LABOUR AND COMPULSION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 30, 4 February 1916, Page 8

LABOUR AND COMPULSION.

(To the Editor.)

Sir.—There are some parts of the . letter by "A.F." in your issue of tl.c 19th inst. which I cannot understand, the reasoning may be above mc or below mc-I do not know which—but I notice the writer claims to be a-"eugenßt and a "philosophic socialist," while i. am only a common, ordinary socialist so I suppose the arguments are too philosophic for mc. I notice, however, and in his advocacy of conscription he cays '•Germany is an object joa><«i to cne world in State organisation." That may be sufficient to recommend conscription I to "A.F." (Your correspondents initiate) but it is one of the very tbinfff which help to set myself and many other people against it. ~,•.„ Mr Mcßrine says lie was not joking | when he said "that conscription, by forcing a Christian to take the lives oi other men, might be a worse thing than death itself to him. Unfortunately Mr M«Urine did not say that in h* tomw letter, .but simply, "he may be a Lnn tian, and 60 object to taking the lives of other men." To that 1 remarked that from what I saw of the world it was a vary unlikely coincidence. 1 only see the world, and the Christians of to-day. for Btopping. It is still possible that Christianity may stop this huge gladiaS'S ™I d ° nOfc /! linl ,h lay called Christians will; and by the way, T-io not think all historians agree with Mr Leeky on that point. "\B." insiste that payment of rote, is not voluntary; all right, 1 agree; but payment of rates is not conscription o wealth, any more than compelling bojr. to attend school is conscription of men He also states '"that if trade unions would help instead of hindering, we mi"ht think them mare patrrotic. 1 did not know that trade unions had hindered. I have several times read of leading statesmen ill Britain thanking the unions for the support tr.ey -had eiven. And last, but not least of my critics comes my old friend Bara Fostus, a veritable Daniel come to judgment. (Would that 1 knew where I mi"ht find him.) He begins by calling Mr" Mcßrine and I these "heavenly twins." Surely that is another joke! Twins we may be but not exactly "heavenly." 1 "have laid myself open fer "rational onslaughts," says 8.1. We". I am sure there is no one better fitted to carry out those onslaughts than he, but where are they? He twits us with being inconsistent, in that we have "repeatedly challenged individual rights of private ownership.-" Well, my worst enemy would not charge mc with being consistent. Eraerson, I think it is, defines consistency as the refuge of small minds, and Uara Fostus is not sheltering in that castle.any more than I, for he has as often defended individual rights of private ownership as I have challenged them, only I think in those times -we were arguing about material things, wealth for instance. Now the question concerns the lives of individuals, a somewhat different proposition. "Why when the State demands conscription do our Socialist friends howl against it?" asks B.F. In reply to that I ask when did the State I demand it? I haven't heard that the State has done anything of the kind yet. Some people have tried to persuade or compel the State to do so. and against that some of us have argued not "■howled," and it is not yet a crime to express opinion of that sort, though no doubt it would become a crime if conscription became law. We have argued against conscription, first because we do not think it is right for us; second, because we do not think that conscription in British countries would help to win the war, as Meßrinc well shows in his letter of the 27th, and third, because we do not think it right to surrender, without very good cause, the priceless heritage of individual liberty which we inherited, and which we had hoped to pass on, improved maybe, to our children. We do not think conscription is needed to win the war, but we think some of those who advocate it do so in the hope of strangling liberty after the war. AYe are not cowards or traitors. It is far easier to say you are jn favour of conscription to-day than to say you are opposed to it, especially if what yon say is above your own name. If Bara Fostus can bring any rational onslaughts against these objections of ours, by all means let us have them, but if he can only say just what the ordinary man in the street says, well he might as well have remained asleep.—l am. etc., TOM BLOODWORTH. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Will you kindly allow mc through your columns to make a few remarks anent the three kinds of conscription, which have lately produced a lot of controversy in the Press, and also the causes which have operated in ycais gone by, to hamper us in such a war as the present. The three kinds of conscription are first of men, (i.e., fighting men), second of labour, and third of wealth.

