WHITHER N.Z.?

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 124, 27 May 1937, Page 6

WHITHER N.Z.?

(To tbe Editor.)

Sir, —Your correspondents, Charles Bowden and John Sykes challenge my reasoning on different points. The former states: "Monopoly in the hands of the State (all the people) is a legitimate right," in contra-distinction to the evil of "the 'dictatorship of individual and organised monopoly." "The State (all the people)" is a deceptive phrase, because in real practice, the State acts solely through the elected political officers, and, as society is at present organised politically, the norms and conjectures of these political officers become the State law. Now. if, as it is, monopoly of production, distribution, or exchange is evil when exercised by private individuals or groups, why should the mere transference of the monopolistic power to the political officers of the State make monopoly "a legitimate right"? The family (true citizen of the State) must sacrifice its natural rights and duties to the monopolistic power.

John Sykes quotes the Pope's encyclical "Labour and Capital," wherein the Pope condemns in very strong terms the ghastly evils of modern capitalist States. The correspondent also proves that the New Zealand Labour '.r-.r-ty, whilst excluding Communists from membership, yet holds fast to the principle which Stalin claimslto be operating in the U.S.S.R., i.e., "The nationalisation of production, distribution, and exchanges-Socialism." What the Pope in his encyclical, "Labour and Capital" says about this Socialism is as follows (page 53) :— "Goods are produced more efficiently by a suitable distribution of labour than by the scattered efforts of individuals. Hence the Socialists argue that economic production, of which they see only the material side, must necessarily be carried on collectively, and that because of this .lecessity men nust surrender and submit themselves wholly to society with a view to the production of wealth. Indeed, the possession of the greatest possible amount of temporal goods is esteemed so highly that man's higher goods, not excepting liberty, must, they fclaim, De subordinated and even sacrificed to the exigencies of efficient production. They affirm that the loss of human dignity, which results from the iocialLed methods of production, will be easily compensated for by the abundance of goods produced in common and accruing to the individual, who can turn them at his will to the comforts and culture of life. Society, therefore, as the Socialist conceives it, is on the one hand impossible and unthinkable iivithout the use of compulsion of the most excessive kind; on the other it fosters a false liberty, since in such a scheme no place is found for true social authority,' which is not based on temporal and material advantages, but descends from God alone, the Creator and last end of all things. If, like all errors, Socialism contains a certain element of truth (and this the Sovereign Pontiffs have never denied) it is nevertheless founded upon a doctrine of human society peculiarly its own, which is opposed to true Christianity. 'Religious Socialism,' 'Christian Socialism,' are expressions implying a contradiction in terms. No one can beat at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist." And in so far as our Government proceeds along the line of the "nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth," then in so far is it travelling towards the logical conclusion Communism draws from this policy, i.e., dictatorship by the political rulers of the proletariat. It may "be difficult to understand" the limits of "progress" in any direction, to some people. With G. K. Chester-1 ton I say: "True progress is knowing where to stop," an axiom not so far apprehended by our politicians.—l am. etc., | CREDO.