Polities In New South Wales -and the Alternative

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 27, 8 September 1911, Page 10

Polities In New South Wales -and the Alternative

For some time politics in New Sout-h Wales have been dramatically interesting. All the world loves a row. All the world pretends otherwise, but the pretence merely . adds a spice to the actual.

This paper does not propose to be hypocritical or hysterical about the row. It has no quarrel whatever with the quarrel. Rows are part of the manifestations of movement. Progress dearly loves tumult.

"There shall come out of this noise of strife, and groaning a deeper and broader humanity." But until the world comes to its senses and casts out capitalism, O Lord! send us shouts and strife. Amen.

Nevertheless, if we have no quarrel with the "VValesian political row, we may be permitted to get behind that row and thrust into view the recreant Laborism skulking in the shadows.

This recreant Laborism isn't so much the betrayal aaient the referendums : it goes even deeper than that extraordinary debacle. It is the blacker treachery of absolute- repudiation of Labor's land policy. In the former case the Labor platform —built in sweat and agon J'. —left room, in its ambiguity, for misunderstanding (to bo bounteously charitable) ; in the latter case, there wasn't a scintilla of justification for scuttling the plank.

Yet when a party sinks almost everything precious in principle in order to placate prejudice and catch votes, quite inevitably the- rottenest elements iv the pai*ty dominate the situation. So in New South Wales.

Careless of education in the essentials of Laborism (sort of curve between Liberalism and Socialism), neglectful of even its own ill-shapen propaganda, the Labor Party—"outs"' and longing to be "ins" —went in wholesale for those popular "tactics" summed up in the shibboleth named Moderation. It

"whittled down" its traditional policy

and talked largely of legislation for all classes. It locked its objective in the cellar, pompously mouthed platitudes, glorified inane futilities, and conjured Socialism out of sight.

And —it grew in public favour and, being quite harmless, got into power and made its determining factor Dunn and Home. This pair of Laborites was so influential that Minister for Lands Neilsen was sacrificed to it and Neilsen's land proposals were swallowed by it.

The leasehold tenure was given the solar plexus punch by the freehold tenure. The story of how Neilsen fought vaJiaaitly for the leasehold system of land teoxure, and resigned rather than desert the land policy of the Labor platform, is story familiar to our readers. His resignation had to come or Dunn and Home had to go. As the going of Dunn and Home meant the LaboY Pa.rty's getting out of office, Dunn aaid Hornie. were not allowed to go —eventually. For a brief while/it did look as if the sacred Platform was to be greater than the "freehold" pair, which, resigned, got its way and returned to the fold, but had to face two bye-elec-tions, and was split in twain. Dunn was re-elected; Home, having previously advocated the return of his rival, was beaten by his rival.

Of all the hocus-pocus, the intrigue and the apostasy of these happenings much lias been said; and in this connection it is some consolation to chronicle that not a Labor paper of Australia upheld the N.S.W. 1 Labor Party. The Sydney "Worker" was joyous at the resignations from the party of Dunn and Home. It said the party was stronger for their absence, that they should never have been in it.

Still, they both got back into it!

As an outcome of all the trouble, there looms a general election. There will thus be three general elections in Australasia before the year ends —one in New South Wales, one in Victoria, and one in New Zealand.

We are concerned chiefly with New Zealand —in making New Zealand understand that not in. Laborism (ere long to bo triumphant in each of the Australian States as it is triumphant federally)—that not in Laborism with its disfiguring "rattings" but in Socialism with its straightness is there workingclass salvation.

Laborism has failed. Whether it be said sorrowfully or angrily or gleefully, the fact is so.

Laborism in Australia has not done as much for the worker as Liberalism in Ncav Zealand has done for the worker, and there is positively no rhyme nor reason in New Zealand throwing its Liberalism overboard in order to take to its bosom Australia's more backward Laborism.

Unless the New Zealand toiler is ready for that which lies beyond Laborism and Liberalism equally, then he had better stick to his Liberalism rather thaai change Liberalism's name and leave unchanged Liberalism's nature.

If the New Zealand worker wants something more than Liberalism, what he- wants is Socialism. If he wants

Socialism he will never get what he ; ' wants whilst he is afraid of proclaiming what ife wants.

He cannot get Socialism if he labels it Laborism. He will get the adulteration and the shoddy the label covers.

Because Australian Laborism went in for every blessed palliative (so-called) which had a, contingent of backers the result in its "altogether" could only be an army of palliators. What drew the army into unity was palliation. It was started at the. wrong end. The right end is emancipation. Take care of emancipation and palliation # will take caro of itself.

Australian Laborism, building an ever-lengthening platform of palliatives, had ever to expound the palliatives and so established a school of skilful expositors whose adeptness in palliation tragically unfitted them for emancipatory agitation, education and organisation. The appetite grows by wliat it feeds upon.

Try to conceive the glorious result if all the energy, all the enthusiasm, all the self-sacrifice and all the coin devoted to popularising this or that plank had been devoted to the one excuse for and purpose of a workingclass partj 7 —viz., emancipation from wage-slavery—and see in the process a people won as easily, and much more securely, to the Fundamental as to the superficial, to the Aim as to the steps.

The difference between the processes is that- at the end of the palliative process there remains still to do tho greater work, while at the end of the emancipatory process all the lesser work has been accomplished' also.

Let us in New Zealand hold fast to the truth that safety and refuge come

of telling tho truth —that the truth must finally be told and may as well

be told first as last.

What we need are men who will say what they believe in their hearts, and not delude themselves and us with the plausible but wicked doctrine that the time to speak genuinely and sincerely the truth in them is always in the future.

The party this country needs is theparty which will say just what it means aaid just where it is going and means to get. It may be hard and appear tactless. The rewards may not be speedy. At tho hour Garibaldi's immortal call fits our perilous case: "Soldiers, I have nothing to offer you but hunger and cold and rags aJid wounds. Let him who loves

his country follow mc/

There is a cry for "leaders" —but' there is nolle in our Parliament. Your old party politicians are jerry-built.: Pass them by. If the workers'of New Zealand are to have leaders they have to produce them from among the workers. Better, far better, if the

workers moved in the intensity and

earnestness of their own leadership. Better, far if the workers heeded their own righteous, deep-rooted instincts for fair play and economic srap-

remaey and marched confidently and

clamantly to wipe out hard times and anxious hearts by voting for Socialism, working for Socialism, organising for

Socialism

Thus shall they have room to

breathe and right to the wealth which is security, freedom, power and life.

IN his letter on another page, we ar® glad to find Major-General Go-dLey confirming the opinion of this paper that neither he nor his officers "are at liberty to give any expression of opinion in public on this policy." We affirm that the General and his officers have been conspicuous in the non-observance of this procedure. They have not only violated it in spirit, but in fact. A dozen and more declarations oi" officers might be cited in proof; but surely the General's "public utterances" before tho Farmers' Association demonstrate the inaccuracy of the General's , letter. He said: "All this talk about conscription and militarism is re-ally the greatest rubbish," and other things of "the sort. His "public utterances" were Avidely quoted by the press, and were decidedly a contribution to party and partisan warfare. And, according to the "Auckland Herald," ho said of the time- when the original Japanese treaty was to expire, and in the event of Japan menacing New Zealand, that "there would not be the slightest chance of Japan teaching us anything." This is lamentably absurd, just as no one knows better than Major-General Godley that anti-militarism and anti-conscrip-tion are not "rubbish." But this apart, neither of these statements is "an endeavour to explain . . . the Defence Act." We regret .our inability to construe Major-General Godley-'s "public utterances" in the way he construes them. We think such "utterances" undignified and better undelivered.