The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1906. THE CREED OF REVOLUTION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 260, 7 November 1906, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1906. THE CREED OF REVOLUTION.

For f he cause that lacks es*t«fanoe, for the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that ice can do.

Since 1789 France lias been rightly regarded as the natural home of revolutions: and many times since the days of Louis XVI. it has justified its claim to that proud title. But if we are to judge by present indications revolutions are becoming obsolete even in France. To-day the highest political position in France is held by a man who 35 years ago was dosely identified with the extreme Radical party, and was regarded by the more conservative elements of society as a violent and dangerous re-

volutionary. Yet now that M. Clemenreau is Premier of France, he has renounced his old creed of social upheaval and disintegration. A few weeks ago lie was ordering out troops to check the rioters -who were bent on securing by force the privileges that 31. Clemenceau lias always claimed for them. In Parliament he has met in single combat M. Jaures, the great champion of the Socialists, and has decisively overthrown him. Now we find him putting forward a policy which the Chamber of Deputies has adopted by an overwhelming majority—a policy of which the keynote is steady progress by legislative means. Liberty of public worship, a progressive income tax,, encouragement of trade

unions. -workers' pensions, and an adequate system of national defence — these arc ihe chief features in the programme of a Premier who was once as furious in his denunciations of the "classes" and "capitalism" as Mr Keir Hardie or Mr Blatchford. It says much for tlie new spirit of moderation and self-control that now pervades France that the separation of Church and State has been achieved without an appeal lo revolution. Jt says even more for the "saving common sense" of the nation at large that its Parliament should willingly accept such a statement of policy from the hands of a politician with such a past history as M. Clemenceau's. Xot long since we had occasion to discuss the "Socialism" preached by the leader of the Independent Labour Party in England, and we then pointed out that these doctrines are simply crude adaptations of the views popularised on the Continent by the success of the (Great Revolution. The facts to which we have just referred show how far these revolutionary traditions are now discredited in France. But it is a seriously significant proof of the lack of prescience and political wisdom displayed by the P.ritish "Socialist" leaders that just at the moment when France has renounced revolutionary methods England is being invited to adopt them. Mr. Keir Hardie has just informed a public audience that if Parliament refuses to discuss Socialism, the. only alternative would \k a general strike and arc armed revolution. That there may be no doubt about the meaning of his words, Mr. Keir Hardie adds that he has met and admired Socialists prepared to risk everything—presumably their lives —to realise their ideals. It is not yet the fashion in England to talk about barricades and to point threateningly to the nearest lamppost while attacking a political opponent: but Mr. Keir Hardie is obviously tending in that direction. And we regret it the more because Mr. Keir Hardie is a man, who, apart from his insane prejudices against ■'militarism"' and "capitalism," might be of real service to the cause of.social progress. But though these inflammatory tirades against the established order of things are the ordinary stock in trade of the professional agitator on the Continent they are not likely to be understood or appreciated in England. And the reason is that Englishmen are well aware that permanent social reforms can be best secured by legislative and constitutional means. This is the lesson that France learned already. "No violent tearing down of institutions in the advanced nations will take place," says a recent critic of Socialism, '"because it is quite \innecessary. When the mass of the people are so advanced as to have the power of the State, the lawful regular government in their hands," they can by peaceful and constitutional means do whatever they

please. You need not, says an old maxim, smash the lock when you have got the key; but this superfluous and destructive -work is precisely -what Mr. Keir Hardie and his friends are so anxious to do.'

Now that Socialism has- been publicly adopted as a political creed iv Germany, France and. England, it will be necessary for all political parties and leaders to take it seriously in future. In England the manifesto of the Independent Labour Party makes it clear that the socialistic ideal is to be attained by nationalising the land as well as all natural re-

sources and means of communication and by substituting the. State for the individual employer or capitalist throughout the whole vast area of commerce and industry. We need not here dwell upon, the moral aspects of any attempt to expropropriate the individual without, due compensation. But we may glance briefly at the "social and political effects of such a change in methods of government and organisation as the Socialists appear to contemplate. The theory behind Socialism is the assumption that life can. be improved and made happier by giving greater "equality of opportunity" to the average man. But the success of any practical scheme of Socialism would depend upon the extent to which men could be forced to remain equal after being started on the same footing: and having regard to the infinite variety of human abilities and capacities, we view this hope as altogether an illusion. Yet with the object of securing this end, the Socialist would establish a system of government immeasurably more despotic than any yet devised. As Mr. Sidney Webb says: " To suppose that the industrial affairs of a complicated industrial State can. be run without strict subordination and discipline, without obedience to orders and without definite allowances for maintenance, is to dream not of Socialism, but of Anarchism." However great the advantages of Democratic State Socialism may be — and we claim that in the modified form in which State Socialism exists here, the system is truly and permanently beneficial—we cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that the extension of the functions of the State, when carried to excess naturally means the endless multiplication of officials and the imposition of countless restrictions and regulations that conflict with individual freedom and thwart personal initiative. And it may be added that when, as in America, the political authority has had most to do with the management of industrial affairs, the opportunities and incentives for corruption in high places have been vastly increased. " Socialist writers,' , it has been well said_. " in speculating upon their ideal State, take for granted that their powerful, all-directing , and allpaternal government will be not only [ wise but honest, and they calculate upon public rectitude and the unselfish devoj tion of all to the good of all as a matter of course." But from what we know of human nature already, it is surely rash to infer that an omnipotent and uncontrolled Stale authority would I>p not only wiser but purer than ihp governments of to-day, subject as they are to the modifying influence of individual enterprise and criticism. .Socialism as a system of government would certainly be despotic, and it would very likely be no more perfect morally than its predecessors; in which case—-and we believe it to bo the most probable case—the last state of any country rash enough to follow Mr. Kcir Hardio's advice would be infinitely worse than the first.