DISCUSSIONS WITH RUSSIA.

Evening Star, Issue 23326, 24 July 1939, Page 10

DISCUSSIONS WITH RUSSIA.

TO THE EDITOh. Sir, —Your footnote to “ Popoffski’s ” letter lias caused him to pop oft" once more in his own peculiar style, in which statement follows statement with the rapidity of bullets from a machine gun. His letters leave one’s mind feeling battered and helpless. But when one has recovered from the shock and feels free to think once more, questions flood in as rapidly as “ Popoffski’s ” statements follow one another.

It is very nice to know' that “ Popoffski ” is all for right and justice, and that he feels more upset by seeing others starving when he himself is starving. It is nice to know that ho is upset when he sees any man cause pain or suffering to his fellow-man. But some remarks he makes puzzle me, and prompt me to ask the question: is it really true that he would never dream of saying or doing anything that would hurt, or cause suffqring to Mr Hamilton, or Mr Chamberlain, or any of the Conservative Governments which he so roundly condemns? It is nice to know that “ Popoffski ” “ does not want war,” but what puzzles mo is how the evidence he leads to establish the proof of this assertion does anything at all in support of it. “ Popoffski ” is violently opposed to compulsory military training in New Zealand. How does that prove that he does not want war? Might it not be used to support the view that if war roraes he does not want New Zealand to win it? Would he please teli me? “ Popoffski ” does not want war, but he wishes Great Britain, France, and the U.S.S.R. to unite and crush Germany, and, if need be, to use force in the doing of it. In what respect, if any, do “ Popoffski’s ” peaceful professions and victorious hopes differ from those of Hitler, except in that they are directed towards a different victim? .In what respect does his attitude differ from that of Japan towards China? Japan did not want war. She wanted China without the troublesome necessity of going to war. I feel sure that “ Popoffski ” can explain. Would he oblige me by doing so? “ Popoffski ” knows all about Russia, a country, it would seem, in which there is left no vestige of _ Western European culture, and in which economic efficiency and affluence of the masses leave little to be desired. Would he kindly inform me if the Russian army is composed purely of volunteers? It is heart-rending to learn how very unscrupulous and wicked “ Popoffski’s ” political opponents all seem to he. I offer him my profound sympathy, for I presume that so tender-hearted a man as he informs us be is must suffer absolute anguish of soul merely because such villains exist. If he -will only explain to me how he feels about it all, I assure him I shall be deeply interested in and moved by the travail of his tender soul. It must he hard for him to hear. AVould he mind telling me how he manages to put up with it without exploding altogether? I want so much to know how he does it.—l am. etc.. July 24. Inquirer. TO THE 'iniTOK. Sir, —“ Inquirer ” is very much astray in his deduction about the beer bottle. I read enough about the dope of “ British ” freedom. “ British ” democracy, and “ British ” liberty from those who denied all three to me tor six years that I see no reason why 1 should ultilise the bottled produce. When first I used the pseudonym " Popoffski ” it was in reply to some fairy tales published by the Welfare League, now defunct, and, may I say, “ unwept, unhonoured, and unsung. The original Popoff was a violent Tsaristic reactionary, and for once I disregarded Shakespeare, resolved to gild pure gold, and paint the lily, thus indulging in wasteful and ridiculous excess, so that accounts for the termination “ski.” Your correspondent pays me the compliment of saying “ he seems to know ‘"many things about Governments and peoples.” In all humility, let me state it is no special aptitude on my part, but simply carrying out ■ the Biblical injunction, “ bo that bath ears to bear let him bear, and he that hath eves to see IcUhim see.” Tn reply to the question “ Inquirer asks about Mr Hamilton and a certain company, let me give him details. My first knowledge of this was a statement by Mr Semple in Dunedin Town Hall that Mr Hamilton, a shareholder in this company, had it subsidised from the unemployment tax, and it later paid 38J per cent, dividend and put £27.000 to reserves. This was just immediately before the 1935 election, and later on it was published for propaganda and. became public propertyl am not aware that it was ever denied, but it was stated that the whole story was not told. I am waiting for the whole story now. Tn so far as I state it was not denied, that can he qualified by saying that just previous to the last election, when I put the question to Mr Holland in the Concert Chamber, he referred to me as a guttersnipe, and said it was a lie, as he had asked Mr Hamilton, who replied that never at any time had any interest in the Southland Freezing Company. I then asked him would he call Mr Semple a guttersnipe and accuse him of falsehood, as he (Mr Semple) had made the statement at a public meeting in the Town Hall. Mr Holland made no reply whatever, so I would like to know the storv that exonerated Mr Hamilton. So far l‘ have not seen it published. The fact of “ exoneration ” proves that either Mr Hamilton’s or Mr Holland’s statement is not correct. So don’t blame me. Your correspondent asks me have all Labour Governments been good and all Governments of any other kind been bad. Good and bad are relative terms. There is a Persian proverb which says: “ Dow in the house of the ant is a deluge.” Were the old age _ and widows’.pensioners asked their opinion of tlie late Coalition Government, who reduced their pensions even before being discussed in the Upper House, they would say bad. The brewers, who at the same time got remission of £112,000 in Excise duty, would say very good. Although not a member of the Labour Party or the Communist Party either, I have no hesitation in saying that the Capitalist system is bad and inefficient. There never was a depression or a war made by the workers of the world, but by those who are out to exploit anywhere and everywhere they can. Were T asked my definition of Capitalism I would define it in simpler terms than Marx, and state it thus: A system whereby the individual or group extracts the maximum benefit from the community and gives as little in return as possible. What does “ Inquirer ” think of a Government that fines a Dorset farmer £360 for growing potatoes, another for growing a potato over 16 ounces, a milkman fined £4O for selling 7d worth of milk for 6d, while at the same time pouring milk down the drains to keep up the price. This in “ Christian ” England, not Red Russia.—l am, etc,, 'PororrsKT. July 24. :