FASCIST OR COMMUNIST?

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26630, 28 November 1947, Page 4

FASCIST OR COMMUNIST?

There is a familiar ring to the protest which the National Council of the New Zealand Federation of Labour is to address to the Prime Minister on the remarks attributed to the Minister of Rehabilitation, Mr Skinner, concerning the activities of Communists in the Dominion. Mr. Skinner’s speech is described as being pro-Fascist Jn tone, a charge that is ominously reminiscent of the manner in which Communists the world over defend themselves against those who stand against them, Of particular significance also is the report that some of the delegates who formulated this protest praised the Minister,, of Health, Miss Howard, for her recent refusal to be drawn into a denunciation of Communism. The Council of the Federation of Labour, as most people in New Zealand are now aware, contains strong representation of those Left Wing unions which play the tune to which the present Government dances, and its attempt to denounce a Minister as being proFascist because of his condemnation of Communism suggests unmistakably the direction in which the sympathies of a good many of its members must lie. It suggests, moreover, the real reason for the Government’s reluctance to be honest with itself and the country by announcing a definite policy in regard to the Communist and semiCommunist organisations that give it political allegiance. Mr Skinner’s opinion of Communists was delivered honestly and without equivocation. It was the opinion of-a man who had served his country in positive and practical fashion by fighting for it, but his belief that every member of the Labour Party would support his view that Communists should not be permitted to live in New Zealand was in the nature of an unfortunate overstatement. Mr Fraser and other members of the Cabinet have uttered cautious criticisms of Communism, but the demonstrable fact remains that certain sections of organised labour have identified themselves with Communism, and that Communists have infiltrated into responsible positions iri the Labour Party. That they should have done so is not surprising. It is essential for the success of their tactics of disruption and industrial anarchy that they should attain to positions from which they can foment and direct unrest among the workers they claim to represent—as they are doing to-day in Great Britain, France and elsewhere. That the majority of workers hold this vicious and foreign philosophy in contempt has been demonstrated beyond-doubt at recent elections in this country and overseas; that Communist activity quickly subsides when workers take an intelligent and active interest in the conduct of their own affairs has also been proved. But in this country the lamentable fact is clear that the Government dare not take up the challenge of growing industrial discord that is every day presented by its unruly minority.