SOCIALISM

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXVI, Issue 23, 11 June 1908, Page 10

SOCIALISM

I. MEANING OF TERMS.— SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORM— THE MIDDLE WAY

The awakening interest in Socialism that marks later political developments in Australia and New Zealand renders it desirable that the Catholic side of this question should be placed before our readers. For this purpose we propose to reprint a series of clear and popular expositions of the subject, from the general, the economic, and the ethical points of view that have lately been issued by the Catholic Truth Societies of Scotland and of England. The first is a lecture by the late Mr. C. S. Devas, M.A., well known as the talented author of the noted Stonj hurst manual, ' Political Economy ', and of the ' Key to the World's Progress ', • his last work. Mr. Devas's lecture, which will well repay perusal, runs as follows :—: — MEANINGS OF THE WORD SOCIALISM. The word Socialism in these days sends a thrill through an audience, exciting in them feelings, according to their antecedents, either of hope or abhorrence; there being few to "whom Socialism does not sound either as a message of good things to come, deliverance from the evil .things of the present— from oppression, humiliation, anxiety, penury — or else as the sinister message of revolution, the destruction of all we value most, the destruction of order, property, peace, country, home, and religion. This being so, it is 'obvious that I must make clear what is meant by the Socialism about which I am speaking, so that I may not be praising or blaming one thing, and my readers praising or blaming another. ' Thus, I will say at once that the Socialism I am here discussing does not mean that all goods are to be held in common, no distinction of families recognised, and no private property ; that the rich are to be deprived at once of all their possessions, that all men are to be equalized, and no hierarchy of rank and employment allowed any longer— such a picture of Socialism would be a caricature. Or again, that an orderly State is to disappear and be replaced by independent groups of producers — such a condition would be anarchism, not Socialism. Or again, that landed property a.lone should be nationalized, not other forms of productive capital — such a plan would be an understatement of the Socialist position, no less inaccurate than the previous overstatements. Nor, again, will I make use of wide descriptions that would include Socialism truly enough, but would include a good deal besides, such a description, e.g., as ' the political economy of the suffering classes,' or 'doctrines that claim, a greater equality of social -conditions to be obtained by the State or legislation,' or, ' the movement towards the co-oper-ative organisation of society.' Any social reformer might thus describe his schemes though they had little or nothing in common with genuine Socialism. (1)

NEED OF CLEAR SPEAKING IN THE PRESENT POLITICAL SITUATION. < ■ » i, as all ihc more "ecessary to say this in view of the recent political events in Great Britain 1< or two classes of people aye desirous of confusing the real issue, confusing the real character - of ' Socialism, making all outlines indistinct, so as to draw to their side, under false pretences, a 'great body of people who r°i*£i- n!n !i v ! r ' droain of flowing' them un i ess they were half-blinded in. the cloud of dust raised for their mystification. . J The two extreme parties on either side are eager for difierent reasons to identify the Labor Party with the Socialists. On the one -hand, the extreme Individualists, those who are opposed to social reform", who detest .workmen's combinations, and w.ho refuse to recognise the indissoluble connection between riches and re- • sponsibility, between authority and accountability, desire to -depict all serious social reform as mere steps on the road to Socialism. So a leading London paper in the first excitement of the elections quoted T?, ng * S aSSag^ from the ' Marion,' and from Mr. Robert Blatchford, its editor, in order to identify labor with Socialism, and to discredit, not the Socialists, who were already sufficiently disliked by its readers, but the ' cause of social reform- that wished to secure private property by limiting Mihe abuses of it. So another London paper, writing for the same public, summed up the result of the elections as the ' Victory of the Socialists,' and declared that ' the new Labor Party is essentially Socialistic in aim and character.' - And" so also, though with a different ultimate end, the ' Labor Leader ' (December 15, 1905) made a similar identification, denounced John Burns as a backslider, included artfully in its Socialist programme many items that belong equally to the programmes of non-Socialists, and by a curious inconsistency while denouncing monopolies, „ claimed for Socialism the monopoly in this denunciation. And the ' Clarion ' published an article with the titlej The Socialist Triumph,' using almost the very same words as. its extreme opponent. f DISTINCTION OP SOCIALISM FROM SOCIAL 'REFORM. Now nothing could be further from my purpose than to engage in a political discussion between Liberal and Conservative, to accuse one side of seeking the confiscation of property, or .the other side of refusing its rectification, or to put in a claim that the one side or the other is the true friend of property. But my purpose is to make as clear as possible the audacious fallacy that identifies Socialism with social reform. Let, us then go to the root of the matter, and fasten our attention on what is the distinguishing mark the characteristic feature of Socialism, the, vital point on which Karl Marx and the various schools of his successors agree (though differing in minor points), the Socialism of Bebel in Germany, of Jaures in France, of Vandervelde in Belgium, / and of Ferri in Italy ; the Socialism that is common in Great Britain alike to the Clarion Fellowship Clubs, to the Socialist Party of Great Britain, with the ' Socialist Standard ' their organ ; common to the newspaper, the ' La^bor Leader,' and to the Social Democratic Federation ; common in the United States to the older Socialist Labor Party and the new Socialist Party^ (1) * All these organisations are so far united that they possess in common the doctrine and the aim that the production and distribution of goods shall be organized by the whole society collectively, and as a necessary preliminary to this, that all the means of production distribution, and exchange shall pass from private ownership to ownership that is public or collective. Hence the term Collectivism is sometimes applied to this sense of Socialism ; and in the present lecture I shall use the terms Socialism and Collectivism as meaning the same thing. Thus, in contrast/ to what is sometimes called old-fashioned, pre-scientific, sentimental, or Utopian Socialism, the newer Collectivism is proclaimed as modern scientific Socialism ; and .the position attributed to Charles Darwin in regard to biology, namely that his teaching is to receive certain modifications in detail, but must be accepted in principle, is just like the position attributed to Karl Marx in economics that a fundamental reconstruction of society is required, and that the State is to be' the universal employer. (2) ft. man is not a genuine Socialist" unless he agrees to what the Socialist Party of Great Britain officially express their object : l The establishment of f. system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the^means jind instruments fo? producing and distributing wealth by, a A d iHJ 1 * 16 interests of the whole community.' (3} To

