COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, PARTY GOVERNMENT, REFERENDUM. COURTS OF ARBITRATION.

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 106, 1 November 1893, Page 2

COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, PARTY GOVERNMENT, REFERENDUM. COURTS OF ARBITRATION.

. [Letter No I | TO THR EDITOR OP THE BTAR. Sin,— l have never written * line for your paper hitherto, but if you can find space for me I would like to write one or two short articles upon the above subjects. I saj short articles, for if the i matter were handled fully it would fill jour paper for the next six months. Communism, which is derived from the French communhme, really aims at the community of property and the negation of individual rights in property. This ii the theoretical side of communism, and as it is opposed to nature's Jaws will never be realised. The various attempts that have been made to establish common wealths on this principle have proved ntter failures. The very birds build and own property in the form of nests, and we know how many of them will fight to the death in defence of their homes, and so will All civilised human beings who own property, whether personal or real But there is a practical side to communism. We have communism in our midst, and many of us never dreamt or it before. In Feilding there is an Oval which will shortly be vested in the Borough Council for the benefit and use of the whole community for recreation. That is an example of practical communism, and the Mayor and Borough Councillors of Feilding are communist*. But not 10 in the general acceptance of the word. Socialism, a word handed about and used by hundreds of thousands of the Anglo-Saxon race, and not one in a hundred knows the real meaning of the term. Webster gives a very good definition of the word: "A theory of society which advocates a more precise, orderly, and harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than that which has hitherto prevailed." Every religious teacher from Buddha to the present day has been a socialist. All truly educated men who take a broad view of hnmanitj are socialists. Oar Imperial Parliament, whether nnder the leadership of a Disraeli or a Gladstone, has been and is now socialistic in its ten* dencies. We are surrounded with social* ism, and we do not recognise it. Let any reader picture to himself the state and condition of one of our Anglo-Saxon forefathers in the centre of England where Birmingham now stands. Had he a king and a army to fight for him ? No, he perhaps bad the former, but he had to firm one of the army. Now the State provides an army for the protection of Birmingham. Again, were there any police ? No, but the State provides them now. If the Anglo-Saxon wanted to send a letter he had to provide his own bearer, but now the State has organised a system by which letters canbe carried round the world for anyone. Is not this conducive to the " harmonious arrangement of the social relations " ? The community now carries on for itself, i c., the State works, telegraphs, carriage of small commodities, coinage, surveys, making, sweeping and lighting of streets, roads, bridges, life insurance. The State, i c., socialism, provides for many thousands of us from birth to burial-midwifery, nursery, edncation, board and lodging, vaccination, medical attendance, medicine, amusements, and interment. Socialism, through the State, furnishes and main, tains museums, parks, art galleries, libraries, roads, streets, lighthouses, cemeteries, pounds, harbours, piers, wharves, hospitals, gasworks, waterworks, and schools. After reading the above lists — not complete by any means— will anyone dare to say we are not living in a socialistic age ? The above are illustrations of practical socialism, and do not take away a man's individuality. If a- burgess of Feilding of strong individuality, and to whom the word socialism is as a red flag to a bull, chooses to send a special messenger on horseback to Wellington with a letter he can do bo. It would cost him a few pounds, whereas the State will do it for 2d. There are, however, dangers looming ahead, caused by a certain class of closet philosophers who write effusively and in a style that takes with the pro* letariat who cannot distinguish between fact and fiction what is practical and what is not. I am, etc., George Wilks, Clare Lea, Feilding, 31/10/93.