PARABLE OF THE PILLARS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2781, 6 September 1924, Page 4

PARABLE OF THE PILLARS.

SEED CORN AND SOCIALISM

Several members of the British Labour Parly have recently published n book as a statement of the ease for Socialism, under the title of “‘Labour and the New Social Order.” In this work I hey present I hose four pillars, as they term them of the structure of this intended new Social order: — First. —The universal enforcement of a national minimum. Second. —The democratic control of industry. Third. —The revolution in national finance.

Fourth. —The surplus wealth for ilu common good. The immediate impression one removes and is intended to receive, IVcin this statement of .‘.-oebilist policy is a vision of a state of affairs mi which, fi'st, everyone has his wants supplied: secondiy, everyone is his own master: thirdly, capital is provided merely by levying on those who have end fourthly, all profit is available for immediate consumption.

Tt is a beautiful prospect indeed where" none need save or sacrifice an 1 pleasing to those who are too indolent to think of the future. But by no means Sc beautiful for those who, refusing to be carried away by a torrent of words, insist on finding out ilie real meaning of those words. A pregnant phrase which, like a thorn, pricks the bladder of this promising theory is tha l “You cannot eat your cake and have it too.” A treatise might !e v.rilten m confutation of the assumptions of these four, so named, pillars. Instead of attempting anything in the way of a treatise a picture from actual life, in form of a parable, may prove more interesting and instructive.

STORY OF THE HUSBANDMEN. In the land of “Ever Present” there lived a simple community of agriculturalists.. These good people supported themselves by the cultivation of the land and the production of corn upon which they lived. For some years they proceeded in the,ordinary way as individuals cultivating their several plots, making exchanges by mutual agreement on values regulated by supply in re-' Art ion to demand and gathering ach their harvest according to their ersonal foresight, industry, wisimi and providence. There came amongst this people theorist who set up as a prophet, ne who told the people that he coid show them a new way, which he ailed socialism, by which everviie could have all the corn they anted for consumption and a full irplus in addition for the good of veryone.. This was such a linpeul and cheering message lo mean, omen and children who had to toil aid and struggle with nature, to rovide the means of life, that the •i'ophet was listened to and by and ,v bis plan was adopted. Tn consejiicnee all the corn produced was collected and put in a common bin, .hich was recognised as rhe pro- ■ ci-tv of the community. It was dereed by this primitive body, which, u] 1 v democratic, made its own laws and obeyed them, that every indivilual should be ensured a supply of .oni for consumption to meet their rants. That supply was called

I In* national minimum,” and all vine entitled to it by rigid. By naiM'nl "causes there were some good harvests and things were going fair- • v well in spite of several drawbacks such as some individuals pitting more corn in the bin than they ook but and others consuming more ban they produced. A further decree was issued that all should conirol the work done. This was found difficult to enforce because those who were indolent, being assured of lheir living, saw no reason to exert themselves; and others, who would work, objected to do so for those • 111 i 11“ capable of doing it for themselves. Suggestions of force were stigmatised a- slavery and special inducements were treated as destruction of the “national minimum” principle. The division of produce being wUh the consumers in consequence the minimum for consumption was raised during the good seasons until there was no distinction between minimum and maximum. The greater part of the corn went in consumption as it was nobody’s business to save for seed purposes.

At last there were harvest failures and the national minimum had to he restricted. This was resented very strongly and the supply for seed purposes was trenched upon. The wiser heads became alarmed and it was finally decided to make a general levy on all who had- any seed corn in reserve. This a humourist described as a “revolution in finance,” and said it was “a capital levy.” Notwithstanding the adoption of these expedients and the final application of compulsory labour (a rule of desperation which gave poor results) it was found that the high consumption left but little seed corn for further sowing. Instead of surplus as capital for future operations it was found that their crops were lighter, the supplies for consumption were seriously reduced, causing want and misery, and the little State was in a desperate plight for seed corn, the capital its people required to carry on with. The plan of everybody in control of the industry and the output broke down as individual need asserted such power as could be put aside. AVhen famine and disease stalked through the land it was at length decided to call a halt on the system of (he prophet who had misled them. Overtures were niade to one of the neighbouring states who were called capitalists, because their business was to amass stores of corn

and other forms of capital. Tn order to get supplies from these foreign capitalists the land ami future products were pledged! so ilia ft he final position was that this people who had foolishly thought dial free production and careful saving was slaverv, were forced by their own acts [o suffer much destitution, sell their heritage to others ami place themselves under a yoke of servitude for many fut ure years. Suffering brings wisdom. After severe trial the people of this land have decided upon these rules for future guidance: — 1. —That each shall get according as they give—“ Payments by results.” 2. —Thai control shall follow competence. —“Managements of eltieeney.” 3. —That present consumption shall provide for future needs. — “Preservation of Capital.” 4. —That the surplus which can he shared he used for protection of the State, general enlightenment and such enterprise as the individual cannot deal with. —“Preservation of Capital.” (Contributed by the X.Z. Welfare League).