SOCIALISM.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13645, 13 July 1908, Page 6

SOCIALISM.

15 ITS PROGRAMME CHRISTIAN? . SERMON AT CHALMERS CHURCH. Last'night Chalmers Chuch was crowded to the doors, to the aisles, to the pulpit stairs, many men stood at the doorway, and many turned away some time before half-past- six. Th_' congregations have b en very large and increasing for soine time past, and at the last two Sunday evening services have exceeded the capacity of the church. This was undoubtedly owing to the fact that the minister, --the Rev. E. G. Guthrie, had announced his intention of giving two sermons on the subject of Socialism. Of the first of these, given on the sth inst, a fairly full report was given in our columns last Monday, and in both matter and manner it gave rise to anticipations of an instructive and interesting second discpurse.

At yesterday's morning service the sermon was on a purely religions subject, the Fatherhood of God; yet the . social question is so much in the air that the preacher could not avoid mention of it. Jesus bade men to love God, and to love thiir neighbour as themselves, and his second commandment was being so much insisted on df late years (with. various great aud beneficial effects), that the first commandment had been comparatively neglected,, and the sermon was an exhortation to compliance with it. The evening service was wholly directed to the question dealt with in the sermon. The scripture reading was Luke xii, 13-48, and the hymns select-.d were appropriate to the occasion. The text was Luke xii, 14, "Man, who hath made me a judge or a divider over you?" Before proceeding, Mr Guthrie asked any Socialist present to recognise ■ the extreme' difficulty of both expounding and criticising so large a subject in the' limited time he could devote to it, even though he spoke, as he .must do, longer than usual. If the result saemed meagre, to those familiar with the subject, he asked them to make allowances for the limited time at his disposal. Proceeding, the preacher said the Church had no industrial or political programme; his text revealed the attitude that the church must take to all such programmes. Thatwas the altitude which Jesus consistently took all through His ministry, as though He always remembered that He was speaking to all men for all time. Thus He declined to answer a question regarding the lawfulness of paying tribute to uaesai, as He here declined to offer any views on the distribution of an inheritance, and pointed out, instead, the sin of covetousuess. Everywhere He steered • clear, of temporary social or political schemes, while enunciating principles and creating a spirit which, when they come to possess the heart of humanity would transform all euch schemes and institutions.' Whilst it it was true that the Church dare not commit itself unreservedly to any industrial or political scheme, it was nevertheless bound to press home' the principles of Jesus' gospel, and therefore was bound to analyse, to criticise and condemn, or to bi&js and prosper, the spirit and the method of the various political and industrial schemes that were presented. Socialism was one of these, and he proposed to tpeak of it as a spirit, as a programme, and as a method.

Socialism as -a spirit.—" What is Socialism?'' Some people asked this question derisively, as if it were impossible to answer it definitely. But definition was not everything: Everybody knew what he. meant, when he said that Socialism was a spirit—a spirit of moral protest. He believed that the spring of the movement was nloral, and so far it had much in common 'with Christianity* Whatever might b.- said of Labour and Socialistic movements there was in the heart? of them a divine lire- He spoke of the enormous and notorious inequality in the division of wealth in the Old Counrty and the United States, aiid of the dismal outlook for the labourer as he becomes aged,—"turned adrift at anything over forty into a labour market that has no further use for him." Tlie labouring man there saw wealth rolling in streams into the pockets of a. few, wfiile solitary coins ( roiled his way, and behind the workers lay a mass of people in still worse 'case. One could not wonder then at the passionate indignation of tlie socialists of the Old World at the iniquity of it all, and their cry was iu the name of eternal justice. Tlieirs was not a selfish sordid movement, for there were "great souls among them who. wotdd give their lives for the cause as cheerfully and as calmly as ever did the Christian in:>r.tyrs. Some had actually done so. The Church must be just, and generous, to men who were facing a common foe, and must see to it that these men shall feel that the "Church and the great gospel of Jesus .Christ are in the deepest and most, pr.s- .. sionate sympathy with the burning moral protest that is in their hearts." Tho Church must give the lie to the manifesto of the Pittsburg Socialists! when it s:iid " Tlie Church finally seeks to make complete idiots out of the masses, and to make j them forego the paradise on earth by pi o- ! mising a fictitious heaven." Frederic | Harrison • had said that they were glad to listen to any one who came as a friend, provided his message was not that whatever is, is right. He. <the speaker) offered himself as such a friend and lie asked lii> | hearers to offer themselves' also, spying, "In so far as this movement is a groat burning moral protest against the iniquity : and misery begotten of our present indusI trial organisation, I am with it, heart and .soul." This was the spirit of those who . first bore the name of Christian Socialists

