THE LABOUR OBJECTIVE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18754, 6 January 1923, Page 8

THE LABOUR OBJECTIVE.

In their anxiety to pose as class-con-scious Marxians the revolutionary leaders of the Labour Party have created serious obstacles to the chances of its ultimate success in politics. The love for phrase-worship is nowhere so widespread as it is in the Labour movement. The most conspicuous example of this is supplied in its devotion to the Socialist objective. When it is alleged against the Marxian that he is simply a political opportunist, his self-vindica-tion is based on the objective prescribing “the socialisation cf the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” It matters not that this objective is ignored or not understood by the majority; —the professed support of it constitutes a personal passport to the magic circle of true-blue Marxians.

Attempts have been made in South Africa to construct an intelligent - objective out -of the unintelligent jargon to which the Labour Party has been committed in the past. The Labour Conference has, however, merely modified the objective by deleting the clause providing for tho socialisation of the means of production and distribution. As leader of the party Mr Cresswell. found that the objective led to wild misinterpretation in many quarters and alienated the support of individuals who wore in agreement with tho party’s practical policy. The most, serious difficulty arises when a party obsessed by an impracticable objective seeks to follow a practical policy, and when the class-conscious theorist denounces everything which is in the nature of a practical proposal. In effect the South African Labour Conference has simply deleted a few of the confusing words from the objective, leaving others equally obscure. The remaining words of the objective—“the securing for producers, whether by hand or by brain, of tho full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof on a basis of the common ownership of the means of production; also the best obtainable system of popular administration and control in each industry or service, with a view to the ultimate achievement of a democratic and socialistic commonwealth”—are merely a jumble of words which Have no practical, application to the affairs of life. Certainly they visualise the Socialist Commonwealth, but they must embarrass the party in all its efforts to win co-opera-tion in the improvement of conditions under the present social system. When the progress of the past fifty years is calmly \ considered it is folly of the worst description to declare in effect that everything that is must be destroyed in the uncertain hope that something better may be found. To some people the socialistic commonwealth is an enchanting vision, in which the many will have their lives and duties ordered by a few, where there will he no scope tor ambition,; or energy, and where an attempt may be made to convert complex human nature into a soulless machine. Visions and dreams are not the realities of life. Professor Stephen Leacock reminds us that “Socialism is but a dream—a bubble Seating in the air. In the light of its opalescent colours we may,” he says, “see many visions of what we might be if we were better than we are, we may learn much that is useful as to what we can he even as we are; but if we mistake the floating bubble for the marble palaces of the city of desire, ft' wall lead us forward in our pursuit till we fall over the edge of the abyss beyond which is chaos.”