THE REDS’ DILEMMA.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 September 1922, Page 3

THE REDS’ DILEMMA.

IS IT A POLICY OF CONFISCATION? FACING BOTH WAYS. Writes the Welfare League: A certain Australian politician secured the addition to his name of the words “Yes—No.” With justice we fear the same words can be added to the name of the present party in Parliament that is masquerading as “Labor.” It might adopt the words of Hosea Biglow as its motto: “ ’Tis not by principles or sich my prudent course is steadied; I scents which pays the best, and then go into it bald-headed.” Facing due north by south is the present course of Mr. H. E. Holland, M.P., gnd bis brother abstractionists. Mr, Theodore, of Queensland, boggled over the policy of “socialisation,” and pretested, as a plain man, that his colleagues might as well be candid and call it communism. A trifle like “socialisation,” however, will not disturb Mr. Harry Holland, because if it leads to any accusations of associations with Communism, a policy of confiscatiofi, antagonism to the British Empire or other hold-up he can always repudiate. The trouble about these repudiations is that they are too frequent and too free. 'When a certain Red journal, of which Robert Blatchford wrote that “he never wished to see the damned thing again,” has abusively attacked Great Britain, Mr. Holland’s party repudiates connection with the slanderous sheet, and goes on cheerfully supporting the publication just the same.

Mr. Holland recently published a pamphlet on the coal question, in which he repudiated the “go-slow,” and at the same time incidentally excused it. This Red Party has repudiated Liberalism, and stolen the grave clothes off certain deceased Liberal statesmen wherewith to cover its own wretched nakedness in the matter of principle. It has repudiated all conservatism, and in municipal elections has upheld the Tory principle of plural voting and class domination. It has repudiated, and conveniently lost, its own proper name of “Socialist Party,” because the name “Labor” has a more sterling ring about it, and helps to cover the more revolutionary objects which it has in view. This party is engaged in the equestrian feat of riding two horses at once—constitutionalism and revolutionism —and its great dilemma is due to the fact that these mounts will take opposite courses. In view of the approaching elections, it is doing all that is possible to keep its favorite charger—revolutionism —’behind, and as much out of sight as possible, but the beast, being of a wild breed, forces its way into prominence in spite of the party’s most strenuous exertions. WHO SAID “CONFISCATION.”

The little talk in Parliament between Mr. Massey and Mr. Holland, wherein the Premier declared the policy of Socialism one of confiscation, is amusing to read. The disputants, like in many other debates, neglected to define the term they were disputing about. Of course Mr. Holland repudiated the idea that his party stood for confiscation — what else could he do? The'word has an ugly suggestiveness about it, and at present his party has the role to play of “being good.” The party has been playing so ardently on the string of “be good sweet youth, and let who will be clever,” to paraphrase a well-known poem, that it fairly makes us eerie: it is so suggestive of the good young man who died.

To return to our text, “confiscation” means seizure by way of forfeit. Mr. Holland indignantly denies that this party any such seizure of private property as is suggested in this wore}. He says the charge is “a foolish lie.” We confess our suspicion of Mr. Holland’s word of indignation, as we have seen it used so often as a cover. It has to be noted that he did not attempt to deal with the searching query—if .socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange does not involve confiscation, how is it to be brought about? That is the question which Mr. Holland’s party is called on to answer. “Socialisation of the means of production,” etc., clearly implies the substitution of public or collective owni ership for private or individual ownership. Taking over of such property by i means of compensation would still leave ! the private owners in possession of ; wealth which could be again used to- ■ wards production, distribution and exchange, so that the question still stands of how this revolution can be effected without resort to confiscation.

A TEST APPLIED. To find exactly what the Red party means by “socialisation” we must consider its proposal in the abstract form, but as applied to some definite and practical issue. Take the land plank of the party—clause 3 reads: (a) A State valuation of all privatelyowned land, such valuation to remain on record as the measure of present landholders’ interest in land. (b) That privately owned land shall not be sold or transferred except to the State. /. (c) The owner shall have the right to surrender his land on the valuation set out in sub-clause (a). Can these terms mean anything else than that the State shall: (1) * Determine the landholder’s interest in the land held by him. (2) Abrogate his right of disposition, except to the State. (3) Restrict his power of sale to the one purchaser, namely, the State, which has determined the price. If such interpretation is correct, then it would appear that this platform does not advocate “confiscation.” unless a meaning can be found for the word other than is commonly accepted, as the forfeiture of the private owner’s right of free disposition of his property is clearly contemplated.