Eevning Post. FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 1923. NEGATIVE PACIFISM

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 35, 10 August 1923, Page 6

Eevning Post. FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 1923. NEGATIVE PACIFISM

True to the principles of its founder, the Social Democratic Federation is calling attention to the need for national defence measures. The Federation was founded by the late Mr. H. M. Hyndman about forty years ago, and it was revived in its present form as a rallying ground for Socialists opposed to the Bolshevik creed which threatened to win adherents in Great Britain. The old Party was strongly influenced by the beliefs and the dominant personality of its founder. A thorough-going Socialist himself, Mr. Hyndman was never a blind pacifist. He opposed the South African wars hotly; but he did not argue that all war could immediately be abolished. Indeed, he was one of the first men of note to perceive- the magnitude of the German menace, and his internationalism did not prevent him from proclaiming the facts as he saw them, and vigorously advocating British defensive measures. It was the vigour of his declarations upon this subject, according to his own account, which led to his rejection from the Brussels International, which he had been largely instrumental in establishing. He continued to urge naval preparation and two keels to one until the war came. Then he threw himself into the work of national organisation to meet the onslaught which he had so long foreseen. The Party which he founded and inspired now j misses his forceful leadership; but it remains true to those principles which he held with firm faith and advanced with all his energy. The declaration which the Social j Democratic Federation has just made is one worthy of the late Mr. Hyndman. "The conference," it is cabled, " views with apprehension tho .tendency in certain quarters to oppose to the existing evils of capitalism, militarism, and war a mere policy of negative pacifism and sentimental drift." The declaration proceeds to advocate a system of universal military training. In this inspect it goes much farther than the British Labour I Party's conference, which was satisfied to reject a motion proposing opposition to army and navy votes. The Labour Party refused to accept the idea that complete disarmament was possible, but it failed to deal positively with the problem of defence. The Social Democratic Federation, however, has put forward a positive policy. In doing so, it has displayed a greater sense of responsibility than has the larger organisation. Yet that larger organisation includes the majority of the men now constituting the Official Opposition Party in the House of Commons. If by some erratic turn of Fortune's wheel the Labour Party were to gain the Treasury benches, there, would be a Govevnn>unt in power entrusted with the defence of the country and with no definite plans for defence. Probably before that time comes Labour will have decid-

the issue. The statements of leaders such as Mr. Snowden prove that the futility o f a pacific policy which ignores the preparations of other nations is now perceived 5 but the party has not been persuaded to bring its declared policy into line with facts. Yet it is moving in that direction.

If we examine the records of the New Zealand Labour Party, we fail to find evidence of any similar advance. Upon the great issue of defence the party officially is dumb; and the words which proceed from the mouths of the accepted leaders are usually meaningless evasions. There are denunciations of militarism and condemnations of statesmen who have led their countries into war; but there is no hint of the policy which Labour would adopt if the Empire were again attacked. When questioned directly upon this issue, the answer has sometimes been returned that in the Socialistic State men would be willing to bear arms because they would have something to defend. This is an evasion of the worst type, since- it implies a denial of the citizen's interest .in anything short of a Socialistic State. It is true that Labour is keenly desirous of promoting peace throughout the world; but the other parties in this country share that desire. The difference between them lies in the fact that the other parties admit that the ideal is not immediately attainable, and that defensive measures cannot yet be abandoned. In the ranks of the Labour Party there are doubtless many who perceive this just as clearly; but they have been content hitherto to shut their eyes to facts. Until they assert themselves in the councils of the Party and insist that facts-shall be honestly faced, they cannot hope to obtain the confidence of the people. The electors of New Zealand are not so simple as to believe that, all need for defence is removed by professions of pacifism.