GOAL OF LABOUR PARTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20481, 5 February 1930, Page 8

GOAL OF LABOUR PARTY.

CREATING A PAUPER STATE,

NATION OF DEPENDANTS.

DANGEROUS "IDEALISM.",

Br A. ERNEST MANDER.

HI Every measure advocated by the Labour p ar ty —every step which members of the Labour Party would describe as "progressive" —is a move toward a condition in which the State, organised society, doe 3 everything' for the individual. In Labours Utopia the individual will have no problems to face, no difficulties to overcome, no risk to take; at every turn he will find Mother State at hand to guide and assist him, to solve his problems and overcome his difficulties* for him. Tha State, and not the individual, will be responsible for the success or failure of each individual's life.

Life in Labour's Utopia is to be softi and easy, pleasant and smooth and safe—• for all, unconditionally, or at the mosti conditionally only upon the individual's making some pretence of working. In Labour's ideal, for instance, the individual is safeguarded against all tha "natural" consequences of slackness, inattention or incompetence at his work.However slack and incompetent a man may be, the State will say: "Poor fellow, we know it can't be your fault"—and undertake' to provide him with "work or maintenance." No Incentive to Effort. This is poor psychology. The fact is that, except in the case of a physical or mental defective, incompetence is usually a result of neglect to form a habit of giving one's whole mind to what one is doing. And, like any other habit which requires effort for its formation, this habit will be'formed only where sufficient incentives are offered. It is certain that the removal of the natural penalties of slackness and incompetence will remove what, in most cases, is the chief incentive-to a young man to make himself competent. Of course, for those who are ambitious there may still be a spur to efficiency in tha desire for rapid promotion. But . the majority of men are not, it seems, affected by this; and, what is more, where tha trade-union spirit is dominant, "publio opinion" is definitely against any individual worker who attempts to excel in order to get on. So in Labour's ideal state there will be no incentive to the ordinary young man to put all himself into his work, to give his whole mind to mastering his work and making himself thoroughly efficient—because, however slack and incompetent he may become, the State will take care of him; while if he does work i harder or better than his fellows, he will become unpopular through running, foul oi the trade-union spirit. Coddling the Incompetent. Again, in Labour's ideal istate, the slack will receive as much as the energetic, the bad or indifferent worker as much as ,the good worker. We cannot doubt this; fop we find even to-day, where the tradeunion spirit prevails, this is being demanded. But it applies not only to manual .workers. The tendency embodied in the Labour Party is to equalise tha position of, for instance, good and bad farmers. The more a. .farmer can produce from his land, or the more land ha can manage, the more.,is to' be taken from him by the State. But the bad farmer is to be coddled and coaxed and helped ati every turn, and if he get? into a hopeless position he is to be allowed to cut hi 3 losses and cast his ba*dea~apon the State at the expense of. those who, being more capable, are more successful than he is. So, too, with business and professional men, manufacturers, public servants. In every case, if Labour would not actually put a premium upon slackness . and incompetence, at any rate ifc would remove the premium now placed by our present social system upon keenness and capability. In Labour's ideal state, again, all enterprise, initiative, resourcefulness and self-reliance will be at a discount. We see that the Labour Party even now is against allowing any scope for. these qualities or any reward to foster their development. Thus Labour's ideal society must inevitably produce a tame, spiritless, over-managed people, without any sort of personal independence; all utterly dependent upon the State; looking to the State to feed and clothe and house them, to find work for them, to tell them at every turn exactly what to do and how to do it; to decido everything for them; to arrange everything for them; to take all responsibility for his own life off the shoulders of the individual; to protect every individual against the natural consequences of his own mistakes and deficiencies. A dependent people without enterprise or grit or self-reliance, looking to the State to solve all their problems, overcome all their difficulties, and manage their lives for them! The Drift Already Begun. Is this the kind of people we desire tn see in New Zealand 1 It is the kind o£ people that would inevitably be produced by a society such as the Labour ' Party is striving i'or. Again I say that the reader can verify these statements by his own observation. He need only taka note of the whole trend of the Labour movement to-day, sthe items of the Labour Party's policy, and the nature of all its propaganda. True, this tendency is not confined to the Labour Party and the trades unions. Unfortunately, the whole community has, to some 'extent, drifted into a partial and almost unconscious acceptance of this false and dangerous " ideal." In England, perhaps, the process—the undermining of the character of the people—has gone further than it has yet pone in New Zealand. Dean Inge is not the only observer to inform us that many of the qualities which made the British people great- are now fast vanishing, just as, nearly 2000 years ago, there gradually disappeared from the people of the Roman Empire those similar_ sterling qualities which had made the greatness of Imperial Rome! In England to-day even the leaders of the more rational section of the Labour Party are perturbed by the Mr. J. H. Thomas has recently stated that " the independent spirit of our race is being sapped," and that increasing numbers of men are " looking to the State for .assistance that they themselves ought to provide." Similarly. Mr. P. Snowden has stated: "The most dangerous and menacing feature of the present time is a desire to get something for nothing, a desire to live at the expense of others . . . . Unless social reform develops a greater sense of jndividual responsibility, our measures will never establish a cooperative commonwealth, but will establish a Pauper State." Yet this dependence upon the State is the logical and inevitable result of all socialistic policy. But here in New Zealand we can make our stand against this fatal tendency. There is time yet for the people of New Zealand to recognise the Labour Party's "ideal" for what ib really is—and reject it—and choose instead that other ideal of a virile, independent, enterprising, self-reliant and re* Bourceful people, the ideal of Reform.