CORRESPONDENCE.

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

CORRESPONDENCE.

ALLIANCE OF LABOUR.

(To the Editor.) r Sir, —I am sorry <if I iwsjnatly accused your correspondent «'Bystander" of being an agent of the Alliance of Labour, and I am quite prepared to accept his denial, but in accepting his assurance that he is in no way connected with any of the Labour organisations it is more difficult than ever to understand his motive in so consistently and persistently urging the members of the P. and T. Association to ljj^k up with the Alliance of Labour. There must be something more behind it than a desire to promote an academic discussion on Socialism cum Bolshevism, and I am prepared to leave it to your readers, Sir, to judge whether or not my suspicions were justified. Your correspondent also takes exception to Dr Harold Williams as an authority on the Russian question, and suggests I would be better informed if I read and studied the works of two other correspondents of the same paper. My reasons for quoting Dr "Williams were because he is a New Zealander and his father is well and favourably known here by a large number of people, and I am again prepared to leave it to the judgment and intelligence of your readers as to whether his report is likely to be a mere fabrication, as is so often stated and reiterated by your correspondents of the ''Bystander type. lam absolutely > convinced that it would not matter what authorities were quoted they did not happen to contain a eulogium of Lenin, Trotsky and Co. they would be classed as fables for fools. For the information of your correspondent I may state that I have heard of Denikin, Koltchak, Wrangel, Yudenitch and Petlura, each and all of them in connection with their various campaigns against Trotsky and his Eed Army; and whilst it may be that these men have contributed something towards the general collapse, it in no way relieves the arch-fiends Lenin and Trotsky of their I ask, Sir, can any reasonable minded individual understand why it is that the Labour leaders of the extreme type constantly hold up Eussia and Lenin as a pattern for the rest of the world to folloAV? Is there anything in connection with the history of that most unfortunate country, either past or present, that can be fairly regarded as an example by an enlightened people living under the free institutions' of the most. liberal constitution .in the world, except it be as a solemn warning of how not to do it? I think the strongest proof of Lenin's colossal failure, if indeed such proof were needed, is the fact that at his own invitation the foreign capitalist has been reestablished in Eussia. I have yet to learn that conditions in New Zealand are such as to require any drastic rera- ' edy. We are living in this country today under conditions probably better than in any other country in the world, and I ask our Socialist "friends to point to one solitary instance where Socialism has proved a blessing. This wonderful era of international and social peace predicted by your correspondent exists only in the distorted imagination of its supporters. The only results that have yet accrued from the adoption of these unbalanced and j, fanciful theories have spelt colossal disaster.—l am, etc., BRITISHER. - , >, ———— .■ (To the Editor.) jSii'j —Will you allow me to compli- ' rneuc 'botit-'yourself and your corre- j spondents "Student" and "Bystander" | on the standard and tone of your respec- • tive articles ? They were amonjg the • best I have seen contributed to your ; own or any other paper, and it is a pity J to see the lowering of ton© in the fetters of "Britisher and "Common-' sense." slf a correspondent cannot ob serve th© ordinary decencies and amen"! ■ ties of debate, but must call opponents I "Red Feds,'' "Extremists," "Revolu-J tionaries" and such like euphonious names, then he should not take paft in controversy^ I" write, however, on the question of Russian famine, which fias cropped up in the debate on several ' occasions, and as one who as a subscriber^to "Foreign Affairs," the jour- ' nal of the Union of Democratic Control. ! edited by E. D. Morel, and the newly- ' issued English "Labour Monthly,'s p«rhaps the best-informed journal on international labour questions so far published in English-speaking countries, ' has perhaps a better opportunity than most of your readers of learning tho true facts of the Russian situation. ! This situation, so far as it affects the famine, has been most lucidly explained ' by L. Petroysky, the well-known Rus- ! sian publicist. The