Socialism in France.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 8133, 17 January 1895, Page 3

Socialism in France.

The Roubaix Town Council, whose members are well known for their pronounced Socialistic views, decided some time ago to establish a municipal pharmacy, and also an office for granting free legal consultations. In doing this they exceeded the authority vested in them, and the decision was afterwards revoked by the Government, much to the chagrin of the Socialist party. In the Chamber of Deputies on November 20th, M. Jules Guesie, the Socialist leader, brought forth an interpolation of the subject. At the outset of his speech he elicited loud protests by declaring that the communes were still under the regime of the Czars. M. Dupuy, the Premier, in upholding the step taken by the Government, showed that the establishment of a municipal pharmacy would be a first step towards Collectivism. M. Bourge having called upon the Socialists to explain their programme once for all, M. Jules Guesde declared his readiness to expound his Collectivist theories and ideals, and in response to cries of “Speak, speak,” enunciated at length the views and aims of his party. Formerly, he said, individual property induced individual production. Now, however, with the introduction of machinery, capitalist property was established. Hence the struggle between Capital and Labour and the creation of two rival classes. The railways and mines were, it was true, collective property, but the Socialists wished that instead of being owned by a few individuals they should become the property of the nation at large. The spea_ker drew a harrowing picture of the society of the future, in which all would work for all, and in which the words of Christ, “Love one another,” would be realised. M. Guesde submitted a resolution calling upon the Government to leave townships the greatest possible liberty in the matter of local i-eforms. M. Deschenai, of the Centre, said that in his opinion the state of society dreamed of by M Gnesde would destroy individual initiative and lead to the disappearance of capital. He would prefer the present economic system provided it were so modified as to secure the more equitable distribution of wealth. Collectivism was a mere delusion. The Socialists asked that the debate be adjourned till next day, but the proposal was negatived. M. Yaillant, Socialist, ascended the tribune and stated the demands of the workmen. M. Goblet declared that he was not a Collectivist, or, at any rate, did not accept the extreme theories of Collectivism. In his opinion, the solution of the social problems was to be found in association. The Government might limit the hours of lobour, and in connection with State undertakings might introduce the principle of profitsharing. The workman should be assured of an active share in the government. He and his friends voted for Socialist measures when they were not of a Collectivist character. The result of the debate was that a vote of confidence in the Government was carried by 332 against 177.