The Bay of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. WEDNESDAY, OCT. 30, 1946 Dear Sir.

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 43, 30 October 1946, Page 4

The Bay of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. WEDNESDAY, OCT. 30, 1946

Dear Sir.

Letters to the Editor must be clearly written on one side of the paper only and where a nom-de-plume is used the name of the writer must be included for reference purposes. The Editor reserves the right to abridge, amend or withhold any letter or letters.

WHAT WILL BE LEFT US?

Sir, —Your' correspondent ('Onlooker') I presume writing on behalf of his party, sees fit to quote Dr. Finlay, P.M.D. London, L.L.M. N.Z. as follows: "The people will not have taken away from them their clothes, their radios and their private motor cars." Those are fine words from a man in his position in the legal profession. Does Onlooker object to those things being retained by the people, which I presume means the workers of New Zealand? If he does not, for what reason should such statements be referred to, in connection with his objection to the present Government's past administration, or the future adminstration of New Zealand other than to mislead the people, seeing Onlooker has only come into our correspondence columns for election propaganda. If we recall what was done by his party and its predecessors,, say in 1922 and again in 1931-35 (what did the workers have left then?) Home gone, savings gone, insurance policy gone, clothes gone, boots and shoes gone, health gone. With only poverty and malnutrition left behind.

We are now being told that one must forget 1931-35 as his party have now learned from those years. May I now ask why they did not learn from the 1922 depression and all those before it, which under the capitalist system had a habit of bringing the workers down to poverty about every 10 or 12 years, in an organised effort to subject (the workers) at all times to the will of money power. < Having gone through these times myself, and seen my mates in the same position many times during the past 40 years, I consider myself justified in making a reply to Onlooker, who I suppose has never suffered the pangs of hunger, and cold, through being thrown on the scrap heap, at the will of money power, when held by a few, to dominate the wellbeing of mankind. Yours etc., HARRY CARR.

CAPITALISM v SOCIALISM

(Sir, —I notice in the correspondence columns of the Beacon for 23/10/46 that we are treated to another dose of political propaganda from 'Onlooker.' The statement that Dr Finlay knows that Socialism "means the abolition of private ownership of homes" is the usual flat contradiction of fact so frequently seen in this type of electioneering. It is of course one of the bogeys invented for Mr Onlooker-Citizen-Democrat-Observer to try to scare the voters, and divert attention away from the fact that under capitalism practically none of the work- 7 ers can ever own their homes. Socialists and Communists all approve of the private ownership of homes, and in the Socialist sixth of the world viz., the U.S.S.R. a larger proportion of people own their own

homes than in any capitalist country. The millions of families on the collective farms each own ctheir houses and an acre or so of land besides being part owner of the cooperative farm; Their returned soldiers are getting a free section and timber given to them and a loan for 20 years at 2 per cent, to erect their own houses with.

Another bogey in this scare mongering outfit is the "State" that is supposed to be going to tell each man where he must work, and whether or not you can have credit or shelter.

Well credit and shelter was not too plentiful under Capitalism during the periodical slumps* connected with that system, but, seeing that we all have a vote when electing our Government, just as soon as we' take an intelligent and active interest in the matter we will cause the State to act for us instead of it im'-; posing upon us the will of big busi-. ness and financial interests. Onlooker's propaganda is plainly designed to help the middle-man who pay producers a small price and charge consumers a big price. By so doing they live on the fat of the land and keep the majority of the people too poor to allow them to evgr buy. a house of their own. Socialism will deal with this nuisance and. under Socialism finance would, certainly be directed into useful channels, such as the manufacture of children's clothing and other necessities instead of silly' luxuries for the rich. Under Capitalism the production of luxuries is much more profitable of course. '\ • . Yours etc., C. J. HALLETT.

(In pursuance of our policy to recognise only one nom-de-plurrie for individual writers desiring to use our correspondence column whilst dealing with any one controversy we notify 'Pro Bono Publico', 'Fiat Lux', 'Bitten Again' and 'Citizen No. 1-1' that their letters are suspended until such time as they are prepared to insert them over the pseudonym originally selected by them. Ed.)