WEALTH & POVERTY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1533, 31 August 1912, Page 2

WEALTH & POVERTY.

SUGGESTED REMEDIES FOR SOCIAL WRONGS. CO-OPERATION AND PROFITSHARING. In St. Jolm's Church last Sunday evening-, Dr." Gibb concluded the series of sermons ho has been, delivering on the problem of wealth and poverty. The Church, ho hud said, had a. twofold function. Sho was bound by loyalty to" her Lord to criticiso and condemn whatever was amiss and inconsistent with tho ideals of tho Kingdom of God in tho existing social order. Tluit'rtuty ho had tried to discharge the lust two Sunday evenings in plain spcech concerning tho shortcomings both of the "haves" and tho "have- '.»?}?• tho Church was also under obligation to breathe the temper in which the various remedies suggested for social wrongs should be discussed; and further to indicate tho principles upon which a solution might bo found in harmony with the claims of righteousness and human brotherhood. The first alleged remedy was that with which wo' aro in this country familiar— unionism, conciliation boards, ami arbitration courts, Whatever might bo said in favour or against this method, it was clear that it had utterly failed to effect industrial peace. Communism. At tho opposite extreme was communism. Communism should bo distinguished from Socialism, for though Socialism might be communistic, and probably a vast majority of Socialists were Communists, there was nevertheless a wido dif- ' ference between the two. Communism aimed at all men sharing alike in the good things of life. The Prime Minister, or whatever the head of the communistic state might be termed, would get in wages or labour cheques neither less nor more than tho man who swept his office floors. . The captain on the bridge of ah ocean liner would be paid exactly the same as the stoker at the furnaces. The director of a great foundry or factory would receive the same emolument as the man from whom no more intelligence was required than to see that the loom or lathe did its work properly. It was a topsy-turvy world into which communism introduced us—a world about as real as .the "Wonderland of Alice's adventure©, or tho Looking-glass Country. Tho fundamental maxim of communism was I'roudhon's root and branch indictment, "Property is theft"—a maxim whose essential falsity was manifest when you considered that even in n communistic state there would still be some things iudefeasibly a mail's own. His food, his clothing, his house-room would at least belong to him. Private property cannot be abolished. Tho thing is a sheer impossibility. A Vain Hope. Reference had been made in previous sermons and was again mado to the glaring inequity of the distribution of wealth,- and to this was largely attributed tho uprising of the communistic ideals. Destroy, cried the Communist, the institution of property, and many of the vices and. very much of tho wretchedness of the world will disappear. 'It was a vain hopo. Self-rtgard was as indestructible a principle as,regard for others. Men were not born equal, and one man was worth much more, to! tho community than another. But not to over-emphasise these thiiigs it was certain that the.conditions of the success of communism were not to be found anywhere on earth. And it was also certain that communism under the dominance of men who had no fear of God before their eyes, and who were of the spirit only too often manifested by tho present leaders of the communistic crusade, would spell out hell on earth. To give peaceful effect to communistic socialism at'the very least would require a, complete moral transformation of every man and woman in all the world.,, As things are, communism woiild reduce the wholo. mass- of human society to a common:Jevel ,o£ barbarism, and J IFWh'sMnJWf&lirfjf ti'-'faoto' that at least" some of the; leaders and writers on the side of communistic Socialism were'beginning to see this. They were beginning to see that without Christianity no schcmo of social reconstruction could succeed, and especially the 'communistic reconstruction. The recent statements of Miss Scudder were noted in this connoction. She had declared that if Socialism "arose otherwise than as theresult of an inward transformation, affecting the deep springs of will and love, it would prove the worst disaster of any experiment in collective living the world had sefcn. It would'involve immensely elaborated machinery. It might' be an. intolerable tyranny." Verily, it would. As a rule, it was'hot Christianity that was found ftt the' root of communistic collectivism, but materialistic atheism, with its brood of baleful portents. Socialism. Tho second alleged Remedy was Socialism without communism. It differed from the latter, in not aiming at bringing all men down to tho samo level of remuneration. Ramsay Mac Donald had very well defined, the difference between tho two. "From all according to their ability; to each according to • his needs is," he says, "a Communist, not a Socialist formula. The Socialist would insert 'services' for 'needs.' They both agree about the common stock; they disagree regarding what should be the effective claim of the individual to share in it. Socialists think of distribution through tho channel of personal income; communists think of the distribution through the 'channels' of human rights to live." It was not at all difficult for any of them to imagine what Socialism, so defined, would mean, for hero in New Zealand they had socialised not only the public services, but many other things. 