WORKERS' EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 June 1920, Page 2

WORKERS' EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

To the Editor. Sir,—When Mr. Seymour first visited New Plymouth in the interest of the W.E.A. lie asked me if I would consent to become a member of the committee. I had not then heard Mr. Seymour's address. 1 subsequently heard Mr. Seymour, but was elected a member of the, committee in any absence. A few days later I expressed to another member of the committee my disapproval of the W.E.A, scheme regarding a class in economics. Either as a result of this or for somo other reason, I was not notified by the secretary when meetings of the committee were called, and I was until to-day ignorant of the fact that the committee had met, or that proposals were under way for the "orination of classes in economics. I have therefore not had an opportunity of explaining to the committee my objections to the method of organisation and tuition In connection with these classes. As my name was publicly announced as a member of the committee I will be obliged if you will give me this opportunity of publicly disassociating myself from the work of the W.E.A. in connection with these classes in economics. My reason for doing so is that I consider the teaching of economics under the auspices of the University and the Government a method ■of reactionary propaganda;. Economics is not a science. It represents on tlto one hand a system of apologetics justifying the existing social order; on the other hand, it represents the mental groping of numbers of independent and disinterested men trying to find a scientific explanation for the laws underlying the production and distribution of wealth. The system taught In the universities, and which will be taught by the W.E.A., Is the system of apologetics. The movement towards the creation of a true science of economics Is only in its Infancy, and has been delayed by the war. Sir Leo Chlozza Money, in 'the course of « controversy in the Daily News (London), ten years ago, wrote: "It is high time we hammered out 'An Economics of Actuality.'" He had been pointing out the numerous generalisations of economics that did not square with facts. Students of economics In recent years have been endeavoring to bring Its principles into touch with actualities, and In doing so are findng that many of its principles are based on grave fallacies. Yet, these fallacious principles aTe still being preached with great unction by university professors, and much of their nonsense will be drilled into the students of the W.E.A., and It will take students years to unlearn the system foisted »i theim when a real science of economics lias been developed. If the W.E.A. were to form a debating society for the discussion of economic problems I would welcome it, but the handing out of "orthodox doctrine" by tutors selected by a university coterie Is a method of teaching economics I heartily condemn.—l am, etc., S. W. MTZHEEBEKT. New Plymouth, 22nd June.