OWNERSHIP

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 264, 27 July 1918, Page 8

OWNERSHIP

Sir—l read with lingo satisfaction Archbishop Redwood's article in this morning's issue of your paper. It is a grand thing "to find that we at last havo a recognised religious leader clmmpiouing the Cause of tho toiling masses. Too long the churches have been indifferent, if not antagonistic, to the people's movement. The Archbishop hits the bull's-eye when he declares that the crux of tho 'problem is ownership. Undoubtedly it is. There cannot be even an approximation to ii\stico as long as Capital and Labour are divorced. They must b« married. Class war can only bo ended by unification. At ono point, however, exception may be taken to the Archbishop's argument. That is when ho repudiates Socialism as a remedy. Why should ho? Surely he has outgrown tho stupid conception "that. Socialism stands for atheism, or free love, or anj- other detrimental thing. Some Socialists may, just as some individualists do: but Socialism does not. It is simply an economic and scientific method of merging Capital and Labour, and so of giving tho masses the share of wealth w])ich the Archbishop wishes them to possess. Apart from Socialism, i.e., joint ownership and use. how can they get itP

Here is a comparison: The Archbishon mentions land. By the side of that let me place railways. How could the masses havo anv ownership of tho railways apart from State possession and control? One could not havo an engine, and another a carriage, and a. third a sleopcr. Such individualisation

! would destroy the system. Similar ie it with land. In view of tlio existence towns, with ever-increasing populations, it becomes a practical, impossibility for each person to bo a landowner, except in regard to a few yards upon which to put a house. On the other hand, agricultural land is as essential to tlio town, dweller as to the country dweller, as essential in the form of ownership, and the only ownership practicable is collective. In other words, it is Socialistic,. Apart from that we cannot get to where the Archbishop wants us to go. The same is true of industries. Profit-sharing, anil co-partnership, have proved disappointing. Their final effect is to strengthen, the hands of Capital and weaken those of Labour. However, I don't want to quarrel with' the Archbishop. Rather I want to congratulate him, and, as far as possible, co-operate with him. We have one'goal in view. There is room for conference as to the best way of reaiShinir it.—l am, etc., PROTESTANT,