The Dominion. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1903. WHAT ANTI-SOCIALISM MEANS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 126, 20 February 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1903. WHAT ANTI-SOCIALISM MEANS.

, -If. we;may judge from tlie comments of some of the Press allies of the Government, there seems to be some need for a definition of the anti-Socialistic principle. A favourite device of these users of ready-iu.ade fallacies is to ask the anti-Socialist whether he opposes this for;, that ■ existing : mode of - State action,'-and, when the anti-Socialist replies that lie does not, to cry 'out triumphantly that lie is inconsistent and dishonest.' Sometimes the argument is put in this way Does the Opposition call State ' railway ownership Socialism ;' State landlordism Socialism; State prevention; of monopolies Socialism'; State grading of produce Socialism?. If so, why does it sail under _the false colours of a bogus Liberalism, and give these measures ,its tacit support? Or, if it believes all State_ enterprise to be Socialistic, why does.it not come out. into ;the open and make individualistic control its party battle-cry ? " Such an. argument as this is probably iised in good faith. It is evidence, not of a strategic clesire to confuse the issue,; but of sheer inability to grasp the essential differences between the forms, of State activity enumerated. We are unwilling to believe that any large section of the public is equally blind, but the differences referred to are worth pointing out. The State originated in - the, instinct of self-preservation, which drove communities to organise themselves for defence against foes without and disorder within. Its two cardinal duties are the maintenance of military defence on the one hand and the police on the other. The State prevention of monopolies is, therefore, part of its police function, and is not Socialistic, as the police force is not Socialistic. ■Ifor does the anti-Socialist oppose the State grading of produce, inasmuch as it is in no way destructive of private enterprise, but the very reverse. ,In arranging to confer its imprimatur on the individual exporter's produce, the State is acting for the same purpose as when, through a chartered University, it provides for the granting of diplomas to students. The parallel is exact. As for State railways, while indefensible as at present conducted, they are agreeable to tlie anti-Socialist, not because'they do not injure individual energy, but because,, fairly administered, they do as much good as private, railways, while avoiding the risk of such oppressive monopoly as exists in America. State landlordism, we may 'say in ar word, is Socialism, and is to be opposed through its repression of private industry. This point is made clear by a recent English writer:— . ,

Tho greatest source of wealth (ho says) is human energy. Therefore, whatever stimulates human energy increases wealth. But the great stimulant to human energy is to be sought in tho enjoyment of private property. It may he disagreeable to cortaiii idealists to think this is so,'but the fact remains that the majority of mankind will.work ten times as hard; for themselves and their' own families as they will for tho Stato.

There should, we think, be no doubt of the absurdity of the demand that any political party should accept Socialism in toto or reject intoto every kind of State activity. The vital test of any proposed State action, which must always be considered on its own merits, is whether or not it is detrimental to legitimate individual interests, and whether it is harmful or beneficial to the sound development of the If it is aot thus miurioua, lei.

it by nil means go forward. The people who do not take the trouble, or are constitutionally unable,' to grasp this simple principle, should begin by asking themselves u few questions. " Does the Government," they might ask themselves, " which lias nationalised the oyster industry, intend to open State restaurants? Does it consider State bakeries, unsocialistic; State market gardens unsocialistic; State woollen mills unsocialistic? If not, why does it not establish these State industries? If it believes that all- State enterprise is beneficial, why does it not boldly come out and make State control of everything its battlecry?"