in England—Maurice, Ivingsley, Ludlow, iiml Hughes:—who were Socialists, not in the programme, jn the spirit-, bufc seeking to imbue trade or commerce and the whole of ordinary life with the spirit of Christ. Any Christianity that did not go as far as this was untrue to itself, unworthy of ils origin feeble and despised. Socialism as tt programme.— were hundreds of different definitions of Socialism as a programme, but a, conviction common to them all was that all tile present evils and misery were dlib to the tnvnership of capital bv private individuals, and to the merciless competition between capitalists resulting from such ownership; so also there was the common solution, the abolition of all private capital, whether in land or the means of production. It did not seek to do away with capital, whicll would be impossible, but to gather it all into the hands of the State. The State was to be the owner of all land, railways, and means of transport, and of everything now used by private individuals as capital by which to produce wealth. It did not propose to abolish personal property of other kinds; and it did not propose to pay all workers alike. To identify Socialism with its obselete form, Communism) was to do it a grave injustice. Communism proposed to distribute, the products of indust-iy according to needs > Socialism acording to deeds, that is, according to both the quantity and the quality of the services rendered. Carnegie and Rock feller would probably still be the lieuds of the great industries they now controlled, and. receiving munificent salaries, but the profits of those businesses would go to the State. But even this change would be radical to the point of revolution, and imply a new v industrial order, oocialism claimed that this new order alone would be just to Labour, and if that claim was trtte tile Church muot give it whole-hearted support. The (socialist doctrine of Labour, however, tba Labour was the sole source of wealth, and therefore the workman was entitled to the whole product of hie toil; that whatever the landlord or capitalist deducted from this was robbery, und that such robbery was the great cause of poverty and all ite attendant evils, v as a doctrine compact of fallacies., For labour that was not in partnership wuh natural agents like land, with capital like machinery, and with intelligence such as was contributed by the great adniinistra{tors of industry and finance, was pure waste. - The indebtedness of Labour to Capital was enonnou6, and it was as wrong for Labour to ignore this as for Capital to ignore its indebtedness to Labour. Failing to establish that claim, Socialism ariserted that Labour was entitled to more than, ii received, but could not acquire it under the law of wages." But was this true ■' The recent history of Labour had demonstrated that with due organisation, energy, and knowledge of tlw labour market, was able to hold its own in any controversy with Capital; but it would be helpless in any struggle against the authoritative and unified administration of Capital under the reign of collectivism. _As Karl Pearson had poilited out, Socialism must be tyrannical. " Short shrift and the nearest lamp-pest" must be the rule in dealing with offendeis against the State's labour laws. Equal lreedom for all was the theory'; but the practical must be equal slavery, equal liability to be drafted into the mines, or to be ordered to perform the duties of a scavenger as well as the pleasanter tasks of life. The caged bird might be atsured of its daily food, but it would prefer freedom with all its risks and the 6 -niggle for existence. If this was to be the destiny of Labour under Socialism, Christianity came preaching freedom in vain, and the gre£t battle /for political freedom in England would have been fought in vain. For it was inevitable that tiho many must be completely under the control of a small and highly concentrated body of , organisers ; and administrators, entrusted with such powers as no human beings could safely or righteously wield. Proceeding to examine' iSocialirin's .teaching regarding it, the preacher defined Caipiial as wealth devoted, not to enjoyment or the satisfaction of immediate wants and desires of the owners, but to maintaining labour, and providing it with materials and implements for the production of additional wealth. A capitalist might be wicked, but not as a. capitalist, for he could only employ his- wealth as capital by using it to sustain labour, or in someway to assist labour. According to Socialism? however, not only did nothing in production '■ but had i s origin in theft. Thus Proudhqn said " All property i 6 theft," and Marx laboured to prove that Capital is . 'continually being produced by thefis from' Labour. No doubt much wealth has been obtained by illegitimate means, in the .past, as Marx contended ; but the great mass of the capital of the 'present day was of recent' origin, arid the great capitalists of America. and Australasia were/nearly all sous . of Labour. Marx contended that. the thefts from Labour were still going on, so that there was at one pole accumulawealth and at the other accumulation' of misery. This was not true, for in the fifty years since Marx's manifesto was published, the number of capital is s and the amount of. capital had increased with extraordinary rapidity, while, at the same time t'liei- condition of the working classes had. been enormously improved, politically and socially ; ."j much so that the foregoing iharze .Capital waa ah. least ."not- proven." 'lll s was a crucial question, for of course the Church could not countenance the present system if every private capitalist was an unimprisoned thief. An important question for the Church" was:- "What sort of men would the proposed uew system produce "'-J. The present system had produced many giant men, as well as some scamps, and 110 one could withhold aduiira.ion for many of the great captains of inrius- ' try for their t-trenuous.; impel ia . and statesmanlike personality. But- lodiuiig among the ranks of Labour, except among those who became li:gh oimers , u ho act for tho "great capi-ajis.-s, it was just, this active alert forcefidness that ; wa,s wanting. Socialism . claimed mat it would rtuin otu better men .all round, • and every nu-n would gain the p.ace in the imiusiri.ti arniy that lie Was lilted for. There would still be capUtius of industry, engineers oi finance, tier above tier, but 110 one would be millions a year ahead of lii» poorn.t in the land. He could ii6t believe ....b ; but did believe that the present syskm could be improved by proper limitations and control, until it provided something as near to equality as human nature was ever likely to a-tuaiii. It was nothing short of blasphemy for a man to say that here in JNew Zealand the barriers between the wage-earning and ttie capitalistic classes were insurmountable. livery' countryside supplied the practical contradiction of such an assertion, anu the Socialists in New Zealand who maue iu were using a cry borrowed from Europe, where in some quarters it might be true. Ike State should do what it- could, through education and control. of • industry to give every lad a chance to climb; but to do away with private enterprise would be to sacrifice hosts of imperial personalities. Socialism as a Method.—Only two methods were open to the State for the acquisition of all land and capital—expropriation without . compensation, and , purchase in the legitimate'way. l'urch ise was admitted to be. impossible, Mar.v cried "confiscate," and - even generoushearted. Henry George not only • advocated the confiscation of'all private propeiVy in land, but also that all nations should repudiate .their . debts. « Socialises 'like Wells, Bernard Shaw and Bernstein would have none of this; but there We're "leaders much nearer to the people, like Blateh-ford-and Glasier, who accepted -the ' idea of compensation reluctantly. 'Anything e!se, however, would • found ' Socialism ' on a gigantic crime,- and-be pleaded-with-all Socialists to stifle tlie-mouth of any leader

