UNDER TWO FLAGS.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 November 1928, Page 3

UNDER TWO FLAGS.

(by x.)

In the political programme of the party which lias annexed the title of “Labour” (to which it has no right whatever) there are many dangerous ingredients. These are. however, living carefully kept in the background and hidden behind the cloak of Liberalism (filched from the Liberal Party). Radicalism might have been expected—in fact the late Mr Sodden was to a (ertain extent, a Radical, and bis Liberal policy was in some respects of a radical nature. Rut when Socialism and Communism are introduced it is necessary that the red flag which its advocates have adopted, and which h\ a fortitutous but providential coincidence lias world-wide recognition as a danger signal, should be prominently displayed. .It is certainly not prominent in the election manifesto this year, and the explanation that the red has faded out to a .pale pink is not convincing. It rather appears as though the warning bunting has been snugly stowed away in the flag locker, and no more red is allowed to appear than can lie explained away as belonging to | lie crosses of St. George and St. Pa trick* in the Union Jack. Now it is the boast, of the “ Labour ” Party* that its platform remains lor all time an-expression o| iis political laitb by which it stands or falls. The platform certainly hears evidence of “ international ” origin, and of lories sinister forces—which it would he as impossible lor the New Zealand Labour Party to control as it bus proved impossible for the union leaders to control the turbulent elements which have entered unionism.

1 have before me the official Labour Party's programme for the 1922 election. and I would ask loaders to note the wide dillcrence between ibis ami the programme now submitted. Alas to not that not one plank ot this 192 platform has ever been officially repit dinted or withdrawn. As a northern paper says:—“lt is pertinent t<> ask whether the timber not now on view has been discarded permanently. _ or whether it lias simply been put nun,, out of sight until the public has been Rilled into sense of security, when the planks will begin to reappear one by one.”

I think it might he even more to (he point to ask whether the N.Z. officials of the world-wide Socialist-Communist--Internationalist organisation have any power or authority to remove a single plank, or do anything which would awaken and alarm the electors.

The programme provides amongst other things for:—

The socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; Right to work or maintenance; Land tenure based on “ useheld ” ; Immediate establishment of a State Panic with sole right of note issue, and to the ultimate exclusion of private banking ;

Establishment of State farms. Static owned shipping service, State ownership of a!! branches of insurance. Stale coal mines, factories and industrial services ;

When national ownership ol any in dustrv is effected all labour for such industry and at least ball the Hoard of Control to be appointed by tiie l n ion or Unions affected ; -'ll military instruction in schools tobe done away with ; The “universal” language— Esperanto— to lie taught iu all State Schools ;

Repeal of Military Service Act, Defence Act, and provisions in the “AA inRegulations” that- interfere with civil a.nd industrial liberties.

The Industrial and Political l nity of all workers of all countries for the purpose of superseding capitalism ; The unity of all workers in all countries in a. world federation for Hie purpose . . . of ending the exploitation by private capitalism.

1 often wonder whether those who vote “ Labour” iu tlie 1922 election had any conception of what they were voting for. or what danger would have threatened Now Zealand had those responsible lor placing such a politi'-al programme before the voters been returned as a responsible government.

'! he programme was so obviously inspired by the bolshevik organisation known as the I.Yi.W.. was so revolutionary in its character and so utterl,' impracticable that it was an insult t.< Liu* intelligence of New Zealanders t claim their supper tfor it simply because they were “workers.” I bate shown that only about one in thirteen or about seven per cent ol the people •-if New Zealand <ome under the con trol of unions at all. Only a very small percentage ol these are likely t - lie dominated by Messrs Holland. Semple and Fraser, so it was not surprising the “ Labour programme was turned down by tin* electors. It wa> only the various side issues which s'complicate election returns which werresponsible no doubt for the “ Laboui vote as recorded at the past elections. Anyhow, the indications were not promising that the 1 .AA .Y\ . program no would be adopted in New Zealand-tno

Russian peasant and the New Zealand voter were not ol the same order of intelligence.

