LABOUR AND PEACE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 18100, 17 May 1919, Page 8

LABOUR AND PEACE.

Such flashes of insight upon the mind of the Federation of Labour as have been vouchsafed u. us by the utterances of its leaders during the last four and a half years have led us to suppose—and indeed they were very emphatio about it—that the Federar tion entirely disapproved of the war. It now appears, judging by the dictum of Mr Bloodworth, conveyed to a waiting world with all due solemnity by Mr Hiram Hunter, that the Federation entirely disapproves of the peace, because it “ makes the workers of one nation slaves of the capitalists of another nation.” It appears to us that Mr Bloodworth is not conversant even with the tenets of the particular brand of revolutionary socialism which we presume he professes. His objection smacks of nationalism, and revolutionary socialism is nothing if not international. The German workers being already enslaved, according to the creed of the Reds, to the bitterest possible extent by the wicked capitalists of their own country, why this outcry because they are to have a change of slave-drivers? ' I>uring the war the ultra-carmine social revolutionaries of the Federation of Labour on occasion used to express the belief that the New Zealand worker would he just as well off under German rule as under British, bnfc even in those days, when the negation of patriotism seemed to be the most affectionately cherished hallmark Of this particular brand of labour leader, it was never to our knowledge suggested that the New Zealand worker would be better off in the event of a German conquest of these islands. Therefore, putting oneself in Mr Bloodworth’s political shoes as it were, there really does not seem to he much to worry about. The German proletariat will still be slaves, but not more slavish slaves than they were before, while the change in the nationality of their oppressors counts for nothing in the international creed. But Mr Bloodworth has another bone to pick with the Peace Conference. It has not “ extended to all nations the right of j selfgovernment.” We must really appeal to Mr Bloodworth to be more lenient in his judgments. The Peace Conference did what it could. It extended the right of self-government to Poland, to Jugo-Slavia, to Schleswig-Holstein, to Czecho-Slovakia, to Alsace-Lorraine, and other European nations that seemed to hanker for it, and if it did not include Ireland, Afghanistan and Kamtchatka it was probably because the Conference was rather pushed for time, and ‘Mr Blobdworth’s German brothers were growing impatient about the blockade. We might also draw Mr Bloodworth’s attention to the fact that the framers of the peace terms really went to considerable pains, according to fheir lights, to make future war impossible. We think that even oa a Red Revolutionist of the deepest dye he might credit them wi£h that, for, after all, Mr Bloodworth and his comrades cannot adopt their pet. attitude of Ishmaelitic independence in regard to war. They dislike it, even as the wretched bourgeoisie dislike it, and people not initiated into the inner secrets of the Red priesthood cannot understand why, in view of all the facts, the Federation of Labour cannot quite honestly and consistently join with the other folk in an, expression of thankfulness when the end. of the war is announced. This pose of constitutional eccentricity is becoming rather tiring to all parties.