BAY OF PLENTY BEACON Published Tuesdays and Fridays. FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1948. WHY THE RED SHADOW?

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 12, Issue 31, 19 March 1948, Page 4

BAY OF PLENTY BEACON Published Tuesdays and Fridays. FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1948. WHY THE RED SHADOW?

Communism has had more publicity in the last few weeks than has been given it for many years. Its leaders in this country are no doubt deriving consider-' able satisfaction from the fact that they have at last managed to get themselves and their political theory taken seriously. That Communists hold prominent positions in some trade unions-is undeniable. Nor . do the Communists themselves deny it. But to suggest that a few men can actually lead the majority by the nose to ruin is a slur on the intelligence of the New Zealand worker and an indictment of democracy. If Communism has the hold here it is alleged it has, then thoughtful democrats who really believe they know the answer to the world’s ills should be applying all their thoughts and all their energies to finding out why this doctrine is spreading at such an.alarming rate. That way, and that way alone, can the disease be tackled at the source and cured. > To outlaw Communism and its adherents would be like resorting to drink to allay the pains of cancer. The cancer would be there, growing and becoming daily a greater threat to its victim.

Only difference would be that the victim would know less about it. To survive the Communist onslaught, democracy must show that it has an answer to the problems the Communists are using to foment disorder. Most people, the world over want peace, security, ' and the right to live • free lives freely. They want adequate food, clothing and shelter, adequate opportunities for their children to make their way in a world where people can be happy because they have nothing to fear. Those are simple needs, simple wants, things recognised as fundamental rights by democrats and socialists the world over. The tragedy of the world is that those simple needs have never been met on a world-wide basis. And on that fact the Communist hangs his sales talk. He claims capitalism has had ample time to figure out a system of distributing the world’s goods equitably, and has failed. That is partly true. The thoughtful democrat will agree that it is fundamentally wrong that gluts and famines should exist side by side in the same world, that self-indulgent, extravagant luxury should be found in the same communities as abject, hopeless poverty. Those things are a reproach to Christianity, which,is claimed to be the cornerstone of democracy.

Where the Christian democrat differs from the Communist is in his belief that capitalism, if it be Christian and unselfish, can give all the people of the world their share of the world’s goods. He believes that private enterprise can treat and reward its workers better than State enterprise—and give the community a better service boot. On the other hand, the Communist, with bitter cynicism, sneers at Christianity as an opiate for the weak, claims capi- # talism and selfishness are part and parcel of each other, foments class hatred.

The remedy seems obviously not to borrow from the fascists the system of declaring political theories opposed to the rulers of

the day illegal, but to make the Communist. theory of class struggle ridiculous by making democracy work on truly Christian lines. For Communism must have discontent on which to thrive.

It must have jealousy, distrust between classes of society. It is a theory born of oppression, nurtured on hate- An attempt to legislate it out of New Zealand would be to throw food to the wolves and make them stronger for the chase. But to laugh it out of a contented community is not by any means impossible. The constructive alternative will achieve more than the big stick.