UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21221, 30 December 1930, Page 11

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF.

TO IHE EDITOR. Sir,— ln your issue of Saturday appeared a report of an interview with Mrs Macdonald on the above subject. «Jnle some of the information, deductions and conclusions of this lady are on sound lines, still what is there in the whoie of them that th e Labour and socialist Parties have not tried" to impress on our governing bodies rignt thioughout tile whole situation? If it nad not been for the pressure from the workers representatives both inside and outside of Parliament in the different countries, how much relief would have come to the down and out” as a result of unemployment? How far would our unemployed be along the road of an insurance scheme or how much would they be likely to get if it bad not been for the pressure of Labour influence both inside and outside Parliament? Mrs Macdonald may not admit it, but if she had not been mixed up in politics, and I suppose, became acquainted with, some of this propaganda from the workers’ standpoint in the press, etc., thereby gaining ceitain viewpoints, would she be savins the things she is saying now? This interview, in parts,_ proves right up to the ult, in my opinion, that we who try to put the viewpoint of the workers before the public’ have been on the right lines when we can convince our opponenta ana those who own and control our industnes of the necessity of some such scheme, call it what you like. If previous Parliaments had acted on the suggestions of the Labour Party in the House, and instituted this piece of legislation some two years ago at least, then we would have been better able to deal scientifically with the situation to-day when the _ occasion demands it more so than it did then. I wholly agree that the present method of relief is. demoralislnS, etc. So is the present system of producing our social needs demoralising, when one human being is compelled to go cap in hand as it were to another and beg to be allowed to work to produce his physical needs, and unless this other person can employ him, and make a profit out of his labour power, then he is not employed. This is the crux of the situation and this aspect of the problem Mrs Macdonald has not seen fit to mention. Net, to this chaotic and insane method; of producing our social needs, all the other effects can he traced. Perhaps in a' little while Mrs Macdonald may see the necessity of probing the problem a little more deeply, and use the scientific method of analj-sis by tracing hack to causes, with the effects of which she and many others have been and still are wrestling. I can only say that I hope Mrs Maedonahi will use her persuasive powers in the direction she indicates—“ to force home to the Government that this is its Sb,” and .also that, as a member of the ospital _ Board, she will convince that body of its fullest powers in administrating relief _ when and where necessary. This body is the central body that ought to be doing the whole of this work as long as it is .necessary to do so; but when Mrs Macdonald mentions that part of this central organisation’s work is to remedy ,the cause, well, she is certainly asking for a big order. To remedy the cause of unemployment means that "we must revolutionise our methods of producing our social needs from private ownership and control! for profit and dividends to one of common ownership and control for use, where all would he producers and distributors in the interests of all, and no shoddy and adulterated materials and food would be allowed in the interests of health, because under such a system therewould be no need for the whole community to pawn inferior and adulterated materials and food on to themselves.

In producing our meat, gas, electricity, and transport, etc., we aim at getting the best for ourselves at the lowest possible cost. This is as it ought ,to he. A further extension of this principle will ultimately squeeze out the profit hunter and dividend hunter, whether his function be agricultural, industrial, or insurance and banking, especially the last-named. It must be hunfiliating and also demoralismg for a whole people to go cap in hand to a few of the people who own and control our banking and credit facilities, and allow these few people the power to say when, where, and how we are to do or not to do certain things, no matter how socially necessary they may he to the whole people. This must he altered, but can only be when the whole people by a majority determine for such a policy —i am, etc., • ** December 28 ’ ' NeiLSON -