The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1920. “ROTTEN STATESMANSHIP.”

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3596, 7 October 1920, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1920. “ROTTEN STATESMANSHIP.”

Witb which is incorporated “The Taihape Post and Waimarino * News,”

In forming an opinion upon the ■comparative justice and beneficence of labour systems and government obtaining in Britain and in Russia many unexpected and bewildering discrepencies and inconsistencies are , encountered. The idea that man is ■such a lazy animal that he had to be made to work in the past, and that systematic force will have lo be used in the future, is repugnant to everyone and a distinct insult to the intelligence of most British people. Yet that is what the dictatorship of the proletariat stands for and has undeniably put into practice in Rusminers in Britain, as well as those in New! Zealand, have been so disgracefully; trrated in the past that they need not now excuse themselves for the determined efforts they have made to make a return to such conditions impossible in the future. What is not understandable at the present time is their amazing adherence to leaders of the Lenin and Trotsky breed who, it is very obvious, care very much for upholdance of the 1 ' dictatorship-'of the proletariat titan* they do for the well-being of \ workers, or for that true genuine '.socialism which may be easily traced in all ages of the world’s history. Among old socialistic formulas were “Love thy neighbour as thyself” and “Do unto others as you would - they should do unto you/’ The present day of socialism does not differ from those of ancient socialists only in the use of words; it is “Each for all and all for each.”. Life-long socialists have put this forward as »their, ; motto, that for which they are striving, and they have consistently claimed that it is the only basis upon which a Socialist State can endure. And few people will feel bound to diffeij 'with them. Trotsky’s formula is, “Man is a somewhat lazy animal; man had to be work in the past and man will have to be made to work in the future.” The difference, it will be seen, between Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat is so great that not oven the minutest resemblance exists. The t- ‘ formula of Socialism presages and implies a general level of sane altruism ajnd self discipline. The formula of Trbtsky, put into practice throughout Russia, is that the majority of mankind shall he forced to work, and that the minority shall direct that force, whether it be the knout or the more deadly rifle and machine gun. it is surely inconsistency itself for disciples of Bolshevism to apply the word socialism to a cult that can only produce social conditions inconceivably worse than those now obtaining. It is downright dissembling to say that Bolshevism is related to socialism in the remotest degree, and it is just here that people are being ■ cozened,, cajoled and hoodwinked into giving their support and allegiance to something actually opposed to what they believe they arc standing for. What matters to workers, and particularly to true socialists, is, does what is termed Bolshevism mean “all for each and each for all; do unto others as you would have them do to you? Does Bolshevism presage an d imply a general level in so far as a. levelling process is . possible and practicable. No person vrho ha s given most superficial 1 thought to the subject can deny that the workers of New Zealand are a . being fooled by crafty individuals into the trap of taking Bolshevism for socialism, which it is not, and has no relation whatever thereto. As 1 we have stated, Bolshevism is inconsistency itself Do its leaders, the dictatorship of the proletariat, practice “each for all and all for each?” Do Bolshevik emissaries or ambassadors to Britain associate with the British proletariat? Not at alj t such association would’ be an indignity to the , dictatorship. Wb crc then' do Russian proletarians locate themselves while 1 prosecuting their mission to Eng-

land? They engage luxurious offices in Bond street, and live in a mansion in aristocratic Mayfair. They do not s oil their hands in a shake with castenders, they move in the society of the very rich; they are “sidey for sidey-j” with lords, dukes, and the magnates of shipping, mining and spinning. Representatives of the great dictatorship of \ the Russian proletariat have no connection with the class that* must be compelled to work. Kamaneff and Krassin luxuriate in Bond Street and Mayfair. Kamaneff’s and Trotsky's daughters are being given the education of high-born and wealthy young ladies in England, and the inconsistence of some British Labour leaders of the type is visible in their hankering after and apeing the life enjoyed by aristocratic and wealthy denizens of the most fashionable localities in the Empire’s metropolis. Are the direct actionists in New Zealand seeking a condition of “all for each and each for all,” or are they faithful to the dictatorship of the proletariat they advocate? Do they believe that no improvement of social conditions can come but by h’oody revolution? Are they less consistent in their inconsistency than Kamaneff and. Krassin? Is their reasoning on a higher consistent level than their actions. Hansard is a fatal tell-tale to the inconsistent. Hansard is a record of inconsistency in advocating the cause of Conscientious Objectors. In season and out of season speeches have been inflicted Parliament with a monotonous repetition which only men with strongest nerves can stand. We expected these champions of the conscientious objector to say the fast and exert the last effort in defence of the two miners who conscientiously objected to submit to a levy being made upon them for the support of men in another country. Did they consistently meet expectations? Did they? Not at all; they tried to chivvy the men opt of the mine; • deprive them of their means of living; hound them and their wives and children out of the locality. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat a)T conscientious objections have to pass the dictatorship censor of consciences. Any conscientious objection not passing muster of the dictator-ship is a .crime deserving drastic punishment, and in New Zealand there is full realisation that it gets it_ But why is one conscientious objector given a halo and the other ■ doomed to be driven from work and homo, an outcast? The fact is the-ktatesinanship of the dictatorship of the -proletariat is bankrupt. Lenin and Trotsky made a, silly, ignorant social blunder, and they have now veered off ini just as silly and equally dangerous opposite direction. New Zealand extremists are resenting the idea* that they have not a whole-souled love’ for the soldiers who are back from fighting the Empire’s battles, but whether it is inconsistency or merely an accidental lapse Hansard does disclose that while there are a multipficity of speeches some favouring one class of conscientious objector, others in condemnation of other conscientious objectors, there is not one speech truly advocating the cause of returned soldiers. What is said in favour of soldiers is more against Government and country than for the soldiers _ If the occasion permits the use of inelegant language it may correctly be said that “the statesmanship of the Internationale, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is rotten.