THE UNSOCIAL SOCIALISTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2748, 21 June 1924, Page 4

THE UNSOCIAL SOCIALISTS.

A STORY OF CONTRADICTIONS

It fi astonishing what a tremendous amount of pessimism is attached to what is commonly known as the Socialist movement. You lake up almost any issue of a Labour Socialist paper and you line] it mostly a long-drawn-out, grouch and whine. Everything is wrong but 1 he author of the stuff issued and he, surely, cannot be too well or he would not groan so much. If Socialism meant good social feeling and general sociability, how many good individualists there arc who might rightly claim to be socialists. The creed of socialism is, however, a warped philosophy. It preaches brotherhood in such a spirit of haired that the difference between its love and extreme selfishness is nowhere distinguishable. “Capitalism is wrong therefore all capitalists should he hated” is the social 'dictum of the Socialist. It would lie quite as rational to say sin is wrong and all human beings should he hated, ns all are sinners. Society is visualised by the socialists as two warring camps and the more class war is engendered the better arc they pleased. This very unsocial attitude is the key-note of all their activities. They may talk pacifism as between nations, hut as between themselves and the rest of society who do not agree with them, their whole attitude is one of unrelenting warfare. Their aims, tactics and strategy are those of warfare within the nation of which they, in common with other citizens, are members. Social reform which recognises the community of interests of all citizens, is another doctrine than that of the pessimist view that progress can only he made by pulling down the structure of society in the hope that a better may be produced. We find the socialists politicians of our Dominion, whilst making the greatest professions of humanity, are at the same time constantly engaged in stirring up class feeling and eonllict. Their social attitude is one of contradiction in that they declare themselves collectivists and yet pursue such tactics as inevitably divide the collective spirit of the nation to which they belong. The N.Z. Labour Party joins with

the Alliance of Labour in support of . the idea of “one big union on a class basis.” When examined ibis is soon to be not a movement for social unity but an ni tempt in splil the nation in two and c.-iablisli per manent warfare bet ween Iho adherents of the Alliance and Party and all other citizens who differ from them. If all Labour Unions .join this Alliance how then is il to function? It does not profess to act for the whole of the people tml for the (.-less who belong to it. There must arise occasions when the interests of the class or sections of it, will conflict with those of the State as a whole, and the vital question has to l,e faced which power shall he recognised as the social authority of government, the self-constituted Alliance or the political government constitutionally elected and appointed?

Look at it as we will, there remains a definite conflict between the ideas of class warfare and that of true democracy. The one big union of society must take preceden-ce-over all other forms of union, if' the social character of the State is to be preserved. Rightly considered, the only justillenlion for voluntary associations of section or class lies in the evidence they produce of their helpfulness to t ho Stale as a whole. No Alliance. League, or other named combination can usurp the power of social dictation without precipitating war within the State. Such warfare the Communists declare for as their policy.

The political socialists of the Lahoar Parly should he honest about the matter and either drop their Marxian policy of class warfare, or acknowledge that their aims are anti-social in relation to the State. Division and unity of society cannot walk hand in hand, nor the creed that is unsocial in character be rightly called social in name. (Contributed by (lie New Zealand Welfare League). S -