normal pre-war corn '■ production of" tne present Soviet Re- \- public was 4200 million poods (about ' 75 million tons). By the summer of , 1920, says .Petrovsky, the decrease in tillage caused by the civil wars had re. ■ d'uced the harvest to 3000 million poods. "■ This year a much larger harvest was anticipated: the energetic "sowing cam- ' paigns" carried on by the Government and the alterations in economic policy', introduced in April and May of 1921 ' largely restored the. confidence of the peasantry and sowings considerably increased. And here let me say parenthetically that Lenin has gone back on his Communistic principles; he has granted concessions^ to foreign capitalists, and has admitted that Communism can.be reached only by degrees and by first establishing State socialism- 1! take it on the lines we are familiar with in New Zealand and Australia. In support of this can be cited his address to the Central Soviet at the beginning of 1921, which address was published in extenso in the September issue of The ' Labour Monthly. Now, the famine area < comprises ten to twelve provinces. The \ average rainfall of these provinces during the critical months from October : to June is ordinarily 14 inches M ! 1920-21 only 2| inches fell. The harvest . same up early, attracted by the un- \ usually warm spring and consequent ] thaw; but we,eks, and then months, be- i ?an to pass without a trace of rain, and ', the blazing sun, which in normal years '- transformed the Volga region into the \ granary of Russia, became instead of < i welcome friend, a ruthless enemy. So iry and iron-hard did the soil become ■ ihat in the provinces of Samara and ; Simbirsk it did not penetrate sufficient- " y far to affect the seeds. It is calcuated that over 900 poods (15 million ' ;ons) of grain perished in all. The. ten ] jrovinces most immediately affected, ■ stretching 800 miles from Viatka to * Astrakhan, were expected to contribute J 50 million poods, or one-quarter of the ;otal, to the national food tax, in addi- l. ;ion to the much greater quantity they l vould have contributed to the national c arder under the new economic policy— f he policy, as I have said, which Lenin * naugurated in place of the previous J ommunistic one. So complete has been v he devastation that the population ctually requires' 60 million poods of * ;rain to enable it to live on starvation f ations (half a pound of bread a day) 1 nd 15 million poods for sowing; the V ext crop. Petrovsky wrote in the £ ntumn following the last harvesting, is et even then things were bad. Of the a

rartar Republic "ne writes: "The situation is serious. AJI private stores aro now exhausted, and rich and poor peasants are suffering alike.'' (Evidently Lenin, has not abolished the distinction between rich and poor.) Of the Middle Volga he wiites; -Peasants are moving towards Siberia and the Ukraine. They have no bread^and live by digging up seed potatoes that have not sprouted " Writing in the autumn he says: "It is difficult to say whether cases of death from actual hunger have occurred" that is during the summer and autumn. "There have been cases of death caused by stomach and intestinal disorders ay the result of feeding on substitutes." Hungary has suffered almost as badly from the drought. The pre-war yield of rye in Hungary was 5 million tons; this declined to 1| millions in the last harvest. The pre-war yield of wheat was nearly 2 million tons; this declined to half a million at last harvest. That the form of government has nothing to , do with the famine (although you, sir, ; assert to the contrary) is evident from ' Petrovsky's statement that those parts , of the Soviet Republic which have not had to repel invasions (financed in great measure by France and her capitalistic allies) have not suffered from , the famine; the famine was confined to : those districts which were overrun by { the Whites under Wrangel, Deniken and Co.; but in these there is really no significance, as Petrovsky admits. : The famine is due purely and simply to the drought and to the tardiness—one j might even say the refusal—of Britain j and other civilised States in heeding the appeals of Nansen. Gibbs, Wells, and others to help before it was too late. Petrovsky ends up: "If. the Russian workers win through they will do so ! because of their own stern resolution I and the support of their fellows in other countries,'? and he adds signifi- ■ cantly, "It is only the British Labour ! movement whose fraternal help and steady pressure is being counted on at this moment. More