SOCIALISM AND TARIFF REFORM,
LTO THE EDITOR OF TRU "SPECTATOR:1
SIR,—I belong to neither of the two parties which you endeavour to identify in your last week's article on "Socialism and Tariff Reform." Nevertheless, I trust you will allow me
to suggest that such articles must tend to widen the breach that unfortunately still separates the two sections of Unionists.
The arguments by which you seek to show that Tariff Reform must lead to Socialism overlook the clear distinction made by Mr. Balfour between Social Reform and Socialism, and appear to me so easily answerable that they must tend to strengthen the position of the Tariff Reformers, whom you desire to win over, whilst they are calculated to make the Free-trader still more self-satisfied and irreconcilable than he is at present.
Let me refer to one or two of the arguments you use in support of your contention. In the course of your article you point out that the Socialist and the Tariff Reformer agree in the assumption that the State can diminish unemployment, and that neither seems to realise that their schemes "cannot create employment, but can only divert employment from persons now employed to persons now unemployed." But surely the Tariff Reformer would reply that the argument is valid only so long as there are no unemployed who are employable, but that by encouraging, by means of Protective duties, new industries, work may be found for those now unemployed, without in any way interfering with those who are already industrially occupied.
Then, again, you say that Tariff Reformers "constantly speak as if trade were a matter of warfare between rival States." But so it is, and so it must remain, so long certainly as rival States protect their trade by hostile tariffs. It might approach more nearly to "a matter of friendly bargaining between individuals" if Free-trade were general instead of being one-sided as now. Further, you say : "In Australia, where democracy rules, the Protectionist and the Socialist are one." But this is not so in other countries where democracy does not rule, and your argument only goes to show the danger and consequences of democratic rule. Towards the close of your article occurs the following remarkable state- ment :—
"Already, indeed, we find the Tariff Reformers voluntarily offering to concede some of the most mischievous of the demands of the Socialists, and promising that the new tariff shall be used to provide old-age pensions and free meals for school-children and work for the unemployed."
But these so-called " mischievous " demands have been already conceded by Free-traders. In last Saturday's West- minster Gazette, a Free-trade journal, the editor, writing of Mr. Asquith's second Budget, and of the relief given to
"earned" income, says :—" Even more important was his ear- marking of a sum of 2 millions for Old-Age Pensions next year, as a pledge that in his third Budget he means to lay the foundation of a scheme of Old-Age Pensions." And this reply goes further. For Mr. Asquith would be the first to admit that it is owing to Free-trade that the country ie sufficiently prosperous to enable him to satisfy some of those "most mischievous of the demands of the Socialists" to which you refer.
But, Sir, whilst I venture to think that the Free-trade position, if it did not rest on firmer ground, would be weakened by such arguments, my purpose in troubling you with this letter is to question the wisdom of the policy, from a Unionist standpoint, of using every weapon at your command to make compromise more difficult between the two sections
of the Unionist Party. If you could entertain any hope of bringing Tariff Reformers to your way of thinking, there might be reason in your action. But you must recognise the futility of any such endeavour; and if it be so, and if, as is known to be the case, you earnestly desireeto see the Unionist Party a united party, might it not be well to let alone for a while the question of Tariff Reform, in the hope that, undisturbed by hostile attacks from either side, all Unionists might come to realise the many subjects on which they agree, instead of being constantly reminded of the one subject on which they differ? Surely that rAle might be left to the Westminster Gazelle.
Some few weeks ago you permitted me to use your columns to express my concurrence in your proposal that there should be a truce between the two sections of our party pending further inquiries into the whole question of Fiscal Reform. The possibility of such a truce, however, is made difficult by the continued reiteration in the Unionist Press of arguments on one side or the other of this vexed question. It would be more to the purpose if our well-meaning editors could use their undoubted influence in urging upon both sections of the .party the importance of discovering some common platform on which, even as regards this matter, Free-traders and Fiscal Reformers could stand together, or of agreeing to differ on this one question and to work together for the common cause [We cannot agree that our article was provocative of strife. It certainly was not published with any such intention, but with the very opposite motive. Though we hold that there is an essential, though hidden, connexion between Tariff Reform and Socialism, we are well aware that there are thousands of Tariff Reformers who do not realise the fact, and are in intention as sincere and as ardent opponents of Socialism as we are. This being so, we by no means despair of being able to convince them that Free-trade is the greatest enemy of and obstacle to Socialism, and therefore demands support and not attack. We are entirely unmoved by " M.P.'s " reference to the West- minster Gazette. The fact that it supports old-age pensions as well as Free-trade is not a proof that Free-trade has any connexion with Socialism, but that the Westminster does not realise that the policy of free exchange cannot be kept in a water-tight compartment and confined to matters of foreign trade, but involves the widest social and political issues. Unless we are greatly mistaken, those who, like the present Cabinet and the Westminster Gazette, imagine that they can combine Free-trade with a strong dash of Socialism will have a rude awakening. Certainly we cannot be accused of en- couraging this unnatural and unholy alliance. With "M.P.'s" desire for a truce on the Fiscal question and the reunion of the Unionist Party we are in the heartiest agreement. That Lord Lansdowne is willing to oppose old-age pensions we admit, and with the utmost gratitude. We wish " M.P." could persuade Mr. Balfour to give an equally clear lead on the subject. Such a lead would, we believe, greatly help the cause of reunion.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
