A SOCIAL PROBLEM.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2116, 6 April 1914, Page 6

A SOCIAL PROBLEM.

VICTORIA COLLEGE DEBATE. 'At Victoria College on Saturday evening a debato took place on the proposition : "Only by the success of J he Labour movement.can organised society continue to exist." Messrs. E. Tregear and J. Robertson, M.P., took tho affirmative side, and Messrs. G. G. G. Watson, M.A., LL.B., and A. B. Sievwright, of the University Society, opposed the proposition. Professor Easterfield. presided, and the hall was well filled. Mr. Tregear opened. He said that the present condition of society was the outcome of tho competitive system. He likened' himself to an American beetle which was placed in a collection of injects ; it was "stuck-up," but certainly not proud. So ho could not be proud of what had resulted from tho gradually evolving progress of the human race. Ho declared' himself a Socialist, and said that, only by the adoption of tho principles and ideals of tlio Labour movement could wo find salvation for modern society. There was one alternative, and that was retrogression, for it was impossible for any human endeavour to remain stationary. Ho did not '.liink that anybody could believo that tho individualistic system was best for tho welfaro of the human race.

Mr. .G. G. G. Watson declared, in opposing the motion, that Mr. Tregear had failed to define his terms, and had not put forward a clear-cut issue of the debate; Mr. Watson asked: "What is the Labour movement? What is its objective?" He took it that the objective of tho Labour movement was made clear in tlio platform of the Social Democratic Party, from which it seemed that tho chief purpose of tho party was the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. ' While admitting that there were evils arising out of existing conditions, ho contended that they were the results of economic evolution, and could not be remedied bv the general application of the Socialistic proposals of the Labour movement. Indeed, tho application of these proposals would disorganise society. Ho deprecatcd tlio institution of a system which would have tho effect of bringing tlio best down to tho level of tho worst, and of destroying all" incentive to individual geniusj ambition, and ability.

Mr. Robertson, in seconding Mr. Tregear, spoko of what tho adoption of tlio chief object of the Labour movement would confer -upon society. Ho contended that, notwithstanding what Mr. Watson had urged, there would bo as much scopo for genius and directive ability, under Socialism as' there was under existing conditions.' Genius nnd ability did not get their fair share •in the economic system. The evils of tho present system," as far as they affected the wage-earners, would be remedied, for it was tho aim of Socialism to pay bettor wages all round. Mr. Robert-son also argued that tho worker di'J «hot now got an adequate sharo of what his labour produced.

Mr. A. l B. Siovwriglit, the second opponent of tlio motion, contended that State Socialism would deteriorate and ultimately destroy tlio intellectual activities of mail, and that a lower moral standard would inevitably ensue. Socialistic communities had hccu tried, and had failed. He considered that organised society would, in the future, as in the past, evolve improvements from within itself, hut, whether evolutions _ took place, the foundations of organised society, namely, individual liberty and the security of individual's property, would, stand unshaken- and unshakeable. The argument that the Stato would pay better wages ail round under Socialism (minted to no improvement, because, if wages were paid at all under Stato Socialism, those who were thrifty would soon establish the very inequalities of -wealth which now prevailed. Othors who contributed to the debate were:—Miss Glydo, tlio T!cv. Geo. Gibb, and Messrs. Leary, Luziuann, Evans, Mold rum, and Gilchrist..