PROFIT SHARING AND SOCIALISM.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1948, 3 January 1914, Page 6

PROFIT SHARING AND SOCIALISM.

A REPLY TO MR BLATCHFORD.

SIR. W. LEVER'S VIEWS. Sir William Lever's profit-sharing scheme does not evidently receivo tli* full approval'of the Socialist party in England, as expressed by their wellknown champion Mr. Robert Blatchford, of "The ClaPion" fame. An articlo published by him in that journal recently threw some light- on his own. views in regard to Sir William Lever's philanthropy, and brought forth from Sir William Lever himself a spirited reply, which was published in "Tho Clarion." In tlio courso of this letter S : r William Lever stated that he was heartily in agreement with Mr. Blatchford when ho says: "I want every man, woman, and child in the Kingdom to have the essentials to a fu'l and happy human life," but 110 did 110b agree with him when lie ctatcd that those conditions could not be secured by sharing profits with employees, nor did lie agree with Mr. Blatchford when ho stated that "wero very employer to give all his profits to tho workers the Tesult woulc be far short of tho result tlio Socialist aims at," presuming the results the Socialist aimed at wero te secure the essn tials of a full and happy human life. Sir William Lever gathered'from Mr, Blatchford's articles that whatever Socialism might mean, tho clever Socialists did not mean to share the products of their "brain with the labour that did tho handiwork. Mr. Blatchford had said: "Sir William sells soap; I sell ideas. Tho compositor and the printer do not make my books or articles; tliev onlv set and print thc-m. . . Sir William sells fat and alkaloids; I sell brains.'' Commenting 011 this Sir Williams writes: "It is quite evident, therefore, that tho product of brains is beyond the reach of brotherly sympathy, and .' brotherly profit-sharing which I shr.uld have thought would have been the object < f aiiy Socialistic scheme. This refusal cf Mr. Blatchford to share the'product of what he claims to have. viz.. brains,, is merely another illustration of tho story of tho two Lancashire men who, were attracted to Socialism. Tho one.asked 1 tho other what Schism meant, and received the reply that it meant 'Fairation' (a Lancashire word meaning fair play between man and man). 'That's all right, but how it to be done?' 'Well, lad, it means this, if you. had two horses you would let me have one. wouldn't you?' . 'Yah, Oi would.' 'If von had two fields you would let me have one, wouldn't you?' 'Yah, Oi would.' 'If you had two houses yon would let mo have one?' 'Yah, Oi would.' 'And if you had two pigs you would let mo have one.' 'here, Lold on a bit, I've got two nigs.' Mr. Blatchford's_ ideas of Socialism exclude brains from joining .with labour tho joint product. Mr. Blatchford considers he lias brains—they are Lis two pigs. "Wo have had in -the historv of the world many' examples of selfishness ; from tho selfishness of Emperors to the selfishness of • Capital,' and the prospect that Mr. Blatchford Lolds out to us in that the .Socialism of tho future will show the selfishness of brains."

Further, Sir Wi'iam Lever goes on to say that 110 cannot help but "hmk that if Mr. Blatchford wore realy sincere in wantinsr every man. woman, and child in the kinsrdom to have tlie essentials of a full and hapnv life, 110 would not say as 110 did: "Wo do not ask the salvation of Britain's women and children at tho hands of soan boilers, or other tradesmen. Wo do >not want Sir William Levor's money or'his help." Sir .William was confident that everyone who had the truo interest of tho masses of iho people at heart and who tmly and sincaiely wished every man and woman and child in tho kingdom to Imyn tho essentials of a "? hi *PP.v would welcomo any division of property amonest tho workers as a step in tho right direction, and would welcomo tho help of anyone tthoso ideals wove in that ''What interest," went on Sir William Lcrer, "hasßlatchford, witli h:« vaunted 'brains,' sitting on his pedestal 111 all Lis glory, in tho moilers, toilers, and other labourers, without whose help the product of his brains would be idle breath?"

A very pertinent reply to tlio insinuations and remarks of tlio articlo written by Mr. Blatchford, which called forth the reply of Sir William Lever, is mado by that gentleman when Lo says: "As to Mr. BlatcLford's manners, readers of the articlo will be able to judge. In thq last paragraph lie states tlTat my manners are not knightly. In the preceding- paragraph 110 state's that my business is not to instruct'my masters, nor to patroniso my betters, but to boil soap and sell it, and be as modest as I can. I cannot acknowledge Mr. Blatchford and thoso who follow him as either my masters or my betters, and I am not- enamoured with' tlio pattern of modesty that he or they set mo, nor will I fellow it. I havo never had tho tap of a toy sword on my shoulder, f am very proud of tho fact that our King has been graciously pleased to confer honour upon me, and T. accepted the honour with full knowlcdgo of tlio responsibility it laid upon me to prove myself worthy of His Majesty's confidence in me, and this I shall endeavour to do."

In a reply dealing mostly with the financial side of his articles and the "Clarion," Mr. Blatchford states: ''I soli articles of my; own mako; Sir William Lever sells articles made by other men. Sir William Lever is a rich man. I am a poor man. Need I noint out that all the rubbish Sir William Lever .has written about my refusal to socialise my brains is a gross misrepresentation of my position, and of the Socialist position.