Greymouth Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1948. Communism—What Is It ?

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 March 1948, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1948. Communism—What Is It ?

fYN Monday in Wellington, the Leader of the Opposition ,Mr Holland, in a public address, Advocated action against Communists in New Zealand,. particularly to prevent such people holding positions in the State service or the management ot industry. On the same day in London, the Prime Minister, ’Mr Attlee, announced his Government’s decision not to employ Communists in work “vital to the security o the State.” The significance of the coincidence should not be overlooked; neither should the contrast between the attitude : ot the British Government and that ot. the New Zealand Government. Mr Fraser contents himself with the assurance that the “existing law is quite adequate to dea with’ any situation that. may arise ; nr Attlee is prepared to do soifiething, thong i his approach to the question seems to be characterised by the timidity and tardiness that has come to be associated with his leadership. r . Mr Fraser has clearly blamed the (communists for the industrial strife withwhich this country is at present afflicted, lie says that their aim is to disrupt the industrial and social life of the community. In regard to the carpenters’ dispute, lie holds that the question at issue is, basically, not an. industrial one, but relates to law and order and respect for authority legally constituted. And yet, in opposition to Mr Holland’s proposal, the question has been asked: “If it is reprehensible for one. set of people to inject politics into industry so as to create disruption, how can it be said that another party is warranted by political belief in outlawing people upon the industrial field because of their political affiliations?” Such advocacy is playing the Communists’ game; indeed the writer responsible for it, it he has a firm grasp of the real nature of the menace, is himself treading perilously close to the path of treachery. The Communists are not just another political party; 'they “inject politics into industry” merely to suit their own. subversive ends. Communism is antiChristian, anti-democratic; its rule is totalitarian in the worst sense. A pseudoideal of justice, of equality and fraternity in labour all its doctrine and activity with a deceptive mysticism, which communicates a zealous, and contagious enthusiasm to the multitudes entrapped by delusive promises. According to authoritative interpretation, Marxist doctrine holds that there is in this world only one reality, matter, the blind forces of which evolve info plant, animal and man. Tn such a doctrine, as is evident, there is no difference between matter and spirit, between body and soul. Insisting on the dialectical aspect of their materialism, the Communists. claim that the conflict which carries the world towards its final synthesis can be accelerated by man. Hence the endeavour to promote hate and destruction and. to give such efforts the aspect of a crusade'for the progress of humanity. On the other hand, all other forces whatever, as long as they resist such systematic violence, must be annihilated as hostile to the human race. Communism, moreover, strips man ol his liberty, robs human personality of its dignity and. removes all the moral restraints that check the eruptions of blind impulse. And yet, it is suggested by Labour propagandists in all seriousness that any action against Communists in industry in this country could only be based on antagonism to their “political affiliations.. The Government’s desire, to maintain unitv in the ranks of its supporters is .understandable, particularly in view of the present political situation, but the question of the Communist menace really transcends party politics. If it is made a political issue at this juncture, that is because of the attitude of sensitive protagonists who see a threat to Labour in every suggestion that does not . emanate from the Government, whereas in actual fact the real threat to Labour as a movement comes from the Communists m its own ranks. . . Communism’s opportunities for collaboration with Moscow may vary with geography, but its will to further the aims ot militant Russian Communism by propaganda or industrial sabotage is never m doubt. It profits by democratic tolerance to plot the overthrow of democracy. Wh} should democracy play the host to its avowed enemies, particularly at a time 'when there is risk of betrayal? Why should Communism be allowed to use the 'rights of democracy for the sole purpose o. destroying those rights? Those questions should be answered, if they can be answered.