LABOUR VIEWS

Hokitika Guardian, 18 September 1937, Page 6

LABOUR VIEWS

(Contributed by Publicity Committeo, Hokitika branch of N.Z. Labour Party). THE INGENUOUS MR POLSON. •{ ■ >■*'* ‘ J ''\ ' i •• Tlie insinuation made by Mr Poison in the House during the week regarding the visit of the finance Minister to .Russia is worthy of notice. Its significance lies in its pa I try ness, for of such petty appeals to the emotions of the people, will the Nationalist platform be mainly constructed in .the coming year.' Mr Poison suggests that Mr Nash went to Moscow to attend “a conference,” for conferences are held in Moscow on May Day, and May Day was one of the days on which Mr Nash stayed in the capital city of the .Soviets. Now. if Mr Nash attended a conference in Moscow he could only have attended a. Communist conference, because the Soviet administration is a Communist one. It is all so painfully clear. Mr Poison’s imagination is working overtime, for Mr Poison is making a strenuous attempt to pin charges of Communist tendencies onto a respected Labour Minister. It is the old bogey-bogey again. Wo may be sure that when the lieresav bunt really begins Mr Poison will be streaking far ahead of the rest of the pack. Mr Poison is in training. Nothing Ventured, Nothing Done! It boils down to this. Mr Nash paid a visit to Moscow. Therefore, assumes Mr Poison, with masterly logic, lie at tended a conference—a sinister conference. It does hot matter to Mr Poison that Mr Nash also visited Lcndon, Hull. Amsterdam, Berlin and Washington. There is no suggestion that Mr Nash went to any of these places to attend conferences, though he quite conceivably may have done so. It is even more conceivable that Mr Nash went to Russia for the same reason as he went to Holland. Germany arid the United States—to study industrial conditions, financial methods and legislation, and, if possible to arrange trade agreements, the latter on the principle of ‘nothing ventured, nothing done!’ Nothing In It. But . . . Mr Poison withdrew his remarks of course. But the point is, why make such remarks without sufficient evidence. If Mr Poison was prepared to take Mr Nash’s word as a gentleman, he could have asked him privately instead of making a- mountain of a mole hill in public. Surely, if this is not political vindictiveness or public exhibitionism, it is wish-thinking or the want of something better to say.

a «~3 No i Sense oU Value. Mr Poison deplores the expense of the Minister’s trip to Russia. He talks about “a return” for the money spent. First of all, since Mr Nash was already visiting Holland and Germany the trip to Moscow could not have cost nlueh more than a tenner. Ihe litre from London to Moscow is under five pounds. Fancy anyone comparing the train fare of a few hundred miles’ journey and board for two or three days, with the potential value of friendly re lations with a country like Russia or tlie possibilities of even a small share in the trade of a nation of 160,000,00.1 people. The same people who would encourage the expenditure of thousands ol pounds on Library Scholarships and Rhodes Scholars (most of which is wasted, for we rarely see the recipients again) begrudge the same facilities and opportunities for travel and experience to one of the most important men in the country. Such points of views are indeed difficult to understand.

Mr Kyle. Please Note. Mr Kyle dismisses- the Labour proposals for the co-operative development within a democratic framework of our national economic life as “pure Socialism!” Of course it’s pure Socialism. At the same time it’s the one hope for the orderly development of modern civilisation. it’s the substitution of the law of rational beings for the ethics of the jungle. It’s a recognition of the rights of the people to share equitably in the common production of the people. And it’s the expression of a determination to get on with the jab ol realising the production potentialities of the human race for the benefit of all. That’s what Socialism is, and Mr Kyle and his capitalist friends if they wish to be taken seriously, would do well to cease using the word as a bogey with which to frighten children and to concentrate their energies upon a calm and dispassionate examination of the content and implications of this so:ial philosophy which already commands the adherence of the majority of the progressive thinkers of our time. Otherwise, we must conclude that they are atraid of argument. Mr J. Thom Speaks Out. A useful summary of the economic aims of the Laboiir Movement was given by Mr J. Thorn, M.P. (Labour) in opening the Address-in-lteplv debate in the House of Representatives. ‘Personally,” said Mr Thorn, “I want a root and branch - change in the present economic system. Instead of a system of industry and trade, owned by individuals who compete and jostle for private profit, I want it owned co-opera-tively and organised solely for the rise and benefit of all the people. '“However, we are democratic. We ■believe s in constitutional government, and in education and persuasion. Xotliino- for the application of our principles.

in the law, and in our industrial life will he done until we win the support of the people, and receive their mandate.”