DEBATE AT NGATEA.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5468, 30 August 1929, Page 4

DEBATE AT NGATEA.

MEANING OF SOCIALISM. INTERESTING ADDRESSES. The Ngatea branch of the N.Z. Labour Party, which at its monthly meetings endeavours to educate its members in matters of political economy, he’d an interesting discussion on the meaning of socialism last Tuesday evening. Two members had been asked to be prepared to speak on the subject,.and it was hoped that a general discussion would follow.

The fust speaker said that when Socialism was examined it was found to have two meanings First there was the ideal and then there was the application. Everyone had an ideal, and everyone’s ideal was different, so in the clashing of the applications of the meanings of attaining an ideal state there was progress made. The speaker then gave the definitions of many terms used by economists as they understood them. Thus economics were nothing to do with savings, but stood for arrangement; production meant social service, distribution, not transportation ; but the sharing of those things which were produced, and consumption did not mean eating, but using. Labour was a much-abused term, though those who worked with their brains laboured just as much as those who only used their hands ; and Capital was not coin, but everything that was used in the production of wealth, such as tools and the food and clothing of those producing A was not necessarily a capitalist, but one who used wealth to produce more wealth. When capitalists and workiws worked together in harmony that would be socialism, in his opinion.

Socialism was not something away in the distant future. Robinson Crusoe was an absolute monach until Man Friday arrived and had to be considered. This was an example of improved conditions bringing about socialism. Human nature had to be contended with, and in the clashing of ideas and methods progress was made. Socialism was an ideal, a picture in the mind.

The second speaker was more definite. He admitted that he had been under the impression that Socialism was an ideal state which misguided individuals hoped to bring about fey the waving of red flags and the general destruction of things, until he had read a quotation by Ramsay Macdonald that it was a thing of two values, one as an electioneering cry and the other as a philosophy and system of life. These two definitions were borne out by Webster’s dictionary, which said that it was “a theory or system of social reform which contemplated a complete reconstruction of society with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labour, but in popular usage the term was often employed to indciate any lawless revolutionary social scheme.”

It appeared to rce, said the speaker, that the ultimate end to which socialists were working was so far advanced that it could not be comprehended thoroughly. Few writers attempted to define this new social existence, but contented themselves with giving a few examples. To him it appeared that the ultimate end was communism in its fullest sense, under which everyone would share everything alike and, what was more important to stress, would be willing to do so and think any other arrangement foolish. This, of course, meant a changed human nature, for at present man acted for himself alone and could not comprehend anyone working without an incentive. If we had to wait for human nature to change of its own accord we would wait a long time ; but the advancment in social welfare which had been made had proved that progress could be made, and that if the work was in the right direction the change in public opinion and in human nature could be accelerated. Obviously the complete change would take time, for all attempts to "hurry it until the

changes were acceptable to the masses would fail. Attempts to ' introduce Socialism by decree, as some people tried, were bound to be failures. It was obvious that progress must be tediously slow, and it was equally obvious that this was the point which was not understood by those who condemned socialism.

In asking how progress was to be made, the speaker drew attention to some of the many matters affecting the people as a whole which, it was universally recognised, demanded attention. Poverty, unemployment, waste, monopolies, and wars were examples. These matters were not being tackled in a way that would remove the evil, for Governments were confining themselves to means of overcoming the effects rather than evolving means of prevention. True socialists—or political economists, as they were called, for no one would heed them if they were known as socialists—grappled with these problems in an effort to prevent the evils rather than cure the effects. Socialism was the basis of the Labour Party’s policy, and its platform contained programmes intended to prevent the cause of these social evils. Some of the methods advocated were not right, and thus the Labour Party’s policy was subject to change, as better methods were evolved or methods had been tried and found to be not acceptable.

Sydney Webb ; now Lord Passfield in the British Cabinet, and one of Britain’s greatest political economists, speaking when Labour was in opposition, drew attention to the unabashed way in which Governments had adopted as their own the methods worked out by the British Labour Party, and said that it was in the failure of political leaders to apply even their minds to the fundamental economic problems, still less to permit them to appear in their political programmes, that stood revealing the bankruptcy of both Liberalism and Conservatism.

Returning to the method of progress, the speaker stressed the point which opponents of Socialism habitually ignored, namely, the inevitable gradualness of the system of change. The fact that socialists had both principles and a programme appeared to confuse nearly all its critics. If principles were stated, the reply was, “That is not practicable” ; and when the programme was outlined the objection was, “That is not Socialism.”

Socialism was rooted in political democracy, which necessarily Compelled the recognition that every step towards the goal was dependent on gaining the anient and support of at least a numerical majority of the people. Even if a socialistic Government aimed at revolutionising everything, it would be compelled to make each particular change at a time and to the extent and' in a manner in which electors in all sorts of conditions could be brought to consent to. Socialists would not want to do everything at once, for it must be manifest that whilst it would be easy to draft proclamations of universal change, or oven to enact laws at a single sitting, purporting to set up a new heaven and a new earth, the result the next morning would be no change at all, unless it was the advent of widespread confusion.

The translation of Socialism into practical projects, to be adopted one after anol her, was the task which political, economists were engaged in. On every side fragments of the proposals had been put successfully into operation and had now become accepted as commonplaces by the average man. The whole world had been and was nibbling Socialism without realising it.

When the matter was thrown open for general discussion a speaker challenged the statement that men would not work without an incentive, and he quoted the cases of doctors and other investigators who gave their whole time and energies to discoveries that would benefit mankind. He also quoted the public service given by members of local bodies, and officials of such bodies as sports clubs.

Another speaker dealt with co-op-eration as a sample of applied socialism, and said that when all business was run on a co-operative basis a very big step in the direction of socialism would have been taken.

After lhe main speakers had replied they were accorded a vote of thanks for their interesting aiscourse.