SOCIALIST OR LABORITE?

Evening Star, Issue 14634, 2 August 1911, Page 11

SOCIALIST OR LABORITE?

TO THU EDITOR. Sir, —Mr MacManus has failed to answer the question asked by “ Inetrcsted ” on July 24. What is the matter with some of our loaders of Labor? To my mind Mr MacManus is not a Socialist, as goodwill should be his key-note to socialism. Mr MacManus belittles “Interested” by charging him with persecution, and yet takes up the cudgels against him. At the general laborers’ meeting why did Mr MacManus decline nomination as a delegate to the new Labor party ? Because of his Socialist purpose, I presume. Why, then, does he remain a Laborite ? He is constantly at the meetings of the new PolitiLabor party, and is taking a leading part the-rc. Why did he not join that party as a delegate from his own Laborers’ Union.— l am, etc,. Progress. August 2. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I see “Interested” has mercilessly fixed on Mr MacManue like a ferret, and is thus destroying for a 'time effective work for both. He claims that Mr MacManus was first secretary to the party, and that he has practically signed the party’s constitution. As regards the former, surely he is wrong. I was first chairman and Mr Warren was first secretary. As regards the latter, I was one of the few who were -successful at the Wellington Conference in preventing the carrying of a rule prohibiting members of tlie party from working with other “ progressive bodies.” This did not suit the “Democrats,” and means were used which were successful to make the Christchurch Conference go “red.” Having watched fairly closely the like struggle between the “Revisionists ” and the “ Democrats ” at Home, I’ realised at once what a serious change had 'occurred, and from that time forth gradually withdrew. Although I have never sent in my resignation, it is obvious 1 aiti not bound by a rule which seemed to me to be suicidal, especially in an intelkctawi ' nwawuniiy such as >• havs

here. Neither, one would think, is Mr MacManus. < TKe impossibility of the Marxian pro-1 grame, which is the "dogma" that all "Revisionists"- complain of, is clearly shown by Bernstein in ' Evolutionary Socialism.' Mr MacManus is quite,consistent under present conditions in "fighting" the employer*, just as I am present conditions in "exploiting" employees. We both, play the game according 'to the-rules of the game, and we are both working from different points to so alter the rules that employee and enii ployer shall merge into helpful members of the ideal State.—l am, etc., i Arthur M'Caetht. August 2. [Correspondence closed—Ed. E.S.]