Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1926. COMMUNIST ACTIVITY.

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 March 1926, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1926. COMMUNIST ACTIVITY.

A Ngahere correspondent. draws attention to the Communist campaign being conducted on the West Coast, and appears to be anxious about the results .This perturbation is needless, as the timber-workers of the district, like most unionists, have sufficient intelligence to scorn the Communist “gold brick” offered to’them. One or two of the officials of the Timber Workers’ Union appear to be endeavouring to landslide the members into support for Communism, but although these particular officials always act and talk as if they really compose the Union and nobody else matters, it is unlikely that the timber work ers will “sit up and beg” solely at. dictation, —unduly lenient as they are to the arrogance too often displayed. The surprising part of the whole affair is the encouragement given to the Communists by the “Argus,” which claims to be a Labour organ, and a journal for trades unionists. We have frequently urged our morning contemporary to state plainly whether it is for or against Communism, but, so far, it has refused to be honest in this matter. Those aware of the inner circumstances are not surprised at this lack of conviction, but it is not only weak, but decidedly wrong for a self-claimed “Labour” newspaper to give any help to Communists. The “Argus,” with the delicacy of language all its own, is eloquent in its denunciations of “Scabs” and “Rats” when volunteers undertake work trades unionists have refused. Nevertheless, the “Argus” undertakes to boost the Communists’ campaign for adherents, although' official Labour and the “N.Z. Worker” frankly declare that Communism is the worst enemy of the wage-earning classes. It is wellknown that the Labour Party in every country is strongly opposed to the Communists, declining to have these economic and political cranks as members. War against their ideas has been frequently declared by Labour, and yet the “Argus” not only declines to support these Labour denunciations but goes out of its way to boost on the West Coast, the . Communist

campaign which is obviously antiLabour. It is true that nobody takes much notice "of the “Argus,” especially in Labour circles, but the principle is the same. If volunteers in industrial disputes working against Labour, can be termed 11 scabs ” and ‘ ‘ rats, ’ ’ what epithets are earned by a “Labour” organ working against the Party’s official policy? It is easy to understand why Labour is : opposed to Communism, which has lamentably failed wherever it has been tried. Russia supplies the most tragic large-scale example of the ruin it brings when put in practice, and there have, been,innumerable cases nearer home, notably the British seamen’s strike, of the distress and loss caused to workers who were duped by Communist machinations. The dissensions and mutual expulsions by the Seamen’s Union at Sydney and Melbourne form overwhelming evidence of the type of men upon whom Communism depends. The blunt fact for all Coast workers to consider is whether they are for or against Labour. If loyal Labourites, they must treat' Communists as dangerous enemies, and ,no specious arguments nor appeals to class consciousness, can alter that fundamental fact. Because the “Argus” dare not oppose the Communists, is no reason why Coast workers should be similarly servile.