Socialism: For and Against May 25, 1895.

*THE WORKER*

BRISBANE, MAY 25, 1895.

"Socialism: For and Against."

“Socialism: For and Against” is the title of a pamphlet printed by the Co-operative Printing Company, Brisbane, containing a series of letters by the Hon. D. H. Dalrymple, Minister for Education and Wallace Nelson, lecturer for the Freethought Association.

It will be recollected that some months ago Mr. Dalrymple conducted, single-handed, a correspondence on behalf of Individualism against several Socialists, including Mr. Nelson. The pamphlet is a reprint of the Dalrymple-Nelson portion of the correspondence.

Those who know the WORKER”S belief in Socialism as an economic theory capable of practical demonstration will expect us to say that Mr. Nelson had a long way the best of the contest, and we have very great pleasure in recommending the pamphlet as a proof that Mr. Nelson is at any time more than a match for the clever Dalrymple in a discussion on the merits or demerits of the economic faith now held by nearly all the leading modern political economists.

Not that Mr. Dalrymple is a debater who may be easily vanquished. On the contrary he is a foeman worthy of any literator's steel pen; and possesses such a knowledge of the up-to-date – as well as the very ancient – arguments against Socialism, and has such a witty and sarcastic disposition that anyone venturing to enter into a newspaper controversy with him must be well equipped or stand an excellent chance of being sent to the right about.

Mr. Nelson has the good fortune to be armed at all points. He, not many years ago – as Mr. Dalrymple doesn't forget to remind him – was an extreme Individualist and advocated the competitive theory with as much ardour as he now espouses the cause of co-operation. He, therefore, is well acquainted with both Individualism and Socialism, and is thus in a far better position than a man who is only acquainted with one side of the shield. He knows exactly where his enemy is most likely to attack him, and stands prepared. We do not think Mr. Dalrymple was as fair in his mode of attack as his many talents would permit him to be. He insisted on dragging into the controversy the New Australia experiment in Communism, and the Pitt Town (N.S.W.) village settlement, and endeavoured, by the recital of a series of disputes over barn-door poultry, to paint such a picture that the readers' perception of humour might take his attention from real issues. His shafts of ridicule, however, were very often turned against himself by his opponent, who happens to be particularly good at repartee. For example; said Mr. Dalrymple. “A socialistic tendency and Socialism itself are two very different things. It is one thing to die, and another to have a tendency to die. All men have a tendency to die. It would be preposterous nevertheless, to assert that all men are dead.” Mr. Nelson replies, “True; but it would not, I hope, be exactly preposterous to assert that all men will die. Similarly, it need not be preposterous to contend that Socialism already in process of realisation will ultimately be completely realised. Going upstairs is different from being on the top; but, as things go, it is not a bad way of getting there. It would appear that Mr. Dalrymple needs instruction on more subjects than Socialism.”

In one instance, Mr. Dalrymple states that, after reading the contents of Mr. Wallace Nelson's letter, he perceives “it consists in the first place of two little pieces of personality which afford abundant proof of the exceeding good terms on which Mr. Wallace Nelson stands in regard to himself.” Mr. Nelson replies that “ he was not aware that he held himself in high esteem, but he assures Mr. Dalrymple that the perusal of Mr. Dalrymple's epistle has only tended to strengthen the happy relationship.”

The above is a sample of the repartee which enlivens the pamphlet; the following is a specimen of the arguments:-

Mr. Dalrymple: “That it is indispensable for the advocates of Socialism to clear up their own opinions and ascertain what the system is before they give in their adherence to it, and that it is clearly advisable to apply some test to our verbal currency, and to our popular shibboleths, has been abundantly shown by Mr. Wallace Nelson himself, for when he and Mr. Sydney Webb mean one thing when speaking of Socialism, Schaffie and Karl Marx and the Australian Labour Federation and myself mean another. We mean the destruction of “all” - kindly mark the word, Mr. Nelson – all private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. The farm, the factory, and the barndoor fowl would alike belong to the state. A laying hen would be distinctly a State fowl, and probably be branded with a broad arrow as belonging to the people.

Possibly Mr. Wallace Nelson may say this is ridiculous. If it be, so much the worse for those who advocate the system. If a hen as a producer be not nationalised, why should a calf or a lamb be nationalised ? And if the Australian Labour Federation, with Mr. Wallace Nelson and Gronlund and Karl Marx and Bellamy, hesitate at lambs and calves, then, sir, I denounce them as slaves to the capitalist, and traitors to the sublime principles which they have been engaged, and very busily engaged, in promulgating for some years past.

Our greatest industry is the pastoral. Our chief wealth consists of flocks and herds; labour we know makes them. As Mr. Webb and Mr. Nelson devoutly believe, labour creates everything. It has created the egg, the skipping lamb, and the too often obstreperous calf, and from these the greater portion of our public revenue is derived, in the form, of course, of cattle and sheep. All the difference between grown cattle and calves, between lambs and sheep, between the egg and producing fowl, is brought about by natural agencies – of which time is the most important.”

Mr. Nelson: “Mr. Dalrymple's sarcasm about Labour creating the domestic hen is poor wit and bad economics. Certainly labour does not create the hen, but, then, Labour, in the strict sense, creates nothing. As Professor Huxley puts it, 'Although the distinction between nature and art, between natural and artificial things, is easily made and very convenient, it is needful to remember that in the long run we owe everything to nature; that even these artificial things which we commonly say are made by men are only natural objects shaped and moved by men. 'John Stuart Mill thus expresses the same truth, 'Labour in the physical world is always and solely occupied in putting objects in motion; the properties of matter and the laws of nature do the rest.' This truth – I had almost written this truism – is recognised by the most thorough-going Socialists as much as by the most orthodox economists. The Socialist recognises that the great natural forces are independent of man's labour, and even of man's existence. The light and the heat of the sun, the potentialities of soil, the reproductive power of plants and animals – all these existed before man and may exist after him. Labour certainly did not create these agencies; but, then, neither did capital. They should, therefore, according to Socialism, belong to no class, but, on the contrary, should be regarded as the common gifts of nature to the children of men. Labour does not create things, but it creates utilities, and a domestic fowl, placed in the market ready for purchase, is certainly a utility. On an average a fowl which sells in the markets for 2s. represents as much labour as a three-legged stool which commands the same price. In the philosophic sense Labour creates nothing; in the purely economic sense it creates the domestic fowl as truly as it creates the great ships that speed from shore to shore and weld the nations into one.”

* * *

Besides the series of letters from two brilliant controversialists, the pamphlet contains a number of facts and figures concerning the production and distribution of wealth, a page of definition of Socialism by standard authorities, and also the photographs of Messrs. Dalrymple and Nelson. The pamphlet is well printed by the Brisbane Co-operative Printing Company, and as the price is only 3d. per copy it should have an extensive sale.

“Socialism: For and Against,” price 3d., by post 4d. Obtainable at all booksellers.