POLITICAL, OR DIRECT ACTION

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2443, 20 June 1922, Page 2

POLITICAL, OR DIRECT ACTION

WHERE STANDS THE “ALLIANCE l” REVIEW OF POST AND TELEGRAPH OFFICERS’ STATEMENT.

We note that in the current issue of the “Katipo” the Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association, in discussing the question of affiliation with the Alliance of Labour says:— “The Alliance is not a political organisation.” This assertion is repeated and given emphasis as if it justified the Alliance. Let us examine what" it actually implies. Nobody can deny, and we feel sure the Post and Telegraph Officers will not seek to do so, that the aim g£ the N.Z. Alliance of Labour is to secure: —“The collective ownership of the means of production and distribution, and control of all industries by the workers who operate them in the interests of the community.” Now, that objective, if it means anything at all, clearly aims at a complete revolution of the basis of ownership and control, from private ownership and control to collective ownership and control by the operative class. There are only two methods that we know whereby such a revolution can be brought about; onp is method of political action and the other is the method of direct action of force. We desire to be perfectly fair in this criticism and if there is any other method than these two, we invite the Alliance Officers—or the Post- and Telegraph Officers — to state what it is w Alit tie. thought will convince anyone that to effect a complete revolution of any kind can only be accompanied by means ' of either political action or direct action.

WHERE DOES IT STAND? When a body declares that its aim is to completely revolutionise the whole system of industrial ownership, which the Alliance of Labour does, if it says, in addition, that it is not a political organisation and does not mean to use political means, the public has a right to demand of it whether it intends to use the other means of direct action. It seems to us that, without intending to do so, the Post and Telegraph Association is suggesting a much graver charge against the Alliance of Labour than any the Weifare League has ever made. It says the Alliance is not political. As it is clearly for revolution the only inference to be drawn is that it must be direct actionist. We have never made such a serious charge against the Alliance. Our opinion is that though the Alliance is n<>U a party which selects candidates and contests elections it is political jn the sense that its objective is both political and industrial in character, and it will use political means to effect its ends. If this view of ours is wrong then the Alliance Officers can say so. It is certainly due to the public, and to the Officers of the Postal Service, that the Alliance should state definitely whether it intends to use political means or direct action to secure the industrial revolution stated in its objective. If the Alliance, and the Post and 'Telegraph Association, in saying that the Alliance is not political, intend it to be understood that it will not use political means but those of direct action, then, instead of justifying the Alliance, it is the most damning statement that could be made against it. This matter should be cleared up quickly. (Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare League.)