The Mills Scheme of Unity.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 23, 11 August 1911, Page 8

The Mills Scheme of Unity.

By TOM BLOODWORTH. Considerable agitation has been caused in the ranks of Labor in Auckland by the introduction of Mr. W. T. .Mills' "Unity Proposals." We haA'e. become accustomed in these days to hearing all sorts of people bring forAvard all sorts, of proposals designed to bring about unity in the; ranks of Labor, but these proposals are usually.brought forward by people having <very dittl© knoAvledge of the problem they- think so easily to solve. So that it is usually easy to see that such proposals 1 \\-ould be more likely to bring about further disruption than unity. But when Aye" have a proposal brought forAvard by such a man as the Avriter of "The Struggle for Existence" —well, aa-o thought that if unity AA'ere possible, then - surely the Professor must have found the AA'ay to it. , 'V,, ' And so he has. He has found : thoway to unity—only one important thing he has forgotten, and that is:_he has forgotten what it was that divided us' The ranks of Labor are not divided just • for the sake of _ diAnsion, neither will they be united simply for the sake of unity. We are divided because Aye do not agree on certain vital principles. And until we do agree oh them Aye cannot be united in any true sense of the word. ~.,.- j Those of us who are Socialists, and Avho believe that the N.Z.S.P. stands for Socialism, do not belong to. that organisation merely for the sake of being under a different organisation to those Avho fix their faith to the policy, of the Labor Party. We differ on certain vital principles. If we did not differ on those principles it would, not have been necessary for Mr. Mills to have come from America to unite us, for Avithout our differences we vyould have been united. If the Socialists thought the Labor Party was right, they would have been -in the Labor Party, and if the Laborites agreed with ; the Socialists, then they would- not | have, formed a neAV party, but would have joined the Socialist • Party.. Noav, Mr.. Mills comes along, and, taking no account of the. difference in principles, naively suggests that Aye become united —Socialists, Laborites, Single Taxers, and all the rest of them, all to come into one body. What for? Well, the objective of the proposed body seems like the very dim reflection of the objective of the Socialist Party, but the . Socialists do not want their objective given out in that feeble manner. They are. satisfied with the objectives of their owni party. Any Socialist avlio is outside the Socialist Party because the objective of the party is given in language too plain is not a Socialist of Avhom any, party might be proud. And any Socialist Avho objects to the Socialist Party, because its methods of propaganda are "too Socialist," is not the sort of man who Avould Avork for Socialism in any party, call it by what name you will. Tlie Socialists want Socialism* beino - convinced that Laborism is not Socialism, and that Single Tax is not Socialism, they do not join the bodies who advocate Laborism or Single lax, neither can they be persuaded to do so by Mr. Mills. ' i. We are not trying any short cut to Socialism, because Aye don't think there is any. We Avant unity; jyes, none more so, but Aye are not for sacrificing principles for the sake of unity. We are sorry to disaA'OAV Mr. Mills, but we are not being caught in any traps of that kind. Socialism is too Avelrunderstood by the Socialists for them to be Avaylaid' in that manner. There are -some among us who remember the Labor Party of Britain, and hoAy it out on a road that was-to lead to 'Socialism by the back door. And. we '.-have seen lioav it failed. We see signs that out of the ruins of that party a class-conscious Socialist Party will .have to be formed before any advance to Socialism will be made, s We also knoAV something of 'the Australian Labor Party and of .how it Avas going: to bring in Socialism uuaAvares. And Aye know that it also-has failed. And are Aye to hope to succeed by folioAving the same tactics?, No', no! A party of. only one hundred strong, knoAving what they Avaht and o-oing°sfright for it, will'do far more good than a party of ten thousand who are continually waning amongst, themselves because they do not knoAV Avliat they wants '-■'■ ~,, .; .'*"2 .. Say, Mr. Mills, wouldn't it be better to first of all convert the Labor. Party and the Single Tax Party to: Socialism, arid then get them to unite with the Socialist Party and thus bring in Socialism by the front door?