WHAT IS SOCIALISM?

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2787, 20 September 1924, Page 3

WHAT IS SOCIALISM?

NOT REFORM BUT REVOLUTION. The vogue that socialism has acquired in this • country is largely due to the fact that few people who call themselves Socialists really understand what socialism means. Many honest idealists imagine socialism to be merely social reform pushed to its limits, which will give workers better houses and better conditions of living. If this were the case then there would he some truth in the saying, “We are all Socialists now.” All humane men and women must desire to see slums misery, unemployment and harsh conditions of life done away with. But this is not socialism, socialism is no social reform, which, will conserve; it is the negation of reform — seeking revolution. Socialists declare that the whole existing system is wrong and must be done away with, and they describe any attempts to reform it by the contemptuous term “mere Pallistives.” For such reason social reformers such as Lord Shaftesbury a Conservative Statesman who largely bettered the workers conditions in England, are seldom mentioned by socialists.

Beside the idealists mentioned there are a large number of ignorant voters who think socialism means the redistribution of wealth which will give them, without effort a great many things they did not possess befpre. But socialism does not mean that the rich man’s house, motor-car, or other possessions, shall be taken from him and given to the poor man;, it means rather that private ownership of wealth shall be abolished. The idea of mere dividing up —taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not socialism but anarchism. The socialist, however, knowing that this doctrine of anarchism appeals to the more ignorant classes, in order to win votes, frequently permit it to he circulated as if it represented their programme; There is again, a third class of people who mistake socialism for altruism bases upon religion and talk of “Christian Socialism” and “Socialism ethics” without understanding of the fact that socialism is an economic and political philosophy* based upon a materialist conception of history as distinct from morality and religion the subject matter of man’s spiritual life. These we have a large number of people marching under the banner of socialism without realising the goal towards which they are tending.

COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM

It is frequently said that socialism must not be confounded with communism. This statement creates a quite misleading idea. Whilst communists and socialists have differences of political plan and methods in principle and objective they are the same. The main objective of “the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange” is that of both socialists and communists. Until the “thirties of last century the system we know as socialism was called communism, so that although the name socialism only dates from about ninety years ago, the theory it represents had been in existanee for hundreds of years. The idea of a perfect world where people would enjoy all the good things of life in common had haunted the imagination of many philosophers and writers since the earliest times. From the system propounded in the “Republic” of Plata to that unfortunate experiment of Lane named “The New Australia” there have been many trials at common ownership of the means’of life but all have ended in failure.

We kuow that tins attempt was made by some of the early Christians and liie case of Ananias and bappiina®shows kow tke principle broke down because tke kusband and wife were unwilling to put everything into tke common fund. Throughout it kas been found that tke family is tke rock upon wkick every communist experiment kas foundered. Knowing tliis tke bolder socialist and communist writers say “let us abolish tke family have community of wives, and let all children belong to tke State.” Kari Kautsky m kis book "Communism iu Central Curope" observes (Page 16) ', "Communism iu Ike means of production is quite compatible with separate family life. Kot«so, however, common property in the articles of consumptions. Communism in tlid;'artides of consumption leads to a certain ‘hostility iHiiiiiy life,, and necessary also to a certain dislike of individual marriage/’ from suck cause all attempts at complete communism have led to destruction of family ties and , to ■. failure. Even * when founded on • Religion Communism except of tke monastic order (where the family is excludedJ kas proved entirely incompatible with human life. One tiling notable here is tke socialists’ argument that communism in tke means of production is quite safe. This tells us that socialism after all is simply a partial form of communism, it is communism in tke means of production, distribution and exchange. From suck close'Association of socialism and communism, tke latter being but an extension of tke former, it ceases, to be strange that, we lind cukunumsLs in tlie Socialist Labour Parties,; and exercising considerable influence towards moulding the destinies of suck parties. Tke complete communists recognised that me means of production and tke means of consumption are not so distinctly separated as their socialist comrades assume. They are prepared to go all the way. with

the socialists and force them to go u great deal further than they ever intended. Socialism then, though many socialists sympathisers will resent the idea is simply one phase of communism and because of its first principle - of “Common ownership” it cannot stand to a set programme but is carried forward to the more complete programme of full communism and political bolshevism.

(Contributed by the New Zealand Welfare League.)