SOCIALISM DEBATE.

Hokitika Guardian, 18 July 1923, Page 1

SOCIALISM DEBATE.

STATE OWNERSHIP. AUSTRALIAN AND N.Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION. LONDON, July 10Sir John Simon hi the House of Commons resumed the debate oil Socialism, initiated on the 20th of March, on AH Philip Snowden’s resolution. Sir J. Simon said that he ''.as as much alive as the Labourites were to the evils of the existing system, but he believed I hose evils were to be avoided, not by destroying the system root anil branch, but by controlling its operations for the public good. There was no guarantee that the supersession of eapii.ali.sin would provide emplojment for everybody. He quoted Queensland, where the Labour Party had introduced a wide scheme of nationalisation, and said the railways there, after live years, showed a deficit of one and a half millions, while in 1621 Queensland, he declared, had more unemployment than any other country in the world. I’nder the Socialist ’ system, the workers would be ’ deprived iff the right to strike. Sit John Simon said lie could not see how, under Socialism, they could avoid the conscription of labour, including penal labour instiuitioils for those who refused to do the work assigned to themTheir main object must be to humanise industry, and that could best be done by legislation for placing public needs aitd human rights before private interest ; and not by sapping the energies, / or undermining the liberties of the British people. Art- J. R. dynes (Labour) said Sir .T. Simon’s speech was inspired by his head, not by his heart . The progress made so far in human affairs had been made in spite of the capitalistic system. 1 hey Intel unparalleled poverty in the country. Millions of wage earners were in a- ' state of hopelessness, insecurity and -lavery. There was probably more wicked and wanton extravagance today than ever before. Air dynes elainted that wherever State ownership had been tried with the consent and goodwill of the people, it has proved a sue(’OSS.

Alt- Edward Grenfell (Conservative AFP. for City of London), declared that canny” principles, which wore recommended to the British workmen by their leaders bad contributed ns much as anything to the present pusi-

twill. Mr Lloyd George declared that <ho proposition ol' Mr Snowdon was to uproot the present system whirl), with all its benefits lmd raised the country to its pre-eminence in wealth and lionet , and to substitute something which had not been tried anywhere. In the preearimts and complicated machinery of commerce, llritain was the worst country in the world to make such an cxpc'riment. They might make it m •'> country with groat inherent resources, agricultural and mineral. If it failed, liicy could restore the position after a pniid many years of siid'erLng, hut- that was not tiie ett-e in Uritain, winch had Imilt up a great business on generations of goodwill. Once that good will was dissipated, they would have spent their resources. Those who were anxious Lo preserve the present system should be most anxious to remedy the existing evils, so as to prevent the workers of the country from rushing; into disastrous experiments. The real danger they had to face was that the Party which was out. to change the existing order of things had received 1,171.000 votes tit last general election. If the period of depression was going to l„. prolonged, Mr Lloyd (Jenorge said he was apprehensive regarding the prospects. Id veil if they settled the reparations question they secured peace only. Then the real trade rivalry wonld commence. I'rance, he said, had enormously increased her capacity lot production in the very things Britain was placing on the foreign markets. The same thing was true of Germany. Ho appealed to the Prime Minister to institute a Parliamentary Inquiry into the causes of the present discontent, and concluded:—"! warn the House that the situation is grave. The postwar conditions are alarming!’ Mr .Vewhold (Communist M.P. for Motherwell', declared that it would be impossible to expropriate the capitalist class by peaceful means. 11, he said, the Labour Party attempted to enforce a capital levy, and the capitalists resisted. nothing would happen, except a series of resolutions, as the Labour Party declared that it would not use force. Colonel Ainerv, replying, said the Government recognised the evils as they existed to-day, hut recent improvements were a justification for the Indict that, with goodwill, greater improvements would ensue, lie repudiated the idea that production by the administration of the Slate was the host calculated to give the highest results. From the point of view of efficiency. the present system, whatever its defects, had a great advantage in that it provided for a continual testing of efficiency by results. Tudor Socialism, 11 10 whole of industry would he controlled by Parliament, and the only test (at long interval*) would he a general election. ,r lu addition to the Postmaster-General, there would have i,i l„. Butcher-General, the Baker General. and the Grocer-General, and the Clothier-General.” Mr Jack Jones Labour) :— "Wha! about a Minister for fried Fishr Colonel Ainerv"Yes, and a Miniistrv for Poultry and Babbits, and perhaps a Secretary for Underwear!” Colonel Amory continued that if an inquiry into the causes of the present unrest,, as suggested by Mr Lloyd George, showed any hope of yielding practical results, there was no reason why it should not he carefully considered. TTo asked the House emphatically to repudiate "the illusory dream” of Mr Snowden’s resolution.

Mr Ran,ray MacDonald denied that there would ho any violent overthrow of the existing system. Modern Socialism did not mean a large staff and a Bureaucracy. It was, he said, impossible to avoid trusts and monopolies tinder capitalism. He objected to the domination of materialism that was inherent under the capitalist system. There were only two parties, the Capitalist and the Labour Parties.

The resolution was defeated by 3d? votes to Till.