TARIFF REFORM AND SOCIALISM.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Mr. Skelhorn (Spectator, September 17th) really ought to study definitions of terms used in current political con- troversies before he rushes into print. "Socialism" means " the nationalisation (or municipalisation) of the means of production, distribution, and exchange." This is the definition of " Socialism " adopted by all Socialist societies. It has nothing to do with taxation. Mr. Lloyd George's Budget may be just or unjust, honest or " confiscatory," but it has nothing whatever to do with "Socialism." In fact, under Socialism there would be no taxation; the State, having taken over the whole business of the country, would defray expenses out of profits. Mr. Henry George advocated a tax of 20s. in the pound on all land values, yet he was an Individualist and a strenuous opponent of Socialism. Mr. Skelhorn says that Socialists " profess " to be Free-traders. I reply that they do not and cannot make any such profession. Free-trade and Socialism are fundamentally antagonistic. Free-trade stands for world-wide competition, while Socialism stands for Government monopoly. What the Socialists do "profess" to believe is that Tariff Reform is an iniquitous attempt by raising prices to benefit landowners and a few manufacturers at the expense of the rest of the community. We Liberal Free-traders are heart and soul with them in this contention, but that does,not mean that we are Socialists or that they are Free-traders. Again, Mr. Skelhorn's references to Germany violate all the canons of political reasoning. Quite obviously when a German votes for a Socialist he wants Socialism. This is the more evident because, the second ballot being in operation, every party has the fullest opportunity of bringing forward its own particular type of candi- date. Mr. Skelhorn's appeal from the vote to the interior working of the mind of the voter if allowed would make all political reasoning impossible. I may add that the Birmingham Daily Post's Berlin correspondent calculates that at the next General Election the Socialist representation in the Reichstag will be raised from its present figure—fifty—to one hundred. What a panic there would be if the Socialists were as strong in the House of Commons I Again, with regard to France, Mr. Skelhorn does not even challenge my contention that Free-trade England is more immune from Socialism than Protectionist France. He has in no way shaken my contention—which is really Sir E. Grey's—that "Protection is the short cut to Socialism."—I am, Sir, &c.,
[True ; but it is equally true that semi-Socialism such as is involved in spending twelve millions s. year on non- contributory old-age pensions, and refusing to allow supply and demand to have free play, will prove the short cut to Protection. The Liberals by adopting great lumps of Socialistic policy have betrayed the cause of Free-trade,---a cause which can only prevail by a wise husbanding of the national resources, and by teaching self-help and independence instead of the new Radical doctrine that the State is to be the universal provider from birth to old age. The Liberal Party in their recent legislation have openly violated the principles of Free Exchange,—a policy of which free imports is only one facet.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
