CORRESPONDENCE. THE SOCIALISTIC TREND.

Hokitika Guardian, 18 October 1919, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE SOCIALISTIC TREND.

(To fcho Editor.)

kir,—Your sub-leader in reply-to my letter certainly embodies tho usual answers that Capitalist apologists make when confronted with Socialist purposes ; but they are not convincing. You accuse ine of being a “breakerdown” rather than a “builder up.” That is true only in one sense; because it is clear that a builder mu.st remove the debris of the shattered house

before he can erect the new building. [But the analogy is not quite true, -because the Socialist proposes to build his economic’ system on different foundations; so that his structure will be ready for use before the old one is discarded. No interregnum of anarchy is necessary.

Socialists moreover are not primarily propagators of class hatred. They discover to the workers the very real fact of the class struggle. That this knowledge of the class struggle produces a certain amount of class hatred is only incidental. So also, do the increasing victims of Labour instill “class hatred” in the hearts bf the Master Class. As long as the class struggle exists, the struggle between the exploiters and the exploited, class-hatred will result, and will be an attribute of both parties, the responsibility for which must be placed with those who oppose the establishment of the only system by which it can be abolished.

True, I have no time for vested interests in Commercialism, and would certainly displace the laws of trading as at present constituted. They are by no means perfect, and usually amount as regards moral standard to the codes of Messrs Turpin and Tidd. What is proposed to be substituted is the socialization (collective ownership and control) of all the means of production. I disagree with you when you say that the workers are the most potent economic force in the community. • The English railway strike challenges that. In thnt instance, capitalism operated through the general public. Although the employers were practically the British Government, Capitalism was at stake, as Capitalism is whenever any section of workers revolt, state employees or others. But why can the capitalists operate through the publicagainst the section of workers concerned? Because they have the press, some of the pulpits, the civil and military authorities, and many other physical and “moral’ forces at their beck-and -call. ‘

It may be true that all ‘men- are more or less workers. 'But that does not defend the, capitalist system. It ,is true that a sweat-shop manager and a slave-driver are hard worked individuals. But what is the nature of their work? Is it useful, socially useful and economical? That is the question. Much of the “work” tof the capitalist is that provided in the endeavour to filch wealth from his fellow capitalist. Such work is obviously not socially necessary. The trouble with the “worker” .capitalist is that he “works” tho workers! Certainly a man working his own industry with his own capital is a worker, (providing he works). But the evil is that the capitalist “employs” other men, e.g. workers. The workers, or rather their labour-power which tlia capitalist employs, is treated merely as a commodity, i.e., it is bought at its value. That “value” is determined by the value of th© necessities required to produce, develop, maintain and porpet-

mate itself—[Karl. Marx—“ Value, Price and Profit.] That value is known as the minimum wage, or minimum of subsistence; and it is notorious that owing to the competition set up by the system of capitalism, all wages tend to fall towards this level. But when the labour power of a given worker is put into operation it produces many times over the value for which it was paid. The difference between the minimum of subsistence and the product of the worker, a considerable amount, (known as “Surplus Value”) is appropriated by the employer! And this accumulated surplus value becomes the “hard earned capital” of the new generation of manufacturers ! So also is the of the present capitalists hut, accumulated surplus value of past generations of workers. But what of the ideal “worker” capitalist contemplated by the Editor? Ho passoe through the metamorphosis from worker to capitalist just so soon as he employs his accumulations (even though they may be the product of his own labour) to “employ” other workers , and so annex the surplus value of their creation. Is it not therefore time that the workers should “co-operate” and carry on in the industries socially? Then the surplus-value would revert to its creator—labour, each accoiding to his needs.

That a capitalist often rises from the ranks of the (workers is true; but it is also true that many original capitalists end their days in the ranks of the exploited. Indeed, more people climb down the social ladder than arc able to climb up. But that docs not prove any-, thing either. When one contemplates Carnegie, Rothchild, Rockfoller, Vanderbilt, Gould, Aster etc., it is quite apparent that the men have “struck out for themselves.” It is also the case very often with a sinking ship. But “each for all” is a far preferable slogan to “each for himself.” Indeed, if Carnegie had not been so keen m looking out for No. 1, many thousands of the workers of Pittsburg would have lived the life their Creator intended them, instead of being mere slaves to the avarice of one man.

