Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, MAY 18, 1925. SOCIALISATION OFFICIALLY EXPLAINED.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 140, 18 May 1925, Page 4

Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, MAY 18, 1925. SOCIALISATION OFFICIALLY EXPLAINED.

In the special Communist number of an Australian journal published primarily for the benefit of those who take an active interest in politics, there appeared last month an official explanation of Labour’s Socialisation objective, which was published in the Brisbane Daily Standard (the Labour daily) of January 9th, and the Brisbane Worker of January 15th of this year. Both journals are the accredited organs of the Australian Labour Party. What they say on the matter can therefore be accepted as authoritative. The objective of practically every' Labour Party within the British Empire is announced in almost identical terms, the phraseology varying but little. In New Zealand it is stated as the “socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange.” The Australian Labour Party adds in a word and makes it “the socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, thus completely covering tho activities of both Labour and Capital in every department of life. It has been said that this objective is merely a matter of windowdressing, and that the Labour leaders who are responsible for its adoption merely want to keep it in the front of their party programme, as the ultima thule of the progressive development by which they hope to transform Society, as at present constituted, from the individualistic into the socialistic state. That is practically admitted by the Australian Labour leaders and it will be found, by comparing the method proposed to do adopted to bring about that transformed condition of affairs, that there is really nothing to choose between the Australian and the New Zealand method. Both proceed on identical lines. Both Brisbane journals officially representing the Labour Party state that it is proposed to bring about tho socialisation of industry by constitutionally using the present industrial and Parliamentary machinery to bring about the organisation of workers along the line of industry to effect the nationalisation of banking, and all the leading industries; to municipalise all services that can be operated in limited areas, and to set up boards upon which tho workers in the industry are to have representation, such boards being charged with the government of the nationalised industries. What is termed a “Supreme Economic Council” is also to be set up as a superior governing body over all nationalised industries. For the further accomplishment of their designs upon the public generally, the leaders of the Labour movement propose to establish Labour Research and Labour Information Bureaus, and Labour educational institutions, in which the workers are to be trained' in the management of tho nationalised industries. An attempt is made in the explanation of this socialisation objective to make it appear an innocent and natural development of the governmental activities of the British Empire during the Great War. But it is impossible to disguise the fact that what is really aimed at is, not some temporary pooling of all resources under Government control to meet a pitiless and merciless German foe in a titanic war of three and a-half years’ duration, but a permanent revolution of the whole order and principle of modern civilisation.

TO INTRODUCE SOVIETISM

The Supreme Economic Council which it is proposed to set up would be the undisputed controller of the entire economic side of the nation. Parliament, as at present constituted, would be 4 one away with, and we

should ha/e in its stead members allegedly representative of industries, instead of representatives .of geographical constituencies and of the people] generally. In explaining the supposed necessity for the control of industries by the workers, it is contended that tlie new principles which Labdur seeks, to apply are the only alternative to the more or less bureaucratic control represente< l by Governmental departments. It is contended that by the creation of joint boards tho evils of Governmer t stroke, political patronage and dangerous delays will disappear before the exercise of direct responsibility and self-expression, and that these latter will provide the spirit which it ii alleged is now missing in business undertakings. “Particular attention,’ the official explanation states, “sl.ould be paid to the important provision whereby the producers and consumers will be given representation on ldiese boards, and be in command, without being subjected to the interference of middlemen, or dominated by the interests of middlemen. When in Ihe days to come industries are nationalised and the educational portion of tho programme has been carried out, a Supreme Economic Council is to be established to co-ordin-ate and be;ter administer the economic life of the nation. The answer to the cries of dictatorship is (the explanation further states) that the Economic Council is to be elective and therefore Democratic.” Actually, however, the proposals cover the setting up of a Soviet Council for, instead of the country be ng governed as at present, “the idea :s that a council elected by all engage! in the industries—from superintendents downwards, shall administer and co-ordinate the nationalised industries.” The explanation goes on to somewhat naively state that “this proposal for expert supervision (the assumption that industries as at present conducted are not under expert supervision is rather amusing), in place of present circumlocution offices, is being treated as meaning violence, orgy, robbery, confiscation, assassination and liell-let-loose.” “How is it possible,” the Queensland Central Executive of the Labour Party asks, with an assumption of injured innocence, “with this attitude, to get amendment and reform and progressive plans seriously considered?” With greater faith that the average man will feel in its protestations, it is claimed by the Q.C.E. that “Labour has the conviction that its programme can save the world and avert destructive upheaval. The Labour Partliy,” the manifesto proceeds, “pleads for the facing of reality and asks that its objective be considered on its merits and not as the anti-Labour Press travesties it. Blind leader of the blind,” it says, “this same press continues its fiddling while the world is burning.” If the world is burning it is pretty certain that the conflagration has been planned from Russia, and that, while Labour may talk of averting “destructive upheaval,” the events, that have transpired in Russia since' the second revolution was inaugurated in 1917 have suffiiceutly shown that Labour’s programme to save the world is one 61 merciless destruction of everything that is opposed to its ideas of true government.