SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM.

Waikato Times, Volume 112, Issue 18691, 18 July 1932, Page 11

SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM.

(To the Editor.).

Sir, —I do not think Mr Sykes, in his letter published to-day, Intended to raise a laugh, either for the amusement or at the cost of anyone, so 1 ■will not treat it-as such. I think for all of ,us who have sincere regard for the welfare of humanity the economic position of the present day is of such disturbing seriousness and urgency that there i-s little time to he interested in the round-abouts of personalities. Every earnest worker is bound to come up against the humbug of personality, and if he (or she) is to do the best work a way must be found of cutting through it. Let mo but say that if I have come a tumble — readers must be their own judges—-I am quito satisfied with getting my deserts and am as happy as ever I As Mr Sykes -emphatically disagrees with mo when I speak of Socialism, (commonly inteirpreted, las being simply Communism as practised in Russia, here Is surely his chance to draw a satisfying line of differentiation. It was not, of course, my intention to imply that all who call themselves Socialists approve of the Russian regime, or regard it as a modal for the Socialistic State. For instance, I regard myself as a Socialist because I support the doctrine of universal brotherhood, and, therefore, work for the fullest possible, social well-being of mankind, which would Involve the greatest possible freedom of initiative for the Individual. The point I wished to make was that the prevalent conception of the right means of attaining this Ideal of Socialism is fallacious because it is not practical. I say that Communism as we know it, both theoretically and in practice to-day, cannot achieve true Socialism, and it, has been my observation that the com-monly-accepted Socialistic doctrines are not dissimilar to Communism when one finally comes down from tho world of " Socialistic ” ideals, however ; worthy, to tho question of an economic system. It has seemed also to me that most professing Socialists aro frank I admirers of tho Russian ideal (which is doubtless better than tho means being used for its -realisation). If this is not so, surely Mr Sykes can do good work by pointing out -precisely what he, as a Socialist, stands for in the matter of an economic -system, In contradistinction of what. Communism stands for. As a lead-off let -mo reiterate that Douglnsism -stands for an economic system which would evoke the utmost productivity with the least possible human offort. There would he enough provided for and purchase- j able by every citizen, beside which ' there would he good profits and wages for all who engaged In Industrial activities. —I am, elc., n. E. HANSEN. J Orini, July 15, 1932,