ZEALANDIA FELIX:

Fair Play, Volume I, Issue 26, 1 October 1894, Page 10

ZEALANDIA FELIX:

Being a. scries of letters on Socialism and its relation to the Labour Problem , addressed to Toni Broivn, a Wellington Workman,

[By Fabian Black.]

Dear Mr. Brown, —If this country is to become Zealandia Felix (felix means happy) it will be owing to the exertions and intelligence of the people themselves. 'Where the form of government is autocratic, or even where the franchise is limited to a narrow class—as it was in England till 1832 —the welfare, progress, and destiny of a nation may be determined by the master minds of heaven-inspired statesmen and rulers. But where Democracy rules, and everyone has voting power, the responsibility lies with the people themselves. The form of government is then “ government by delegation.” The policy which is determined on, and carried out, is a reflex of the opinions of the majority. This was very forcibly impressed upon me some years ago when, criticising the opinions of the member of a certain district, a friend of mine remarked—- “ They are not his opinions.” “ Then in the name of thunder,” I asked, “ whose opinions are they ?” ‘

“ The opinions of his constituents, my boy.” I have often thought of this since, and tested it, and have found in innumerable cases a wide divergence between a man’s privato opinions and his public utterances. This clearly shows that New Zealanders are in a somewhat similar position to o man who is sick and has to diagnose his own case and prescribe a remedy. If he understands anything about physiology, and the construction of his own body, he may be able to regain good health ; but, if he is ignofant of the subject, it is quite possible the means he adopts will make him worse. So ic is with a Democratic community. It is almost impossible to carry out any policy which is not popular—i.e., approved of by the majority of the people—therefore it i 3 absolutely necessary for them to understand a good deal about the construction and workingof that vast organisation called society, or terrible blunders will be made. Every man and woman who votes should, therefore, apply themselves to the study of sociology, and endeavour to discover “ Why, in spite of increase in productive power, do wages tend to a minimum which will give but a bare living ?” This is a question which everyone who wishes to live a happy human life should keep constantly before them. It is partly answered when we remember the wealth produced is divided between the industrious and the idle ; therefore, if the industrious do not get enough, it stands to reason that the idle must be getting too much.

Now, as I showed in my previous letters by diagram how the private ownership of the land economically determined the proportion in which wealth was divided, I wish to add a few arguments and explain the nature of “ property” either in land or (money) capital, before leaving the subject. Mr. G-. Bernard Shaw says:—

‘ The modern form of private property is simply a legal claim to take a share of the produce of the national industry year by year, without working for it. Itrefers to no special part or form of that produce, and in process of consumption cannot be distinguished from earnings, so that the. majority of persons accustomed to call the commodities which form the income of the proprietor his private property, and, seeing no difference, them and the commodities which form the income of a worker, extend the term private property to the workers' subsistence also, and can only conceive an attack on private property as an attempt to empower everybody to rob everybody else all round. But the income of a proprietor can be distinguished by the fact that he obtains it unconditionally and gratuitously by private right against the public weal, which is incompatible with the existence of consumers who do not produce,”

Now, let us take an illustration of what property really is. Suppose, for instance, I have earned, made, or obtained £ 50,000, and I intend to invest it in “ property.” I buy the land on which rest the houses, shops, and factories —forming the side of a street in any of our towns. This brings me in an income of J 82500 per annum. How do I derive this? Well, it is evident if I were left alone in possession of the land I would only obtain what my .own labour would produce. But, fortunately for me, it happens that thousands of my fellow creatures have access to this land in order to, live. So out of what they produce they are obliged to pay me a certain portion for allowing them to use it. Workmen and workwomen manufacture articles, shopkeepers and middle men, or business men, work hard trying to sell. The public (who to a great extent are practically the workers themselves) come and buy. Out of every article which is sold in any of the shops on, my land, a part of the price paid for it goes into my pocket. Everyone who buys pays me a tax, which is collected in almost precisely similar manner to that of State imposed indirect taxation. The position of affairs is this: I, who am a non-producer, get a portion of what is produced by others. If the workman gets the full value of his labour, then the purchaser has to pay my share, and he does not get full value for his money. If the purchaser gets full value, then the shopkeeper or workmen are swindled. At the beginning of the year, though I am said to be in possession of an income of .£2,500 a year, yet this wealth, or value, does not exist; it has first to be created by those who work. I feel perfectly confident in my “right.” I say—“l earned the money and paid for the land, and you surely would not want me to let people use my land without paying for it.” Let us look at it from another ' point of view. Suppose if, instead of buying land, I had gone to the Government and said—l have 000, which I will give you if you will pass a law empowering me to take a percentage of the value of every article manufactured or sold on the right hand side of Palmerston street; or if you will allow me to tax everyone who buys, articles on that side of the street to the extent of 6d. in the pound, on all they buy. The Government would simply laugh at me, and, when my proposal became known, the newspaper editors would denounce it as infamous, and say that no private individual should be allowed to tax the people. Yet where is the difference ? In any case, the means by which I derive my income is by exercising the power of taxation. In the first instance, my privilege is economic, but even then it has to be supported by the State, who make laws to protect private property in land, and, by the sanction of the people, who probably like to be taxed, or don't know the true nature of the privilege.<- In the second, it would be the result of my being able to buy from the State the power to legally rob the people. Does it not seem unreasonably selfish on my part that I should want my money to earn money ? When I earned the £50,000 did I not render some service to society, for which I was well paid ? Ought I not to be contented with receiving the value of my work, without being a pensioner on society for the remainder of my life, and wanting to leave my children as pensioners on succeeding generations ? If the fundamental moral right to property consists in having created it, the modern form of “ property” is, as Proudhon called it, “robbery.” For it consists of the right to take what others create. The Socialist takes up this position. He says to the rich— The money or riches you have accumulated are no doubt legally yours, society sanctions your right to them; go use them, enjoy them; we do not want them. We only say that you shall not use them to enslave your fellow creatures. Why should you monopolise all the privileges of producing and distributing. We are determined that where your powers enable you to say that production must be carried on for your profit or

not at all, then youynust be restricted. It is not that we wish to rob you, bui we intend to prevent you robbing us. It is not, however, against individuals that we war. It is against the system which admits of such iniquitous expropriations. The incongruity and absurdity of it has attracted the attention of many eminent thinkers. The late Archbishop Paley published a work on Moral Philosophy, and in his chapter on Property begins as follows :

