Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A £40,000 MONOPOLY.

Tiie announcement that Madame Melha is to receive £40,000 for an autumn tour in the United States and Canada, suggests to the Sydney Telegraph a somewhat difficult question in applied Socialism, and it is asked: With all the means of production, dis-

tribution and exchange nationalised, what would be done with the possessor i of such a great wealth-producing pro- : perty as a Melba voice ? Would one < person be allowed to revel in ail the affluence which its possession enables ' her to enjoy, or would the benefits derived from it be divided up amongst the community? And, if so, how would it bo done? Upon a singer’s voice the| public put their own valuation. If they think it gives them the worth of their money, they pay; if they do not, they are at perfect liberty to refuse. Similarly, if the vocalist thinks th§ remuneration adequate, he or she sings; but if not, there is no performance. The owner of the voice, which comes as a natural gift, therefore, has a monopoly just as complete and as selfish as the owner of any other wealth-produc-ing agency. The Telegraph very properly points out that the artist develops his voice; so does the land-own-er develop his land and the mine-pro-prietor his mine. But the presence

of the community makes these things valuable, it is argued, not the possessor of them; therefore to the com-

munity the value should belong. But

what would a Melba voice be commer-

cially worth if there was no community to provide an audience? Do they not give it the whole of its value?

The great singer, however, cannot be compelled to nationalise her voice, and as only a few can afford to pay the high price of admission to her concerts, the masses receive no benefit from it. This seems to be one of those hardships of the individualistic system for which the most advanced Socialism has no practical remedy, because nature is on the side of the monopoly. And it is only the analogue of scores of other cases that appear equally difficult to deal with

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/STEP19130206.2.16

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 32, 6 February 1913, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
353

A £40,000 MONOPOLY. Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 32, 6 February 1913, Page 4

A £40,000 MONOPOLY. Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 32, 6 February 1913, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert