FASCIST OR SOCIALIST?

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22135, 3 July 1937, Page 20

FASCIST OR SOCIALIST?

TO THE EDITOa OT THE TEESS. Sir,—Last Tuesday, on your leader page, you gave prominence to the political views of Mr D. Garsden Fowler, a representative of an English firm who is travelling in New Zealand. Mr Fowler is reported as having expressed the opinion that the New Zealand Government is more Fascist than Socialist. So confidently, it would appear, does he, hold this view that he “challenges any member of the Government to tell (him) what is the difference between Fascism and the Labour Party. It is scarcely to be expected, however, that those Socialist legislators and executives who at the present moment are busy applying the principles of social and economic justice to the life of this nation should find the time to answer the criticisms or every itinerant bagman whose views secure publicity in the capitalist press. Nevertheless, in the interests of truth, n seems desirable that someone should accept this challenge. Let us see what basis there is for Mr Fowler s con.ention that New Zealand Socialism is akin to Fascism. . . .. „ As Bernard Russell has put it, Fasficm has . . certain essentials, without‘which it would cease to be Fascism. It is anti-democratic, it is nationalistic. it is capitalistic, and it appeals to those sections of the middle class (of which, presumably, Mr Fowler is a member) which suffer through modern developments and expect to suffer still more if Socialism or Communism becomes established. “It does not accept the greatest happiness of the greatest number as the right principle in statesmanship, but selects certain individuals, nations, and Masses as ‘the best’ and as alone worthy of consideration. The remainder are to be compelled by force to s-rve the interests of the elect. “The root objection to Fascism is its selection of a portion of mankind as alone important.’’ If Mr Fowler’s contention is valid, these c £*racter sbm of Fascism must also be cha acten_ t cs of the political philosophy of the New Zealand Labour movement. Let us examine that political philosophy. The New Zealand Labour Party is pledged “to secure by constitutional poUtical means the adoption by thu. of l fdo D „ o =S?SiSn. u '’"VurthS: sr-ontr state that Labour aims at social and economic justice for all individual, and classes. Fmally. there is n °war rant for the suggestion that Labour has in the past or will m the future, depart frorn these principles end a ms Hence not only in the technical, but in the most fundamental sense, is the New Zealand Labour movement demoCr in iC S o far as New Zealand Labour has a proper pride in the achievements and possibilities of this Dominion, and in so far as we are determined to work out our own destinies without dictation from outsiders. New Zealand Labour may be said to be Indeed we go so far as to think that we have something to teach the rest of the world. But we do not insist that we are God’s elect, nor do we desire to force our views on otn. r nations, nor do we aim at economic nationalism. Ttwse are senses, hot • ever, in which the term nationalist is applicable to Fascism. . . , New Zealand Labour is certainly not capitalistic! Its economics are Socialist. and its explicit obiective is “the socialisation of the means of production. distribution, and exchange. New Zealand Labour grants no precedence to the claims of any individuals or classes. It recognises no social hierarchy. It accents the proposition that all men should have equal n"hts to happiness and well-being. Its policy is to secure social and economic justice for every citizen within the basic distinctions could be drawn between Fascism and New Zealand Labour I have said enough howevei’. to indicate that however much Mr Fowler may know of foreign political systems, he knows no hmg whatever of Socialism in New Zealand—Yours. L rob e RTS ON. Hokitika, June 30, 1937.