Evening star., 1949-08-29
Denies Socialism Is to Blame
For Britain's Troubles
To the Esditor ~ 1hs c+o..

Denies Socialism Is to Blame
For Britain's Troubles
To the Editor Of The Star:
Like the British, have become little
tired of our criticism Of England. It seems
almost as though we are happy to find her
IN dire straits. It gives eur own Tories the
opening they so dearly long for-to find a
country that is attempting socialism and
that is in difficulty. Right or wrong, the
blame will fall on socialism.
A continuous howl is set up against taxa
ton Of the English people. Assuredly taxes
are biting into the pocketbooks Of the Eng
lish. But where else is capital to be OBJ
tanned? In the United States, under free
enterprise, capital likewise is obtained solely
from the pocketbooks Of the people-not in
taxes but in profits. There is no magic
in capitalism that enables business to conjure
up capital It is socialist taxes VS.. capitalistic
profits and no more All dynamic economies
are capitalistic. and they must be if they
are to grow. All capital without exception
must come from the people. 1t Is only as
to who should administer this capital that
there is disagreement. The argument against
taxes simply is not valid.
Another common criticism Of the Labor
government is that the workers are lazy
and inefficient, producing only about one
half the work our workers produce. Here
again Is an actual fact all dressed up to
prove that socialism caused this condition.
It is true that output per man in England
is lower than in the United States. but the
reason is that the English worker has about
half the machinery horsepower. 1t was Eng
lish capitalism that was to blame for this
lack of machinery-not socialism. The So
cialist government is spending $4,000, 100000
this year for the needed horsepower to as
sist its workers All factors included in this
expansion program would be equal to a
$50. 900 ,000, 900 program in the United States.
No, it does not seem fair to say that So
cialism is to blame for the inability of the
English to match our own workers in output.
On top of these silly arguments, we are
prone to forget that any comparison between
England today and the United States today
must include the effects Of the war.
Whereas, our country felt no destruction OF
industry, England lost a large portion Of
hers. Whereas, our country actually in
creased its industrial capacity. England's
was destroyed. The United States came out
OF the war unscathed industrially and with.
in fact, far greater potential output
than when it went into war. Also COM
paratively larger proportion Of the working
force was lost by England than we lost.
Even the American Tories who may admit
to the truth Of this argument pass 1t of as
a mere incidental, instead Of accepting it
as the largest contributing factor to the
discrepancy between England and the United
States. They are far too preoccupied with
antisocialism to be truthful.
Were it not for the fact that another war
looms dark on the horizon, there is little
doubt that England would have suffered
from our anti-Socialist attitude. But I
presume that Socialist blood is not SO in
ferior that it would not mix with Tory blood
on the battlefield. VIM. H. REYNOLDS.