Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

30 articles on this Page



[No title]






[No title]



RELATIONSHIP OF SOCIALISM. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — As Mr. Hiivvs ha.; strayed so far array from the economies of iahsm, afraid the greater part of this letter must be written to point out where he has strayed, and to re- Ires.i his memory. Vv e are debating upon the economics of Socialism. Mr. Huws has a very peculiar habit of answering questions which are not put to him and evading those which are; for instance, in my last letter I pointed out how utterly Edii-uloUi, Ids defence pointed out how utterly Edii-uloUi, Ids defence of the present system appeared; and the- childlike reply I get to that is a quotation on Free Love by Belfort Bax. Further, when 1 j point out (by naming evils which exist to-day, such as unemployment, the very poor, women j workers, hungry school children, etc.) that the two ruling parties to-day, i.e., Conserva- tives and Liberals, have not got the welfare of the people at heart, 1 get the same ridicu- lous reply, Free Love. J pointed out that Mr. Huws admitted quite clearly that Socialists want the betterment of the "whole" of the people. I called the atten- Tion of Mr. Huws to the fact that he gave a definition of Socialism himself; thus, "The collective ownership of the means of produc- tion and distribution." To each of these he replies "Free Love." Again, I pointed out that he was at a loss in attacking the econo- mics of Socialism. He now simply empha- sizes that fact by giving his quotations on Free Love. Dealing with the figures, I quoted from Mr. Chiozza Money on the distri- bution of wealth, Mr. Huws says that the complexion I put upon them is false. That is an untruth on his part; the figures I quoted were the exact figures given by Mr. Money (" Riches and Povertv"). Roughlv speaking, 'Mr. Money sums up the national wealth thus: Population, 43,000,000; aggregate income, £ 1,710,000,000; and, as I quoted in my last letter, li millions of people take £ 585,000,000, 3J millions of people take t245,000,000, mak- ing a total for 5,000,000 people of £ 830,000,000. The remaining 38,000,000 people take £ 880,000,000, so that almost one half of the national wealth goes to 5.000,000 people. Out of the remaining 38,000,000 people, there are about 15,000,000 of manual workers; 1.000,000 of these are incompetent, and earn an average of £2;) per head per an- nitiii less than 10s. per week. The remain- ing 14,000.000 (as I quoted in my last letter) earn £ 45 per annum—less than tl per week —making a total for the 15,000,000 of £ 655,000,000. t225,000,000 is earned by workers not manual (shop-keepers, assistants, clerks, etc.), making the totaf for 38,000,000. £ 880,000.000. I defy Mr. Huws to say these are not the figures given by Mr. Money. Judging by the way he has given up quoting Mr. Money's figures, and quoted Fabian Tract No. 5, it appears that Mr. Money's figures are "too hot." Anyhow, I will take Mr. Huw's own figures, quoted from Tract No. 5. He says that tG90,000,000 is paid yearlv to' manual workers; and paid to labour, not manual. £ 460,000,000; total, £ 1,150,000,000: rent and interest making the national income £ 18,000,000,000. So we find, by his own figures, that out of £ 18,000,000,000, labour of all kinds takes £ 1,150.000,000, and £ 16,850,000,000 is left for those who toil not, neither do they spin-a beautiful picture. Mr. Huws tries to point out in a very boisterous manner, that sneer- ing at the economics of Professor Jevons is no answer. I would have thought that by this time Mr. Huws would be intelligent enough to see that his petty little individualistic quo- tation called for nothing more serious than a sneer. I take it that Mr. Huws is satisfied that Let us take him at his word" is not an admission, because I get no reply, unless, of course, his quotation from Belfort Bax on Free Love applies to that also. My argu- ments go to prove that Altruism is as deep a t human motive as Egoism, and that given an opportunity, such as living under a co-opera- tive system, Altruism would be developed far more than Egoism: all these remain unan- swered,, unless, of course, in his simplicity, he applies Free Love to those as well. I see that he is going to meet my arguments again on equality. Xo doubt on this occasion Free I Love had to have a good "lead in." In a manner that is insulting to the toiling masses, Mr. Huws has made a feeble attempt to deal with private ownership of land. He said that as far as we can possibly ascertain, I think we can safely say that the present owners did earn it." Then, if those 400 people who own 5,729,979 acres of land, and those 1.288 people who own 8,497,699 acres, earned them. surely the toiling masses have earned over and over again more land than there is in the country; but, strange to say, the vast majority of them own none. To use religion as an ambush, as Mr. Huws does, and from that place of concealment to shoot at Free Love, is no attack whatever upon Social- ism. If at any time, after this debate is over, he wishes to debate on Free Love (re- membering that the one has nothing to do with the other), I am quite prepared to meet him (providing, of course, that the columns of the Gazette" are open to us). And now, having, I hope, made the case quite clear, even for Mr. Huws, I will endeavour to show, according to his own definition, that Socialism has nothing whatever to do with either reli- gion or Free Love. The following is his own definition: "The collective ownership of the means of production and distribution." What has that got to do with either question? Xothing whatever. Anybody who believes that the means of production and distribu- tion should be owned collectively is a Social- ist. For instance, you can believe in "co- operation" (which is the principle of Social- ism), and be a Christian you can believe in it and be an Atheist or a Free Lover, a tee- I totaller or a drunkard. I will name a few cases in point:—Harry Quelch, Belfort Bax, H. G. Wells, and others, are Free Lovers; but they believe in collective ownership, therefore they are Socialists: but collective ownership of the means of production and dis- tribution is certainly not Free Love. Blatch- ford, Hyndman, Macpherson, and others are Atheists, but they believe in collectivism; therefote they are Socialists, but collectivism is not Atheism. Many ministers of the Gospel are Socialists because they believe in collectivism, but collectivism is not Christian- ity. All these believe in collectivism: but they differ in opinion as to which way collec- tivism will be brought about. Many Atheists believe that Christianity is detrimental to progress-a hindrance to the fruition of an ideal state of collectivism-so they attack Christianity. But, on the other hand, many believe that Christianity is the only doctrine that will be the means of bringing about an ideal state of collectivism; so they try to up- lift Christianity. Speaking generally of the I.L.P.. they .believe in educating the toiling masses on the economics of Socialism, and dealing in no manner whatever with any man's religion. In fact, a belief in collectiv- ism cannot possibly affect any man's religion, because it does not deal with it any more than does Free Trade or Tariff Reform. For in- stance, John Burns, M.P., is a Liberal and an Atheist, but it would be ridiculous to say that Liberalism or Free Trade is Atheism or Free Love. I hope that Mr. Huws will clearly understand that, even by his own definition of Socialism, and attack upon Atheism or Free Love only makes him appear more ridi- culous: and I may add that any future at- tempt on his part to adopt such a bigotted mode of attack upon subjects which are quite foreign to Socialism, will be treated with the contempt they so richly deserve. Thanking you in anticipation,—Yours, etc., RICHARD BEXXETTA. Pontyrhil. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Will you allow me a little space in your valuable paper to answer Mr. Gwynedd Huws, who, I must admit, is very clever. He compliments me by saying that I argue in the true Socialist style, meaning that I evade the main issues, as he terms it. We do not happen to agree on that score. It is he who deliberately takes that position, knowing, as he does, that he has no chance whatever in the argument, unless he plays the same trick as his co-partners (the Anti-Socialist League). A very good pupil at their school, he has adopted their tactics to a nicety. The same arguments were used by' them against the Right Hon. D. Lloyd George at the last General Election. During this last month their activities have been concentrated in another direction. And, lo! behold! sir, the target of their bullets this time is not the wicked Socialists and infidels, as they call us. but Nonconformity and the people and preachers who were their most esteemed friends in the last Mid-Glamorgan election against Mr. Hartshorn. The manifesto issued by the Anti-So-ialist League informs I us that: Nonconformity's historic ideal of under Free CVt-ch Council oppres- sion is now perishing of r. pritT.icraft viler fha-i thi.; land has e\e;- k"ov.i. With tho :"i" id-/V- ar.d Mr. Gcw<> Cadbiiry as' I, biggest contributor from t; e outset, a sort of Nonconformist conclave has usurped authority, aided bv clerics undistinguished except by politics, and politicians unable to subsist except bv forced levies on the funds of T' (I loll Is,( s. What does Air. Kuws think of the attitude of his friends? And, by the way, what do our Nonconformist ministers of the valleys as being members of a priestcraft viler than this land has ever known"? Mr. Huws states that Socialism must not be fought with kid gloves. What I expect next from Mr. Huws as an intelligent man is for him to put up his dukes" against Social- ism. and not against Free Love and Atheism. Now I wish to he clear. To all attacks on Free Love and Atheism, especially if those attacks are intended to do away with those views, I say Amen. But I cannot under- stand a man attacking those views and term- itg them Socialism. I am sorry to find Mr. Huws hitting out at a bogey and calling that bogey Socialism. As I stated before, if Socialism as an