LABOUR’S DIVISIONS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXII, Issue 15715, 7 September 1911, Page 9

LABOUR’S DIVISIONS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Mr E. J. Howard in to-day’s ' issue states that the secretaries of certain parties are trying to delude the workors into believing that Socialism is not making any headway amongst the unionists. But docs he considor that tho men have no brains to think with? It'scbms likd.it. To delude anyone you must bring them-round to your way of thinking. It is all very well to bring out a long argument for Socialism. To improve thp world everyone should be educated to exactly the same standard, but this could never be brought about bocause there would always be some who would waste their chances. It was my fortune a while ago to hear a direct question put to a Socialist. It was: “If the conditions were ideal for Socialism, and a Socialistic Government got into power, what would bo their first action?” Tho answer was: “We shall never get Socialism through tho Government, but through the work-' ers.” There was a lot more piffle which had no bearing on tho question that had been asked. There was not a semblance of a direct answer, yet that man was a rank and would-bo-prominent Socialist. If a loader of a party cannot give a direct answer to a direct question, how about his followers? Would it be of any use to give them tho referendum? No! They would only follow their leader blindly, and—such leaders! Now if men were sensible they would see that strikes are useless. They only “ bite tho hand that feeds them.” IF they don’t like a job lot them leave it. If their employers could not got men they would alter their tune. A strike is childish, an exaggerated sulking fit. When the'workers get sense, give them the referendum; but it would be like I allowing a lunatic to monkey round with n loaded machine-gun to give them a chance to get tho upper hand.—l am, etc., C.F.M. TO TOE EDITOR. Sir, —I have always thought that this country was famed for its democracy, and that its Labour leaders always put the principle of rulo by tho majority first, and always loudly declared that “tho people shall rule.” Yet we find those same Labour leaders at Auckland recently den vine- to tho members of the Waterside Workers’ Unions, tho right to say whether they will join the New Zealand Federation of Labour or not. Is this consistent ■with the principle of the referendum, which is in tho forefront of the Labour Party’s programme? I think not. The result of tho Conference at Auckland will be . that the Waterside Workers’ i Federation will break up, and several I unions join the New Zealand Federation of Labour. Thus, instead of the wicked Socialists this time, it is the “ safe, sane and conservative ” Labourites who are causing the forces of La-

bour to bo split up. Verily, the days of Labourism are nearly ever. 1 Jn votir article of Monday s date on tho decision of tho Waterside Workers’ Conference, you give much praise to . Professor Mills’s “unity” schemo. Now, wo industrialists are seeking to unite tlie workers on the basis of their common economic interest. Can you tell me where tho identity of interest | between the wharf lumper and tho ! lawyer comes in? Yet Professor Mills', seeks to unite these two conflicting , elements. As a revolutionary unionist, j 1 have to thank you for supporting this precious “ unity ” scheme, because by so doing you are opening tlio eyes of , the workers to the fact, that tho schemo is no good to them. Your paper represents the capitalist class, and it is not likely that anything a capitalist paper supports is going to benefit the worker. Tlio working class and tlio employing class have no interests in common. Snell is the creed of tlio revolutionary unionist t.o-dav. We Socialists have been fighting Professor Mills’s “ unity ” scheme, and your article, miite unwittingly, no doubt, is one of the strongest arguments against the proposal that have yet been put forward. One’ question, and I am done. When is the executive of the Trades Councils Federation going to take tho referendum of its members 'on the subject of changing the objective of that bodv? It should have been done two months ago. What a democratic lot our Labour leaders .aro. to be sure! Arc they afraid of the growth of industrial unionism? It looks like it.—T am. etc., S. KTNGSFORD. 107, Riccorton Road, Ricenrton.