The Grey River Argus MONDAY, November 18, 1946. ALL SOCIALISTS NOW!

Grey River Argus, 18 November 1946, Page 4

The Grey River Argus MONDAY, November 18, 1946. ALL SOCIALISTS NOW!

There is no elector but would agree as to what, in the present campaign, is the 'most characteristic, most emphatic and most reiterated assertion of all of the National Party candidates, as well as of their press backers. It is that socialisation already has placed too many in State employ, and left too few workers for others to employ. On every platform they have been declaring that production <ould 'be far greater had many now in Government jobs been engaged in other jobs. It was only natural when the spokesmen of the rank and file public servants asked the Opposition leader if it were intended to act on that contention in the event of his party obtaining the opportunity. Mr Holland, however, has replied that there is no, more intention of redueJng the number working for the State than of reducing the provision made by the State in the way of social security. It is therefore a very legitimate inference that the

National Party, for all their talk against the Government’s policy up to the present, have honestly no intention whatever of reversing that policy, but just wishes to call a halt as it stands, lest there should be “ultimate” socialism. Now it may be admitted .that they are in a quandary. They know that the great majority are wage earners. To admit a determination to lessen jobs, or oblige a large number to 'Compete for fewer jobs, would be the surest way

of antagonising the largest section of the ’community. Hence it is only common sense for all workers, let alone public servants, to take the latest promise of Mr Holland with a good, big pinch of. salt . Some of the Nationalist apologists are asking where may be the “mysterious” line between the undertakings the Government

might deem suitable tor the State and those suitable for private enterprise. But there is surely a much more mysterious line between the services which the National Party would exclude from public enterprise and those which they would not. Obviously, if he means anything, except to escape from an awkward predicament, Mr Holland has declared very definitely against going back upon any single venture of the Government in the way of socialisation. There is also the example of other Governments in other British countries, where the transport, iron and steel, electrical, coal and other public utilities are to-day being socialised, and represent a definite advance upon anything yet proposed by the Government of this country. If the cry that the latter aims to bring each and

every business under State control in a greater or lesser degree had a real justification, it might at least be expected that the more extensive schemes of public enterprise overseas would have given rise to a still louder cry, and caused the Governments there to' reverse gears. It is a moral certainty that were any New Zealand Government to introduce a system of economic despotism, it could expect to have a very short reign. The reason, however, why the majority of the people, who are living by the earnings of their labour, arc very open-minded about public enterprise is that they do not experience any handicap or drawback in government employ as compared with private 1 ‘ Tl? ’ J 1. _ 1 Xl. ~X 0 4-n

employ. If it be said that as State employees they have little say in the control of their occupations, or are subject to bureaucracy, the question is how many other workers are allowed by private employers, especially the large concerns. to exercise control over their industry. Notoriously the Nationalist propagandists are extremely coy when asked to exemplify their assertions that the State allows even business people little freedom when it has any say in the supply of goods or services. The railways, for instance, are never quoted, nor the other State departments. The whole case of the Opposition is bound up, not in the.present situation, but in a caricature of the future which they call “ultimate socialism”, in the elucidation of which they make loose allusions to the Soviet. When the Government make it evident that nothing out-

side the sphere of private monopoly is contemplated in the policy of State enterprise, the Opposition reply is that the businesses other than monopolies could be controlled by the State without being owned by the State. In such case the same businesses must already be similarly amenable to the control of any monopoly—for instance as to prices, as to having competitive stocks, and as to supply. It is_arguable that a private monopoly may in some avenues curtail costs, though in others experience is to the contrary, but the belief is pretty general to-day that, in view of the financial and economic power, even over Governments, which any monopoly confers, it is generally to the

publie advantage that such power should belong to the State. An oil monopoly, of 'Course, may be international, but the fact is scarcely a reason for opposing it being subjected to State competition. There is a well defined trend in the direction of State operation of the coal and transport industries, and the fact that coal in New Zealand is retailed by private capitalists does not appear to mean that no other coal may be handled by them. It is true that

a State enterprise is publicly financed, and that the profit motive is secondary to considerations of service and to the remuneration of those who provide the service. The State is more likely also to allow the operatives an effective say in the direction of their occupation. But the policy of compelling workers to accept inadequate payment in order to ensure profit is losing ground generally. Adequate wages are morally the first call upon any industry, with a voice in its control for the workers as a corollary. As against those things, the cry of despotism is to-day unavailing, and industrialists and traders generally must reconcile their policy to this fact.