Socialism and Prohibition.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 44, 12 January 1912, Page 17

Socialism and Prohibition.

NEW ZEALAND'S VOTE.

The results of the Kew Zealand licensing polls are now to hand. Prohibition ihas not .been carried, .though a majority of electors have voted for it. The three-fifths majority required for prohibition has. not been reached.' It seems that the scale was turned at the 'eleventh hour by the attitude pf the Roman Catholic .Church. Just before the elections the Archbishop, instructed his people to vote against prohibition. But for this proclamation, which must have lost the prohibitionists many votes, it is probable that prohibition would have been carried. The fact of having, in spite of this, a substantial majority, is tantamount to a signal victory for the prohibitionists. What should be the attitude of Socialists on this question? To mc it seems that the decision must tie left to the individual Socialist. Every Socialist is aware of the evils boundifup with the present conduct of the drink traffic. But how far these evils are essential, and how fa.r they are accidents duo to present methods, is a debatable question. Personally, i cannot favor prohibition. It does not soem to mc that tho method of the prohibitionist is right. The policy of repression is never a sound one. Aa evil like that of drunkenness, with the other evils which accompany it, does not yield most readily to such methods of attack. They are not sufficiently fundamental, while they are -unnecessarily drastic.

To most Socialists it will probably -appear that the root evil of the drink traffic is tho same as the root evil of every other commercial concern —namely, production for profit. It is because our liquor traffic is in the hands of people whose solo aim is the heaping up of monetaj-y profits that our beer is bad and our publichouse disreputable. lam unable to sco the harm of publichouses decently and honestly cpnducted._ For the negative and repressive policy of tho prohibitionist, I should like to see substituted a positive and constructive policy. I believe that Socialism contains such a policy. Socialists aim at the' removal of the economic causes of drunkenness. They wish to abolish production for profit, and to substitute production for U3C. Under Socialism, I can conceive an administration of the drink traffic which would satisfy all but that unreasonable section who regard the use of alcohol as in itself an evil. At any rate, I am prepared to try the effects of such a policy, and if the drink traffic still proves 'to be a prolific source of crime and disease, we must abolish it altogether. But it seems to mc unreasonable to adopt the prohibitionist attitude before we have made the attempt to conduct the drink traffic decently and honestly. I do not think it good that the energies of Socialists should bo diverted into side channels. I believe that what is wrong with the liquor traffic is precisely what is wrong with every other traffic—if food, clothing, and all the necessaries or luxuries of life —namely, the subservience of public utility to private profit. Socialists, by opposing the private control of production and distribution, are, in my opinion, most effectively fighting the evils of the drink traffic. I honor the efforts of tho prohibition party in New Zealand, and congratulate them on the work they have done in stirring up public opinion in that country. But I believe the method of Socialism, though slower, is sounder than the method of prohibition.—Melb. "Socialist."