Where and Why Public Ownership Has Failed
Chapter VI: Nationalization of Public Utilities and the Foundation of Great Fortunes
20th Century Yves Guyot EnglishIn a lecture, delivered on December 15, 1910, before the Fabian Society, G. Bernard Shaw gives the following definition of Socialism:
“A state of society in which the income of the country shall be divided equally among the inhabitants without regard to their character, their industry or any other consideration except the fact that they are human beings.”
The partisans of public ownership hold that the realization of such a conception would be a step toward the millennium.
They cheerfully declare that New Zealand contains neither paupers nor millionaires. Now, among the New Zealanders who have recently died, Jacob Joseph left a fortune of £300,000 ($1,461,000); that of Archdeacon Williams amounted to £420,000 ($2,045,400); that of the Hon. W. W. Johnston to about £500,000 ($2,435,000). According to an estimate, based on a comparison of inheritances, Le Rossignol and Stewart calculate that one-half of one per cent. of all the families, each family being reckoned as having five members, possesses 33 per cent. of the total wealth of New Zealand. And, despite the growing tax upon land, and the division of great estates, this inequality is increasing.
In Australia the wealth is very unequally distributed. In New South Wales 1,000 individuals, representing 0.40 per cent. of the population, possess £130,000,000 ($633,000,000), or, in other words, an average to each individual of £130,000 ($633,000), while the sum of their total fortunes amounts to 35 per cent. of the whole private wealth of the state. In 1904–1905 the half of all the private property of the state belonged to 3,000 people at most.
Able men make great fortunes in these countries as other able men have made them in Turkey and in Russia.