THE LABOUR PROGRAMME.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 877, 25 July 1910, Page 4

THE LABOUR PROGRAMME.

The outstanding feature of the Labour Conference in Auckland is the surrender of trades unionism to the Socialist doctrine. In saying this \vc shall doubtless offend a section of our Labour friends, wlio will claim that if anything was clearly demonstrated by the Conference it was that the Socialist doctrine was formally repudiated. They will point to the fact that a large majority voted against the proposal to substitute "socialisation" for "public ownership" in the definition of the Labour party's aim as "the gradual public ownership of_ all the means of production, distribution, and cxchangc." The distinction, however, will probably appeal to the general .public as being so shadowy as not to bo worth debating; and we feel sure that even those delegates who opposed the substitution of Tweedledum for Tweedledee are as well aware as anybody of the practical identity between the two terms. They hope, however, that the label of "public ownership" will reassure those who would shrink from the draught if it bore its true _ description. The hope, in our opinion, is not well founded, for the public i: not so stupid, after all, as to 100 l only at the name, without exaraininj the'substance. When the time comes the use of the name "public owner ship" will avail nothing, foi although the. Hon. J. T. Paul sees or professes to see, "a wide differ ence" between "socialisation" ant "nationalisation," the great bulk o the public will properly regard tin terms as identical.'Under_ Socialism according to any definition, thermust be organisation and controlling committees, and what is "the publi ownership of all means oi produi: tion, distribution, and exchange' but the socialisation of wealth undo a system of organised control b popular committees?

The majority of the delegates know perfectly well that the distinction they sought to. maintain does not exist. The debate made it clear that the quarrel at the Conference was simply a quarrel between a section that has no patience with tactics and a section that thinks that without tactics they can do nothing; or, as Mr. Sullivan' (Christehurch) very neatly put it,. "the difference between the delegates was not as between Socialists and Labour, but between Socialists ■ and Socialists." Between two sorts of the same Socialists, that is to- say—the Socialists who cannot see why they should not say what they want, and the more cautious Socialists who hope to go further by going slowly and under a banner that'conceals their purpose. It was not very clcvcr of the "nationalises" to say that the "socialisers"' wanted "confiscation," because even extreme Socialists know that naked confiscation in the shape of expropriation without payment is a practical impossibility. _ But their opposition to "confiscation," judging« from anything that was said, did not arise from any objection to robbery of this nature. Mil. Cakfa', who is one of the most activc of the Labour leaders, appeared only concerned with the' fact that openly to ally themselves with the principle of confiscation would block the attainment of their ends, and Mr. Paul's chief anxiety was to 1 adopt a programme and label that would bring in the workers. In any event it matters little, in the faco of the party's programme, what the party calls itself. And what a programme it is ! The nationalisation of steamers and coal-mines, and the establishment of "competitive State factories"; Uie universal leasehold, an increment tax on all hind sales and the "operation by the State of .sufficient land to meet the demands of the national food supply"; the establishment of a State bank with oole right of note issue; the abolition of bi-canioral_ government; a '1 tight to Work Bill, a forty-hour weel;, and statutory preference to unionists—and forth. There are .mime good items in the programme, such ns the cessation of public borrowing. 'What, we may ask, can the Government say in denial of the demand that the State should nationalise the steamers and coal-mines, establish "competitive Stale factories," and farm such an area as will feed the nation 1 What can they

urge against these projects who have declared at all times and 'seasons that the State insurance offices, lending offices, coal-mines, and railways are a great success? How will they be able to resist the argument that the State which runs these businesses should go ahead and make a brilliant success of steam transport, boot-making, and wheat and potato raising? Perhaps our State Socialists and their leaders, the Government, will now begin to realise the extent of the assistance they have been giving to the Socialist move-, mcnt. They have made' a pretty dilemma' for themselves.