than ever the proletarian watchword of Marx and Engels, 'Workers of all countries, unite!' must be called to the aid of the first working i class republic." And it is surely true j that the Labour- movement rightly and i sanely directed is the hone of the world; and whether the P. and T. Association link up with organised labour or not—and surely its collective mind is able to decide this without being lectured to by the Welfare-League and such like—the movement, consecrated as it is by the b.lood of such men as James Connolly, who, although he gave his life in what might appear a national issue, had an international outlook as we'll as a nat:onal one, will progress till it embraces all workers, whether manual or mental, in one erreat confraternity for the uplifting and welfare df mankind. —I am, etc., INTERESTED. Hawera, March 21. 1922. , (To the Editor.) - Sir, —Allow me to thank you for your courtesy in publishing my letter and for your reply. I regret that. I am still unconvinced that the* Whitley or any other profit-sharing scheme will prove to be a panacea, for the evils of capitalism. 1 have had personal experience of the profit-sharing system, and found if; very unsatisfactory. Years ago I was employed at a wage of 45s a week. I lost that job and got another, doing exactly the same class of work, where I received 35s a week with a share of the profits, which amounted to about 3s a week. It seemed to me then that, instead of me sharing his profits with the employer, the employer was sharing my wages with me. I can quite understand why the workers are. not keen on profit-sharing. It seems to me that any scheme advanced by the capitalist ultimately means a lower standard of living for the worker. In any case, can yoH or anyone else explain how can the Whitley scheme deal with the unemployed problem ? and how can any profit-sharing scheme deal in a practical manner with "casual labour. Take a case which has come under my personal observation, There are several hundred men at present working on Wellington wharf averaging only 30s a week. One of these is a returned sol--dier, with a" wife and two children. He has to pay £1 a week for the rent of one room, leaving him with 10s over for food. His is a typical case of many. Wifat do you advocate in case like this? The way he is solving the difficulty is by obeying a higher and more compelling law than the law of New Zealand, the law \of nature/ which impels the' parent to feed the young; and the only way he is able to do this is by broaching cargo. I sa.v him myself putting a mate up to the way of breaking a leg of frozen laml> i off a carcase with his hook. He put it inside his trouser leg and sneaked it off the wharf. Of all the disgusting, uncomfortable, and unhygienic ways of providing for his family I consider this the limit. And the question; arises, is the man immoral? or is the ! law of New Zealand immoral in com- ' pelling this defender of our-country to1 steal? I count myself fortunate that; I am no longer a wage slave, but should the coir l;-y I live in ever deny me the ■■ right tr. work honestly for enough to eat, I i^ope to prove that I am man I enou<.;!i to steal. I You are quite mistaken when you think that I blame the capitalist for the present depression. I am blaming1 the capitalistic system, the responsibility of which rests with the poor stupid workers, those • brainless asses^ who, with the use pf a spoonful of brains, could in a legitimate manner and without revolution alter the system almost immediately. I am quite surprised that you see fit to mention I that the Bolsheviks have killed between 8000 and 9000 people. My dear sir, i please read your own newspaper, and you will see that British subjects under ' the capitalist system are at present or | quite recently killing each other in! South Africa, Egypt, India and Ire- ■ land; and surely it has not escaped ' your memory that in 1914 all the prin- , cipal capitalist nations in the world j started the slaughter of 10,000,000 men ! directly, and indirectly the deaths of ! between 30,000,000 and 40,000,000 of men, women and children, non-combat- ! ants. I think that any Britisher who! takes exception to the Bolsheviks kill- J ing a few thousand will develop §uch a taste for camels that he will be able to eat camels like other people eat oysters. But you omitted to say why the Bolsheviks killed these people. The reason > was that a discontented minority, j against majority rule, persuaded foreign ', nations to invade Russia, to slaughter ; the inhabitants, and put the minority ' into power. Supposing we in New Zea- j land at the next election elect by a ! large majority a Liberal Government, j and the Massey Party persuaded the ! Japanese to invade us with the object' of forcing the Massey regime upon us! again. Would we not consider them I traitors ? This is exactly what occurred ' in Russia. This also, in my opinion, ivas as much responsible for the present famine in Russia as the drought. Naturally when Russia was invaded by i • ! oreign enemies she had to take mit- j ions of the producers for defence pur- ! : joses, and of course they had to be fed. ' : 3o it is not the Bolshevik regime that 1 s responsible for the famine so much 1 is capitalistic England and her capi- 1

talistic alhes. It seems to me that the' capitalistic system, being so stupid and vicious, any tinkering with it must be stupid also Perhaps it is a pity that some scientist cannot discover a wav of resuscitating frozen bodies. Then the unemployed, with their wives and chil-i dren, could be kept in cold storage till such times as the capitalists retired them for more production, or 7ailine; thJf'T*^ su^esl ion of lir Howard,1 the Labour member, might be a good i one-start another world-war a wa¥toi end war We'could fight fJr' Ly?hing i at all democracy, or Christianity, 0 ? ? civilisation, or any old thing at all- but1 instead of using real ammunition use blank cartridges. This should please' T^Tl- T he makers' should be pleased because they would' make big fortunes out of dummyTm-1 Sf! the wm profiteers should be! pleased because they could make more ! war profits; the farmers would be' pleased because they would get ahieher! price for their butterlfat; tht Redl Feds should be pleased because they! could be unpatriotic and go on strike 1 m war time for more wages and set' more; and the soldiers would be pleased because they could march away to the I tront singing "Are we downhearted?" i and of course they would have no occasion to be and no one' would be killed and there would be less- conJ scientious objectors.- But for my part! I am prepared tp vote for the first man j who advocates Bolshevism; it can't be' worse than capitalism, and may be better.—l am, etc., > * RAIL-SITTER. Eltham, March 20. f [The difference between the tone of "Interested's" letter and that of "Rail-! sitter is most marked. "Rail-sitter's" ■ ,is the type of sociaUsm which is to be feared, and unfortunately the I socialist ranks contain many people' who seem to think that it does not I matter how you bring in socialism so! i long as it comes. By the process of-i evolution we believe that a very great | j deal that is good in socialism wilf ulti- j j mately be addptedj in fact is being! ': adopted, but the great danger is that j the man who has but a hazy conception' of socialist ideals is not inclined to | await the process of evolution, which: Kautzky and the best socialists know' may take many defades. We are al-j ways ready to express an admiration for the evolutionist who is not-^a danger to the State, but the so-called socialist of the "smash and destroy" i ( type needs to be carefully watched and I controlled. We believe that through- i out the world the evolutionist is gain-' ing more and more control, but never- i theless the revolutionary socialist is still a serious danger, and a menace to. the evolutionist, who with." Kautzky has no idea of ' socialism being brought, about in a day. A letter such as that wiitten by "Interested" is'of value,' but that by "Rail-sitter" isa waste of good space. We think that the corres-! I pondents had sufficient of our space for the present, and unless there be any personal explanations, . which must be kept aj; ; a reasonable length, this correspondence must be regarded- as closed.,. It has on , the whole been enjoyable and '"""inter-. ; esting, and if it has caused the people. ;to think it has done good. The view (we take is that the value of sneh. a series of letters does not lie in " the winning of the argument so much as in the interest which ;the correspondence arouses m a subject which is fascinating, whatever one's personal views may be. A word regarding newspaper correspondents. Writers should endeavour to keep their letters much shorter/ Short, well-written letters are more widely read, and are very much easier to deal with in making up the paper, i We likp to be as liberal as\possible with , writers, even though we may not agree • with their views,; but we feel that we ' must ask them to be more considerate j of our-space limitations in the future. 1 ,-Ed.] ; .;". v