TWO SCHOOLS OF SOCIALISM.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2471, 24 August 1922, Page 3

TWO SCHOOLS OF SOCIALISM.

REVISIONIST AND REVOLUTIONARY.

DANGERS OF MATERIALISM. Very, recently an open letter to the Right Hon. J. R. Clynes, Chairman of the British Labour Party has been published. It is by the Author of “The Mirrors of Downing Street.” The book is of .very great interest and we would like to see it in the hands of all students of social and 1 Labour questions. This ' work clearly shows that it is a wrong idea to conceive of socialism as a concrete bod|y of doctrine bearing upon the state of iSociety. There is not one Socialism but two; that which is idealistic and broadly humanitarian and which aims at gradual progress along the lines of constant revision. This social philosophy we should prefer td .name “humanism.” The other socialism is -that which rests upon a materialistic conception of history. It dwells much upon class antagonism and looks to accomplish its ends by revolutionary means. The Socialism which has forced itself upon the Labour movement of New Zealand and which inspires the Red politicians in our Parliament is of the Revolutionary type, looking as it does to the power of self/constituted Councils of Action and class domination of industrial affairs in the spirit of the proletarian dictatorship. Thus speaks the author we herein referred to : “Is it not the one main cause-of all the present nfischief and confusion that Labour, by the fiat of an economic Prussianism, would do what the soul of man can achieve only by moral enlightenment? “Is it not the chief folly of Labour that it attempts to. fight the materialism Capital, which is a fact, with the materialism of morality, which is not a fact? “Labour;' I know, uses the language of idealism, but it carries the weapons of materialism. It professes the ethical faith, but wears the gown of the political economist. It would build Jerusalem with the stones of Babylon. It .is Saint Francis in the uniform of Frederick the Great. It is philanthropy with a machine-gun. It. is Saul •with Paul’s halo.

“Socialism is a spirit in which life should be lived. It is' not a chain by which industry can be

bound. Socialism is a moral relation. Socialism is not a school of maite in which tyranny cannot breathe a spiritual enthusiasm by which the soul of man can reach the noblest ends of creative evolution. Socialist is not a school of economics. It is- spmething even greater than a philosophy. It is the polities of religion. And its enemy is materialism,

“Have you ever considered that Labour itself is poAverfully contributing to the materialism' Avliich hinders the adA-ent of this true socialism? Is it not true that all this economic clamour tends to deepen in the minds of the working classes the most destructive of all materialistic delusions —the delusion that both feet in the trough is happiness. Do you not yourself create the chief-obstacle in the path of socialism by fighting all your battles on the field of economics? “Capitalism, without a social conscience is Peter at the palace of Caiaphas; but Socialism Avitk an economic absorption is Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane. “As I .conceive it, your immediate duty is tp strive in the open, with all the strength of moral enthusiasm, against the materialising influence of the revolutionary socialist. By destroying that influence you would create the one climate of opinion in which true socialism can come to its own. You might, l I ■think, lift the Labour movement to the very .foremost of our national life merely by framing a definition of socialism in,the terms of morality, a definition which would bring to its standard, not only the embittered and reckless elements of a depressed class, but all those men and women in the community who earnestly desire the reign of reason and righteousness. Is it not possible to frame that Definition? “The root of. the economic diffi-' culty is strife: . You'admit this fact in foreign politics. You acknowledge that until we can trade freely with the . whole Avorld our commerce must suffer.No manufacturer amongst us believes more firmly in peace tKanTyou/do. No political economist sees more vividly than you the ruin Avrought in our industries by the antagonism which exists between nations. Do you see as vividly the ruin wrought in our prosperity by the antagonism which divides Capital and Labour? The root of the economic difficulty is strife. The cause of the unemployment, the dear living, the cause of falling wages, the cause of falling trade, is strife. The way of prosperity; is the way of peace.” THE LESSON TO LABOUR. All will recognise that very many of those in the Labour movement are forever, engaged in demanding changes from other people; that others will reform and that Society will ■ conform entirely to their wishes. . . The lesson of the above is the old one “Physician cure thyself.” A new spirit is required in the Labour movement which Avill l©ad to the frank recognition of its oato faults and seek change of its own efiaraoter as the first step in social progress. (Contributed by the N:Z. Welfare League.)