Socialism: True and False

Waikato Times, Volume 116, Issue 19462, 29 December 1934, Page 11 (Supplement)

Socialism: True and False

(Viscount Snowde IS MUCH MORE TRUE to-day than I when Sir William Harcourt made the I remark that “We are all Sc-ciallsts now.” When that observation was made Socialism as a definite 'and organised body of 'opinion exercised little -or no influence on the political life of the country. But Socialist principles and action had for half a century been progressively incorporated in legislative measures. Indeed It would be true to say that the fundamental principle of Socialism had always operated more or less in social organisation, varying in its form according to the evolutionary stage of economic •conditions. Society could not exist without some measure of collective co-operation. The differences between Socialists and nonSoclalists are not sc much on principles as upon the application of the idea to particular problems. Socialism is not a detailed plan of social and economic organisation. Socialists held the view that the econ'Onl/ic and social 1 ife ; of the community should be organised according to the will of 'the people with the object of obtaining the greatest measure of common good. That, Ihey believe, cannot be secured by leaving the control of natural and economic resources to the play of individual competition. A strong individualist like John Morley recognised, that truth. He wrote “Uncontrolled competition is not a principle to which the regulation ,of industry can be eafely entrusted.” Whenever the State Interferes with unbridled Individual licence for the protection of the Interests of the community the Fundamental Prlnoiple of 8oo!all8m Is admitted. It may be that such interference in particular cases is not wise or beneficial, but the principle is not affected. We have had recent Illustrations of Government action in regulating ' and controlling trade which many of us believe to be 'unwise, if not disastrous. But the fact remains that such action has been taken In .the belief that Slate Interference with industry has become necessary to rescue it from a condition of deplorable incompetence and chaos. The point I am trying to make is thatevery party bow accepts John Morley’s dictum, arid recognises that the State must take an ever-increasing part in the control land regulation of industry. It becomes, therefore, a question of the extent of'.such regulation and the method of applying it. That is the essential difference between Socialists and non-Socialisls. Socialists believe that mere regulation can never be very effective so long, as the ownership of the primary industries is under private ownership. There is considerable support for this opinion In past experience. The State began to regulate the working conditions of industry'.a century ago, when free competition had reduced 1 the working classes to' a state of horrible misery. Factory legislation and publio health legislation have undoubtedly mitigated thevnonditioniofythewvbrkers, but widespread evils still exist which mere Regulation Seems Helpless to RemoveIn many instances the Stale has recognised the ineffectiveness of mere regulation of privately-owned arid controlled enterprises, and has been driven to acquire the ownership and management mainly by conferring such powers on the municipalities, though in some cases, such as the telephones and broadcasting, the State has assumed the ownership and control. ' The enterprises Which the State and the municipal authorities have acquired have been mainly of the nature of monopolies and essential services. But industries are tending more and more to assume that form, arid the reasons which have led the community to acquire the services they now own and control are applicable to a large number of monopolies or semi-monopolies still under private ownership. • It may be truly '.said that there is now, outside the Socialists, little opposition to the extension of public ownership of monopolies, except from vested interests.. The Socialists support public ownership on. principle; non-socialists support it on grounds of expediency where the case, of public interest has been established. There are to-day no open defenders of unregulated competition, and private:enterprise is clamouring for State assistance to save it from collapse. There is a great volume of public opinion, confined to no one party, which is prepared to support a \_ Great and Courageous Advance Iri social and economic reform, and which recognises that the State, in one form or onother, must make itself responsible for this advance. That opinion is not revolutionary. nor does It ask for wild and reckless experiments. Millions of people would give enthusiastic support to 'far more 'drastic measures than have yet been adopted for the demolition of the slums, for dealing with unemployment, the land question, with education and with the national planning of production and distribution.

Revolution by Evolution,

sn, in Spectator.). . , Industrial and social reorganisation must inevitably proceed on Socialist lines. Nearly a hundred years ago John Stuart Mill, in an essay on the trend of industry, concluded by saying: “‘I agree with the Socialist writers in their conception of the form which Industrial operations tend 1 to assume in the • advance of improvement, and I entirely sh&re their opinion that the time.is ripe for commencing such transformation, and that it should by all just and effectual means be aided andi encouraged.” The conflict today is not between a sane and evolutionary advance on Socialist lines and the 'competitive system, but'between non-doctrinaire but earnest social reformers and the revolutionaries who think that it is possible to transform tire industrial system quickly into, a complete Socialist regime. Sane Socialists have never contemplated anything beyond a gradual advance towards the Socialist State. To think-otherwise is to fly in the face of the evolutionary basis of Socialism. To break up the existing economic system, with all its faults, by Sudden and Catastrophic Action 'could' only result in utter chaos and misery, and nowhere more so than in such a country as Britain, with its vast industrial population and its intricate international relations. Tlie new Labour Programme recognises •these truths, and denounces, in the words of one of tlie leaders of the party, raising .expectations that the millennium is just round ■the corner. Tlie practical .items of that programme, apart from those dealing with banking, are such as would command the support of many who do not accept the full Socialist theory. These Items are in a large measure those which have been put forward in the various publications of the Liberal Party—'the co-ordination of the transport services; the organisation of the electricity supplies under one central authority witli local delegation; the national organisation of 'the water undertakings; tire unification of the coal industry under national N ownership; and tire nationalisation of tlie land. Here is a programme which is essentially socialistic, but which should commend itself to practical reformers apart from all theory and dogma. There is no need to quarrel about what may be beyond. Sufficient unto the day isOthe need thereof. When Hi esc reforms have been accomplished we can discuss the practicability and desirability of further programmes. There is enough work in carrying out these proposed reforms to absorb file energies of Parliament for Many Sessions. Much of the popular fear of Socialism is due 'to Hie foolishness of its advocates as well as lo the deliberate misrepresentations of its opponents. Didn’t Bernard Shaw once say that Socialism would along all right if it were not for tlie Socialists? .The truth of that saying is being illustrated to-day by the wild and reckless talk of some new adherents to the Socialist Party who have no. knowledge of Socialism and as little of political Intelligence. There is another hindrance ;to the advance of conscious .support of Socialism which arises from a sincere conviction that it would destroy private property and private enterprise and individual liberty. There is nothing in Socialism to justify such a fear. Even tlie Labou" Party’s new and advanced statement of Socialist aims gives no support to the fear that private enterprise is to be suppressed. The socia!isalion proposals are confined to tlie •’primary" industries. • I cannot imagine any Socialist system which would not leave a vast 'fielidi of activity for private enterprise in subsidiary industries and in (lie professions. 1 Socialised industries would provide at least as much scope for individual enterprise as do Hie huge capitalist concerns today. If Socialism would restrict individual liberty it would be a fatal objection. The old idea that Socialism meant that tlie Government will undertake tlie- management of all industry, and that tlie people will be regimented in Labour armies has been abandoned, if it -was ever held. Socialism would certainly give a larger measure of individual liberty. There is /little econorriic liberty to-day when a man has to depend for .his livelihood on an individual employer, and when he has no 'security of a week’s employment. The material aims of Socialism have never appeared to me to be an end in themselves, but a necessary means towards the liberation of human beings from ■ grinding toil, from poverty and Insecurity. A Socialism which Standardises Everybody and Everything would have no attractions for me. The principle of Socialism is essentially democratic. What will be tlie precise character •of the organisation of the Socialist State nobody can foretell. But it is reasonable to assume that under a democratic system it. will be such as will ensure the use of the resources of the nation for the common good and such as. will give tlie largest measure of individual liberty.