PRECEPT AND PRACTICE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9212, 15 April 1908, Page 2

PRECEPT AND PRACTICE.

WEALTHY SOCIALISTS WHO HAVE LIVED IN POVERTY. Referring to the letter by Mr H. G. Wells, in which he justifies himself for living in ease and luxury, Mr Bruce Glasier, the Socialist editor of the " Labour Leader/ writes as follows: —

Mr H. G. Wells contributes an interesting letter to our columns this week. His breezy description of nia social tastes and domestic economy leaves us in no doubt as to his living, not only according to his means, but according to his Socialist convictions. None will question, the cHeeriness of his conscience concerning his social privileges, or be disposed to questioai his sincerity as a Socialist. As an. Apologia, his statement completely vindicates his way of life against the mean, accusations of anti-Socialist censors to which it makes reference. But there are

CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS which Mr Wells' s statement does not take into account. Mr Veils states, and states, we believe, truly, that his Socialist propaganda hat. greatly diminished his income. In t?is respect he is entitled to say, and the point is important, that he is giving proof, by sacrifice on hie part, of the sincerity of his opinions. Had it been the other way about, and had Mr Wells to acknowledge that his Socialist advocacy had materially enriched him, the fact would doubtless have been used to discredit the disinterestedness of his Socialism. There is, however, a still deeper consideration, to be kept in view — that is. the question of how far Socialists should consent to avail themselves of conditions of comfort -which, in themselves involve social inequality. This is but a variant of the question of how far it is consistent for a Christion to be a rich, man — an

ARCHBISHOP OR A MILLIONAIRE. It is important that Socialists should not ignore this point of view. Were a poor workman^ for example, to acquire as the result solely of his public advo>cacy of Socialism a large income, and begin to live a highly comfortable middle-class life, he could not repel the suspicion or accusation that he was using Socialism, like any capitalist device as a means of self-advantage. Those who deriv/e their means of support solely from the workers, in return for advocating the workers' cause, may be justly suspected if they display an anxiety

TO ENRICH THEMSELVES by their propaganda. We merely raise this point; we do not propose to> argue it just now. We cannot, however, shut from our mind the fact that much of the highest social inspiration of mankind has been derived from the example of men and women who have renounced their titles and their superior wealth, and have stepped down from all the positions of social superiority to share the common lot of the mass of the toilers. Let ue not forget how warmly the Socialist emotion of young men has been stirred by the stories of generals who have shared the common fare of their soldiers, of great prophets, philosophers and physicians, who hay© refused any material reward for, their great services. Many of us in our younger Socialist days felt a new glow of enthusiasm in our hearts when we read how Sophie Perovskaia, Prince Kropotkin, and other Russian revolutionaries had

RELINQUISHED RANK AND WEALTH for the cause of the people. And who shall say that poor Louise Michel, who could never be induced to drSss except almost in rage, or eat any but the simplest food, because of her sympathy for the poor and her hatred of oppression — who shall say tihere is no prophecy almost, divine in that? We are told that Victor Hugo, finding her once in extreme destitution, offered' her a purse of gold if she would promise to spend it upon herself, not upon others. She refused to give the promise, but Victor Hugo gave her .the purse. These aro things we mention, not as challenging Mr Wells respecting the rightness of his own position, but in order to remind Socialists generally that there is another, and perhaps a higher, ethio of Socialist faith and life — more prophetic, maybe, though not more just or sincere than that which Mr Wells so candidly and pleasantly puts before us.