SOCIALISTS AND CAPITALISTS

Hokitika Guardian, 9 August 1927, Page 1

SOCIALISTS AND CAPITALISTS

THE GAME OF OPPORTUNISM

(Welfare League)

People often make fun ol religious mituled persons who shape their lives so as to “make the best of both worlds” for themselves. These are not the only individuals who follow the line of opportunism. There is a growing number of socialists who, whilst strongly denouncing capitalism and the capitalists, take every opportunity of trying to acquire or retain wealth for themselves. These socialists intend to make the best of both States —to be capitalists in a State ot capitalism and socialists only when it comes. The wealthy Moseleys in England were invited, after joining the Socialist Labour Party, to share up some of their great wealth with the poor. They declined on the score that such action would not alter the system (rather convenient for them) meantime the poor may wait. Amongst the denouncers of capitalism at Home, none is more active in that direction than Mr G. I.ansburv, M.P., the man who kissed the Soviet Russian Anibaxsdor on bis departure after the Arvos raid wash-up. As showing the beautiful opportunism of this communist individual and bis sons, wo present the following from Home:—

THE LANSBURY CAPITALISTS. “No one would wisli to deal lightly with tho misfortunes of others, out the experience of two of Mr George Lansbury’s sons, as related last week at a, meeting of their creditors, have a certain public importance as well as interest.” “We are accustomed to the anomaly of Socialists denouncing a system of which they personally do very well. Tho I.ansbury family’s essays in capitalism have not, however, been so successful. Mr Lnnsbury the elder, who, like his sons, has been engaged in the timber business, was reported in t.’io course of the proceedings in question, to have lost in it tens of thousands of pounds. Probably, it Mr Lansbury bail been more successful as a capitalist, ho would have been less enthusiastic as a socialist, and bis deep hatred of the capitalist system may now be asribed to bis own unhappy experience of it.” “As for the sons, the Chairman at the bankruptcy proceedings said that the feeling of the meeting was that tlie business bad been, conducted in a very unsatisfactory way for some years, and that the debtors had overvalued their assets with a full knowledge of having done so. for some time, and that they bad lived and continued to live at a rate which was not commensurate with the profits earned. For five years they bad been drawing out of the business more than they had made. In 1930 the drawings of the partners were about £<5,090. against profits of £1,500. During that year Mr Eilgar Lansbury drew £1.891, Mr WJ. A. Lansbury £1.819. and the third partner £1.775. which seems handsome remuneration lroin mi insolvent company, and imumes adequate enough even tar the needs ot Socialists. No doubt under socialism such business methods would involve the taxpayer and the ratepayer but under tiio harsh conditions of capitalism the losses fall upon the sharchold-

“Perhaps the crowning irony of the proceedings was the remark of one of the creditors that the business had been handicapped through the high rates prevailing in Poplar, a statement that may give Mr Lansbury, senior, inueli food lor reflection.

Of course there are other socialist capitalists who have been ■more successful. There are some in New Zealand who follow the same course, are “well up in the party” and quite proficient to denouncing others lor “wringing surplus value from the workers”"whilst they are in the game themselves. Socialism is not a matter of sentiment with some of the leaders —it really pays.