THE COMPLETE CATECHIST.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9056, 3 April 1908, Page 7

THE COMPLETE CATECHIST.

THE LABOUR AGITATOR'S .CATECHISM. ((For the .instruction of those who aapdiie to .master .the true relationship of Labour to Capital—-from the Labour ; paiut of .view,). vQ;: Who,are you? A.: A Labour Agitator. ■Q,: What lis a Labour Agitator? A.: One who agitates in the interests of the sacred cause of Labour. ■Q.: What do you mean by this word Labour? < a: 1 mean the manual work performed by the horney-handed son of toil feu* an inadequate weekly wage. Q: What is the prosiac name for thu "horney-handed son of toil"? A : The British working man. Q: Is the British working man as "sacred" as the cause in which he is employed? A; Yea, verily;; he is the Holy of Holies in the Temple of the body politic. Q: Must everything else give way to the claims of this hallowed individual? A: It must. Q: Why so? ' A: Because it is he alone who creates the wealth, and so promotes the welfare of the oomm.uaity. ;, Q: Give me a. precise definition of the term "working man." A: One who earns his living by the use of his hands. Q: Quote examples. A: The farm labourer, the miner, the mechanic, and the stonemason.

Q: Is the sculptor, wlio also earns his living with his hands, equally as much a working man as the stonemason? A: He is not. Q: Why not? A: Because, in the case oi the sculptor, the hands only play a minor part, being the subsidiary agents of the brain. Q: Is h the fact that brain work is not work at all in the true, the sacred sense of the term? A: That is so. Q: And that no man who works with his brain is, properly speaking, a working man? A: Obviously, he is not. Q:Does it follow from this that no professional men- such as barristers, doitors and journalists—can be said to have any part or lot in the , sacred cause of Labour? A: It does. Q: And does it further follow that, for this reason, the interests of such men should be ignored by the Legislature? . A: It does. Q: Why so? A: Because in a properly constituted community the legislative machine exists solely and exclusively for the benefits of the working man. Q; Are you yourself paid for agitating in the interests of Labour? A: I am. I draw an annual salary of two hundred pounds. Q: How do youngiitute? A: Chiefly by muking speeches. Q; Is making speeches manual labour? A: It is not. Q: Does it require brains? A: It does. Q: Would it be correct to infer from this that you are not a working man? A: It would not be correct. Q: Why not? A: Because I am the exception that provos the rule. Q: Is the working man ever a master-man, or is he essentially one who is employed and paid by some one else? A: He is essentially one who is employed and paid by some one else. Q: What do we call that some one else? v A: The capitalist. Q: Define a "capitalist." A: An unconscionable tyrant who waxes fat and wealthy on the Jabour of the working man. Q: How does the capitalist do this? A: By appropriating to himself the wealth which the working man c routes* Q: Does the capitalist do anything in return for the wealth which lie thus appropriates? A: Nothing worth speaking of. He merely provides the brain and the capital. Q: Have the brains any practical value? A: Very little. Q: What is that practical value, if any? A: Only to control and direct the business, and to see that it is con-, ducted on efficient and successful lines. Q: Is the capital of any substantial use? A: Very little: Q: What is that substantial use, if any? A: Merely to build factories and workshops, and to provide all ntcassary plant and raw material. Q: The capitalist, then, does little or nothing towards earning the huge profits which he wrings out of the labour of the working man? A: That is so. Q: What is the proper way to deal with the capitalist? A: To legislate him out of existence. -"London Truth."