NATURAL SOCIALISM

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21227, 25 September 1940, Page 9

NATURAL SOCIALISM

(To the Editor) Sir, —Mr A. Warburton is quite mistaken in thinking that the subject of my letter commenting on one of his “is quite irrelevant to the point at issue, namely, ending the Labour and Capital war.” “Capital” is itself labour in a certain form, or stored labour, and not an individual or class of persons, although it is now difficult to stick to correct terms, so long and badly have they been misapplied. “Capital” is an inert thing which just rots and rusts away without the constant application of labour to preserve and renew it. The idea that capital can really be a foe of labour is ridiculous. It is the constant robbery of both employer and employee by the vested interest in site values (which is neither land, labour nor capital) that is the bottom cause of the strife, and is thus entirely relevant to the issue. This fact was finely brought out by Seddon’s Secretary for Labour, Mr Edward Tregear, a man of wide culture and much ability. He said that there was a third hand in the game besides employer and employee, the ground rent landlord of city and suburban property, “who alone would rise a winner in the end.” That is true, and I have previously shown why the farmer, as a farmer, cannot possibly win out in the long run while the social or site values are privately misappropriated.

Failure to stand to its principles on this question is what caused the decadence of the Liberals everywhere, and a renaissance of true liberalism is what this country needs. The so-called Capital v. Labour war did not start in England, nor in this country, until land rent monopoly drove both employers and employees down into economic desperation; also, it has always preceded the curse of “protection”—the blockading of your own country for the sectional benefit of employer and employee parasites who gain, or hope to gain, by that robbery.

It is only a red herring on Mr Warburton’s part to drag in the question of land tenure, since in my letter I distinctly stated that titles were not at issue. lam a freeholder in regard to tenure. All I want is the public collection of the social or site value, and the abolition of rates and taxes. That is to say, let us socialise, preferably through the local bodies, that value which even the most conservatively minded now admit is a purely social product, and cease confiscating, by taxation, the rightful earnings of the individual. In other words, Natural Socialism. Mr Warburton’s final comment is eminently satisfactory: “I object strongly to the plunder of the community by either excessive profits or ground rents.” If Mr Warburton can get the political party to which he is supposed to belong to adopt that line, then we may have some hopes of getting true liberalism infusing the minds of the people of this country once more.

I would, in no carping spirit, point out to Mr Warburton that if Natural Socialism were adopted there could rarely, and only temporarily, be anything in the nature of “excessive profits.” The policy would mean complete free trade, which might apply in existing world conditions largely to Britain and her allies, and be made world-wide later. As soon as it is seen that a given trade or industry is particularly profitable, then more labour and capital at once flow in that direction, and so the “excessive” profits will soon come down to the average. Wages and interest, for this reason, always tend to a minimum, but site values, or ground rents, just as inevitably tend to increase indefinitely with the growth of population and progress. The greater the progress the greater is both the amount and the proportion of the total of wealth produced that is reflected in social values, and that is why Natural Socialism is the sole solution of our economic troubles. Men will, in the main, get far more from really free public services than from their individual wages under Natural Socialism. However, I am very pleased with Mr Warburton’s view in respect of the ground rents. I would like to state here that a few days ago I was informed that, some weeks ago, Mr Douglas Seymour had a letter in your journal

commenting upon one of mine, and offering some criticism. lam sorry to say that, perhaps on account of absence from home, I missed that letter. If any reader can supply me with a clipping, or if Mr Seymour would be good enough to summarise his letter, I will be pleased to offer him the courtesy of a reply.— I am, etc., T. E. McMILLAN. Matamata, September 23.