Constitutional Revolutionism

Hokitika Guardian, 23 June 1921, Page 4

Constitutional Revolutionism

THB LATEST POLITICAL CAMOUFLAGE. VERY PLAUSIBLE BUT DANGEROUS. The leading spirits of “The N.Z. Labour Party” have found a new term with which to define their party. Under pressure of argument they have discovered. that it would not be politic to have their party • known merely as a. revolutionary party so they have declared for something they name Constitutional Revolutionism. The conundrum of “when is a revolutionary not a revolutionary?” appears to be easily answered by the statement, “when he is a politician.” Speaking in a debate held by the Victoria. College Debating Society on Saturday, 4th of June, Mr P. Fraser,- M.P., said revolution was not essentially violent, it was merely a culmination of evolution, and the revolution the-Labour Party in this country aimed at was a constitutional revolution.” Again “he challenged his opponents to find anything advocating or prompting violence in the platform of the ‘N.Z. Labour Party’.” Mr H. E. Holland, M.P., has also affirmed this doctrine of Constitutional Revolutionism very recently. Mr Martin-Smith presented the view in these words, “revolutionary change meant a fundamental change, not necessarily a violent one.” Let us examine these statements. One can agree that revolution if not esentially violent and yet if attention is paid to historical facts we are bound to believe that revolutions have a most striking tendency to become violent. If revolutions could be confined to the class-room or be limited wholly to. the field of academic discussion they would probably be quite immune from any tendency to violence. It can he argued with reason that dynamite is not essentially violent, hut requires some attack before it exhibits the qualities of force. Reduced to eomnionseii.se terms, as the result of general experience in human affairs, it is reasonable to affirm that the tendency of revolutions to become violent is generally in proportion to their speed and the resistance they have to encounter. To estimate the risks of the revolution tlie Red party are seeking we must clearly recognise what they aim at and tltc methods they are ready to adopt. It sounds nice and soft and easy to talk of revolution as merely the “culmination of evolution,” but in reality these words explain nothing. The eruption of Mount Tnrawcra was merely the culmination of the evolution of the physical forces within the earth’s crust. The words “culmination” and “evolution” mean nothing unless we consider the form of culmination, and what is evolved and how.

Let us not got drunk on fine words, hut keep clearly in mind that historically and socially revolution is loaded with the probabilities of violent upheaval. A gun does not go ofl on its own account, hut the person who carelessly handles such an instrument may hurt, or get hurt, in the pioeess. The people who are seeking to persuade innocent persons that the gun of revolution js not loaded are somewhat dangerous teachers to learn from.

How innocent is Mi Fraser, M.P., in challenging opponents to show that there is any advocacy of violence in his party’s platform ; of course there is none. No political party could over affirm such a thing in its platform, not even a party ot anarchists. Me can acquit the members of this party c. r having any desires lor violence. If, however, the causes of civil strife are accentuated and the forces that make for social disruption are constantly augmented the most benevolent desires will have little effect in staying the conflagration should some mad fool throw down a match of incendiarism where the means of destruction are ifady for the touch. What are the aims and methods of this socialist party? With a clear view of these we shall know what kind of revolution it has in view and how far it is truly constitutional. First of all let us point out that the whole of the purposes and policy are not contained in the platform. In Parliament, on July (It.h, 1920, Mr E. J. Howard, M.P., said, “I am net going to offer apologies for saying that as soon as possible 1 will help to get rid of Parliament as it is constituted and institute in its place an Industrial Parliament that will reflect the useful people.” That definitely is Sovietism. It is not in the platform, hut Mr Howard spoke for .his party and the policy affirmed lias never, as far as we know, been denied by the party. On October lltli, 1920, Mr Fraser, M.P., said “The workers had realised they must organise on the industrial field and battle not merely for better conditions, hut with the object of having the industries controlled and directed by the workers.” That syndicalist policy of “control and direction hv the workers” is not in the platform hut it belongs to the policy. I t is well known that the party endorsed the voluntary Councils of Action decided upon in England. In vain do we look for that in the platform, but it is clearly the party’s policy. THE REVOLUTION AIMED AT.

This party stands for “The socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange.” Tf that means anything in practice it means a complete change in the whole basis of ownership and control and entails an entire revolution of society. The party has shown its readiness to . eo-operate with revolutionary bodies outside New Zealand to the extent of affirming the right to establish non-representative Councils of Action on a class basis. It is surely but a fair inference to conclude that the revolution aimed at is one which will expropriation the property of the private owners of capital in favour of control and direction by the proletariat of' the Dominion. WHAT IS MEANT BY CONSTITUTIONAL? Whether there can be any such thing ns “Constitutional Revolutionism” depends on what is meant by the word “Constitutional.”

Speaking of the “Councils of Action” Mr J. H. Thomas, M.P., said “That our course of action was hold none can deny; that it definitely challenged the Constitution there can be no doubt.” Tf to definitely challenge the Constitution in affirmation; to seek the abolition of Parliament in favour of Industrial Soviets; to co-operate with others in a policy that denies the existing representatives Government and

Constitutional Authority of Crown- and Parliament; if we say, these are proper constitutional methods then the party may he called a Constitutional Party. Of those who would use Parliament to destroy Parliament and use the Constitution to destroy the Constitution we can be- sure of their 1 revolutionism, but of their professed Constitutionalism it would be well to accept the same only in installments and just as it can be held subject to practical tests. “Constitutional Revoluionism” leaves •groilnd for very grave suspicion. (Contributed by the N.Z. "Welfare

League)