economic theory is wrong, show it. When I find that out, Mr. Huws can reckon on me to contribute a little assis- tance against Socialism. But in the mean- time I shall wait and see these champions of capitalism wasting their strength in a frail attack on our good sound theory. Mr. Huws has 'defined Socialism in one of his letters as an economic theory, viz., the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Does he mean the means of production to be women, or the machinery used on the land to produce wealth? According to his letter in your last week's issue, women are the means of produc- tion. If your intelligent readers will com- pare his definition of Socialism and the rest j of his letter, they will see the parting of the ways. I Mr. Huws has been educated under Social- ism. as far as education is concerned, for education is provided by a State Department. Must I believe consequently that he is an Atheist and a Free Lover? Every letter that Mr. Huws sends to the Gazette" comes through a Socialistic medium (the Post Office). Is he not afraid that his letters will be contaminated with Atheism and the destruction of the marriage tie through being carried in the Government carriage ? Mr. Huws walks on roads that are collec- tively owned and collectively used (Social- ism). Then, according to his argument, every person who dwells at Blaengarw. preachers and all, are rank Atheists. Searching over the catalogue in the Work- men's Library and Institute of Blaengarw I find Mr. Huws's name nominating certain papers that could be purchased and placed in the library for the use of the members. Is he not afraid of Atheism and Free. Love? Is he not aware that there is a bit of Socialism concerning our library? It is collectively owned and collectively used. I belong to a co-operative shop, another col- lectively owned concern. (Socialism on a small scale). Does Mr. Huws want to make me believe that because I deal in a shop which returns the profits to the members instead of into the pockets of a private owner, I am an Atheist and a Free Lover? Absurd. The notion is absolutely ridiculous. As far as Atheism is concerned, does he think that Bethania Church would allow an Atheist (philosophical) to be a member of their com- munity? And as far as Free Love is con- cerned, I am sure that our family does not want to destroy the marriage tie. Just now I take a glimpse through the win- dow and I see the lofty mountains with their shoulders reaching far into the sky. Within their coffers there is abundant wealth. If that wealth were owned by the State instead of by Lord Dunraven and others, does Mr. Huws argue it would mean Atheism ? I work in a coal mine. I get access to the ground in order to produce wealth for the company that run it. Change the system, and let the wealth created by society be owned and used in the interest of that society instead of society toiling and a few robbing the products of their toil (as it is to-day) and that would mean Atheism and Free Love, ac- cording to Mr. Huws's logic! Does Christianity mean that it is righteous for men to take advantage of others' talents and genius to organise society so they can plunder the products of their toil ? Xo a thousand times, Xo. It is capitalism—with its sweating systems, women and child labour (because it is cheaper than man's), its slums and infantile mortality—that is Anti-Chris- tian. Capitalism is the murderer of the human race. Capitalism denies God. Capitalism denies marriage ties. I pray to see the workers awakening. Fellow workers, don't be led astray by these tricksters, who may be fishing for the reward of capitalism. It is a pity that Mr. Huws could not find a quotation of Mr. Ramsay Macdonald's that was more inconsistent with his saying: that religion was the breath of a man's life. Mr. Huws wants to impute that Macdonald was attacking religion. But again I ask him to be fair. What Macdonald stated was that Most Marxian Socialists attack religion." That does not mean that Mr. Macdonald does but that most Socialists who follow the Marxian theory of value do.—Yours, etc., GWILYM. Blaengarw. 1 A DISCLAIMER. To the Editor. Sir.-The pamphlet" Was Jesus a Social- ist?" so foten quoted by Mr. Gwynedd Huws as an I.L.P. pamphlet, was not published by the I.L.P. The thought that one of the Socialists interested in the debate would have refuted it, is the reason I have not done so before.—Yours, etc.. TALIESIX WILLIAMS. Pontycymmer. CIRCULATION OF BASE COIN. TO TOT BETTOR. Dear Sir,—I should be thankful for the use of a small space in your columns to warn the public generally, and hotel-keepers and small shop-keepers especially, of the presence in the district of some person who have been passing counterfeit money on unwary tradesmen in Bridgend during the present week. The false coin which I saw was a florin, stamped on one side with the image of Queen Victoria. I am given to understand that the coins which have been mostly used were half-crowns and flol-itis.-Yotirs trulv, JOHN G. JEXKIXS. Bridgend. June 30th.


[No title]


GOLF. -----+--,--

[No title]





CRICKET FIXTURES. ---+,u-..---,'-

[No title]