I deny that “work is the only thing for a good healthy life.” Many other things, play or recreation, education, culture, travel, are all necessary; but theso are monopolized by the Master Class to-day. No! the doctrine _ of “work” does not provide the Elixir of Finally, over-production. From the way you put your ideas it would appear Sir that you contemplate a world, the food supply of which is controlled by men essentially humane; and passionately philanthropic, men. who are m the business to. provide the starving peonies of the world with food, when the famine comes. The idea is a mistaken one. Workers, in the past, have atarved in their millions, not necessarily in war times, but in peace times, and even in wliat are usually called “good times ” i-e., when trade is booming. Thousands of Russian people have been

starved as a result of the “Peaceful Blockade” by the Allies!' Moreover, thousands of workers in the future will starve, some of them unborn yet; simply because the workers allow the control of food (and verything else) to be controlled by a few commercial cormorants whose prime objective is '■ to “make money.” j I am, etc., i DEMUS. Hokitika, October 16th. 1919. 1

There are some points in the foregoing which might be. referred to. In the opening paragraph the writer refers to “the shattered house.” This confirms the bump of destruction we wrote, but the nation being shattered what sort of order is to he maintained while the.“new building” is in course of erection ? Who is to be the architect of the new structure, and wlio will be the

workers to rebuild? There will be “no interregnum of anarchy,” but will the people of a “shattered” jivorld ruled by the force which has “shattered” it, be happy and contented, submitting one to the other and regarding their status and ability to rebuild as equal. Or when business is “socialized”, and there is “collective ownership and control,” who will be the willing workers, or who will there be to work for? A will say he has as much right as 8., and while the latter may be disposed to demean himself by work-

ing, A might be one of a superior class who will not hesitate to lean upon another for existence. And if there are a few thousand of tho A class about this new structure, how long will the collective ownership and control work out? Supposing certain necessary commodities are used up rapidly, who is to see about their replacement ?. Is tho breaking down to begin all over again, or will sanity come to the people and will they keep on building up on a foundation good enough to carry civilisation if people will ho honest one to the other, and seek to study humanity and not a class.

Tlie reference to the English railway strike is not a happy one. First of all, only a section of the workers went out on strike. That section penalised the public, and so fresh workers were drawn from tho public to fill the place of the strikers—but it was still the worker who carried on—the potent economic force to keep a community going. Unconsciously our correspondent gives an admirable example of “capitalism.” He says “capitalism operated through the general public”, which shows that the two terms are practically synonymous. Meum and teum is the essence of social welfare, and as such constitute the medium whereby the social life is carried on. The bulwark of security was threatened by the strike which had it Aiot been handled determinedly and with a show of strength to indicate that the people as a. whole were behind the Government, the “shattering” process might have been hastened by a period of civil war if not actual revolution. The idea of “Demos” that capitalists operate through the public because of the press, pulpit etc., is fallacious. The press is fre© and organised labour has its own organs to enlighten the public, while pulpits and platforms are alike occupied by representatives of workers from time to time. With modern education the public are well able to think for themselves, and the “moral”’ forces behind so-called capitalism are those standing for what they believe to be sane, loyal and right, as against the extreme and visionary and sometimes disloyal. There is much in our correspondent’s letter which we need not traverse, tho socialist trend is so apparent that its obvious goal is sufficient to condemn

it, but we would suggest to “Demos" to revise his ideas of work. If one went about work as sanely as one should think, work is not harmful, No man can enjoy “play or recreation” who has not first tasted the joys of work,' and if a man wishes to drink in the elixir of life in full, free draughts, ho must be an earnest worker. Tills brings us again to production—the • world’s greatest need to-day. Production is the fruits of the worker, and the genuine worker derives his greatest pleasure in what ho produces. If all worked freely there would he no starvation. It is the penalty for not working that overtakes the unfortunate. Russia’s misfortunes have been brought upon her by her revolt against societj r . The “shattering” process has been going on there in full blaist. Socialism of the most advanced brands has been attempted, and Russia red to-day with the blood of her own people, is a shocking and striking example for other nations to avoid if they would seek to emulate in socialistic aspirations.—Ed G.