WHAT SOCIALISM IS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 709, 15 January 1910, Page 4

WHAT SOCIALISM IS.

The proper meaning of socialism as recognised now by all the socialist organisations, is that laid do vn in Schaeffle’s “ Quinessence ot Socialism,'’ and since crystallised in the formula —the socialisation or the collective ownership ot all the means of production, distribution, and exchange. There are minor shades of expression to which some of the sects may attach importance, hut the broad significance is the same everywhere, and it is perfectly clear and definite. What the organised socialist aims at is the translerence of property from private to public ownership. Some would transfer all properly, others would draw the line here or there ; but they all want to transfer property. That is the one definite and distinctive criterion ; and though any man may call himself a socialist and say that socialism is this, that, or the other, the socialism that matters, that alone has force, coherence, and a recognisable mark, is that which is concerned with the ownership of property and its transference in one way or another. This has always been the essence of the thing since the name was invented and adopted, which was long before the time of Marx. The confusion has arisen mainly from looking to the underlying motives or principles and the I ulterior aims, and then applying the word to anything which shares in any degree the same motives or aims. Thus, for instance, some people call the Sermon on the Mount socialistic—hut what could be further removed from concern about the ownership of property, which is the heart of socialism? If the economic element is taken away from it there is nothing left that is not common to a dozen other and much older movemeuls. The question is not what its niter ior aims are, for they are of immemorial antiquity, but how it pro poses to attain them. And the answer is, by the transference of property from private to public ownership. Anything that promotes that process consciously and on priuciple may be properly called socialistic in proportion as it does so ; and that is the test by which a political measure should be judged if any radical conclusion is to be reached on the point. Every interference with private ownership is not necessarily socialism, but unless that element is present the term cannot be properly applied.