Justice and Capitalism.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 638, 16 December 1932, Page 6

Justice and Capitalism.

Dear Sir, —“ Egerton ” would virtually abolish universal suffrage and for it substitute a voting system based on family numbers and property qualifications. I fail to see how the realisation of this or any like proposal would effect a desirable change in the economic and political status quo. I think that it would, on the contrary, tend to reinforce the sinister ruling power of money and property. It is not at the ballot box but in “ the councils of the nation ” that the tritons of wealth wield the thick end of their political stick, and give truth to the cynicism that the more governments change the more they are alike.”

“ The rights of property," said Joseph Chamberlain, " have been so much extended that the rights of the community have almost disappeared and it is hardly too much to sav that the prosperity and comfort and liberties of a great proportion of the population have been laid at the feet of a small number of proprietors who neither toil nor spin . . . private charity is powerless, religious organisations can do nothing to remedy the evils which are so deep-seated in our social system.” “ A small number of proprietors.”—How small may be gathered from the following statement of the noted statistician, Chiozza Money; “The nation as a going concern is for the most part owned by a handful of people so small that if they left the countrv the population would roundly remain the same. . . It is true that, taking Great Britain as a whole, about 6 per cent of its families possess nearly 70 per cent of its land and capital. The expression ‘ national w ealth ’ is a delusion. The nation’s nationally-owned wealth, from its parks and commons to its navy and public buildings, is a relative trifle." This was written in 1928, and what applies to Great Britain applies, of course, in a greater or lesser degree, to all capitalistic countries, including our own. This handful of people, who own the nation, govern the nation in the interests of that ownership, let the political system be what it may. The vote but they do not rule. “ Egerton ” would also draw a distinction between reputable and disreputable citizens, between drunken and temperate citizens, between citizens responsible and irresponsible. But while no difficulty would appertain to the disfranchisement of a poor person on moral grounds, the case would be different when it came to a rich one, in

spite of the fact that dissolute plutocrats, men and women, are plentiful enough. It is not necessary for the rich man to l>e sober, or industrious or responsible. These are virtues only in the poor or comparatively poor man. Rich men’s spots are covered with money. What tribunal of incorruptibles, which he would have to set up, do about that’ I am. etcM EGERTON.