SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 4 February 1928, Page 11

SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

WHICH IS WHICH? (Contributed by the New Zealand Welfare League) A correspondent has written to the Welfare League asking: “What is the difference' between political socialism and commufusm ?" The league’s answer I is 'as'follows■ ■' '' ’• lii the field of politics the difference between Socialism and communism is more a matter of appearance and degree than anything else, the objective of both is the same. Socialism appears more respectable because it is more opportunist. It has been described as Bolshevism with a shave and a clean collar. Socialism is the theory, communism the practice. Socialism preaches what communists are prepared to carry out. In relation to industry socialists preach class organisation arid workers’ control. The communists advocate “dictatorship of the proletariat. - ’ A mere difference of words, nothing more. Socialists support “direct action” industrially whilst the communists support “direct action” both in industry and politics. Both travel the same road and the gate they seek is marked “Revolution.” The socialists garland the' gate with flowers and pictures but the eommunits bespatter it with blood. It is the same gate, and the nation that passes through it learns in sorrow how fierce and sharp are the spikes with which it is formed.. Socialism speaks the language of society; therefore it is welcomed. Communism speaks the language of the gutter and for such reason is shunned. The meaning, however, of what they both speak is the same. There is no real difference between them. RED FLAG “STATESMEN” The. buyers and sellers of empty words pretend tliat all will be well if we establish soviets. They would have us take it for granted that the shop stewards and revolutionary orators embody all virtues and all the talentß and that, we have only to unfurl the Red Flag to conjure up the New Jerusalem. The people will be wise to ignore the empty words ’and futile promises of these latter-day saints and their lieutenants. What have they done that we should trust them? They have created no beautiful or useful thing. They are lacking in grace and culture. They have no experience of business or Statesmanship. They have no sense of proportion, no modesty or balance, no constructive policy. They are violent men 'whose speeches are deformed by malice and envy, whose inspiration springs from material selfishness. They have no sense of discipline. They would govern the world who have not learned to govern themselves or each other. Those of them who are honest and not wholly selfish are philosophers of that ricketty kind who imagine that evil and difficulty will disappear because they do hot like them.