THE SOCIALISTS’ LAND POLICY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20960, 25 February 1930, Page 17

THE SOCIALISTS’ LAND POLICY.

TO THE EDITOR. " Sir, —So “ Queer Fellow" seems to think there is still a hope of classing the worker with an eighth of ah acre and a house, mortgaged to the actual owner, or in a few cases past .that stage, with the big landed proprietor who owns thousands of acres and draws his rent and interest ' every six months (from the worker who works it), and this without any effort on his part; in other words, reaping where he never sowed, consuming what he has done nothing To produce; —in short, an absolute parasite on society. How does this operate? Simple because his forbears got here and elsewhere first and took possession of the land by devious methods, and, by a system of laws, made by these same individuals, they are able to retain their hold on it and extract from the man who works this land a portion of his product, and this must be forthcoming whether the worker has_ any left to himself or not. _ This is private ownership and control in the interests of the few at the expense of the many. The needs of the many are the opportunity of the few to grow rich and wallow in luxury and waste, while .the many have barely enough to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves, and what they do have is of the coarsest and meanest. Their luxuries, if any, are; also of the cheapest, and a monotonous, humdrum, life is the result. This is the present system of capitalism. I am, " Queer Fellow ” says, looking to the workers for sympathy. I want nobody’s sympathy. But I do want to see the workers claim their natural inheritance and demand justice; and this can be ■ easily accomplished, and it would also benefit those who now have more than they need, and also those who have not enough. The one is a natural sequence of the other. If we assume three people as a community and give them three apples as their sustenance, this is enough if each got one. But if the one claimed one and a-half and left threequarters each to the other two, this would mean he would have double their portion, and have more than enough, while they would go short. You would answer and say, “ But the two would not stand for that.” Well, I hope fhey wouldn’t either, but the many stand it to-day because of something these few wrote down in a volume called laws or Acts, and the many fall down and worship them, and submit, when all they have to do is to get into the position of cleaning the blackboard and rewriting another set of laws or Acts in the interests of all, including those who now own these lands and enjoy these selfish privileges. That is all that is in it, and “ Queer Fellow ” thinks they would vote against the people who advise them to go right ahead and do this thing in the interests of the community as a whole. No, when “ Queer Fellow ” talks of confiscation and robbery he only echoes his own class’s acts of the past and hopes to mislead these eighth-acre landed proprietors into a false conception of their position.

“ Queer Fellow ” says that all. through 1 blame the private ownership of land as the reason why the workers have not got a home, and says also that this is where thei Socialists mislead the workers. Well, if private ownership did not exist, we as a community could select land here and there as we thought suitable, and at once proceed to erect houses thereon. But “Queer Fellow "‘asks me how the Socialists are going to give the workers cheaper homes. I must again revert to the ideal and that is the abolition of private owner, ship ip the land primarily and then all else will follow, because all that we need (in building houses) must bo produced from the land. Therefore to produce a house we need the expert human labour applied to these natural and technically worked up materials to put it together. Private ownership and control by the few for profit being abolished, and un all-pi co-operatively-owned and managed principle at work in the interests of all, all the extras that go in dividends, etc., will be saved and. a cheaper house must bq the result. I will be told I have left out money, etc. But we can build houses under such a system without money? Money is, and should be, only used as n means of exchange—a function that can pist as easily be performed by a ticket handed to the person who has performed a certain amount of social service and is entitled to a certain portion of the common total of sustainable products to sustain life. Let me illustrate by using the example of Robinson Crusoe when he was stranded on the island. The first thin" he did was to set about preparing for all his needs in the form of food, clothing, and shelter. He did not need money. And even when he got a mate they worked together and made all they needed, simply on the basis of a principle of co-operation each for all and all for each. This explains our case, hut we will have to overcome some of the anomalies that exi«t now before we obtain this, and the onlv party to do this is. the party that to-day stands for such an ideal.— l am etc February 23. fc fc&K,