'Socialism would make the State the solo employer, the solo owner of the means of production and distribution, but salaries and _ wages would bo paid to different individuals commensurate with the value of thoir services to tho community. Of this system it had to be said with tho utmost emphasis that it was an unchristian, and conceivably might be an improvement on tho existing state of affairs, which, as was said of an American multi-millionaire, permits the accumulation of as much money .as Adam could have laid by of his earnings, if he had lived till our time and saved a hundred dollars each working day. Capitalism, as they knew it, on the broad scale, was like a certain animal which at a not very advanced ■ stago of its' evolution was all stomach and hooks. _ But it was at tho least extremely questionable whether that was the best, or even a practicable solution of the great problem. Business, | even when conducted by the State, had to be run on business lines, and made to pay. Perhaps if party divisions were eliminated the temptation to use tho industries carried on by the" State in the interest of party politics would be removed; but the task of socialising all _the means of prOduotion and distribution was a, bigger thing than many ardent spirits dreamed of) and the benefits were questionable. , ■ . A Better Way. There was, however, a better way—a. way to which they must come, and a way by which they must pass io the colloctivist regime, if that should ever be in store for them. It. was tho way of cooperation and profit-sharing. More than one statesman of eminence at Homo had recently affirmed something like this. At least ono public man in New Zealand had | several times spoken lately in a similar strain.' Of course, there wore immense difficulties to be faccd. Employers and Capitalists might be unwilling to share their gains, or they might offer so small a share as to make it not worth the workers' acceptance. Workers might be willing to slinro profits, but what about, sharing losses?' Mon<over, if profit-sharing were in some way made compulsory, it would seem to be shorn of half its voltm from the ethical standpoint. But it had got. to come. And for two reasons. First, the sense of injustice burning like a fire in the hearts of millions of men— the concentrated demand that not a dying wage or ft killing wage, but a really living wage shall be accorded a? the workers' share of tho products of the combined industry ol' employer and manual toiler mado a change in the existing sociM regime inevitable. To him that had eyes to see, ears to hear ,atid a heart to understand labour phenomena all over the world, it tnust seem that a change must come cither by evolution or revolution. But there was a still stronger-reason, r'o-operation and profit-sharing were the Oospel rolufion'of the labour problem. No wan liveth to hinwlf. . We went [ bound together' in aa organism, each

member of which was accessary to Uio healthful life of every other member. Our salvation Su ail economic and social seuso depends on our recognising and acting on the recognition, thnt between capitalist and worKman, employer and labourer,' there is a mutuality of interest, and that the ends designed by Almighty God, by the wholo system of human industry, cannot bo achieved till each ijian shall work for tho other's good, each ijian for tho whole. Tho day was when tho capitalist, thinking of his wealth, said "It is mine." To-day the worker is defiantly retorting, "It is not yours; it is mine." Tho (lay is coming when both shall say, "It is ours." Dr. Gibb then went on to give a number of examples of what had been accomplished by various firms in Great Britain in tho way of profit-sharing, quoting amongst other authorities Theodore Cooke Taylor, who had been an earnest (student of tho subject for thirty years, and for twenty years had practised it on a largo scale, Tho immense benefits not merely in tho greatly increased remuneration of tho workers, hut in goodwill between employer and employee, and in many other directions wero set forth in detail. Cooperation and profit-sharing wero tho ethics of Christ in the economic realm. It was the realised Kingdom of God in the sphere of human industry.