LABOUR’S LAND POLICY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19505, 13 June 1925, Page 2

LABOUR’S LAND POLICY.

TO THE EDITOB Sir, —There is little in your loader of the 11th that has not already been said by you. It must be obvious to your readers that it is true that Land, property, etc., cannot under the Labour Parly s policy bo willed in such a manner as at present. No one disputes that. It is quite clear. Clause 3 (b) says that “privately owned land shall not bo sold or transferred except to the State.” Hie point under discussion is: Does this affect the right of an individual to pass on to Iris relatives or other person his belongings or interest in land, etft.? At the present juncture a person can leave his interest, say, to his son by win made in his favour. This, of course, has to comply with the law of the State,—-in other words, laws made by the people s representatives. This gives the son power to take over the said belongings and, if they be land, he has a right under the law as at present, to work that land or leave it idle. Under the proposal of the Labour Party the law will be amended in such a manner that the land shall bo used. If the son is not prepared to use the land then, as admitted by you, and as laid down m the party's platform, the son takes the value of his father’s interest. Now, from tho standpoint of justice to the son, all has been granted hv the State. All the difference to tho individual (the son. in this case) that has taken place is this his right to say whether land shall be used or not. The Labour Party considers that the peop o should have that right. You evidently do not agree with tho Labour larly. On tho point of the law of inheritance yon consider this has been violated- Iho party considers otherwise- The writer is firmly convinced that the majority of persons will agree, and consider, that the State should have the say whether land shall be worked or remain idle. All that is necessary to take place is an alteration in the law to make it compulsory on the individual who owns or occupies Hie land to work it. Whether you would call the person who occupies tiie land under the T- ahour 1 s policy tho owner or not I care not. what readers must see is that he is secured of the products of his exertions—surely tho main thing. Will you please tell your readers whether you believe that the individual should have the right to decide whether land shall be worked or not, or should the community have that power? On the point, of private property rights being abrogated, readers will see that the son has now become possessed of his father’s interest and is still in possession ot private property, so the right to private property is not violated. What has taken place is that the evil of exploitation by tho owned of private property has been taken away, and the State has taken true control. In conclusion may I just point out that history has shown in every country in the world, and also on several occasions in New Zealand, that when private property in land has become a monopoly—and a monopoly it must become if the owner is not controlled —poverty inevitably follows, just as wo find it on the increase in Now Zealand at present through our faulty land laws, and furtlior that the socialisation of certain forms of property is a condition necessary for the general diffusion of private property. Readers will understand that if land is put to use it must expand the volume of commodities forthcoming. Thereby private ownership is increased by the fact of there being more goods. More goods mean a higher standard of living for all, again benefiting the workers, employers, and the general business community- There can be no logical argument against tho principle of compelling (he owner of land to use it. Just as the monopoly of insurance was curtailed -when the State started in insurance and while tho system was successfully administered by persons with humanitarian principles, so will tho monopoly of land be taken .iwaji, when the I/ahour Party’s policy is adopted. I trust this letter will clear the atmosphere and let readers into the reasons why you oppose tho Labour Party's policy. With reference to your personal remai'ks as to rny wishes, as before stated I am prepared to leave all sarcasm, etc., to you. All who write on behalf of tho workers are not aspiring politicians. Some have a higher ideal, —the highest, “service.” —I am, etc,, C. M. Moss. N.E. Valley, Juno 11.

Sir, —I have followed the little discussion appearing in your columns upon Labour's land policy. The term should road, “Parliamentary Labour Party’s land policy.” .This is essential in order to distinguish it from Labour’s real policy or aim. Were 1 called to judge between yourself and Mr C. M. Moss, your opponent, I should award you the palm. The socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange is surely Labour's policy. This, as you suggest rightly, presupposes the abolition of private property, but such does not, as you naively infer, mean the abolition of all personal property. A worker fortunate enough to own a house at. present, or a host suit of clothes, would still retain possession, and would also be able to leave such to his children on his demise. Tho abolition of private property holds no terrors for tho masses, since for them private property has long been alxdishecl. It moans only the abolition of private property in tho means of life, which private property functions not so much for the uses of its owner ns to prevent other from using it. Tho objective of the Labour Party is like a waif abandoned bv its mother. During the parliamentary elections the following questions wore put. a Labour candidate:— Does it require a majority of Labour Party members in the House in order to carry out their platform?—Yes. Seeing that it only requires a majority in order to carry out tho party objective. Why the platform? As a stepping stone in order to reach their objective. Now it goes without question that, the Labour Party, even when in a majority in Parliament, would require a solid classconscious backing to enable it to carry out its platform. Again, an educated working class would demand not the carrying out of a reform platform, but the total abolition of private property in tho means of life. This accomplished, it presupposes tho abolition of the State, seeing tho State is but the exoutive of the predominant class in society. In other words, owing to tho absence of classes in human society, tho necessity for tho State would disappear. Tho talk by the Labour Party of buying up all land and improvements, machinery, etc., would be humorous if it were not so silly. It would bo just as sensible to insist on paying or buying bade your gold watch from the thief who has just robbed you of it. Tho original expropriation of the masses is written in tho bloody annals of tho past, and anyone who cares to study history may learn by what methods it was carried out. When the land, machinery, etc., the moans of subsistence, are socially owned, and therefore free of access to all, then, and only then, will tho present ■ world-wide chaos tho result of tho anarchy which threatens to destroy society, and is inseparable from the present mode of production and exchange, also disappear. The evils of tho present system of private ownership, the suffering and misery it ontials through poverty, etc., on tho masses, are too apparent to call for any comment, ami ye we find those who, in order to partake of the floshpots of bourgeois Egypt, are prepared to surrender themselves bolusbolus in the defence of toe sacred rights of private property, and, stranger still, wo find those defenders over amongst (he propertyless. —I am, etc., Fairfield, June 11. Greg. [Wo have not said that the adoption of the Labour Party’s policy would mean the abolition of all personal property. A person would still be graciously permitted to Ins own apparel and his other personal effects. But he would not be pom fitted to own a home. Nor would ho be premitted, at his death, to leave his home to his widow. The State would then step in and the home would have to be transferred to it, as a contribution towards the eventual socialisation of all land. —Ed. O.D.T.]