The New Zealand political labour loaders were not in the happy position

of the American politician, who. after expounding his policy said: “ Gentlemen, those are my polities—those are my sentiments. Ji they don’t suit—they can lie changed.” The programme, or so called platform, is iu reality part of a world-wide revolutionary propaganda, which as Mr Theodore (when Acting-Premier of Queensland) showed was really by the encroachment of the foreign element with the poison iif “ 1.W.W.-ism ” proving the greatest enemy of the Labour movement. Our •• Labour ” leaders have not re- * pudiated this programme, but at the present election are careluliy covering up its more objectionable and revolution nrv features.

Nothing is said now of the “socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange.” This, based on Marxian, socialism, could never he brought about without the “class war,” of which at one time we heard so much. Mi- Holland made one feeble attempt, to contuse “ Stale Socialism

with Marxian Socialism —a quite different proposition—-but since then litis perhaps wisely decided to say nothing about what was, and probably still is, the key to the whole political programme. and explanation of “ Labour” objective.

Then the Stale owned shipping service is not now referred to—-wisely perhaps in view of the Australian fiasco. State farms lor the production of the people’s food si nit's and national control of the food supplies of the people —probably this came direct from Moscow without due consideration as to its

applicability to New Zealand, and is to bo conveniently shelved—until alter the election at any rate. Right-io work or maintenance sounds all right when laid down by the soap-box orator who would be probably quite as willing to waive- his right to work as his right' to wash provided his right to maintenancel l>v somebody else could bo ass tree!. Hut there are difficulties in the way of giving practical efleet to the laudable ambition of those who can t or won’t work that they should be maintained bv those wlm can. Ibe matter

ap|K?ars to have been conveniently shelved. The State Rank is still to the fore, but the " full control ol note issue to tin 1 ultimate exclusion of private banking” is—well, not emphasized at present. State ownership of all branches ol insurance, with the obvi-

ous elimination ol mutual or co-opei

sitivo societies, is also wisely kept in abevanee as so many thousands ot the

workers are "capitalists and have invested savings in premiums on life

and endowment policies. In l:u-t, there are many awkward aspects crop-

ping up when ail international ievolutionary policy to promote class wail a re

lists to lie brought before the intelligent ■ voters of a. Eritish dominion. i Therefore if is not matter for surprise ! that there is a. marked difference between the policy speeches of the “Labour lesidors and the official programme of .Marxist origin by which they are j supposed to he bound. Rut it is well I t!ie people should know under which j lla.g these politicians sire now ranged, j Has the Socialism which they preached j to the people commencing with “class war” and ending with the “dictator- I ship of the proletariat.’’ been difinitely j abandoned If so when, and by vvl. u | until rily I' lias the national exccuti e j authorised the Parliamentary Partv to

alter the whole jsolitii-:iI faith of “Labour” even t i the extent of abandoning

its prime objective the socialisation doctrine according to the g -sp'-l of Karl Marx? If not the party is sailing under false colours and mislead ng the people by .submitting a programme of Liberalism taken entirely from the old Libera! Party simply to cover up the Socialism and •Communism inseparable from their real policy, and objective.

It is lutrdlv necessary to- refer to the Communist, literature which is being smuggled into New Zealand, some ol which is occasionally deter ted and onfiascated. to dete-t tin* o'jo-Live of the ('•onimunisl and R -voluti'inary Soo'nfist extremists. Tin* 192? urngrawmc sis quoted above shows clearly it is designed to undermine sill lovalty to the licit'Hi Umpire and sdl it stands for.

In fail 1 ness to sonic—p-ssibly many—of those who are standing in wlisst they believe to be “Labour” interests, it is euite possible, tbev do not, realise they arc merely pawns in a desperate game of world-wide revolt engineered by irras.uo.nsihV l foreigners. Not being either political economists, industrialists, financiers, or hsiving knowledge of the unalterable laws which govern social evolution, the utter absurdity find impraeliriibility of the s:o called “Litbour” nhitL-rm may not be evident to them. Rut tliov must realise that common honesty demands tlmy light under their own (lag. Whether they can justify the programme of not: whether they know whore it originat'd or not; the*- must adhere to it in its entirely, or else repudiate it and dissociate themselves from an organisation which Mr ''Mitch and many others have shown to bo- permeated with disloyal and destructive elements.