“BREWSTER’S MILLIONS” THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18322, 12 August 1921, Page 6

“BREWSTER’S MILLIONS”

THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

“Brewster's Millions” has been read by hundreds of thousands of lovers of good fun in literature. They have chuckled over the misadventure of the hapless young man whoso experiences have made one of the most delightful pages of reading. George Barr M'Cuixheon's book, from which this play was written, was only one of dozens that are equally popular, and there is no writer of light fiction to-day who has a more loyal following than lie. The book was dramatised by Melville Stone and Winched Smith, and as a stage production proved as popular as the book. The film production is an adaptation of both the book and the stage version, and will be screened at the Empire Theatre next Tuesday, with Roscoe Arbuckle in the loading role.

TO THB EDITOB. Sir, — Your leader in yesterday's issue dealing with the above subject touches the matter very gently. It is quite plain, however, that you arc genuinely anxious about the internal affairs of Aew Zealand. .Moreover, you do not seem to be too sure that the Conference of Prime Ministers has done much good, but yon imagine tne State would not mind of allowing the i'rime Minister to visit the Old Land at any time he might be required. To me, the repeated and prolonged absence of the head of the State much resembles a man, whose house is on hre, running away to see if he can assi.-t i)is neighbour to save the other fellow's stable. Wo are now aware that the renewal of the Japanese Treaty was the principal motive of the Conference, and tha,t there was actually no cause to worry about the renewal ol the 'Treaty, as it appears that unless the Treaty is repudiated it continues to be valid and binding on both parties. But no matter what tne ostensible motive of the calling of the Conlerence was, there is a pretty general feeling in this dominion that the real one was for quite a different purpose than that given out. There never was, at any time, any pressing need that the head of this State should leave it to attend the Conference. In Sir J. Allen, New Zealand is blessed with a very able and shrewd man to represent us, and it seems absurd to think that there is any need of any other while he does so. If Sir J. Allen is not qualified or is not worthy of the trust of the people of ihis State, why retain his services? Mr Massey is admitted to be a capable and straightorward politician; that he is a statesman even his best friends do not claim for him, but that the affairs of this State can be constantly hung up while he is away on what is euphemistically termed "Empire business" is a horse of quite another colour. If we are to have a representative in England, give him authority to represent the dominion. It were far cheaper to cable instructions to our representative than to be constantly asked to defray the cost of a semi-regal jaunt of the head of the Government. Commercial and industrial affairs are, and have been for some time, in a rather parlous state. The agricultural and pastoral mutters, too, are certainly not bright. Wo have been "fed up" long enough on Government propaganda, of our "after the war" golden future, and would like to see something of the dream-world, realised. When farmers are compelled to pay anything from 7 per cent to 35 per cent, for accommodation, the golden future does not appear to loom over bright for the man on the land. When hundreds of good and willing men are seeking work and can find none, when our commerce is dwindling and industries are closing down all over the State, it does seem the height of absurdity that at; such a time the head of the State should be away from the country. Why things have been allowed to drift towards confusion and chaos in our mandated territory, why, when the "slump" was so accurately forecasted, no steps were taken to check land gambling, and why so much haste was made to settle returned soldiers on high-priced land when a fall in land values was so widely foreseen, even by our Imperialistic Premier, are questions that badly need answering. Although I do not agree with jingoistic flag-waving and lip-service loyalty, one realises quite clearly that national, equally with colonial, affairs should receive profound attention, and that the ablest men should be called together to consider them, but, like you, I do not believe it wise or even necessary that the local and pressing affairs of outlying states should be held up to give precedence to them. We have got to make our house of State secure against the'coming storm, and the sooner we get to work to do so the better for all concerned. If it is desired that we should honour those "scraps of paper" which we have been so lavishly circulating during the last few years we shall drastically need to cut down our expenditure all round. Exporting necessaries and importing luxuries are not going to help us. We have got to take up again the policy Major Atkinson so ably carried through many years ago of cutting down the overgrown cost of Government, of practising economy and thrift, and at the same time strenuously working to increase and develop the resources of the State. —I am, etc. H. P. August 9.

MARXIAN THEORIES, TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —Professor Pringle, speaking of Karl Marx says: “Marx took one factor in life and treated it as explaining the whole phenomena of life.” He says m reference to this statement: “It was quite true that economic conditions played a very great part in the development of life and character of States and communities, but there was no justification for declaring that tlie economic was the only basis of life. Marx was an out-and-out determinist. He allowed no place for the free action of human personality.” I can do no better than quote Marx himself in reply to this statement: “ The materialistic doctrine, that men are products of conditions and education, different men therefore products of other conditions and a different education, forget that circumstances may be altered by man, and that the educator has himself to be educated.” In other words, the problem, like all problems, possesses at least two quantities. It is not a question solely of conditions, economic or otherwise. It is a question of man and conditions, for the man is never dissolved in the conditions, but exists as a separate entity, and these two elements, man and conditions, act and react the one upon the rtho- Engel says further: _ According to the materialistic view of history, the factor which is, in the last instance decisive in history is the production and reproduction of actual life. More than this, Marx and I have ever assorted. But when anyone distorts this so as to read that the economic factor is the sole element ho converts the statement into a meaningless, abstract, absurd phrase. The economic condition is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure—the political forms of the class contests and their results, etc.” These quotations from Marx and Engel are sufficient, to my mind, to prove that Professor Pringle has either intentionally misquoted Marx* or has failed to understand what Marx really did say. I wish also to refer to the Marxian theory of value and surplus value as dealt with by Professor Pringle. He says: “ Another conception of Marx was that of surplus value. 'This was a purely economic theory.” If Professor Pnngle means by the words a purely economic theory, that the theory of surplus value, as stated by Marx, was invented by him without any recourse to the material world by which he was surrounded then I say his statement is incorrect ; for there exists no such thing as a pure thought. Without such a tiling as surplus value the capitalist system would be non-existent. The theory of surplus value as worked to its logical con elusion by Marx is not merely an idea, or a purely economic theory, but a scientific fact. Professor Pringle sees fit to deny in the 21st century what he roughly admits in the IRth century—i.o., that labour is the source of all exchange value, and he gives as proof that in the 18th century capita! was non-existent. This is quite a different view from die ones expressed by some professors in economy, who tell us that the rotten fish and Wire hands of the primitive man living in a state of savagery wore capital, etc. Professor Pringle says further’: “There was a profound clement; of truth in the Marxian point of view that labour is one of the decisive elements in the cost of production. What Marx failed to realise was that labour is not the only element in the cost of production. This latter statement agnhi misrepresents Marx, who was fully cognisant of all the factors necessary for the labour nrocess and states them unite plainly. This admission does not a'ter the fart, which has yet to be disproved scientifically, that labour creates Ml exchange value. One point, too. of whHi some economists are prone to lose sight is that all the factors which act. ns raw material in the labour process, outsde of anv infinitesimal part produced by nature spontaneously, arc the products of past labour.—l am. etc.. (.P.EO.