HITTING THE MONOPOLIES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 176, 4 November 1910, Page 3

HITTING THE MONOPOLIES.

To the Editor. ' Sir, —Tn my letter, published recently, I tried to show that in its ehtical aspect your doctrine—"ln essence the public is not concerned with the way people make their profits so Ion? asi the things they sell are good and cheap —is monstrous; and further, that it is not applicable in actual life, because i cheap and shoddy is the rule, not cheap and good. My object now is to show that in practice, your rule has- resulted, l and would result, in industrial anarchy and national ruin. A century ago your doctrine was the shibboleth of all the world—preached from the house-top? and acted upon literally. That was the hey-day of capitalism—profits counted by scores and thousands per cent, in Merrie England, and goods both cheap and good. The public, according to youi doctrine, ought to have been in clover; but history saith not so. For fifty years the whole population seethed with riot and disorder, and almost in open rebellion. The working class was debased to a condition more beastly than that of chattel slaves. For example. i'> I the mills, half-naked children of seven and six years worked hi foetid passages underground, for ten hours and more per day, crawling on all fours and dragging coal carts by a chain girdled round their waists and passed between their legs. My authority? I name Prof, de Gibbons's "Industrial History of England." These facts are fair samples or what prevailed when your system of "laisser faire"—the non-concern of the public in how profits are made—was in vogue. You see, Sir, there is good reason in history for factory acts, arbitration acts, truck acts, and other public regulations of private enterprise, at which vou are in the habit of chuckling. Mr. Profits has proved himself so rapacious that the public have been driven at peril of their lives to concern themselves with him, and regulate "•"; nefarious methods, till now such regtation has become a habit. What then of the trusts? As to them I accept your test: "The only question worth considering is, will the people benefit?" Further, I meet you on your chosen ground—that of cheapness. Do the trusts give us cheap goods? During the past century, prices, on the side of the sellers of commodities, hive been determined by two methods: (1) The competitive struggle of numerous productive firms, and (2) the decisions of rings, trusts and combines. The former preceded—was the parent of the latter. As to the former, competitive industry is extravagantly wasteful. It. involves divided management, multiplication of plants, expensive working, unregulated output, and waste of resources in material conflict. The columns of this paper reveal the tens 01 thousands of pounds per annum the rival firms of New Zealand spend in vain "puffing" of their wares. Real cheapness is therefore impossible where competition prevails. The case of the trusts is better. Rational division of labor, and business organisation, make cheap selling a possibility. Result: The world is passing—has largely passed—from competition to trustification. Bin the trust is the old Mr. Profits in another guise. His voracious appetite h still unsatisfied, and he wants the wherewithal to glut it; and he gets it. Tonight I read. "Profits of the Colonial Sugar Company for the half year, £190,000 odd." Here is room for the cheapening of the product, and yet you say sugar is cheap. I suppose you mean cheaper than is possible under the anarchy of competition, and that is quite true. But, judged by the standard of the labor and outlay required to produce it, sugar is evidently much too dear. So with all other "goods. Even the plea of cheapness in defence of the trust therefore fails you. Mr. Profits is far too expensive. The world is finding out that his work can be done better, more cheaply, and without his odious presence, by other means. Consider the case of the postage stamp. It carries a message from your doors through a thousand hands and operations, and delivers it with mechanical accuracy at the other side of the globe—all for the large sum of Id—cost price. If there be credit balances, the public get the benefit thereof. Here is an organisation infinitely surpassing the trusts iti point of industrial efficiency, yet fretfrom their vices, because under public control. Again, there is a lesson at our very doors. Wangaimi had a company that sold dear gas and pocketed large profits. The community purchased ana carried on the works, greatly reduced the price, and has been able to appropriate many thousands of pounds for public purposes. Surely this is hitting monopoly with good results; why, therefore, do you deride the idea of so doing as quixotic? The world is weary of its trusts. They are new tyrants to mankind, a public menace because of their political corruption; and, above all, they are expensive. The cry of every people is that living is too dear. Hard necessity forces them to solve the problem | of smiting the trusts —they have to do I it willy nilly. Better still, the way to do it has been found. The trust is a! creature produced by industrial evolution. It 'yi>ts after a struggle for existence, and because it is a more effi-' eient machine than that which preceded 1 it. To legislate it out of existence, oi block it by larii"*. and restore the forI nier si:;'.. •:l lliings, is as feasible as to restore '.lie bnw-and-arrow era. If the trust is to lie driven out, there is only one ii:<-ae..s-—a still better machine. That better machine, is the public trust. It is not possible to dissolve the private trusts; it is possible, and desirable, to transform them into public trusts, to '•socialise" them. This is whither evolution leads us. Already the transformation is proceeding at an astounding rate. A city that does not possess and work its own trams, gas supply, water supply, etc.. is now regarded as more or less aniiquaied. In polities the tendency is in '.he same direction. The trust i- denni, l. if for no other reason ihan l:-:a,;->- t -e poor man's instinct for seL'-prc-c"-.'' , : on leads him to prefer a 2d loaf to "d one, and 5s gas to 7s. The world is smiling monopoly, and doing it wisely: ami the process is called

"Socialism." Meantime you have the wit to see that, '■' combination is universal.'' but of why, or whence. <t whither p'ohi"'. you appear t"i take iki thonu'it. Apparently it, docs no! strike you that Unit factor of "cDfi'ln ial'on" means industrial and social revolution. Some of the details you do see —that the workers are dissatisfied, turbulent and ajinressive, anil the capitalist coriupt and fearful. In short, von are in the position of the man who cannot see the wood for the trees. Your best effort, therefore, is to revive the old. old catchword ''laissez faire —no vulvar touch upon the sacred person of Mr. Profits—that has been do;

cently buried these fiftv vears.—l am., etc., " " SOCIALIST. ["Socialist's" exposition is interesting in its way. but his arguments do not affect out original contention. A\ e are glad to be able to give him an opportunity of expressing his beliefs, even though they are quite beside the matter he affects to argue. At the same time, we would be better pleased if correspondents would say what they desire to say in fewer words than "'Socialist" has employed.—Ed.]