THURSDAY, MARCH 23. THREAT OF A BIG STRIKE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 23 March 1922, Page 4

THURSDAY, MARCH 23. THREAT OF A BIG STRIKE.

The cable message from Sydney published in Wednesday's Star indicates .clearly that revolutionary plans are not by any means a myth. It is stated that a big strike to take control of some industries out of the hands of their owners has been prepared, and that certain New Zealand unions are to help. Those certain New Zealand lUiiona cannot be other than the miners, watersiders, drivers, etc., who are iiembers of the Alliance of Labour, and the cable message from Sydney immediately calls forth the question: /What will be the position of the Alliance of Labour if the plans mentioned are brought into operation and a big strike occurs ? We often hear it ssid that _ there is no danger of the people of the British Empire, and of .New 2'ealand especially; falling into the terrible trap' which Communist ■ parties have set, and the reason given .for this supposed immunity is that the bulk" of ihe people of the Empire can read and write and reason out simple proj nsitious for-themselves. We wi-sh that" were literally true, but only a small of people take the trouble read and to figure out simple propositions, and extremists and their associates come along and, with honeyed words, state as facts things which are not altogether accurate, and a fair percentage of the people ar« inclined to believe without question what they are told by these peripatetic agitators. It has been freely asserted lately that the Alliance of Labour is not revolutionary. It is not denied that it is the successor to the Federation of Labour. It is not denied that the Allianc^ stands for the: "socialisaj tion of the means of production, "distribution, and exchange." But it is denied that it is revolutionary, and the Press for asEing for proof is brushed-aside with the remark that Labour can expect nothing but biassed statements from Capitalist organs. We are, however, not content to accept the bald statement that the. Alliance of Labour, successor to the-Federa-tion, and the. organisation of which the official Labour Party is the "political expression,*' js not revolutionary especially Vith the Sydney message eoncerniflVplans for a big strike before us. We here publish a few statements which should make any responsible person think. The New Zealand Labour -Party last year adopted the political recommendations of th# Australasian Labour Congress, held.in Melbourne in June, 1921. Among thos©' recommendations the objective is stated as the "socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange." The New Zealand conference also endorsed flihe Australasian Congress "hope that .... the Labour Party immediately endeavour to unite politicaly all the said elements in the common fight." We ask readers to specially note that the Australasian Congress, whose doings were endorsed by .tha New Zealand Labour Party, made this exception: "Under no circumstances would this apply to men who had deserted the party on the conscription issue," which means those workers who were in favour of conscription are expelled from the A.L.P.; that is to say, loyalist workers are not wanted. Will the friends of : the Alliance of Labour say that the Alliance has repudiated the New Zealand Labour Party's endorsement of the Australasian Congress held last June? At the same congress an Australasian Council of Action was set up, and Mr. H. E. Holland was elected New Zealand representative. Now the Council of Action (will the Alliance of Labour say that it does not endorse Mr. Holland as the New Zealand representative?) has a programme which is decidedly revolutionary. We believe that the strike plan mentioned in the cable message is the proposal ' of this Council of Action, The Maoriland Worker quoted its programme some time ago. Among the methods; by which the of Action is to I

gain its ends are: By "agitating to drive the unions into more revolutionary action 71; by "encouraging every movement in the unions which /tends to break the bureaucracy"; by "the formation of shop commilitees, workers' councils," etc. The Council of Action states that "unionism must noF limit itself to economic strikes, but must acquire the practice of a general political strike— co-operating with the Communists to develop the general mass struggle of the' proletariat against the bourgeois State." "The conquest of the power of the State is the objective. ... After the conquest of political power unionism comes actually to function on a Communist basis." The Alliance of Labour has not renounced, nor do we believe it Intends jfco [renounce, all connection with the Australasian Congress and the Council of Action. The Maoriland Worker, now controlled by the Alliaiiee of Labour, wrote a few months ago:

"If Ireland suceeds in aoViievirtg her independence it means the break-up of the Empire," and that will be «blessing to the world and an inspiration to the cause of, Labour." The official organ of the Russian Soviet Government Bureau in Sydney says: "The Bolsheviks and the Turks are carrying forward the German Berlin-to-Bagdad scheme. Its very essence is entrance to India and disruption of the British Empire."

And Mr. Peter Fraser,' in a speech in Palmerston North in October, 1920, after speaking sympathetically of the Russian Communist State, declared that "the Labour movement in New Zealand is part and parcel of the same movement." We hold that in view of these proofs of the close connection between the New Zealand Labour Party and a definitely revolutionary policy we are fully justified in trying to find, out what is the attitude of the Alliance of Labour, successor to the Federation of Labour, controller of the Maoriland Worker, and for whom the New Zealand Labour Party is the ''political expression." Our belief is that it is revolutionary, and that any union of association of workers which joins the alliance is joining a revolutionary organisation, whose policy, were it carried out, would lead to a catastrophe similar to that in Russia. We defy "anyone to prove that^ the Alliance of Labour is not revolutionary if the alliance has any connection (we, believe it is closely connected) with the statements we have quoted and those whe made them. Let the Alliance disclaim all connection with Mr. Holland as New Zealand representative of the Australasian Council of Action, as leader of the party .which is the "political expression" of the Alliance. Let the Alliance make clear that the Maoriland Worker's statement that the "break-up of the Empire will be a blessing to the world and an inspiration to the cause of Labour" is not its view. Let the Alliance disclaim all connection with Mr. Fraser and his Palmerston North statement. Let the Alliance renounce the objective "socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange." When the Alliance has done that and given the clearest evidence that it is in no way revolutionary by publishing in full its constitution we have no doubt that the people will be prepared to accept it as a-reasonable constitutional organisation existing for the good of the worker, and not for wrecking the nation.