THE BOGY OF SOCIALISM

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22492, 29 August 1938, Page 5

THE BOGY OF SOCIALISM

TO THE EDITOR OE THE PRESS. Sir—Your correspondent, “A.P.,” wishes me to “elucidate” some “mystery” which he says exists relative to the utterances of the Hon. D. G. Sullivan. It seems to me thait the honourable gentleman is merely following out his usual tactful policy of trying to please everybody. Mr Sullivan accused you of "striving to find evidence of socialisation” in his Industrial Efficiency Act some time ago. This, coming from a Minister pledged to implement socialisation, made me think of Sir Harry Lauder. “Oh, stop your tickling, Jock!” Mr Sullivan, although pledged to Socialism, ..knows perfectly, well that the electors, once they realise that he means business, will dump him; therefore, he means to try to convince them that Socialism is some nebulous idea that he has his own opinion about. Well, that might have worked very well up to the time that the Labour Party attained the Treasury Benches, and, no doubt, did work very well on the electors of the Avon electorate; but now the chickens have come home to roost. Mr J. Roberts “spills the beans.” He writes: “The only thing that man really can own is his moral character and spiritual faculties. Everything else is illusory.” That, in my opinion, is all that we will have left if the Labour Party is in power very long. We will-he back to the days of Boadicea when, we are told, the ancient Britons possessed merely a coat of woad. Socialism in excelsis, as Mr Roberts envisages it! |J Mr Sullivan could only gag Mr Clyde Carr, Mr U. E. Herring, Mr Morgan Williams, the Hon. P. C. Webb, the Hon. Robert Semple, who waited to tell the kookaburras in Australia that he was “still a Socialist,” and last, but not least, the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage, with his “The sky is the limit and “We haven’t really started yet, then we might believe him when he alleges that the Opposition has raised “a bogy of socialisation.” The Hon. D. G. Sullivan puts me in mind of a foreigner in the midst of strangers. He does not, apparently, understand the language. We have a band of men, the “new gangsters, Mr Forbes called them in the House, who are urging the producers to increase production and leave the distribution to them. They put me in mind of my seed beds and what happened when the hens got put. Australians, generally, think of New Zealanders as they do of merinos—pretty woolly about the headpiece. I wonder are they right. Socialisation, a bogy? Why, we are being socialised right now, as fast as the tax collector can rake in our liquid assets! Even the poor kids,are not forgotten, nor fhe eirls’ glory boxes. —Yours, etc., tne gxris go y mRAM HUNTER . ' August 28, 1938.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. - Sir,—Several of your correspondents writing under the above heading appear to have varying definitions of the word Socialism. Many people tWnk that under a system of Social'foa, private property would disappear. On the contrary, under a, system of Socialism many more people would own much more private property than under the present system. The definition of Socialism, which I claim is most generally accepted by Socialists,

“A state where all members of the community would be working for the benefit of the community as a whole; where everyone would have equal opportunity to work- at the trade or profession for which he is best fitted; and where everyone able and willing to work would be assured of a high standard of living; where those partially disabled or physically weak would be found suitable work that would not overtax their strength; where the sick, the maimed, the young, the old, who were not able to work, would be adequately cared for.” Socialism has been given many false meanings. You use the word sometimes, and 1 am sure many of your readers would like to knpw your definition of Socialism.—Yours, etc., G. W. DELL. , August 27, 1938.