The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1908. WHY OPPOSE SOCIALISM?

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2278, 25 August 1908, Page 2

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1908. WHY OPPOSE SOCIALISM?

Just now, when the voico of militant socialism is making itself heard in connection with the coining election, it is interesting to consider for a moment the grounds upon which socialism is objected to by those who lnve the courage to stand up against the onslaughts 0 f its enthusiastic devotees. Recently the London “Spectator, ” one of tho foremost of English journals, replied to a correspondent who had protested against its attitude in regard to socialism. This individual took up precisely the same argument which is constantly brought into requisition in this country by declaring that the newspaper in question must either accept socialism in toto or else reject ail Stato action. In reply the ‘‘Spectator” laid down its policy on the broad question involved, and its utterances may well bo studied by all who are prepared to give reasonable consideration to an all-important topic. Our contemporary sets out the position thus: “If our correspondent had read our articles directed against various items of the Socialistic programme more carefully, lie would have seen that we have never dreamt of conducting a campaign against all State action, or of declaring that the State or the municipality lias no right to spend a penny on public amenities. On the contrary, we have again and again declared that eacli specific proposal for Stato action must be considered and judged on its merits. It is true wo have not prefaced every article directed against what we regarded as dangerous Socialistic schemes by declaring that we do not desire to abolish tho Post Office, that we do not hold that the roads ought to he a matter of private ownership, and that we do not deny tho municipalities the right of acquiring and maintaining open sp ices or of adding to the beauty and amenity of their cities or districts. AVo have thought that we might trust the majority of our readers —and we still think that we may do so —not to imagine that wo entertain any such foolish notion as that the State ought to ho reduced to an anarchy. AVo. fully recogniso that there must in every Stato bo a great deal not only of State but of municipal action. All wo desire is that such action should ho carefully thought out, and limited to those spheres where it may take place cither with positive good, as wo fully admit it may in many cases, or at any rate without doing harm either to tho material or the.moral welfare of the commur uity - • • • - '.. ~ “AA’o prefer tile Individualistic basis for a State because it is more, easy to engraft certain of tho undoubted advantages of-State actionupon an Individualistic State than it is to engraft the advantages of Individualism upon a (State which is Socialistic in its basis. Indeed, we may go further, and say that owing to the absorbing nature of State action it is in fact impossible to engraft any portion of Individualism upon a Socialistic stock. The graft would wither. This, however, is not the case when some measure of Socialism is engrafted on Individualism. Since, then, we hold that in the ideal State we require a mixture both of State action and of Individualism, we are bound to prefer for the ideal State an Individualistic basis. This accepted, whenever a proposal for .Socialistic. and State action is made, we hold tint the first question which ought to he asked is: Is this proposal consistent with the maintenance of- Individualism as the main stock and basis of the State? If it is not inconsistent therewith, and if it is desirable on oilier grounds, then by all means let it bo adopted; but let it never bo forgotten that the Individualistic stock must be maintained. That is the ground principle. “Further, we must always ask of Socialistic schemes whether they will tend to the diminution of the world’s wealth. If they will tend to such diminution, then, except in very rare cases, they ought to be rejected, since our object is to increase the wealth of tho world, and so endow the poor with a larger share of that wealth. It is obvious that to begin by diminishing wealth cannot be a sound way of ameliorating tho material coadh

tion of Iho poor. But all experience shows that one of the greatest sources, nay, the greatest source, of wealth is human energy. Therefore, wliitover stimulates human energy increases wealth.

“But the great stimulant to human energy is to he sought in the enjoyment of private property. It may be disagreeable to certain idealists T o think this is so, hut tho fact remains that tho majority of mankind will work ten times as hard for themselves and their own families, or, in .Kipling’s homely phrase, ‘for tho missis and tho kids,’ ns they will for the State.”