THE POPE AND SOCIALISM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21357, 10 June 1931, Page 10

THE POPE AND SOCIALISM

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Mr J. Robinson, one of the avowed champions of the working class, in his defence of the Bab; our Party against the attack of the Pope and his statement that “ no one can be a good Catholic and(|imultaueously be a true Socialist,” introduces some new lines of thought to hold the sympathy of the masses. The Pope’s edict tnat “no Christian can be a true Socialist" is perfectly true, because the very nature of their foundations immediately brings into being a conflict of interests. Of course, Mr Robinson and the other Labour fakirs like to portray the roles of Socialists, not with the idea of emancipating the working class but merely to use the working class to gain parliamentary control. The class struggle which means the fight against capitalist society, is entirely overridden by the Labour Party’s desire for power, and consequently no definite line of policy is set down for the working class to follow. Here we have Mr Robinson supporting that ideal, “ the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution,, and exchange,” and yet on the Labour Party's platform the word “nationalisation ’ is substituted by the entirely different word “socialisation.’.’ For followers ot Mr Robinson and his ilk, I would like to give concise definitions of the principles of the “socialisation of industry, the nationalisation <fi industry, and State ownership and control. They are as folState ownership is the intrusion of the State in any industry as a competitor in the open market of industrial undertakings, without a monopoly of operation. Nationalisation means that the State, as at present constituted, monopolises the operation of any given industry to the complete exclusion of private enterprise. Socialisation of industry means the expropriation of industrial undertakings without compensation, by force. There can be no misapprehension as to the essential differences of the three categories. The first two are based upon a complete recognition of the rights of private property in the means of production; while the third is based upon the recog nition of class antagonism and a complete denial of property rights. State ownership and nationalisation are reformist measures; they represent industry out of which non-producing elements receive profits through the medium of interestbearing State loan bonds. In short, they represent the exploitation of the' wageearners under the jurisdiction of the State as an employer, either in addition to or in place of a number of individual employers. Nationalisation represents a more efficient of production, under certain conditions, and is a favourable prelude to socialisation. Socialisation is an act of devolution, impossible under anything but revolutionary conditions. Therefore, the position of the Labour Party is this: either it stands for reyo.lution by ’force or the plank of socialisation is a piece of political humbug. I challenge Mr Robinson- to prove these statements to be incorrect, and ask him to tell us where the Labour Party stands in this new light. It is thus obvious that no Christian can be a true Socialist. At least, the Pope and the Communists are honest, though at most they stand as enemies and recognise each other as such. Neither would have it otherwise. Only Mr Robinson endeavours to bridge the gulf. Christianity is a doctrine of passive submission to the trials and tribulations of this life on earth which is regarded as a transitional stage to the heavenly paradise. Socialism is militant and aggres sive. and implies ihe erection of a paradise” here. “True” Socialists regard the church as the spiritual agent of the capitalist class which “ lulls the workers to sleep with a promise of eternal bliss when they are dead.” Religion as a doctrine is necessary to keep a subject elas.in subjection.—l am, etc.. ! Wage Slave.

TO THE EDITOR Sib, —The New Zealand Welfare League has set out to try and show that there is no connection whatsoever between Socialism and Christianity, and it quotes all sorts of persons, dead and hying, to uphold its contention. Now, in my opinion, Socialism is held by Socialists to be a system of Government based on the principle of common ownership and control of the means of life in the interests of all for use, as against the present system of private ownership and control of these things by the few in the interests of the feifr for profit and dividends. The Socialist holds that the essential needs of the people should not be manipulated and used by private individuals and trusts to amass fortunes, etc. Further, the Socialist does not care what religion a person professes? He may be, and is at liberty, to profess any or none, as he desires. All we ask is that such person is willing to work for the principles which Socialism stands for, irrespective of what religion one may adhere to. The league says: “Christianity is rather concerned with ethics; and the proper use of the things of this world to help towards spiritual welfare.” Very well. The Encyclopaedia Britannica has this: “The ethics of Socialism and Christianity are identical.” I Then again, in the Acts, chapter ii, verse 4, we have it stated that the early Apostles held all things common and no one lacked. Each one got as he needed. Will the league affirm this is not a slight improvement on things as they are to-day, where we are appealing to private charity to augment the responsibility of the Government to assist it in overcoming unemployment. Let me refer the league also to the 20th , chapter /of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and see how unemployment was dealt with in those days and how individuals were remunerated for their labour? Everyone got the same because each one's needs were the same, no matter how long' l they had worked. How do we deal to-day with the situation? Do we pay a man what he needs? To say, as the league does, that “ Socialism would abolish individuality in favour of a system of collectivism ” is only so much dust thrown up as a smoke screen. Socialism would be the real start of individuality getting a chance to assert itself. What chance has individuality today? Why, the system tends more and more to make men machines, or, rather, cogs in the machine. Each one becomes a specialist, and nothing else. Then, again, what chance has the poor man’s son against the rich man’s son. The case has only to be stated to show wherein the league is wide of the mark. The collective ownership of the people’s requirements for the people’s use does not destroy individuality. Each one would be urged to do his best, and this would happen irrespective of rank or station. Each one jvould have to contribute his share to the common stock. Each one’s needs would be provided and more time allowed for study, recreation, and research, etc. Some real education would then be accomplished.—l am, etc., June 9. P. Neilson.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —If Mr J. Robinson (and the rev. editor of the Tablet) are not included in the next list of Birthday Honours there will assuredly be wigs on the green. They have performed a notable public service, ano deserve well of their King and country As a result of the letter on the above subject which appeared in Monday’s Daily Times all those who toil and moil in the cause of industry must have entered upon their weekly task with light hearts and happy faces, irradiated by the humour that adds to the gaiety of nations? The spectacle of Mr Robinson (and the rev. editor'of the Tablet) laboriously endeavouring to convince themselves and each other that the Pope said one) thing and meant another must have lifted the burden of depression, temporarily at any rate, from many a weary shoulder. But is the issue really so obscure as these sophists would have us believe? First, is socialisation the essential principle of Socialism, as the name

would imply, of is it not? Secondly, has the Pope pronounced in favour of the private ownership ( of property, or has he not? Thirdly, are these two doctrines reconcilable? Fourthly, are not _ Communism and Bolshevism the offspring of Socialism, and have some of us not been taught to pray—“ Lead us not into temptation ” ? , According to the cable message, the Pope states that a Christian-Socialist is a contradiction in terms. If that is so, Mr Robinson will perhaps go a little further and tell ns whether there can be such a thing as a Catholic-Socialist. He reminds us that in some recent British elections Socialists were opposed by Labourites, but he does not tell us that in a number of European countries the party alignment is Socialists v. Catholics. His argument relies for any cogency that it possesses on the so-called different “ brands ” of Socialism, but this of reasoning is so transparently thin that it amounts to mere sophistry. A Socialist, by any other name, is Still a Socialist, with all the implications ot his title. In view of the approach of the elections it would be interesting to know exactly to whom Mr Robinson owes allegiance—the spiritual authority which he acknowledges, the declared Socialist leader (Mr Holland), the Empire in which he lives, or the brotherhood of man? — I am, etc., Amßsed.