X i. See the section in Cathreitf-Gettelmann on "The Present State of Socialism." bra SC vof n^ C ° F ' rri ' SoCialism aud Posi f'W Science, p.p. n, ia' (The Socialist Li3. Socialist Standard, November, 1905.

S h Jcialism hin Mr U \ e ? ? rmiant and cautious advocate of siWe^U™ ° d ° f weal »H>roauetion S po£ CONFUSION °™™O L i y MR. KAMSAY «-?^« e -n- ass, ,v€ Snst of roSS- m two I totall y diflerent senses, one' thl . stnse of Collectivism, already explained to you, and- the t&JSTnt 111 Wl ? Ch , l US ' c Socialism here, the othe? ial welfare or^h^ 1 measures ~ to Promote the material welfaie of the more numerous classes. In this second sense the reforms urged by Lord Shaftesburv £art S orL P^r°f ter ?l th6 + flctor > r laws ' & IHiJSSS part of the nineteenth century, and by Leo XIII in the latter part, would be called Socialistic, and Lord led SUS U S + and RR LL + e ,° XllU WoUld both of **** calJhlm *?*! better .use no words, at, all than use Mr MarnW^f nglyn gly - ThuS ' U *« misleading when Mi MacDbnald tells us at the present moment « all that the Socialist need do is to lay -down and defend as a general principle that .reward^for work should be certain and sufficient, and that full opportunity should be given to each adult' to work at some remunerative employment.' (2) For this general principle is one on which social reformers are agreed, and are striving in many countries to carry into social reformers who are wholly averse to Collectivism. Again, he rightly" points out how in many towns in certain trades, e.g., the boot and shoe and' hosiery trade, a movement is ' going on which" will"&d in the transformation of women and girls into the breadwinners of the family, and of men and . boys into casual laborers or habitual loafers.' (3) But then, by an audacious misrepresentation, he tells' us that all wellmeaning people, always excepting" the, -Socialists, declare this great evil to be inevitable. 'But such helpless and hapless acquiescence in evil is just what no social reformer worthy of the -name would endure, and a vast body of men every whit as alive as the Socialists to the evils of our society, every whit as fcager to remedy them, are seeking some practical remedy, noiLan impracticable Utopia. Then in the same misleadingfashion, again and again, the case is presented as if no one else besides the Socialists took any heed of industrial evils, and as if there was no choice between Socialism on the one side and unchristian individualism on the other, the brutal application of ' business principles ' during six days of the week with cant on the seventh day, .no choice except reckless - competition, the unregulated clash of individual interest on the' one side and Socialism on the other. Naturally, any humane man, if this was the alternative, and if there was no other choice, would choose Socialism rather than such a brutal struggle for existence. THE TRUE MIDDLE WAY BETWEEN SOCIALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM. . < Such an alternative might have seemed plausible -in mid-nineteenth century at the time of the Chartists, but is not plausible now, since for more than fifty years ' business principles ' of self-regarding individuals have been checked, pruned, amended by the two- gr#at forces of combination and legislation ; a whole code of elaborate factory- laws has grown up, backed by sanitary laws, merchant-shipping laws, and workmen's compensation laws ; \q,nd a network of trade unions and friendly societies of all.' sorts (one of -the new.est and most practical being the Tenant Owner Societies undeithe guidance of the Co-operative Housing Council) has simultaneously grown up, and has reached such an extent that, for example, the British Co-operative Societies comprise, if we include wives and children, some eight million souls, not to' speak of the vast accumulated funds and the annual trade" of some ninety million pounds. The true line of .social reform is to extend and improve the good we have in our hands, such as this vast fabric of co-operation, to improve the factory laws, to give a great extension and amendment to