In the case of conscription of men the several correspondents on the subject have been very long-winded in their endeavours to make good, either for, or against. 1 have for years associated myeelf with the cause of labour, but 1 am an out-and-out conscriptionist. But. the conscription I favour is compulsion, fairly administered by a Government which would show no class bias. ]f I were in the Old Country, and conscription was put to referendum, I would certainly vote for it. I believe the present Asquith party (with all their faults and mistakes) to be the most democratic and most representative Government on record. For that reason I would trust them to administer conscription of men fairly and without pandering to the privileged classes. To vote for, or to advocate conscription of men in New Zealand, however, is a different matter entirely. I have in my mind too many instances of pampering and toadying to the sons of men in good social positions, to think of advocating conscription, which I am sure would not be fairly administered, but would be used in thumbscrew and rack fashion to force the working classes. In the case of conscription of labour, it is in force to a certain extent in the Old Country now. Men who have been sworn in are working in the munition works; in fact, soldiers were sent back from the western front to •work in the shipyards and munition

works. Should this wax continue f ßc : |? another two years (which is quite I sible) I believe that conscription, of ji;. o ur will have to be adopted. Againjlj I gay that under a democratic Government E there would be nothing to fear'vby jt 4 I adoption, so far as the worker is con- I cerned. It would only be in. force dit. : B ing the war. | And now I come to the third kind -of I conscription, namely, of wealth. -jj£! Jy. first thing to he considered is, what ; s 1 meant by conscripting wealth? jg I money-bugs, adopting their usual met!.. I ode"of denouncing all legislation which | would make them pay taxes in propo r . 1 tion to their wealth, try to persuade tli,. I public that conscription of wealth b ita- 1 possible. That all the wealthy nieVin I the Empire should pool their riches iot I the benefit of the Government, is sheer I nonsense. But the Government could 1 easily find out what a man is worth, a iid I tax iiim accordingly. In the case of cer- I tain businesses (such as squattcre anj I farmers) where huge war profits have I been made. I would suggest special taxi. I With regard to the causes which hare. 1 operated to place us in that handicapped Imposition with regard to men, may' I ask. I your correspondent "Bara Fostus," if; | that unenviable position has been 1 brought about by "oracles of Socialist; 1 salvation." I think not. Even "BataI Fostus" must admit the legislation which has resulted in the present lack of men, was not enacted by Socialists. Of couri C r Socialism is a matter of degree. T'ie 7 socialism of Bellamy, which may possibly be realised (in part) about the year-; 2010, is only entertained by fana'fe; Sane socialism is. however, in vogue, arid very mucli in vogue, in Britain at the present time —thanks to Lloyd George. 1 Tt is a quarter of a century since I left I Britain (with the exception of two short 1 visits), and T know that the conditions I obtaining then did not tend to produce 1 that most deciding factor in a nations' [ I fight for existence, namely, healthy nien, I Of course, now that we have to beat I Germany or go under, I advocate tli? putting aside of all petty political and social differences. I do not approve of the use of disparaging remarks concerning men holding socialistic views. Be. - member, sane socialism has not had "a trial, unless Mr. Lloyd George's present trial at " Georgetown " can be called, a trial. There is one outstanding fact which does not require a very discerning person to see quite plainly, namely, that that virulent type of Tory, who has been mainly responsible for the oppression of the worker (who is the man who counts in a war like the present), will soon become extinct. Tour correspondent T. West says "\Vo cannot win the war without' men. TW-' wealth is here: the method of extracting it from the individual is purely a matter ; for arrangement." Unfortunately^ c ;" csnnot manufacture men, and Britaino 1 policy has in the past been a depopuiat ing one. As to the extracting of the. necessary cash from the individual,; I have no fear about that. The extract- : ins process will begin before very lon&fsl Necessity knows no law.—l am, etc., SCOTIA,