Who Creates Wealth?

Southland Times, Issue 10967, 19 February 1907, Page 4

Who Creates Wealth?

(To the Editor). Sir,—ill- Andrew Carnegie in his view*, as sot forth in your issue of llith inst., really promulgates the principles of socialism. He probably did not intend to do so in the speech he made. But m saying that “in piling up ol wealth, not the possessor of wealth, but the coaimu uity, is chiefly responsible—is the leading partner in the production oi wealth,” ho admits alllthat tho most advanced social-} ist contends for. If the community is the leading partner in the production oi wealth, why should not tho leading partner bo made sharer of the wealth which is created as it is created ? Mr Carnegie opposes an income-tax, and tav ours a graduated inheritance tax. Neither taxi would be a sufficient icinody for the evil complained oi. Mr Carnegie’s remedy for the prevention ol the growth oi millionaires :s oulv like a patch put on to a wo*n-out tin pot. Tiic ol< system oi individualism is the Uu pot that is worn out, and wants replacing bv a new gystcm-coUectivism. i.e., state socialism. No other ■ystem can possibly secure that degree of social equality which is generally admitted to be desirable. Tho State laying its hands on accumulated millions by death duties does not return it to tho silent partner who helped to produce the millions. The money is dissipated in n hundred foolish ways to suit the pleasure and interest of the Government, of the day. in Mow Zealand the money would be treated a» spoils for tho victors. And, moreover, the silent partner who helped to produce tho money would bo dead along with tho other partner. In saying that wealth is the joint property of employer* and employes engaged in producing it, and that a more equal division of tin' wealth between the p reducers of u ought to be made, Mr Carnegie has admitted the crucial truth oi tho socialist’s argument. The means for securing a more equal division of wealth so produced is a matter of detail. The means to be adopted to secure a more equal division of ■wealth as it is produced not decades after it has been produced—must be adequate to the accomplishment of the end in view. And voluntary effort will not accomplish the ond. But I am not going to discuss this phase oi tho question further in this letter, but show the soundness- of the Carnegie dictum. The greatest wealth-producing invention that was ever brought cut would be of no use to its author without a community- to be exploited by him- And the same is to be said of the greatest captains and organisers of labour, such as Carnegie himself- They also roust have a community to exploit, or their genius could not fructify. This fact clearly establishes a co-partnership between inventors and organisers and operatives. and the question to decide Is the proportion of the wealth that should be given to co-partners. The Carnegie dictum only enunciated a general principle, the truth of which has long been recognised. If the principle of mutual dependence between inventors, organise* s and operatives is sound and just, U follows that tho division of the wealth produced by the joint agency should be justly divided. I do net say equal I j divided. Mr Carnegie, in. attempting to give practical effect to his idea, la confronted with the problem that has been taxing the brains of philanthropist, philosopher and statesman for. a very long time past, and Mr Carnegie’s suggestion falls a long way short of solving the problem. But inventors, Organisers and manufacturers are not the greatest thieves in the highways oi life. These take a much larger portion of the wealth produced than rightfully belongs to them, but they are .few in number compared with another class oi purloiners whose name is legion—the shopkeepers. These people, who are among the most respectable and suave people to be found in a community, buy up the products of industry and retail them put again at from 25 to 100 per cent, above their cost price. These middlemen, from your merchant prince to .the vendors of cigarettes and bodkins, with their congeners, the landlords, bro the people who levy the largest tribute upon productive industry. The present system of distributing the commodities, with the palatial shops and army of servers within, passing much of their time in idleness waiting for customers, exhibits an utter want of economic aptitude. The grandeut) which is now lavished upon shops should bq spent upon the homes of the workers, and commodities should be distributed from plain warehouses, and the distribution done in accordance with a system where serving hands would not be duplicated twenty times over, and shops the same. Our towns and system of rfiopkeeping—the pride of our civilisation —exhibit a great want of good sense in those who suffer most by it —the producing classes. State socialism would correct all these mistakes and impositions, and many more which a true economist can see in the present system of Individualism. There are two parties to this question of socialism—the fit and the unlit, or the more intelligent and educated and the less intelligent and less educated. It is the former that exploit (he latter, and they wish to keep on in the old rut, whilst the latter are fighting to free themselves from this exploitation. But not only would the distribution of commodities be revolutionised under State socialism, but society would be dislocated in many other ways. A great many offices which afford fat livings for the holders of them under the present system would be done away with under State socialism- Under that system there would bo no private property tif land or buildings or other real estate,

only weekly wages and a few common not cessariee for household purposes. So no, ; lawyers would bo wonted. If people fell out they would settle their differences without the help of lawyers. And I think parsons could be dono away’ with, too. 1 think tho State could supply the spiritual wants of the people by calling on tbe people to demonstrate that they have spirits. Until this was done, there wouM be no more use for parsons under the now system than there would be for lawyers. And with these two classes out of the way live difficulty of providing for the natural wants of the people would lie reduced lo a minimum. But besides these, auctioneers, cattle and horse jobbers, agents, bagmen, and a host of oilier itinerant, vendors and jugglers would not be wanted. And that new incubus called “inspector.” whose rise a few years ago was no bigger than o man’s hand. but. is now spread over tbe whole iand—we should be saved front that plague also. Tn fact, the saving in wasted energy would bo so groat under State socialism that it is not possible to give more than a mere guess at ii.—l am. etc., T. BUXTON'. , lotii February. !