RECANTATION OR WHAT?

Hokitika Guardian, 1 June 1921, Page 3

RECANTATION OR WHAT?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH TIIEIR MOVEMENT.

The leading article of “The Maoriland Worker” of Ma v 25tli is headed with the striking question. “What’s wrong with out movement?” That is a confession that something is wrong. Whatever the - cause may bo the paper appears to be in a penitent mood, but whether it is an eleventh hour repentance or a fresh mode of appeal for help is what we have to consider. The first question we would have settled is, what movement do they mean ? There is th c , ordinary movement of Trade Unions, of which there are several hundreds in New Zealand; there is the movement of the Syndicalist Unionists (who call themselves the Industrialists) ; there is the movement of the so-called “N.Z. Labour Party;” there is the movement of the Ultra. Marxian Revolutionary Socialists Communists; who want to swallow the hog, tail and all, at one gulp; there is the movement of the Red Press which lias been about as coarsely vulgar, abusive and one-eyed as it could possibly be. Of course the paper, in'this instance, is assuming to speak for the whole “Labour movement” as if it were one and indivisable, whereas the movements of Labour • are exceedingly various, and neither the paper referred to nor the political party have any right to speak for the whole, or call the •sum total “their movement.” They are not “Labour” but merely a sectional movement that has hitherto followed most extreme lines; If asked to snv “what is wrong with their movement?” we would in honesty be bound to affirm tliat. in our opinion, it is all wrong.

Our reason for that opinion is simply j that we do not believe the movement I is sincere. We have noticed that some | daily papers tala' the “Leader” above referred to as being a recantation of past excesses-and promise of better j things to come. We can only hope that they might be right but knowing, from 1 close observation, the many twists and j turns that the extremists have resort- ! ed to wo are in doubt “whether these dailies have not rather allowed the wish 1 to he father of their thoughts. j ARE THEY STRICTLY SINCERE? ! When Mr P. Fraser, M.P., refused to sign an address of welcome to the Prince of Wales and later on affirmed that lie was a loyal subject of His Majesty the King, we must confess that we were left with a strong doubt of his sincerity. When we have found similar contradictory action on the part of the other leaders of that party it has led us to tlie conviction that the whole qiovement was lacking in sincerity. Our reading of this recent ‘Leader’ is that the authors have recognised, from j the recent elections, and other events, tliat their power is not increasing. In the face of these circumstances they are appealing to the Ultra-Industrial-ists and their other members, to take

the line of constitutional method because* it pays. We are pleased to give the journal every credit for these state ments. ‘ For any Labour organisation in this country professing to stand for working class emancipation to teach that that goal can be reached by insurrectionary methods (for that is what the ignoring of constitutional procedure means) ,is to be guilty of a serious crime against the working class.” “To teach a doctrine of non-participation in the country’s political life is to advocate a policy which falls short of complete emancipation, for as has boon shown, freedom cannot be won by the application of economic pressure alone.”

All that is just what the Welfare League has been teaching. Still we are bound to ask whether this movement is prepared to candidly reject the policy of revolution; the establishment of voluntary Councils of Action; the replacement of Parliament by Industrial Councils or Soviets; or will it demonstrate how “Socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange” can be affected without insurrection. Unless it can do these things it must surely still 'lie open to question whether its profession of constitutionalism is at all sincere; whether it can be more depended upon than Mr Fraser’s profession of loyalty, and whether it is of any more real moment than the plea of a party that is losing around and is prepared to profess loyalty, constitutionalism or any other doctrine the people want in order to save itself. Constitutionalism we know; likewise Revolutionism, but Constitutional Revolution—No! It is but political dishonesty. What is wrong with their movement is,'we fear, just plain insincerity. ’(Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare League.)