who would betray the cause of Socialism, with its splendid pita for justice, Dy advocating common theft. Burke said : "If I cannot reform with equity, I will nob reform at all." Another criticism 01 the method of Socialism was directed against the spirit of class antagonism winch too many of its advocates were inciucautig. Instead of preacliing brotherhood, peace and goodwill among men, they were doing the very opposite. It was class antagonisms that ruined Greece, and the sume evils, would ruin the strongest of modern nations. Socialism was also going wrong in denying the importance of moral and religious influences on human character, and; attributing all social and economic improvement to improved industrial and political conditions; they looked to the new system, to produce a new character; and more or less completely accepted the dictum of Marx : " Hie idea of God must be destroyed; it is the keystone of a perverted civilisation." The Church could not be neutral to a system like this. She recognised the immense power of material conditions, and of the industrial social and political order, Upon character j but she must insist that the social question was mainly a moral question. It was nob the system that would make the men, but the men that would make the system- Before they could have successful Socialism uiey must have the Social character. .In conolusion, Mr Guthrie asked the Socialists to strike hands with the Church. Both sought' the same thing; differed only as to the means. If he wasi not a Socialist himself, it was only because he could not at present see his way to be one. The way out, for all parties, appeared to be the declaration of Maurice: " You must socialise Christianity qud christianise Socialism." Let Socialists keep all their high aims, but free them of any suspicion of contemplated pi under, ol das* antagonism, ;tnd of Godless materiaHiin; and the Church would start with renewed zeal to socialise Christianity ; and between them they might cleanse the present order and refasliism it in the Spirit of Christ, remembering not only that " the earth is the Lord's and the fidness thereof," but also "the world and they that dwell therein." ■