The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1911. SOCIALISM IN NEW ZEALAND

New Zealand Tablet, 27 April 1911, Page 769

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1911. SOCIALISM IN NEW ZEALAND

f NCLUDED amongst the many organisations which held conference at Eastertide were the N.Z. Socialist Party (which met in Dunedin), the Trades and Labor Conference, and the N.Z. Labor Party, both of which met in Christchurch. In the aggregate, these three organisations can fairly claim to represent a very considerable section of the working classes of the Dominion. The first (numerically much the weakest) is made up of what are known as the * class-conscious ’ workersthe thorough-going disciples of Karl Marx; the second represents practically the whole

of organised —i.e., of the workers who are enrolled in trades unions and the third includes virtually the whole of the members of the last-mentioned organisations together with a greater or less proportion of unorganised workers. And the significant feature of these conferences was this : that when it came to settling the goal to be aimed at as the final solution of working class problems, all three organisations were absolutely unanimous that Labor’s one objective must — Socialism. We propose to show (1) That the Socialism of the three representative Labor organisations in New Zealand does not differ, in principle, from Socialism as understood in England, America, and the Continent ; and (2) That, as such, it contains a very grave peril against which the workers — especially Catholic workers — to be earnestly warned. * \ First, then, as to the fact and nature of the Socialism of these representative Labor organisations. ‘So soon,’ says the N.Z. Socialist Party’s manifesto, 1 as we are in a majority we shall establish Socialism. We are convinced that by Socialism, and Socialism alone can we combat the conditions under which the capitalists rob and oppress the wage-workers by every kind of exploitation, whether directed against a class, a party, a sex or a race.’ ‘ Every man round the table,’ said one of the delegates to 'the Trades and Labor Conference, *is a Socialist.’ ‘ There is a hardly a member of the Conference,’ remarked another delegate, ‘ who can say that he is not a Socialist.’ And the Socialism of the N.Z. Labor Party is sufficiently indicated by its objective which we shall, presently quote. So much for the fact. As to the nature of the Socialism now adopted by N.Z. Laborites, in principle it differs, as wo have said, in no respect from the' Socialism of the Old World as ordinarily defined and understood. It is thus defined in the objective of the N.Z. Labor Party, which was also adopted by the Trades and Labor Conference: To enact'comprehensive measures and establish such conditions as will foster and ensure equality of opportunity; also the moral, material, and educational advancement and the general comfort and well-being of the whole people, based upon the gradual public ownership of all the mean* of production, distribution, and exchange.’ Although wrapped round in more words than usual, this is simply ordinary Socialism in its strictest sense. It fits in precisely with Blatchford’s definition ‘ That the country, and all the machinery of production in the country, shall belong to the whole people, and shall be used by the people and for the people’ ; with the Encyclopaedia Britannica definition The Socialists propose that land and capital, which .are the requisites of labor, /nd the sources of all wealth and culture, should become the property of society, and be managed by it for the general good ’•; and with the following description of ‘ the real aim of the international movement ’ by a Continental writer: ‘To replace the system of private capital by a system of collective capital, that is, by a method of production which would introduce a unified (social or collective) organisation of national labor, on the basis of collective or common ownership of the means of production by all the members of the society.’ (Schaffle-. Quintessence of Socialism, pp. 3,4.) Differences of opinion there are amongst Socialists everywhere in regard to method —the evolutionary party advocating a gradual movement, and revolutionary party working for the adoption of Socialism at one stroke when the Socialists have obtained a majority—but in respect to essential fundamental principle the Socialism of the N.Z, Labor Party is absolutely identical with the Socialism of England, Italy, Germany, and France. ■sr We do not propose to discuss the economic aspect of Socialism, because, for us, the economic aspect is by no means the most important. Socialism is much more than a mere economic system. It has its own philosophy of history, and its own essential attitude towards religion. The ‘materialistic conception of history’ (i.e., practically what we understand by ‘materialism’) is admittedly the fundamental dogma of Marxian Socialism; and the grave evil which we see in Socialism, as expounded by its responsible leaders and its greatest authorities whom New Zealand Socialists must, of course, take their teaching— that it is essentially, and usually openly, hostile to religion. WT? are aware that a number of excellent representatives of the movement in the Dominion would question this statement; but that is only because their reading on the subject has been very limited in its range. We will take the utterances of the representative Socialist leaders in England, Germany, France, and America allow certainly better qualified than our New Zealand Laboritesto speak for the ‘religion’ of the movement; and leave our readers to judge. Let us take first ' Robert Blatchford, at present somewhat under a cloud owing to his semi-militarist articles in the Daily Mail, but who, as founder of The Clarion and author of Merrie England and Britain for the British has made more converts to Socialism than any other man, or any- combination of men, |g all