“ should see a flock of pigeons in a field ot corn, and if (instead of each picking where and what it liked, taking just as much as it wanted, and no more) you should see ninety-nine of them gathering all they get into a heap, reserving nothing for themselves but the chaff and the refuse, keeping this heap for one, and that the weakest, perhaps worst, pigeon of the flock, sitting around and looking on all the winter, whilst this one was devouring, throwing about, and wasting it; and if a pigeon, more hardy and hungry than the rest, touched a grain of the hoard, all the others instantly flying upon and tearing it to pieces; if you should see this, you would see nothing more than what is every day practised and established among men. Among men you see ninety and nine toiling and scraping together a heap of superfluities for one (this one, too, oftentimes the feeblest and worst of the whole set, a child, a woman, a madman, or a fool), getting nothing for themselves all the while but a little of the coarsest of the provision which their own industry produces; looking quietly on while they see the fruits of all their labour spent or spoiled ; and if one of the number take or touch a particle of the hoard, the others joining against him and hanging him for the theft."

Paley goes on to say : “There must be some very important advantages to account for an institution which, in the view of it given above, is so paradoxical and unnatural. The principal of these advantages are the following :—l. It increases the produce of the earth. 2. It preserves the produce of the earth to maturity. 3. It prevents contests. 4. It improves the conveniency of living.” He concludes thus :

“ Inequality of property, in the degree in which it exists in most countries of Europe, abstractedly considered, is an evil, but it is an evil which flows from those rules concerning the acquisition and disposal of property,, by which men are incited to industry, and by which the object of their industry is rendered secure and valuable. If there be any greater inequality connected with this origin, it ought to be corrected.”

Tom, my boy, when you truly realise what the modern form of property is, what a revulsion of feelings and ideas you will have. Although you have not read many of the old economists’ works, yet you have been muddled by their “ old wage fund” theory. Though you instinctively rebelled against it, yet, somehow, you were in the habit of thinking that the landlord and the capitalist “ gave employment," and you often felt alarmed when the orthodox editor asked you what you would do if these rich men took their wealth out of the country. Why, man alive, their wealth lies in their power of making you work. It is the labourer that supports the capitalist—not the capitalist who supports the labourer. He does it in two distinct ways—first as a producer, then as a consumer. In the early days of New Zealand, when the country was poor and undeveloped, what did the Government do to make it progress ? They imported men and women. Take away those men now, and what value would property be ? You have been inclined to look upon money as the generative point from which the industrial machine was set in motion. It is not. The starting point is in the desires and necessities of human beings. Under our present system, money is a necessary medium of exchange, which enables the people who have it to control industry to a very great extent, and to

say to the labourer “you shall work for my profit or not at allbut that is only possible through the foolishness of society in allowing certain individuals to hold economic power, monopolising land and capital. When people como to their right mind, and recognise that society is nothing less than a natural co-opera-tion which has grown up, in which every immiber ought to bo allowed to perform a certain port, and no man or woman willing to work ought to be excluded, they will soon sot about organising the industry of tho people by tho people, for tho people, and though everyone will be able to enjoy the property they create, yet none will be allowed to use it as a moans to tax away tho property of their fellow-creatures. I have often hoard it remarked that there is no poverty in New Zealand, and that tho working man is the monarch of the situation. When ho has expressed u dosire for higher wages or constant employment he has been told how much bettor off he is than the English or European workman. All this may bo true, but what the Now Zealander has to do is to see that noverty does not como, and that he is not brought down to tho level of the European or the Chimnnati. For assuredly, if tho social system is not humanised and altered it will coiuo to that. Therefore, if wo are apalhotio, ignorant, and cat dess of Bocial and political matters, we shall be certainly enslaved—and servo us right. Here is a warning that ought to bo taken to heart. The City of London has a population of nearly 5,000,(XX) people. One in every 5 dies in the workhouse, hospital, or lunatic asylum. Of the labouring class, 1 in every 6 belongs to tho “ submerged tenth.” Of the abtolutely houseless wanderers, who, it is estimated, number 100,000 in Groat Britain, nearly (>O,OOO belong to London. Forty-thrco thousand children go to the Hoard Schools every day without sufficient food. 'Hiking a look at Uncle Sam, we find that out of a population of 0(>,0l)0,000 people 31,000 men possess 50 per cent, of the wealth. Theru are in Now York alono 15,000 children and 60,000 mon and women without homes, wandering tho streets by day and sleeping in them by night. There are thirty acres of land that have 17,000 people crowded on them, as many as fourteen people having been found slcoping in ono bodroom. Those Hort of things, which indicate the effects of modern civilization, aro enough to “ make you careful," and as causo must always precede effect, it will bo well for us to profit by tho errors of old countries, and swoop away tho causos of destitution ore tho effects become too great for us to grapple with.

(To be continued).