WHAT IS A CAPITALIST?

Taranaki Daily News, 16 January 1931, Page 6

WHAT IS A CAPITALIST?

One of yesterflpy’s cablegrams summarised an article 'a which the London Times discussed the question, “What its a capitalist?” The opinion of the Tipies is that Socialists are turning from “the principle of the transfer of capital from private hands to the State.” Nowhere, outside Russia, it is pointed out,. has there been any attempt to make the transfer, though Socialists have been, or are, in power in several countries, and in others share the responsibility of government. Moreover, even Russia lets the small capitalist alone. The reasons for the failure of the Socialists to implement the policy which they espoused so heartily when they knew nothing of the responsibilities of office are surely nqt far to seek. They have probably admitted frankly enough to thempelves that the task of devising means of transferring all private property to the gtatep is beyond their capacity. They realise that to attempt it would bring about chaos, and they would themselves be sufferers. Tnere is also to be taken into consideration the fact that capital is gradually redistributing itself. The number of small capitalists grows continually, and among these are many of the good Socialists. If the principle of spoliation were sound for the big, why not for the small capitalist ? But that would never do, especially when votes had to be counted. In the view of the Times the Socialists had better admit a change of aim. They are endeavouring, it says, to lessen the gap between the rich and poor by social reforms, but though the aim may be good—it certainly is good—the precess, if carried too far, defeats itself tarough the excessive taxation required to pay for it. This is sound criticism. In an unenlightened age the capitalist may have been one who sought to wax fat. at the cost of his fellows.. To-day, if we may venture an' answer to the question asked by the Tinies, he has a changed outlook.' He realises that capital is little worth having unless he can employ it advantageously, and he can best do that with the cooperation of his fellows. He can employ his capital to provide work and amenities for those who will thus be benefited, qnd eventually all parties must gain through their co-ordination of resources and effort. Particularly is it obvious that the small capitalist has most to gain from the strength which conies from combination. On the other hand, if the State takes . „s--session of capital it is probably spent extravagantly, if not wasted, in providing social services, which would be unnecessary if capital were free to serve the community in its own way. Perhaps uae answer to the Tinies’ question is that the capitalist to-day is worried by many difficulties,, but. under the aegis of a sympathetic and understanding policy he could be, and should be, the benefactor of the community.

UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS. The comments made by Professor J. Macmillan Brown, •Chancellor of the New Zealand University, on the principle of examinations arc well worthy of attention. Though he gave up teaching more than thirty years ago, Professor Brown has been very closely associated ev?r since with the management of the university, besides devoting his ability to research work of the first importance, and his intellectual and physical alertness are astounding in a man of his years. When he opposes suggestions of change in the examination system hits opinions' cannot ibe brushed aside on the ground that he is old and conservative or out of touch with modern thought, and indeed he makes out a case that is obviously vigorous and well reasoned. 'He considers the university entrance examination essential to the maintenance of the university’s reputation, declaring that ■other British universities would .not accept New Zealand’s matriculation if it were granted by accrediting instead of examination, and consequently New Zealand’s degrees. It would be easy to reply that this country now has a national status and is capable of standing on its own feet, and it certainly is desirable that the education system should be able to do all that is needed to turn out young men and youmr women, fit to fill every position in vhe Dominion and to direct its national affairs. But the condition of being self-contained may.be detrimental as well as advantageous. It would be a serious disservice to the graduates of this country to offer them only degrees ranking below those of other British peoples, and since its inception the New Zealand University has rightly been jealous of the status of its graduates. The question ■whether the accrediting of secondary school pupils should take t’he place of examination for university entrance purposes appears, in the light of Professor Brown’s protest, to demand more ■thorough consideration than it seems to have received from those who are advocating what they regard as reform. ■Professor Brown makes the point that all a pupil’s faculties are brought into play by an examination, especially by written examinations, in which exactitude of thought and expression is demanded. He admits that there is bad examining, and that admission perhaps points the way to the most desirable reform. A® long as the entrance examination is also made to serve the purpose of a school leaving examination for a huge number of pupils—there were ■4862 candidates at the matriculation examination last month—it will be impossible to guard against,bad examining. If the university could restrict its test to the comparatively few young people who wish to proceed to degree courses, and the Education Department, which controls the secondary schools, made its separate arrangements for the ‘‘leaving certificate,” the sound ideals which Professor Brown advocates would 'be nearer realisation.