• ; r — — — — — — — — — " — I i. Socialism and Society, p. 129. a. Socialism and Society, "pp. 182-3 3. Ibid, pp. 183-4.

workmen's insurance, to recognise legally Trade Unions with their two, million adherents, to build, up body after body, organization after - organization within the State, bind them in mutual relations, spread on all sides the principles of conciliation and arbitration ; in short, to use what we have tried and found effective, and not to trust to the untried Utopia of Collecti- • vism. Put in force the "teaching "of the late Pope's Labor Encyclical, that the State is bound to prevent usury, monopoly, overwork, underpay, that workmen's associations in a variety of forms are not merely to be permitted, but zealously" promoted, that as far as possible small owners of property, especially peasant proprietors, are to be multiplied, that all the organs of conciliation are to be strengthened, and- all classes and conditions of ,men to join in the work of social reform, not one only, but all ; work and prayer, the organized State and the organized Church, the private employer and the private philanthropist, associations of- employers and associations of employed working in co-operation— put all this in force, adopt this gospel of peace, and we shall not need the gospel of social war. A CATHOLIC BISHOP'S PROGRAMME. And to render more effective what -I have said on there being a fruitful and practical alternative to Socialism, let me give you a few extracts from a book entitled ■' Socialism and Christianity,' published last year in America by one of much experience and knowledge of his subject, Dr. Stang, the Catholic Bishop of Fall River, Massachusetts. I quote from the chapter that bears the excellent title, ' Not Socialism, but Social Reform ' : ' The State should not only protect private ownership as something sacred andf inviolable, but its policy should be to induce as many people as possible to become owners. . . The working man should be encouraged to acquire land and put up his own home on it. A man will take more interest in land which .is his own than in property which belongs to another. He will anxiously cultivate the ground he owns until it yields him an abundance of good things that foster his health and rejoice his hearth He will cling to the spot and make it "his home,- dearer to him than foreign lands and gilded palaces. The possessor of the poorest cabin will not change it for the dreams of a Socialistic paradise. Ownership is one of the greatest boons of human life. The social question of the day is a question of home.' (1) Again : ' The employer -has no right to say to the working man, " I can give whatever wages I please ; if you are not satisfied with what I offer you can seek employment elsewhere." He cannot deprive the working man of his proper and just share in the product. . . We believe with John Mitchell (a Trade Unionist leader) that every man should have enough to keep his family, educate his children, and lay a little aside for the future. Six hundred dollars (£120) a year is the least that should be .paid the unskilled common laborer. . . I think every man should have a house with at least six rooms. He should have a bathroom, a parlor, dining-room, kitchen, and enough bedrooms for decency and comfort. He should have carpets, pictures, books, and sufficient furniture to make his home comfortable and bright. He should have good food and shouldkeep his children in school, and at the same time should be able to lay aside something for old age and sickness.' (2) Again : ' Labor has the same right as capital to organize and unite. . . The advance of Trade Unions in the United States is not to be dreaded as an evil. It is daily growing more self-conscious and prudent.' (3) ' Unionism has to be recognised and respected.' (4) 'W. H. Sayward, of Boston, speaking from the side of the employers, says : "My experience has convinced me that labor thoroughly organized and honestly recognized is * even more important for the employer than for the workmen. It makes possible a working method between the two parties, which removes, one by one, the most dangerous elements of conflict and misunderstanding." \(5) llf Unionism is crushed, Socialism will thrive in its*' stead.' (6) Let me cite from Dr. Stang yet_one more passage : 1 A sound insurance system indemnifying not only against accidents, but against reverses of life, such as sickness, loss of work, old age, would give the. laboring classes what at the present they need the mostsecurity of. existence— and would keep them from drifting into Socialism. b Legislation should force such an accident insurance uoon any business concern "where machinery is employed.' («T) Thus we find this American Catholic Bishop praising the aspirations of the classes for- a more

1. Socialism and Christianity, pp. 50, 51, . . 2. Socialism and Christianity, pp. 56, 57 3. P63 • 4. P65 5. P66 6. P6B 7. P7O

cultivated life, urging the equipment of every working man's family with family property, demanding fair wages and the "decencies of life for all, and workmen^ insurance, and praising workmen's associations, that far from" being an injury to the employers,' are almost the condition of their security. You may— -not aIP agree with the whole programme of Bishop Stang, indeed, I hesitate myself before his high standard of house accommodation, but ~you will allow it is well worthy of- our attention.

(To be Continued.)