Evening Post. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1920. ECONOMIC MURDER IS ALSO SUICIDE

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 91, 14 October 1920, Page 6

Evening Post. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1920. ECONOMIC MURDER IS ALSO SUICIDE

Concerning the eternal question of man v. woman, someone has written that " you cannot accuse one sex and excuse the other." And probably the same thing may be said of all the interdependent but warring sections of society. Neither Capital nor Labour can be excused; nor town nor country j each has contributed to the tragi-comedy of errors. In a community in which each section is profiteering in its own way, not one has any more right to point out the sins of the other than to admit its own. Unfortunately, however, it happens that any person who attempts a candid analysis of each or any has a fair chance of becoming the- enemy of all; for with the one-eyed partisan it has ever been a rule that " he who is not with.me is against ■ me." Yet, notwithstanding, fair-minded people will be well advised to continue to keep aloof from a partisanship which is in great danger of degenerating into mere sectional bitterness. It is impossible to accuse one section and to' excuse the other. Far better is it to cling to the prospect of mutual concession and compromise in preference to conflict. No section is pure enough to repudiate co-operation out of fear of contamination.

Imagine an economic fight between producers and consumers. They quarrel about a price, and transpoi*ters—in supposed sympathy with consumers—leave the milk products to spoil on the farms. Who benefits? No one. Even dearness is preferable to famine. Suppose the producers win the battle and impose their own price. Do they necessarily benefit? In Dsnmark, according to some authorities, the produce prices are so high that the Danes export their own- butter and they themselves eat margarine. But, is this a gain for Denmark? Considering what a milk diet means for the young, is a milkless and butterless condition good for any country? Then, go a step further. According to the Italian Socialists who visited Bolshevik Russia, "the peasants have derived more advantages than damage from the revolution; on the other hand, the life of workmen has become worse, and tho cities have fallen into material misery." In the Russian cities the food situation is worse than dear butter; it is worse than no butter at all; it approaches famine all round. But, if the cities continue in this state, does anyone really believe that the Russian peasantry —at present gainers through seizure of the big estates—will continue to profit by a state of affairs which, while it gluts them with food, limits their town markets, and, through the paralysis of the industrial sections, denies them transport to markets overseas? It is not thinkable that an arbitrary policy on the part of country or of city can be for the permanent good of both or either.

There is a chronic cry of " Back to the land." Some people say that if food is dear it will attract city people to the country on a mission to produce more food, and will thereby check the townward drift of population, and cheapen the cost of living. So far we have seen v no evidence that dear food is driving town-dwellers to the source thereof, Mother Earth. Instead, all the countries, including the United States, are statistically reporting increased concentration in urban areas. But there appears to be one partial exception. According to the secretary of the British Labour delegation that visited Russia, Bolshevism, by sheer starvation tactics, seems to have accidentally started a " back to the land " movement: One of the greatest difficulties fof the Bolshevik regime] is that the townspeople want to desert to the country, where they can manage to feed themselves. Soldiers are frequently being sent to the villages to bring back men who have left the works in the towns in this way. So that it appears that the first country to patent the idea of land-settlement-by-starvation does not, after all, really want it. New Zealand does not want land-set-tlement-by-starvation, nor does she want the abandonment of land because of unfaii limitation of producers' prices. If there must be limitation of prices—and the Government says there must—New Zealand's interests demand that the limitations must be equitable. But equitable dealing does not flourish in an atmosphere of partisan bitterness and sectional distrust. The firat essential is to recognise that no one has a. monopoly of righteousness, and that the question must be approached in a spirit of moderation and compromise.