543 



The Review of Reviews. 



December 1, 1906. 



enable us to discriminate between the various ajitag- 

 onistic proposals for social reform. In the October 

 number of " The Review of Reviews, ' a New Zea- 

 lander only voices the feeling which is current on 

 every side when he asks for a " definition of right 

 or wrong principles in the question of private rights 

 or liberties as against State Socialism." At pre- 

 sent we are confronted by two e.xtreme parties, the 

 Individualists of the old school, who would do 

 everything without the State, and the Revolutionary 

 Socialists, who would do everything with it. In 

 between there is what is known as State Socialism, 

 which Bismarck supported, if he did not originate, 

 for the purpose of dishing the Social Democrats. 

 " Give the workingman the right to work as long 

 as he has health." he told the Reichstag in 1884, 

 " assure him care when he is sick and maintenance 

 when he is old, and the Social Democrats may sound 

 their bird-call in vain." But State Socialism has 

 de\ eloped in Germany — with its tinkering and arti- 

 ficial protective tariffs and consequent high price 

 of goods, conceived solely in the interests of the 

 landowners and manufacturers and at the people's 

 expense, with its military despotism, and its com- 

 pulsory legislation of all sorts from the cradle to 

 the grave — is but a sorry makeshift for those grand 

 principles of personal liberty and social equality 

 which should form the basis of everv true Society. 

 [t should be remembered, however, to the credit of 

 the State Socialists in Prussia that they have suc- 

 ceeded in obtaining for the municipalities throughout 

 the kingdom, what only one of the Australian States 

 has }et succeeded in completely obtaining, and that 

 is the right to levy rates on their only true source — 

 namely, land values apart from improvements. Is 

 there any definite guiding principle to lead us 

 through the perplexing labyrinth of the social pro- 

 blem? According to Adolph Wagner, the fore- 

 most scientific exponent of State Socialism in Ger- 

 many, "the jurisdiction of Government is a matter 

 not of principle but of expediency," and this view 

 probably represents that of the majority of people 

 te-day. Among others it is the opinion of the 

 leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, who called 

 a public meeting recently for the purpose, as he 

 informed his audience, of enabling him to clarify 

 his thoughts on the subject of Socialism, and the 

 conclusion he arrived at was that utility or expedi- 

 ency was our only guide, and that each separate 

 proposition must be dealt with by itself. 



" THE VITAL QUESTION OF THE HOUR." 



Over a quarter of a century ago John Stuart 

 Mill wrote his famous essay "On Liberty," which 

 was an enquiry into the nature and limits of the 

 power which could be legitimately e.xercised by 

 society over the individual, a question which he 

 e\en then recognised as likely soon to be " the vital 

 question of the hour," which it has undoubtedly 

 now become. He found in self-protection the prin- 

 ciple which should " govern absolutely the dealings 



of societ) with the individual in the way of com- 

 pulsion and control." Since then we have gone far 

 along the road which he opened out, and tli? 

 general \erdict seems to he that there are certair. 

 • phases of the question with which Mill did not deai 

 and that the principle of self-protection, soui' 

 though it be so far as it goes, does not sufficiently 

 cover the ground. Individualists have widened 

 their views very considerably since Bentham's da\s, 

 and are now prepared to examine any suggestion 

 for the State regulation of the conditions and hoiir-r 

 of labour from the point of view of the well-beini; 

 of the greatest number, which was Bentham s 

 watchword in a much more limited sense than as 

 now applied. But, apart from proposals of this 

 character, each of which must necessarily be judgeil 

 on its merits, and the exact boundaries and limit.; 

 tions of which cannot be very rigidly defined, there 

 are the Socialistic schemes par excellence for the 

 carrying on of certain lines of business by the 

 State or the municipality instead of by private enter- 

 prise. Is there any definite, clear-cut principle 

 which would enable the wayfarer to distinguish Lt 

 tween the Socialism which he could support and th.i; 

 extreme form of it favoured bv the Labour Part; 

 which would abolish private enterprise altogether, 

 and which, of course, all Individualists oppose. 

 That there is a clear-cut dividing line between the 

 two is, I think, evident, and that dividing line is 

 traced by the presence of Monopoly. That certain 

 forms of Socialism are favoured by Individualists 

 is clear, since here in Australia, and in various 

 other parts of the Empire, we have socialised the 

 Post and Telegraph, the Railways and Tramw;i\s, 

 Public Education, and frequently the Water Works, 

 Electric Works, and Gas, and this has been done 

 with the concurrence as a rule, and in many cases 

 with the actual support, of the general body of In- 

 dividualists excepting perhaps such extremists 

 as Mr. Bruce Smith. Revolutionary Socialists are 

 fond of twitting Individualists with being Socialists 

 because they believe in the socialisation of indus- 

 tries in tiie cases noted above, as if a man who be- 

 lieved in the Government running a railway must 

 necessarily believe in the Government running a 

 shop. But the twitting comes from sheer ignor.iiice, 

 since the dividing line between the two forms of 

 Socialism is vital, and as a rule very easy to be 

 seen. It may be asked : How are we to detect 

 the presence of monopoly ? The presence of mono- 

 poly can be almost invariably detected by the ab- 

 sence of competition. Railways, tramways, the 

 post and telegraph, gas and water works, etc., 

 where the business is necessarily conducted on 

 monopolistic lines, should be undertaken by the 

 State or by the municipality as the case may be. 

 Wherever the principle of competition is active, as 

 in all ordinary businesses, and as in the case of 

 transport by sea, the State has no right to inter- 

 fere with private enterprise, which may be trusted 



