Cook County Liberal Association.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 614, 30 May 1891, Page 3

Cook County Liberal Association.

“ SOCIALISM.” The following fuller report of the proceedings at Wednesday night’s meeting was held over:— Mr Stafford began by paying a compliment to Mr Birrell on his oratorical powers, bnt at the same time it did not follow that because he was a good speaker bis views were sound. It was a notable fact that many good speakers were altogether unsound in their views. So far as he’could gather, the first plank in Mr Birrell’s Socialistic platform was that under it people could hold private property. The second was to nationalize the land. To his mind the two planks wore contradictory, one of the other. Some men were more thrifty than others, and were able to acquire more property. It was net a truism that all wealth had been acquired by dishonesty, and if a man had come by it honestly he did not see why he should not be allowed to retain it. Socialism, as far as he could see, hoped for no more, and there was no necessity to alter the law, or confiscate property. Land Nationalisation he did not believe in. His experience was that freeholds produced more, and were better improved than leaseholds; because the owners felt they were working for themselves—they would work harder. The doctrine that Capital and Labor could not be reconciled and work together, was erroneous. The one could not do without the other, and it was when they clashed that the great strikes had occurred There was an enormous waste of capital and labor, and a great deal of misery, resulting from these strikes. He did not think it right that the whole commerce of this colony should be disorganised because there had been some misunderstanding on Sydney wharf. Of course Capital was dependent on Labor, but was not Labor also dependent on Capital ? Mr Birrell had spoken of a fair share to all, but who was to be the judge of this fair share ? The thrifty and hardworking man was surely entitled to some advantage over the unthrifty and indolent. It was said the wages of the employes was the produce of their labor, but supposing a man had a number of others working for him in a field, would he be entitled to divide the produce from it equally between the laborers? He submitted the employer was entitled to something for the use of his capital. The Socialist also would pay the same amount to each, but he did not see how it would work when one man could earn more and do more work than another. Mr Birrell had drawn an illustration from the British Post Office, but the employees of that institution had gone out on strike, and that because they were poorly paid. Nor did the profits go to the employed. In cur own Country the railways—another Socialistic inetitption—did not pay, and now we were going to lose another £40,000 in adopting penny postage, Ono gentleman remarked there was no connection between Socialism and religion, The Socialists ignored religion, but to his mind no system of reform would be perfect without it had Christianity for its bare. Religion was the real cure, for until men changed their minds and habits no change could come. If there was less drinking and gambling there would be lass misery and hardship in the world. Take away these things and many of the evils would be done gway with. In conclusion, ha did not come to champion the rights of a class, as had been suggested. It was those who sought the amelioration of labor at the expense of and without thought of others who were class champions. For his part he claimed the same rights and freedom for all men. Mr File eaid that when he had drawn a Comparison between socialism and religion it Was. not in the sense that they were antagopistic. Socialism bad a religious aspect to those who could discern it. In fact there were Christian Socialists. A great deal of faith was required in religion, and he only asked for the same towards the socialistic ideal. One writer had described discontent as divine, and he thought rightly so, because he who was contented with an evil state of things was a slave. Mr Bigley said the ideal of the Socialist Was the well doing and being of every member of the community. That there was a great deal of evil under the present system was admitted by all, and it was the aim of the Socialists to remove these evils and leave no Cause for complaint, and it was reasonably hoped that it would conduce to the happiness of the world. Religion had been tried, but it bad not succeeded in removing the evils. Now Socialism was sought to have a trial. Hethen referred to the evils that have resulted from the monopoly and tyranny of capital, and if any way better than Socialism could be suggested of averting or remedying these defects he for one would only be too willing to gresp at it. Mr Hooper said his experience taught him it was a mistake to suppose that freeholds Were better cultivated than leaseholds. The ppposite was the fact, as there were only too mhny examples in the district, A man who had a leasehold felt that he must get the most he could out of the ground, but with a freehold be did not always feel impelled in the same

way. Messrs Pierce, Sweet, and Johnston favored Mr Birrell’s views. The President (Mr Sievwright) said that wjiat all State Socialists sought to gain was a full reward for Labor. What Socialists desired to secure was that the large sums Which go to the individual owners, and the Use of the forces of nature, should become the property of the State, for the benefit of the whole people, so that Labor when it desired to utilise land and natural forces should not have to pay enormously for the privilege of using them. The end sought was a desirable one, and if it could be accomplished, it would, he believed, be better for everybody, though perhaps individual fortunes would not be so great as they were sometimes at presept. Mr Birrell said the change could not be brought about in a day, and be was right. There were a great many obstacles. Humanity was composed of unite influenced by all sorts of motions, feelings, prejudices, tastes, and associations, and above all a lack of knowledge, and the process of bringing them to one mind was very slow, The practical difficulties in the way of. the consummation of the Bo'cialiets’ desires were—First, the great body of people who now own land had paid for it in hard cash, which they had earned by the sweat of their brow. The price included the unearned increment, or ground value. Would it be just to deprive them of any part of thai ? The people would be hard to convince that it would be for their benefit, and they would probably be found compactly united against a change. Secondly, the great bulk of the savings of the people were in the hands of Savings Banks, Friendly Societies, Banks, Loan Companies, Insurance Companies, and the like, and for the most part that money is lent on the security of real property, every security being valued on the basis of the ground value beipg included. If there is Nationalisation without Compensation, the people lose their money, Here would be another compact host. Other reasons might be urged, and it appeared that the time for State Socialism had not arrived. He looked for nothing practical in that direction for n long time to come, if ever. It would involve a large establishment, of the working of which there was no experience, except indeed that it was a well-known fact that corruption and jobbery of the grossest kind was successfully effected in the manage picnt of those large corporations of which Se knew something. He though that Henry . e rge had discovered, and applied, the true principle which will gradually work up to State Socialism. He says tax for the community’s benefit all that goes into the pocket of the owner of land., and natural forces, ■without his doing anything for ft ; tax that pp to the hid--be said right off, but the speaker thought gradually, aad without disturbing theownership of private property, and without the State taking over the overwhelming business of becoming the universal landlord, it would lead up to State Socialism in substance. Mr Birrell was under a misconception when he said it was impossible to reconcile Capital and Labor. He was confounding the results of Capital monopolising so much tp the injury of Labor. Mr George would tax the inducement to monopoly, and thus kill monopoly,

Capital could not do without Labor, nor Labor without capital. Bare hands could not operate much on nature; tools or machinery are necessary, and what was that but Capital ? Capital endeavoring to possess itself of nature, and prevent Labor getting at it, except on ruinous terms, was the cause of the evil. Remove the temptation, deprive Capital of the opportunity of exploiting nature, and Labor and Capital will work together. Mr Birrell, in reply, complained that Mr Stafford had avoided the main issues, and that he had not met his arguments on any individual point, and in many oases he had misunderstood him. He proceeded to take up that gentleman’s arguments one by one, endeavoring either to pull it to pieces, or to turn it against the speaker. With reference to the British Post Office he had himself admitted it had defects, and bad stated that the only reason it was not a perfect Socialistic institution was that the employees were underpaid and the profits were not divided among the workers. The objections that the savings of the people would be lost were fallacious, because their earnings would come brek to the people. The plan would work easily enough if it were carried out; the trouble was to change people’s minds to receive it. He did not claim that Socialism would ensure complete happiness to mankind, but it was founded on justice, and would go far towards preparing people for the more perfect slate of Communism.

A desultory discussion followed, in which a number of bard nuts on social questions were put and cracked.