England. ' In God and My Neighbour (p. 189), Blatchford says: ‘I beg to say . . . that I am working for Socialism when I attack a religion which is hindering Socialism; that we must pull down before we can build up, and that 1 hope to do a little building, if only on the foundation. . . . Briefly, my religion is to do the best I can for humanity. I am a Socialist, a Determinist, and a Rationalist because I believe that Socialism, Determinism, and Rationalism will be beneficial to mankind. I oppose the Christian religion because I do. not think the Christian religion is beneficial to mankind, and because I think it is an obstacle in the way of Humanism. . . . Let the Holy have their Heaven. I am a man, and an Infidel.’ ' * The leader of German Socialism is Herr Bebel—a man of world-wide name and celebrity in the great movement. Here is his teaching regarding the order of society under Socialism : ‘ If anyone has still any religions propensities he may satisfy them in company with his congeners. Society will not care about it. To make his living the priest will be obliged to work, and learning thereby he will finally come to the conviction that to he the highest is to be a man. Morality has nothing to do with religion; the contrary is asserted by simpletons and hypocrites. . . . Moral concepts as well as religion are the results of the economic condition of mankind.’ ( Vie Frau, p. 32D.) And his views, as a Socialist, upon religion are expressed still more explicitly in the following passages. In the words of the frivolous poet Heine, he leaves ‘heaven to the angels and the sparrows Unsere Ziele, p. 38). ‘ Theology is in contradiction with natural science, and will disappear in the society of the future.’ (Die Frau, p. 319). ‘ The conviction that heaven is on this earth/ and that ‘ to die is to end all here/ will impel every one to lead a natural life.’ (Ibid, p. 337). ‘The gods do not create man, but men create gods and God.’ ‘ Natural science has shown “creation” to be a myth, astronomy and physics prove that “heaven” is a phantom.’ (Ibid, p. 320). In the Reichstag session of December 31, 1881, the leader of German Socialism declared : ‘ In politics wo profess republicanism, in economics socialism, in religion atheism.’ In France the most prominent Socialist leader is Jean Jaures, a member of the French Chamber of Deputies, for some time a Professor of Philosophy, and at present the general director of a great work, by various authors, on the History of Socialism, to be completed in fifteen volumes. In a long speech in the Chamber of Deputies at the sitting of February 11, 1895, the French Socialist leader— it may be remarked, is a powerful orator—delivered himself thus: ‘lf God Himself appeared before the multitudes in palpable form, the first duty of man would be to refuse Him obedience and to consider Him, not as a Master to whom men should submit, but as an equal with whom men may argue. Again in the same speech, he said: ‘ The idea which we must cherish above all others is the idea that there is no sacred truth; the idea that no power, no dogma, may be allowed to limit the unending effort, the unending quest of the human race; for Humanity sits as a great Commission of Inquiry, the powers of which are unlimited; the idea that ©very truth which is not of human origin is a lie; the idea that in its every act of assent our critical judgment, ought notwithstanding to be on the alert. {Compte-i cndus Officiel, Seance (hi 11 Fevrier, 1895). * There is no one individual in American 'Socialism who stands out as leader with such prominence as Bebel and Jaures in Germany and France; but, in the absence of any great leader, the testimony of one of the highest and most representative Socialist officials will serve our purpose equally well. Here is how the essential antagonism between Christianity and thorough-going Socialism is stated by George D. Herron, one of the intellectual chiefs of the Socialist Party, and secretary for the United States in the International Socialist Bureau. ‘ Every appeal to men," says Mr, Herron, ‘to become Socialists in the name of Christianity will result in the corruption and betrayal of Socialism in the end, and in the use of the movement for private ends. People cannot separate Christ from Christianity. And Christianity to-day stands for what is lowest and basest in life. The Church of to-day sounds the lowest note in Human life. It is the most’degrading of all our institutions, and the most brutalising in its effects on the common life. -The Church is simply organised Christianity, For -Socialism to use it, to make terms with it, or to let it make approaches to the Socialist movement, is for Socialism to take Judas to its bosom . . . Official religion and militarism are the two guardians of capitalism, and the subtle methods of the Church, in destroying the manhood of the soul, and , keeping it servile, 'are infinitely more to be dreaded by the Socialist movement than the world’s standing armies/ To which may be added the following from the New Yorker Volkszeitung, the principal representative of scientific Socialism in New York State

which writes under the date of October 9, 1901: Socialism and belief in God as it is taught by Christianity and its adherents are incompatible. Socialism has no meaning unless it is atheistic, unless it declares that we do not need so-called divine help, because we are able to help ourselves/ * • We could multiply many-fold such testimonies as those given above. We do not assert that all Socialists would subscribe to these opinions; but that the ringleaders, the men of weight, the great outstanding representative figures in Socialistic circles in England, America, and the Continent, hold these notions, cannot be gainsaid. It is true that many well-meaning people are supporting Socialism who are friendly to Christianity. But the central force of any great movement in public sentiment inevitably draws into its current, sooner or later, the subsidiary ripples. In practical conflict on the field of politics all great causes gather round general principles and great personalities; and minor details and the individual opinions of the rank and file drop out of view. The question between North and South in the American civil war was that between freedom and slavery, with details omitted. The broad issue between scientific Socialism, on the one hand,' and the Christian commonwealth on the other, is, ultimately and in the long run, the contrast between an atheistic and a theistic arrangement of society—between God and no-God. With the issue thus made clearand kept clearwe have few misgivings as to the side on which the great bulk of Catholic workers will be found to range themselves.