WHO ARE THE COMMUNISTS?

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 119, 23 May 1925, Page 13

WHO ARE THE COMMUNISTS?

DOES THE N.Z. LABOUR PARTY

EXCLUDE THEM?

1 '. 40* Tha Welfare League -writes:— :-iP In the d*ily Press we have read reports which mate it appear that tho New Zealand Lnßour Party hes. decided to exclude all Communists from its ranks. One paper has the following :—. As tha Labour Party's platform does nob include " tha dictatorship of the proletariat and is in other respects inconsistent with the objective of ths Communist Party, the effect of sign- j ing the prescribed pledge would be ths abandonment of the ideals of the Communist Party." i This in our opinion shows a complete misunderstanding of the whole matter. Ths Communist ideal is Socialism • the so-called Labour Party's ideal is Socialism. The objective of both parties ia stated as " the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange." The Labour Party's platform does not recite the words, "the dicta- j torship of the proletariat," but It is so designed as to bring about control of the industrial operatives under party direction, and that is what is meant by j "dictatorship of the proletariat." j Thero is no difference between the j aims and objects of these two Bed par- j ties. Where they conflict iB in regard to the methods by whioh they respectively propose to bring .their Socialist objective into operation. At the New Zealand Labour Party's conference, held in Wellington at Easter, Mr. H. E. Holland, M.P., in referring to the relations of the Communist Party -with his party, said! " The dividing line was the method I of physical force and insurrection by a minority laid down by the Third International." j So we learn between the two parties j the division is not one of principle, objective, or ideal, but simply as to method. It may be; pointed out here that Mr. Holland's line of division is at times a very "thin red line." There are [ members of the New Zealand Communist Party who are more pacifist in profession than Mr. Holland, and, on occas-1 iona, the members of his party are quite as ready as the Communists to .engage in industrial insurrection. The outstanding foot is that Socialism and Communism so shade into each other that the only safe line for the general publio is to recognise them as two wings of the same insidious army of aggressive revolutionism. Experience teaches that their me.thods vary according to the time and ( circumstances with which they are deal-

ing. It should be noted that Mr. Holland does not merely say " force and insurrection,' but " force and insurrection by a minority." The Communist-Socialists of Russia met that point by -declaring themselves the Bolshevist (which means majority) party. When Mr. Holland says "No one could honestly subscribe to the policy of the Third International and at the same time to the policy of the New Zealand Labour Party," he is bucgesting that the Third Internationals policy is confined to methods of violence. In reality the policy of this International is the application of Marxian Socialism. Mr. Holland declares himself a Marxian Socialist, but objects lo the Third International's method of enforcement, by a minority.. The Easter Conference of the New Zealand Labour, before referred to, dealt with a report which contains this clause; " (3) That no member of any other political party shall be admitted to branch membership in the New Zealand Labour Party." 'lhat has been taken to exclude members of the Communist. Party, but does it? In submitting the report, ths movers said, " The party has no wish lo exclude any individual merely because he held revolutionary or Communist views.''

Later on, in replying before the'motion for adoption of the report was put, the mover said: "If Communists and others refused • loyalty there place was clearly in some other party. No individual was excluded by .the pledge because he was a revolutionary." The evidence, then, is that no one is excluded because they are Communist or revolutionist. It would indeed havo been a comical situation if a party that is revolutionary in character had decided to exclude revolutionists. The revolutionist and Communist are welcomed provided they are prepared to uphold the constitution, principles, and decisions of theparty. Well, there are 'Communists who can do that without any compunction; they are inside the New Zealand) Labour Party now. The real Communists whom the public require to watch are not the few visionaries who, being Communist, honestly call themselves .such, and form a, distinct organisation to advance idealistic Communism. -There are also the (socialists whose desigriß are towards- effective Communism, and who call themselves Labour, or even on occasion Liberal—any moderate title to capture votes with—these are the Communists who constitute the actual danger to society. The New Zealand Labour Party welcomes Communists so long as they are loyal to it. Were the Communist agents of boviet Russia to express themselves on the question we have little doubt that their favour would go rather to the New Zealand Labour Party as being a better instrument for their purpose than to tho organisation which names itself the Communist Party. The Communists to be feaved are not those who use the name _ Labour " as a cover to their revolutionary designs.