REPLY TO MESSRS MONCUR AND COLEMAN.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10736, 6 November 1928, Page 6

REPLY TO MESSRS MONCUR AND COLEMAN.

(To The Editor). Sir,—ln their speeches as reported in your issue of the 23rd October, Messrs A. F. Monopr and' D. W. Coleman, made some statements to which we- wish to- reply, as our League was referred to.. First Mr. Moncur said : “The N.Z. Welfare League was a bogus body with little real existence.’’ . We want to -ask- him how he: knows that, and whether he is not simply repeating like a parrot what his leader has said and, is totally incorrect. The League in point of fact numbers . its members by thousands, it lias a national executive and branches in .various parts of the country, -if. it. was not- very, much alive the Reds would not giv'e it so, much attention. Then he said “it had raised the cry that if Labour came into power it would take all the land.” Our answer is. that he should not in shadow fighting, himself' create the shadow. The League, has been in existence nearly ten years and if he can show one line where it. ever,said that Labour would take all the land wo will, readily buy hini a new hat. The Lea<nie has never said anything ■of the kind. What we have said and now repeat is that his party stands for the “socialisation of land” and that “socialism” means public ownership in nlaco ;of private ownership. instead of‘putting up a bogus argument we* invite him to say if it is not a fact that he is pledged to support the substitution, of State ownership for private ownership. It is that socialism noliov we oppose. Besides his navty is not “Labor” in general, as there are thousands of working man and women who do not believe in its socialistic doctrines. Why is it not called Socialist Party seeing that its objective is Socialism? Let Mr. Honour or Mr. Coleman answer that. In - another nart Mr. Honour said : “that political labor this } arty) was' entirely* separate- fiom industrial labor (the workers’ union) “that statement is distinctly untrue as the largest■* park* of the membership of his party consists of the industrial unions. He should not talk such shatn. Now to Mr. Coleman : Tie complains that Messrs Holland and Semple’.were called “Bed Feds,’ Dear, dear, Does not Air Coleman know that Messrs Holland and Sem; pie called themselves “Red Feds”? Air Coleman’s unctuous speciaPplead-in”-1 can carry no weight with those who know the truth. Here is what Air. Holland said in Parliament: I do not. nose as a pacifist, but I am prepared io carry the brand of a revolutionary socialist.” Hansard A 01. 183, December 1918, page 874. ; What is a revolutionary socialist." Air. Coleman first says “Labor is not revolutionary.” AYe agree that Labor proper is not revolutionary but his party is. Then he goes on to present the silly argument, which he borrowed from -Air. Holland, that revolution onlv means an evolutionary process;. .siich,» as''/the. national production of the hen from an egg. Jbe nlea is in the first, instance entirely false as. the word “revolution”, has a distinctive and historical meaning quite different’from the , word evolution. A man who can talk about the branch Revolution and the Russian Revolutions as the mere hatchings ol a basket of eggs ought reaUv to consult a mental specialist. Wbat Air. Holland, Air.,Coleman, and the other opportunist- politicians fear, is -their revolutionary -chickens coming home to roost. To tr v and white wash revolutionism, as Air. Coleman and others of his party are -doing, is m plain terms nothing e.se than polltical hypoericy, At present-this partis posing before the country as sirnply advanced Liberals with a shadin' 1 ' of academic Socialism hut the mask be'ug worn for electioneermg purposes can be seen through. _ i would receive more respect in tle end if they took.it off and had the •courage to present their true objective” instead of trying to hide it. Wo are, vours etc.. N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE.