The Taihape Daily Times. AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1918. ANARCHIC SOCIALISM AND LABOUR.

Taihape Daily Times, 5 March 1918, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times. AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1918. ANARCHIC SOCIALISM AND LABOUR.

'With which is incorporated The Tai hapo Post and Walmarino News).

, ,To understand the. difference be•)u< . tween labour and anarchic socialism from reading doctrines preached by men of the Henderson type, in England, is indeed difficult. One day they are found conferring with Lenin and Trotsky, the next leading a Labour-cum-Socialist meeting in England, and on the following day they are visiting or receiving visits from Litvinoff, the Bolshevik propagandist, who represents the Bolshevik cult in London. It would be thought that the ranks of labour would be organised and marshalled by experienced, practical workers; in practice the opposite is found. Labour is dominated in Britain, in New Zealand, in Australia, and the world over by talkers, most having Utopian ideas. It seems to be the impracticability of the leaders that appeals most to the people. Executive committees meet and issue a portentous manifesto, in less than a month something quite different is and launched on a sea of perplexed labour. The latest of these wonderful documents indicates that the world is to be made a huge Australia. A league of nations of the world is to occupy a similar position to that of the Australian Commonwealth Government, while Britain, France, Germany and other great nations are to be on the level of the various Australian Stales. The league of States in Australia is beautiful when looked at through theoretic spectacles, but when viewed with the practical naked eye dissension, distraction, disunion arc evident. Society is disorganised; there is political unrest’that will not be calmed, and yet the Hendersons in Britain have issued a manifesto which says the world shall be turned into a large edition of the Australian Kilkenny Catdom. Surely, with the Australian object lesson, something better could have been evolved for the government of the world. The word democracy is being prostituted by the Hendersons; it is more popular than socialism, and it does not arouse the suspicions . of the people. They are going to democratise the world as their Bolshevik confreres are democratising Russia. It would be fatal to their intentions and their Utopian proposals to say straight out that they ar e going to embark upon an orgy of anarchy and bloodshed similar to that the Litvinoffs, Lenins and Trotskw have established in Russia ,so they say they are going to democratise all countries, not only their own. The power wielded by kings and emperors is nothing beside what they aspire to. In fact one begins to wonder that they have not included the moon and a few of the other planets as well as the Earth in their scheme of democ-

ratisation. Such words as imperialism, patriotism and ’Others with relative derivatives are to be wiped out of all future dictionaries. The world is to be governed by a super-national authority, just as the Australian Government is a super-State authority, this is essential, probably owing to the ridiculous failure of the Superstate experiment.. Civilised nations are not to be allowed to hold their colonies; the natives are to have their own governments and work out their own destiny in their own way. It is true that they have only mentioned 1 African colonies in the manifesto, but to be consistent they must mean Asi ian and American colonies also. For why give self-government to African Zulus under the super-national scheme and refuse similar rights and privileges to the natives of New Zealand, or of Australia even, if a native Adam and Eve can be found of pure stock to re-people that fifth continent? If I British interlopers are to be turned I out of Africa, why not out of Austrat lia and New Zealand? If all African colonies are to be transferred to the super-national authority in the interests of the natives why not New Zealand and Australia? Of course it is I all too absurd and impracticable. There is to be enforced limitation of armaments and nations are not to be allowed to war with each other. The super-national authority establishes a super-national high court to wnich all international disputes must be submitted. There seems to be no provision for any international lawlessness. We are concerned about what will happen when the savages of African erstwhile colonies have, while working out their own destiny, become so numerous that they find themselves strong enough to commence eating the white representatives of the super-national business. We shall have limited our armaments so that we shall not be able to contend against international lawlessness of this kind. The Henderson manifesto sounds very nice, but it is little more than crazy imaginings. Some of its ideals may in time be worked up to, anything else would mean revolution. Some are so Utopian as to put them out of the court of practicability. Labour is strong enough to rule the world, but for labour to follow such fiendish misfits as those who

associate, collaborate and scheme with the Litvinoffs, Lenins and Trotskys,- must end in worse conditions. It is nothing short of fathomless fatuity to serenely and smugly rest in the belief that the socialism let loose in Russia will produce any other result, if let loose in Britain or anywhere else. Three 1 parts of fhe world would support a. sane labour movement, but three-fourths of the people of the world will be opposed to the Henderson-Litvinoff-Trotsky anarchic socialism. Revolution in its very mildest form is disorganisation, and we all. have intellgence enough in these days to know that such disorganisation would mean ruin and want even in New Zealand. While labour can evolve by legitimate, constitutional means the highest degree of uniform comfort, why take any risks with revolution? ■m