DOING WITHOUT CAPITAL

Observer, Volume XXIII, Issue 28, 28 March 1903, Page 2

DOING WITHOUT CAPITAL

A New Brand of Socialism

TIIK crisis in the cabinet- making trade has brought into pro-

minence two .social economists of gigantic intellect, in the persons of Messrs Rosser and Tyson. These brainy individuals have been wrestling with the problem of production without the aid of capital, and after much mental incubation, have evolved a scheme that is to overthrow the despotic reign of capital in New Zealand. This is nothing more nor less than a cooperative furniture factory on a company basis, which is eventually to develope into a vast system of cooperative supply stores in all the suburbs, providing the trades unionists with everything they require from a loaf of bread to a baby's go-cart, and amassing considerable wealth . in its operations, which wealth is to be employed for the purposes of further expansion.

This ought to solve the social problem in one act. Mr Rosser, the new apostle of social economy, said he had long contended that if it came to a pinch labour could do without capital, but capital could not do without labour. What was more simple, he asked, than that the in en should say they would form an association and work for themselves ? Nobody answered the question. It was simply unanswerable. Then Mr Rosser proceeded to urge that they should all go out and become canvassers. Mark the point. Not canvassers for sympathy, nor canvassers/ for orders for the new factory, but canvassers for capital with which to commence operations. Oh, the inconsistency of the labour demagogue !

Then Mr Tyson took up the parable, and proceeded to expound the scheme by which they were to establish a cooperative factory without capital. His plan was the creation of a limited liability company, witli a capital of £25,000, in shares of £1 etch. When the first £1000 was raised, the factory might be started, and in ten years £10,000 would be called up. Also, all the time the profits would be coining in. Now, it must be patent to the commonest intellect that capital plays as bi^ a part in this scheme as in any other commercial enterprise. It matters not whether the capital isrsupplied by the workman or the millionaire — it is capital, all the same. Consequently, Mr Roaser'a argument that labour can do without capital is simply

nonsense

Mr Tyson's contention that the scheme is intended to benefit the workers as a whole, and not the few, is equally unmitigated rot. How about those profits? If the limited liability company makes continuous profits, and establishes stores in every branch of industry, it necessarily becomes a wealthy concern. Who does this princely corporation belong to? To the workers as a whole ? Certainly not. It belongs to the shareholders in the. limited liability company, who, in the course of time, become capitalists themselves by the prosperity of their venture. Thus the hollowness of Mr Tyson's sophistry is easily exposed. The scheme is intended to benefit the shareholders in the limited liability company, and not the workers, and the employees would not be any better oil than if they worked for the wealthiest employer in the

country

The whole tiling is an example of the futility of attempting to graft trades union self-interest on to the tree of socialism. The socialist aims at community of interest, and would return the profits to the worker who produced them. Messrs Kosser and Tyson, with delightful inconsistency, maintain the right of the capital they would crush to the profits of the venture. Do they not propose to give the profits of their alleged co operative scheme to the shareholders who subscribe the capital, and who are trades unionists engaged in all branches of industry? That being so, their plan is simply a perpetuation of the system they abuse, with the difference that the trades unionist shareholders, instead of the present employers, pocket the profits of this furniture factory.

The abuse of capital lifts been the stock-in-trade argument of the demagogue for centuries, but until society is content to adopt the socialistic idea of a commonwealth, with no profit to the individual, we are not likely to bring about any radical change in the present order of things. The trades unionist has too keen an eye to his own personal advantage ever to become a thorough socialist. He wants his shaie eyery time, and a big share at that, and he doesn't believe in the principle of dividing with the other fellow who hasn't got anything. Therefore, when the trade unionist invests his £50 in a co-operative furniture factory, as Messrs Rosser and Tyson have shown us, he wants profits on his capital, just as the common variety of millionaire does. It |is human nature after all, and we cannot change it in the twinkling of an eye.