian and the Neo-Marxian schools was the materialistic interpretation of history, and the acceptance of the class war as the inevitable result of our economic life. If the economio forces were non-moral, how oould they bring about a moralised state of society? The social and Labour movements in Australasia were a challenge to constructive thinkmg What we needed today was a deeper grasp of the ethical ideal of the Democratic state, a deeper reverence for our social institutions, and a higher humanistic ideal in our systems of publio education. - ■ . At the conclusion of the address the chairman expressed the meeting's appreciation of the immense amount of interesting matter the Archdeacon had laid before it. It was an extremely difficult and complex subject, and he had much pleasure in conveying to the Archdeacon the thanks of those present-Jor his address. _ This was carried by acclamation, and the meeting terminated.