Established 1866. The Marlborough Express. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1919. THE "REDS'" REAL OBJECTIVE

Marlborough Express, Volume LIII, Issue 271, 18 November 1919, Page 4

Established 1866. The Marlborough Express. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1919. THE "REDS'" REAL OBJECTIVE

There is, we believe, some danger •of people who have not made any special study of the insidiously mischievous propaganda of the "Labor Extremist Pai*ty which is now making such specially strenuous efforts to gain the balance of political power an. this country failing to' grasp the real objective' of the "Red' Feds.;" Just now it "is amusing to read the speeches' delivered by many of the party's candidates. To believe these gentlemen they are n6t extremists at all, but merely advanced democrats, I prepared to work politically on lines to which few electors,, of progressive views could take any' reasonable objection. Unfortunately for the party, tl-eir avowed and accepted leaders, i::en such as Messrs Holland, Semple, and Fraser, occasionally drop the , specious camouflage of moderation and come out in. their true colors as Revolutionary Socialists, men pledged to an upheaval of political, industrial, and social conditions, an upheaval quite as dangerous to the community that which has taken place in Russia. Mr Holland has openly declared himself a Bolshevik; Mr Semple has said "Were I in Russia; I should be a Bolshevik" ; and' now from their iellow' Labor member and. "Red Fed loader, Mr P. Fraser, M.P., has come a declaration which leaves little doubt as to the real, char&cter of this new t-o-called "Labor" movement. •• Mr Fraser was one of the. speakers at a 'Labor 'tally• held ■ atba.- Wellington theatre on Sunday night. "It is' a1 noticeable and disagreeable feature of the "Red Fed" movement in the larger' centres that zhe party .always holds its most -important' meetings on the Sabbath evening. This, however, in. view of the fact 'that so many members of the party hold atheistical views and have as little respect for the religious feelings of their neighbors as they have for j law and order, is not very"surprising. ' At the meeting in question Mr Fraser was good enough to expound the new gospel of his party. "It 3 object was," he said, "to free the workers' from the industrial shackles ' which bound them. The time when the working classes would be really free would be when they were in a position to cse their trains and hands on the national resources without asking anyone's consent." , * . If the English language has any meaning at all it is difficult to construe this very remarkable exposition of the real objective ;of the ; Revolutionary Socialists as anything but a straight-out declaration of war against all privately ; .or publicly held property. Everything is to be the property of the State,, and upon that property the Revolutionary Socialists are to be free to ''use their ; brains and hands"—the . latter would, no doubt, be most prominent—"without asking! anyone's consent." A pleasant prospect indeed for, anyone who owns property of any kind. A. 'more..anarchical and detestable doctrine could rot be preached than that of confiscation, for the benefit^of one class—for that is practically wflat.it. means— of the natural resources of the Country. It is BolsHfvistft'. pure an-i simple, and nothing':, shdrt of1 that. It is true that Mr Fraser' informed

his audience that they "could. not achieve (heir ideals' by disorder or revolutionary means,1" but. what is such a proviso worth, coming as it does from a party one of whose leaders uttered' that memorable \ynr-cry against organised,' decent society which is implied in the phrase "To Hell .with agreements!"? Just now, the Revolutionary Socialists sxre specially anxious to capture the Parliamentary machine, and the word lias apparently been passed round from the "Red Fed" headquarters that "disorder and revolutionary means" n'usfc be publicly disavowed. But how.could such a social revolution as that so frankly put forward by Mr Fraser as the real- objective of Hs party be brought abbut save by "disorder or/; revolutionary means';'? The Socialist objective does not only include State ownership of all national resources—an "ownership" to be confined to Mr Fraser and hisi frieads— but also involves the /abolition of the whole existing system under which labor is directed and- employed. The ■""Workers"'-are'to be1 "freed from the industrial'shackles which bind them." What these "shackles'' consist of arid where, in this country, at the present time, they are to be found, Mr Fraser does not condescend? to explain. As a matter of fact, if there are any "shackles" on industry in this country they are worn by the employers, who at every step ;find- themselves confronted by the most extravagant demands—demands which > if granted, could not fail to paralyse many important industries;.; and, in some cases, bring about their complete cessation. The "go-slow" policy adopted by Mr Fraser's friends, the coalminers, is, in fact, imposing very burdensome "shackles" upon the shipping und other industries in the Dominion. And 'other instances could be quoted of 'the mischievous effects upon industry and commerce of the "stop-work" meetings, waterside strikes, and other irritating interfei'ences with the regular course of industry. Returning to the subject of the proposed Socialist or Bolshevik scheme of seizing the "national resources,'' we would point out that this indirectly, but none the less very dearly, implies that the first to suffer under the "Red Fed" policy of spoliation would be the iproducers, the farmers. It is they who are develoning the resources of the countiy. In that development they have for many years worked'hard and lived simply. Some of them have prospered, and more credit to them for the success achieved. Others still toil on, working long hours and t not enjoying the mftny pleasures which foil to the lot

lof the urban workers. They are sustained in their toil and, pelf-sacrifice by the fact that they are building up homes for themselves and their children. Socialisation of "national resources" can only mean, in effect, whatever it may spell in theory, the confiscation of the Innd from which the farmer gets his living. Dependent upon the farmer, the producer, are many other classes—indeed, were jit not for the farmer's industry and enterprise there would be precious, little work for the urban population which provides the^reat majority of the Revolutionary-:,Socialist element. It is sincerely+o be hoped that these apostles of confiscation ■'will be'turned out of Parliament.-a-t'^he forthcoming elections. We are informed that Mr Holland's seat is by no means safe, Mid it would be a {rood thinp; for New Zealand to have him and his fellow extremists sent to the right-about. There is room in Parliament for .a

Labor Party, but care should be t<:ken to choose men whose loyalty jind patriotism are unquestioned, not firebrands who talk glibly of "using their hands on the national resources." We cannot imagine Mr Bernard Cooke allying himself with these Bolsheviks, but ho and other Lr.bor Moderates are having to bear the odium attaching to association, however remote, with the "Red Fed" section of the Labor Party. It would •bo in his best interests were Mr Cooke to let the electors know what his exact position is.