[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR, — Mr. Hamilton Fyfe writes
as if he, at any rate, were convinced of the truths of his Socialistic theories, but his assertions are hardly calculated to convince others. You have given some very cogent arguments on the other side in your leading article.
1 think it would help to make clear the problem to be solved if Mr. Fyfe would tell us :-
I. What he means by Capitalism. I have long tried to discover an accepted definition of this word. There can be no doubt that a good many members of the Labour-Socialist Party are capitalists : owners of shares in companies, in house property, or of capital in its minor forms. How far does this involve them in the crimes of capitalism ?
II. What type of Socialistic rule does Mr. Fyfe favour? The Russian ? The Australian, or that of "The New Australia" in Paraguay which was deliberately founded by William Lane in circumstances that were specially selected as most favourable to its prosperity ? The result may be read of by all who care to do so in Mr. Stewart Grahame's book Where Socialism Failed.—I am, Sir, &e., 50 Albemarle Street.
JOHN MURRAY.
P.S.—Mr. Fyfe quotes the Golden Rule of Christ, but I doubt if he can find any word of Our Lord in support of compulsory Socialism. In the parable of the talents—the wicked and slothful servant—who may be described 'as "'workshy," or a supporter of ca'canny, is compelled to hand over his talent -to the industrious servants.-
Previous page
