THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1893. WHAT IS SOCIALISM?

Temuka Leader, Issue 2508, 27 May 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MAY 27, 1893. WHAT IS SOCIALISM?

Foe the want of some legitimate com ■ plaint against the administration of the present Government, their opponents are continually trying to alarm the public mind, by stigmatising them as Socialists. ** Socialistic legislation,” “ socialistic tendencies,” socialistic that, and socialistic this, are ever on their Ups, and they endeavor to convey to the public the idea that Socialism implies all that is vile and wicked in man, and all that is corrupt in Government. The strange part of it all is that none of them has over attempted to define what is meant by Socialism. They no doubt believe that to the public the word implies something horrible, and on the principle of giving a dog a bad name, they depend on this single cry to frighten the timid. A few years ago Socialism had undoubtedly a more terrible meaning than it possesses to-day. It was then associated with free-thinking, atheism, and, generally-speaking, crime of all sorts. The Anarchists and Socialists were then classed as one and the same, but it appears to us that people are now beginning to see that there is not the slightest resemblance between them. The Anarchists seem to have no idea except the destruction of existing institutions. They appear desirous of reducing the world to a state of chaos, without giving a thought as to the consequences. The Socialist is exactly the opposite of this. His idea is not to destroy, but to build up inst ; - tutions which will yield competency and comfort, not to a few, but to all. The Anarchist is destructive., the Socialist constructive ; the former pulls down, the latter builds up ; and this constitutes the difference between them. But Socialism has terrors for some people, for few understand what it is. Speaking in Christchurch a couple of years ago, Bishop Julius said that he had never met a man who could give a satisfactory definition of Socialism, and this is true as regards its possible developments. No one can say what the future will bring forth. Bellamy’s “ Looking Backwards ” gives us an imaginary picture of the future, but we all know that that is a novel. We may all entertain opinions, and fix ideals in our own minds, but the question is : “ Will they be realised ?” No one knows what the future will bring forth, but we know that at present we possess a measure of Socialism, and to that extent we intend to deal with it. The word which is always placed in juxtaposition to Socialism is Individualism, which means every individual doing for himself, quite regardless of the rest of humanity. There is no record of a time when man was an indvidualist pure and simple. His natural instincts rebel against it; he could not live under such circumstances ; he has always cared ter his own kith and kiiJ. In tribal days he Mas not an indi-

vidualist; he lived with his tribe, fought for it, lived aud died for it. It is of no use discussing Individualism, for it is an impossible social condition, that never existed aud never will. Man has always been, and ever will bo, a Socialist, but perhaps we may as well define what Socialism means. It means nothing more nor less than society banding itself together for mutual benefit, and every combined effort it puts forth for its own good is Socialistic. Wherever individual interests are made subservient to the interests of the community, there Socialism is established, to the extent that it operates. For instance, at one time letters were carried by private individuals, but the State stepped in and established post offices. The occupation of the individual was destroyed. Education also was carried on by private enterprise, hospitals were conducted privately, justice was administered privately, and so on. The State established State schools aud hospitals, and appointed magistrates aud judges to administer the law. From the earliest times we have been building up socialistic institutions, and any one who is not completely insane must know that we must continue to build up others until we shall have evolved out of the present chaos a more orderly system than any which has yet been devised. The Prince of Wales is reported to have said “We are all Socialists.” So we are, for if we were not we should have no poor houses, no charitable aid, no public schools, no public hospitals, no lunatic asylums, no blind asylums, no Government insurance, no publicjail ways, no telegraph offices, no law, no government. These are all socialistic institutions ; any State-directed enterprise, no matter what, police, army, navy, is socialistic,] aud we ask, Is State Socialism such a dreadful thing 1 Is there a man in New Zealand who would shut up these iustitutious 1 No. Very well, then, we know what Socialism is so far; our experience teaches us that so far it is good, and why should we be frightened of what it may develope to in the future! If social exigencies demand the establishment of a State Bank, need we be afraid of it '! if the people think the Government ought to work our coal measures, is there anything dreadful in that 1 Is there anything dreadful in State farms for the the unemployed, in the bureau of industry, or anything else that has so far been suggested ? There is not, aud consequently there is nothing whatever in the cry about Socialism, except graduated taxation. That is at the bottom of it all, and that is why the cry of Socialism is raised. Electors will therefore do well to beware of these cri s. The Tories have nothing else to frighten people with; there is no extravagance; no further borrowing ; no corrupt practices; and so the Tories have fallen back on this cry in the vain hope that people will be frightened by it. We shall see after next election.