Evening Post. MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1938. SOCIALISM NO MERE "BOGY"

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 81, 3 October 1938, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1938. SOCIALISM NO MERE "BOGY"

In answering the question whether Labourites are Socialists there has been some confused thinking on the Labour side. For a while some members of the party were inclined to deny Socialism. As recently as last session a Labour Minister resented the intrusion of "the Socialism bogy." Others again, disinclined to repudiate Socialism, contented themselves with declaring that previous New Zealand Governments were Socialists; so that, in a comparatively short time, Socialism ceased to be nowhere and was credited with being everywhere, and with being the possession of everybody, from Mr. Coates to Mr. Lee. The "bogy" that had no material existence thus was converted into a general condition, for which Mr. Lee acknowledges his debt to previous Governments. Yet if a visitor comes from Auckland to Wellington to tell the Labour Party that it is a State Socialistic enterprise, interrupters in the audience try to close his mouth with interjections. They are Socialists who do not like to be told about it. They are champions of free speech—if it is the right kind of speech. When the concrete foundations of a big building are laid in Wellington, most people take it for granted that the building itself is coming, and coming quickly. Because private enterprise does not lay a foundation for nothing; neither does a Government. When the people of Wellington walk by the foundations, they visualise not merely the foundations, but the building itself. They do not split hairs as to technical terminology, nor do they tell themselves resolutely that the building that is certainly coming can be dismissed from the mind, because a building, and the foundations thereof, are not oije and the same thing. Nor does a sensible citizen regard any differently the Socialist foundations (banking legislation, guaranteed prices, Industrial Efficiency Act, etc.) and the Socialist edifice itself. Unless one is to assume that foundations are built for no purpose whatever, he must see that Socialism is knocking at the j door, and he should vote accordingly. The mixed argument that there is.no Labour Socialism, that all parties apply Socialism, and that in any case it must not be mentioned, may satisfy Labour partisans, but is surely not capable of imposing on average intelligence. Some electors are inclined to shelter behind the time factor. "Socialism is certainly coming, but not quickly — not in our time." But Mr. Lee's book leaves no doubt whatever that Socialism in our time will be either accepted or imposed. Not only does he think so, but he marshals facts to prove that it must be so. The abovementioned visitor from Auckland, Professor Algie, quoted Mr. Lee, in the Town Hall on Friday night, as stating in his book that "if we stop short of taking over all the banking systems of the Dominion we shall be Socialist in name only." This means that if a Labour Government rules New Zealand in 1938-41, it will be "Socialist in name only" if it does not take over all the banks. He despises a Labour Government that is "Socialist in name only," and though he writes this book ("Socialism'in New Zealand") as a private individual, he records on the page giving the author's name that he is Parliamentary Secretary to the New Zealand Ministry of Finance. This is the kind of thing that the Labour interrupters did not want to hear —but why should they try to suppress it? Can any attempt to suppress the truth —to suppress Mr. Lee's revelation of Labour's Socialism—be compatible with the Labour sincerity of which New Zealand has heard from Mr. Savage? Why should not the electqrs know exactly what they are voting for? Mr. Savage rises up with great in? dignation and says to the farmers: "We shall not take your land." But Mr. Lee proclaims in clarion tones that the Government shall take the banks! What need will Mr. Savage's Government have to take the land if it has the banks, and also guaranteeing of prices, whereby the farmers must feed out of the Minister's hand? The Minister of Finance, trampling on what Mr. Fraser declared to be the original policy of guaranteed prices, gave away to the dairy farmers money equivalent to the first year's deficit; he camouflaged on the question of whether the policy of meeting deficits from surpluses should obtain in succeeding years; he remains even at this date the ultimate price-fixer and arbiter; so what need is there for the Labour Government to take the land when it can take the produce thereof and fix it's own price? Before this edifice of Socialistic political power and patronage the farmer can be made to bow in such a way that his ownership of his land becomes nominal, and even Mr. Langstone may cease his attack on freehold tenure because dependence of farmers on the Government is reducing all tenures to a nullity. Socialism of a very effective kind, and—in our time. So far Labour has not become Socialistic to the extent of appropriating the factories, but, apart from Mr. Lee's take-all-the-banks policy, the Government has powers under the Reserve Bank Act and the Industrial Efficiency Act making for the dependence of secondary as well as primary industry. The Government can control exchange, and therefore can regulate imports as well as exports, and therefore can swing business to and from the factories,] and can make manufacturers pay a j price for picking up the business that' oversea manufacturers could lose, not through competition but through

control of imports. Employers, too, will note such phrases as that in which Mr. Lee refers to the "nearer and nearer" approach "to the point at which industry is owned and controlled and operated by the people." Equally trade unionists will note Mr. Lee's observation that "when the State takes over an industry or institution, 'it is necessary that an effort shoulfi be made on the job to create the will to give better service." The italics are ours. "How to maintain speed of effort with reduction of hours" is one of Mr. Lee's preoccupations, and sooner or later Mr. Lee's Socialism and the trade unionist Socialism will have to measure forces. Lastly, those half-Socialists who think that they can spar for time, and can continue to be a little bit on the Socialist side of the fence and a little bit on the private enterprise side, and who vote for Labour on this half-' Socialist basis, should note that Mr. Lee has written that democratic Socialism has only a limited period in which to be or not to be. If Socialism is not accepted by democratic processes, it will be "dictated"!