TARIFF REFORM AND SOCIALISM.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.1 SIR,—Mr. S. Skelhorn is, I think, unfortunate in his appeal to your readers to consider the "fundamental difference" between Socialism and Protection in order to avoid deception by superficial resemblance (Spectator, September 17th). For the superficial resemblance between converting all men into Civil servants (or, to be practical, into State dependents) and taxing all imports is hardly obvious, but the fundamental difference is perhaps less perceptible. Ultimately Socialism aims, however hopelessly, to benefit the manual workers at the expense of the mental and moral workers ; the means proposed is artificial rearrangement of remunerations by Parliamentary action. For " manual workers " substitute "producers," and for "mental and moral workers" substitute "consumers," and the aim of Protection is stated. That the intended beneficiaries or the intended machinery are different does not affect the principle, nor can good sense save bad logic. Doubtless the present Government is an inefficient bulwark against Socialism, because the present Government is attaining Socialist ends without using Socialist means. All three systems alike aim to endow one class at the expense of the others. But the present Government is Free-trading only in name; like Socialists and Protectionists, it confuses money with wealth. No Government that makes this mistake can save the country from Socialist results. The true defence is to convince men that money is not wealth, and that self- interest meets race-interest in the accumulation of capital, because capital alone enables employment to keep pace with population, and combines personal independence with pro- vision for descendants. When this is generally realised, genuine Free-trade and straightforward dealing with pauperism will follow, with the result that prosperity will extinguish the discontent that breeds Socialism.—I am, Sir,
Previous page
