Comment from the Capital

Press, 23 May 1977, Page 16

Comment from the Capital

(who owned the means of production), and the proletariat (the propertyless workers condemned to exploitation). Take out ■ the Marxian hate and violence, and we have something closer to our own century than to that of Marx.

But the 632 delegates, perhaps inspired by a short address on the Socialist International given by a former Mayor of West Berlin, Dr Klaus Schuetz, unanimously passed a resolution that the party should declare its belief in "democratic socialism” in its 1978 manifesto. As if that were not enough, the conference decided, with some opposition that the Labour constitional committee should put back a reaffirmation of Labour’s faith in the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and ex-

change in the party’s constitution.

It was this, and the fact that Labour had dropped .this affirmation from its manifesto in 1951, which moved Labour’s political leader (Mr W. Rowling) to comment later: “It’s a bloody great step backwards in terms of terminology.” This does not indicate any difference between Mr Rowling’s views and those of other delegates. Already the usual distorting influences have been at work, so it is important: to remember that to Mr Rowling "socialism,” with any qualification, is stili an out-of-date word.

He expressed this with some pungency (but unfortunately in committee) when a woman delegate demanded that he explain or deny the quotation as it appeared in Wednesday’s newspapers.

Later he told journalists of his belief in “a brand of socialism of New Zealand’s own making.” The argument has been highly informative, in that it has also covered the substitution of "nationalisation” for "socialisation” in the old phrase.

"In a truly democratic State there are other ways than that implied in ‘nationalisation’ by which these functions may be controlled,” Mr Rowling has observed.

By and large, the sight of Labour actively seeking a philosophy satisfactory to all groups within the party h. s been an impressive one. Even Labour’s opponents would say that good Government. demands an efficient and balanced opposition. Labour supporters have drawn much sustenance from the fact that both branches of Labour are today standing firmly together. The cynic would say that one man alone has succeeded in joining the industrial labour movement (The Federation of Labour) and the political wing (The Labour Party) together — and that this is Mr R. D. Muldoon.

Certainly the conference had its share of anti-Nat-ional and anti-Muldoon sentiment, expressed at times with a vigour approaching hatred. There was the theme expressed by Sir Thomas

Skinner that the National Government, in the person of Mr Muldoon, was out to destroy industrial labour by forcing restrictive clauses into new legislation. "We have to act together, now, before it is too late,” said Sir Thomas.

It has to be remembered, however, that hate is a poor catalyst, and a worse substitute for a concerted policy. Hate is negative — and so is the piecemeal kind of pragmatic dissent that has characterised much of the official Parliamentary opposition since November 1975. The success of Labour’s conference has been in the measure of determination among delegates and officers alike to forget arguments within the Labour Party, and to concentrate on the main issue. Mr Faulkner and others have been quick to note ihat the National Party wastes little of its strength in party bickering.

At lease as encouraging has been the willingness of delegates to commit their organisations to putting more money into election battles. The invigorated research and publicity organisations can be said to have proved themselves at Mangere and Pahiatua.

It may be true, as the party’s junior vice-president (Mr M. K. Moore) said, that “if Labour had poured as much money into Eden as National did, I would still be a sitting member.” But at least it is plain that Labour efforts will redouble in 1978 — and that the local organisations will spare no effort to reach the electorate with Labour’s newest redefinitions.