I'emew of Revieiri, 119/06. 



MR. I C, WATSON ON ^^ SOCIALISM/' 



Mr. J. C. Watson replies as follows through the Australian Press Cuttings Agency to the 



G. H. Reid in the July "Review of Reviews": — 



iticism of Mr. 



Mr. Reid, under cover of a " definition " of So- 

 sjialism, has attacked the Labour Party's objective, 

 and implies that the latter is identical with all those 

 schemes which enthusiasts and dreamers have, at in- 

 tervals throughout human history, conceived and in 

 some few instances put into practice. It may, 

 therefore, be as well for me to add something to 

 the terse definition already forwarded. The Labour 

 Party recoijnises that among logical thinkers to-day 

 there are only two economic schools — Individualists 

 and Collectivists. The Individualist believes in the 

 ■doctrine of the " survival of the fittest," allowing 

 the weakest to go to the wail, and objects to any 

 State interference beyond the maintenance of order 

 and the protection of property. Ihe Collectivist 

 (or Socialist) puts in the forefront of his programme 

 the protection of life, asserts the responsibility of 

 Society towards its weaker members, and insists 

 upon State action to any degree necessary to ensure 

 the well-being of the people. Our Factory Acts, 

 Anti-Sweating Laws, OH Age Pensions, State Rail- 

 ways, and Irrigation Works, etc., are all directly 

 Socialistic, and therefore infractions of the Indi- 

 A-idualistic ideal. It is late in the day to begin to 

 argue whether Socialism, as a principle, is good or 

 bad; all civilised countries have already adopted 

 large instalments of it. The only real question to 

 'be considered is the degree to which it is wise to go 

 in the public interest. 



In his recent book, " Socialism and Society," Mr. 

 M'Donald puts the case clearly : — 



" The function of the Socialist theory is to guide. 

 The seaman in his voyage across the seas steers by 

 ■certain marks, and at certain points alters his course 

 and follows new marks when the old can lead him 

 no further. So with Socialism. Its method is not 

 the architectural and dogmatic one of building 

 ■straight away from bottom to top, but the organic 

 and experimental one of relieving immediate and 

 pressing difficulties on a certain plan, and in ac- 

 cordance with a certain scheme of organisation." 



The Labour Party of Australia will, I think, ac- 

 cept this as a statement of their position. As Canon 

 Scott Holland writes, reviewing Mr. M'Donalds 

 book : — 



" We stand at a critical moment, when to be with- 

 out ideas is to b« lost. For we have reached the 

 point when social construction is inevitable, is ur- 

 gent. How are we to organise the production and 

 distribution of wealth'? It is impossible without an 

 ideal to work for. Action cannot be taken unless 

 ■we have some idea of the direction in which to set 

 t)ut. and of the goal we propoee to reach. We must, 

 at least, have a provisional hypothesis if we are to 

 'da anything at all." 



The Labour Party sets up. as its " provisional 



hypothesis," that "monopolies should be natioitalised 

 and the industrial and economic fimctions of the 

 State extended," luid in its platform puts forward 

 the actual proposals towards giving effect to its 

 theory. Mr. Reid tries to alarm the people by stat- 

 ing that looo millions sterling will be required to 

 buy out private interests, but surely we may leave 

 to each generation which decides to nationalise in- 

 dustries the duty of finding their proportion of 

 whatever amount is necessary. In my view, all steps 

 in the direction of nationalising will be gradual, and 

 the community will test each before proceeding to 

 the next. There is no doubt but that we could im- 

 mediately find the money to buy out the Sugar 

 monopoly or the Coastal Shipping ring and the To- 

 bacco Combine, without seriously embarrassing our 

 finances. As to whether it is wise to take one or ail 

 of these steps, the people must judge. 



Modern industrialism, particularly in secondary 

 products, is steadily and even rapidly passing into 

 the control of small groups of individuals, who are 

 the " Anti-Socialists " in the broadest sense, and it 

 is for Society to say whether it will submit to the 

 extortion which must inevitably follow dependemre 

 b)- the community on the will of a few irresponsible 

 persons. This condition of things has already been 

 reached in regard to many commodities, and in the 

 absence of State or Collective ownership, is being 

 surely intensified. 



Mr. Reid takes a short-sighted view in assuming 

 that people are turning to Socialism because of a 

 desire to enjoy the " sweet security and permanence 

 of a State billet." A much more potent factor is the 

 existence in all civilised countries of grievous misery 

 and degradation, directly traceable to the competi- 

 tive system of industrial production, and the mono- 

 polies which are a natural se:iuence. Humanitarian 

 feeling on the part of many outside the ranks of 

 wage-earners is responsible for a large share of the 

 strength possessed to-day by the Socialist movement. 



Mr. Reid speaks of a " Commonwealth of Co- 

 operatives " as being preferable to a " Co-operative 

 Commonwealth." The distinction seems a 

 purely verbal one. Certainly if co-operation 

 can be extended to cope with the e\ils that 

 are the outcome of the present industrial svs- 

 tem, which arrives at monopoly through competitive 

 methods, no one will be better pleased than the 

 members of the Labour Party. But trusts and 

 monopolies are the antithesis of co-operation. They 

 have already made their appearance in Australia, 

 and are operating against the public interest. The 

 Labr-T Party say, " Nationalise them and conduct 

 them in the interests of the whole community." As 

 Mr. Reid believes in "killing the tiger while it's 

 young," what does he propose to do? 



