COMMUNISTS AND LABOUR.

Grey River Argus, 6 March 1937, Page 11

COMMUNISTS AND LABOUR.

(To the Editor.) Si,._Mr w L. Robertson’s defence and justification of the Labour Party’s policy of exclusion does him infinite credit. His sincerity and goodwill are beyond question. He has taken his stand —in common with the Hitler- or the Labour Government—in favour of the exclusion of Communists. His first objection is that a joining of forces would produce “intellectual confusion.’’ as if, indeed, intellectual clarity was one of the present hallmarks of the Labour Party. To those of us who have had contact with the party for thirty years, the gradual fading of the “Deepest Red’’ of the “People’s flag’’ to the palest pink, which now bedecks the Treasury Benches, is a matter of continual wonder and astonishment. It is historically true, and the lesson has been well learnt, that Labour’s voting power has increased in inverse ratio to its intensity of colour. The blush on Labour’s rose is th e palest pink on earth. “Sanity’’ and anaemia, (without proportional representation) have produced an “overwhelming victory for Labour.’’ Labour is “intellectual!/ confused’’ because it lacks the basic virtue of common honesty. There was a time when even some of our ‘ ‘ Honourable Ministers’’ were quite openly anti-re-ligious and avowed direct actionists, oi° let us say, simply Communists./ We still await an honest recantation! Why have we forgotten that, we “blundered’’ into jail for sedition, or met the baton-charges of police in militant strikes? It seems rather opportune that, the historic Miners’ Hall in Run. anga should have disappeared in flames, for on its walls were inscribed the clarion call of Marx’s manifesto. In those brave days, future “Honourable Members’’ worshipped Marx as the Inspired One, and sang Connell s Hymn with almost fanatic fervour. But, in the present “intellectual confusion,’’ the transformed pioneer- disowns and denounces Marx, and fails to realise that he himself has undem gone a gradual and complete change. This is delusional insanity. “Let cowards shrink and traitors sneei. But,' who are now the shrinking cowards and sneering traitors? And' who will now ‘ ‘keep the Red flag' flying here.’’ -Where are now those erstwhile .haters of Imperialism and plutocrats, and those who poured vitriolic, invective on kings, parsons and capitalists? The old enemies are either forgotten or forgiven, and' a new enemy resembling, in many respects, the Labour pioneer—has taken his place. That new enemy is the Communist. It is interesting to note that, provided the party pledge is signed and the yearly subscriptions is paid, membership is open to all men, and all welcomed—save Communists. It seems strange that the introduction of Communists would produce a “disastrous schism,’’ yet the introduction of 'all others would produce no schism at all. The obvious inference i.s that the persuasive eloquence of the so-called “class-conscious’’ Labourite will convert the misguided capitalist, but would have no effect on the Communist. But the inference goes further: Although the Communists are in a decided minority, they would white-ant the Labour movement so “disastrous, ly’’ as to pervert the Labourites and destroy the indestructible stronghold of the constitutional, Socialistic reformers. This proves two things; firstly, th e enemy now is the Communist, and not, as formerly, the Capitalist, and, secondly, that Labour is afraid of Communism. If Labour believes that the people of New Zealand would favour Communism to the detriment, of th e Labour movement, then by what right docs Labour stand in the way? Does it mean that Labour does not trust the people, or fears that its own eclipse is certain? It is clear that if Communism is such an obvious evil, a free and enlightened democracy will surely recognise the fact; but if Labour is not debarred the right to progress, then Labour is merely postponing its own doom.