Of Parrots, Production And Distribution

All the parrots are in chorus singing: “Socialism alone can root out poverty”.

     Will the parrots or their keepers explain what they mean by socialism? Never mind what name you give to your policy: What are the steps by which you will root out poverty? By putting more duties on goods to which the learned name of ‘indirect taxes’ is given? This is the socialism we have so far seen. By deficit financing and thereby pushing up the prices of all goods, chiefly those which the poor must buy? What else are you planning to do to “root out poverty? Borrowing from abroad? Are you distributing the money so borrowed from abroad among the poor, either for immediately utilizing it or for investment in small business? Will you be able to get any money at all from abroad for such purposes? Of course not. Therefore are you not adding to the burden of the poor by borrowing, from abroad?

     I think I have exhausted all possible forms of ‘socialism’ in these questions. Except of course building castles in the air or offering living flats in the clouds!

     Yes, socialists can tax the rich and spend it on the poor. But what is being got by taxing the rich is wasted on more and more salaries, and more and more buildings for putting the chairs and tables for these salaried men; and on officers to supervise over them, and more and more dearness allowances to all the officials to meet the rising cost of living. The rise in the cost of living produced by the activities and policies of the government does not affect only the Central government servants. It affects not only government servants Central and State, but every one of the teeming millions. Dearness allowance is given to the Central government officials but what about the huge population of poor people who hold no jobs in government, Central or State, or in big company offices, but who yet have to pay the higher prices for everything they need to buy? And on whom does the weight of these additional dearness allowances given to officials fall? On the poor who have to pay the indirect taxes levied to meet the extra expenditure.

     People who are reputed to be honest and have all the information tell us that the pleasant process of taxing the rich is now over. This is admitted in the government ‘white’ papers. There is no room for that game to be played further, except to throw dust in the eyes of the poor. So then, these parrots who shout ‘socialism, socialism,’ do not understand the words they have learnt only to sing.’

     ‘Was I a fool to buy you, my dear bird?” “No doubt about it,” said the bird, as that was the only phrase taught to it, and to this question it was an apt answer. This is an old story. It is true about all parrots and about all slogans. It is unwise to elect people to power who can only play parrots.

     Poverty can be rooted out only by labour and investment and the know-how of agricultural or other production. Work of any kind can be got out of free men only by adequate incentives. So also can the other elements needed for production be brought into action only by adequate incentives. Without incentives but by compulsion, a certain amount of all these can be obtained, but there is a limit to it. The poor can think for themselves whether they will work under compulsion and produce wealth. They would prefer freedom to any form of slavery.

     So, dear parrots, your socialism is a word without meaning, What is wanted is wisdom, justice, compassion, honesty and efficient government, When we have set going for more industries, and when more wealth issues out of them then the question arises, what shall we do with them? Shall we use them for the increasing good of a few only or shall we use them fairly and wisely for the welfare of all? Of course, the latter socialism has now no relevance in the correct sense of that much-used and little-understood word. Incentive for production is what is wanted, and that is what is now relevant. The people thirst for incentive as the land thirsts for rain in a drought. When after production, national wealth reaches a level, then comes the stage for restrictions which may be given the name of socialism, if that ambiguous word is preferred. Premature practice of negative regimentation is the opposite of positive incentives and this is what aggravates Poverty. No one objects to regimentation and Positive steps for equitable distribution when the stage for it is reached. What is objected to is topsyturvy socialism and the deceiving of gullible people for getting their votes in order to perpetuate bad government, Men should wake up from the delusion that the Government is a third party with its own resources. Government can spend only what we give it by way of taxes or by Way of higher prices for the goods we buy when government prints notes to make both ends meet. Every fresh benefit we get from Government is paid for by fresh taxes taken from the people. So the only point for attention is for Poor People not to be bamboozled by the slogans and shouts of the performer, and to see who is being taxed and how much. A ‘negligible’ tax is not negligible but heavy, when it falls on those who are poor. A heavy-looking tax is light if it falls on one who can easily pay it. The small additions indirectly levied on commodities to find money for the Plan make the life of the poor and the middle class even more wretched than it is now. What brings this about is not socialism; it must be given some other name.