THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, .DECEMBER 1, 1922. THE LABOUR OBJECTIVE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18725, 1 December 1922, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, .DECEMBER 1, 1922. THE LABOUR OBJECTIVE.

A very significant feature of the speeches of the Labour candidates for Parliament is the omission 'from them of any attempt to explain the objective of their .party. It may be that they do not understand it. It may be that they are not agreed as to what it means. It may be that they are apprehensive of the possible effect's of theirVcnndoui if, understanding -it, they were to tell the electors what is really contemplated by it. It would be a poor compliment to those who framed it to suppose that it does not express some positive aim. That is precisely, however, what a member of the Labour Party in the late Parliament in New Zealand, apparently in all seriousness, invites people to believe. In a published article, circulated widely throughout Dunedin, he has implied that there is nothing definitive in the party's' objective and that everybody can safely put his own individual interpretation upon it. "To each individual and school of thought," he says, "socialisation means something different." The implication is nonsensical and false. It is an insult to the intelligence of the public. Mr Holland, leader of the party, does not stoop to any such questionable tactics as these. He was present at the All-Australia Congress in Brisbane at which the objective was adopted—for the objective of the New Zealand Labour Party is identical with the objective of the Australian Labour Party. Ho knows what it means, and; in a pronouncement published over his name in the Maoriland Worker a few days ago, he describes it as "a clearly stated objective." Moreover, in the same pronouncement, he says* of the party's platforjn that every plank is "designed to reach that objective." To imply that the electors can read what they like into the objective and that it does not matter what interpretation they like to ' place upon it, because, ; after all," "there is," as is said in the published article to which we i-efer, "nothing in thiJ Labour Party's attitude towards socialisation that need frighten the-most timid citizen," is to throw dust in the eyes of the public. To suppose that every plank in the p'arty's objective can bo designed to reach an objective that admits of its being varied according to individual fancies is plainly ridiculous. It is as if one were to say that the s*ime road would lead a person to Look-out Point and to Sandymoumt and to the Ross Creek Reservoir, to Moiuit Cook and to Milford Sound. The objective may bo said, fairly enough, to represent the ideal of the party, but the platform has been so constructed as to provide the means by which the ideal may eventually be attained. The term "socialisation" is not used in the objective merely because it may be presumed to have a less forbidding aspect than "nationalisation," because people may be expected not to know what it means and consequently not to bo frightened about it, and bo causc it has a nice, pleasant, attractive ring about it. As a matter of fact, socialisation and nationalisation are not regarded as synonymous terms. Socialisation would be a step beyond nationalisation. In New Zealand the railways are nationalised. They are not socialised. If they were socialised, according to the interpretation put upon "socialisation" by one of those who were responsible for tho adoption of the objective, they would bo "controlled by the workers for the workers." Mr R. S. Ross, formerly editor of the Maoriland Worker, draws the distinction in an article in the Australian Worker of November 1: Nationalisation is ownership by tho nation as 'a cu.pitalist.io concern. Socialisation is ownership by the, people us a 00-operulivo concern. . . * . Nationalisation represents merely a rhnngo _of capitalistic piopriotorios. Socialisation will represent the change from capitalistic proprietories into Socialism. The Sydney Worker itself is a little more explicit on the point: The difference between socialisation ami nationalisation's not merely one of spelling or even of interpretation Socialisation sets . tip an 'entirely .new principle, one which is destined to change the whole strueluro of society. Under nationalisation the worker has no voice whatever in deciding tho conditions of his labour, nor, which is more important, in the development of 'the industry that' employs him. . ~ .

means that the worker will have direct representation on the board that manages the socialised industry and on the Supreme Economic Council that will control all public enterprises. When, therefore, Labour candidates set out to tell the public that socialisation means something that would be entirely agreeable to everybody or when they endeavour to lull, the conynunity into a. Reuse of'comfort and security respecting their objective, thev, are in reality flaying upon its credulity., "Why quibble with words? Why not say straight out 'Soviet ftule'?" asked Mr Theodore, Labour Premier of Queensland, when the objective was under discussion at" the All-Australia conference at which it was adopted.« It is not a perfectly innocent, harmless aim that is expressed in the objective. If it were, the Labour candidates would not be so chary about enlarging upon it and expounding it. Whatever the interpretations which they niay individually put upon it, they must bo credited with, realising that a great deal of# explosive material is wrapped up in it. Consequently, they give it a very wide berth in their speeches, relying upon the electors not exhibiting any awkward curiosity with reference to it.,