The record-union., 1894-05-17
MALLocK On SOCIALISM.

The socialists, with what might be
called charming inconsistency, declare
that an income tax is socialistic, pure and
simple. But Mr.. w. 81. Mallock, in the
FoStndghtLg Reviea0, shows that the error
of the claim is easily uncovered, and
there is no fairer nor more trenchant
anti-socialistic knight than Mallock.
He points out that Bernard Shaw's con-
tention that such a tax is socialism, be-
cause it is the transfer of rent and interest
to the State by installments, is error, be-
cause the presence and use of private
capital are implied.
The socialists claim that the taking of
part of the income by the State carries
the right and justice of taking more, so
that it may in time socialize the whole of
the income. But it is amazing that men
capable of contending for socialistic
creeds should fail to see that such an
attempt would result in stopping the pro-
duction of income.
As Mallock puts it, an income tax is the
transfer of a part of thing produced by
individual enterprise, or ability, or use of
private capital. This transfer is adjusted
so as to take as little as is possible, not as
much as possible-that is, to diminish as
little as possible the normal reward or
incentive of those who save or employ
private capital. Instead then of being
an example of socialism it is an astonish-
ing witness to the productive force OF
individualism."
Socialism in its purity would prevent
anyone from using his income to aug
ment its capitalistic value; from applying
ability as manager or director to in
crease the reward of his capacity by in
vesting his income, by converting it into
private means of production SO as to
reap an independent or anti-socialistic
income. How would that work?
Let US suppose one managing busi-
ness with marked ability, and receiving
salary rewarding such ability fairly,
but with the condition attached that he
must not invest it so as to make it earn,
and that if he does SO the reward will be
confscated by the State. Would such
man confess that his capacity was fully
rewarded? Would men with ability to
direct, manage and guide exert them
selves to such ends under such condi-
| ton? asks Mallock, in more extended
form.
Again. Mallock takes up the socialistic
idea that the Postoffice system is social
ist1c; but he shows this to be but film
resting upon an ocean of individualism;
a film supported by the sinews ofindi-
vidualism. For all improved means of
carriage and communication are the re-
vate capital, and have been in all postal
history and will continue to be of neces-
sity.
But Mr.. Sidney Webb claims munich
pal works to be socialistic, and cites the
case of the city of Bristol supplying its
people with water at less than cost price,
Mallock shows that that can mean only
that the loss to the city is made good by
tax on incomes produced by Individual
istic enterprise.
So in another case Liverpool provides
the people with science lectures, and
Manchester maintains an art gallery
but it means in each case that individual
ability, skill and capacity to gain are
used to entertain, and that the cost of the
use is taxed back upon individual in
comes, which in turn are dependent
upon capacity and freedom to exercise
them for profit.
| AS Mr.. Mallock puts ii in one paragraph
of his admirable reply to the Fabian
esssyists on the evolution of socialism,
growth of municipal institutions for good
! of the people do not indicate new social
| istic development. These institutions,
such as city gas and water works, IL
braries and art galleries. ETC., do not point
to socialism as a working principle, but
simply TO the evolution of events. things
incident to civilized life, and they do not
prove that because institutions are main
tanned by the State for society therefore
society is socialistic, for the State derives
its ability to maintain them from un-
trammeled individualism. When 1t comes
to the point of discouraging individual
ability, which alone can supply it with
means for benefcent purposes. then
socialistic theory will be put to the test,
out of which it will come wreck.
AND so it turns out that the fellow
Smith, leading a so-called Industrial
Army to Washington from California,
to demand certain fancifnl and wild-eyed
| legislation from an American Congress,
TLsxa hksEesn@n Guav Eag