THE FIVE-YEAR PLAN AND MR SIVERTSEN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21543, 15 January 1932, Page 8

THE FIVE-YEAR PLAN AND MR SIVERTSEN

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —When the old order of things was overthrown in'- Russia in 1917 the new rulers laid the basis of a new and dmerent social economy called Socialism or Communism, which is based on common ownership and control, the method being co-operation, and the objective use for all. When we take into consideration the backward nature of this country with a population between 80 and 90 per cent, illiterate, the strides it has made in abolishing illiteracy and_ developing its resources is, simply nothing short of a miracle. But how was the miracle conceived and operated? Simply by working to a plan and organising the whole population on a war basis for its accomplishment. That the rulers have made some mistakes and had to alter their methods from time to time is only to be expected. Even those who are opposed to their ideas and have seen them in operation have come, however, to see their worldwide significance. Hence boycotting, etc., against Russia are set in vogue. There is no unemployment; everyone is going at top; the standard is rising, and all the rest of the world is sitting up and taking notice, and feverishly looking aroimd for some device whereby the old machine or Capitalism can be altered to work and function a little longer, so that the exploitation, in the form of rent, interest, and profit, which makes up the huge surplus values can still be kept intact. Mr Sivertsen says that I am quite unable to demonstrate either by facts or arguments that enterprise run for profit is responsible for this Dominions financial embarrassment. He says:— Our financial predicament arises exclusively from State enterprise that yields no profit or dividends from which to liquidate liabilities. Every department run by the State for the benefit of the public has now become a burden and the cause tor increased taxation.” This surely will be news to many. I have before, me the sixtieth anniversary statement of the Government Life Insurance Department, in which the closing paragraph runs:— The department provides policy contracts which are not surpassed by any life insurance institution operating in the Dominion. Last year was the sixtieth anniversary of the establishment of the office, and its assets now amount to well over £B,ooo,ooo—a striking record when one reflects that operations are confined to New Zealand. The whole of these assets are invested in the Dominion, and are a substantial factor in the development of our own country.” Then we have our State Fire and State Advances Departments. I think these have paid interest on borrowed money up to date, and that is all that the moneylenders ask for. Then, what is wrong with our 1 ost and Telegraph Department? Our railways have been the means of assisting private enterprise in opening up the land and thereby putting this country at least 50 years ahead of where it would have been without them. This statement is on the authority of a retired, railway servant who wrote a letter in your columns some few weeks ago and had extensive experience in our railway system from Auckland to the Bluff. Let me ask Mr Sivertsen to compare our water supplies with what some of them were under private enterprise. The reason why the State and municipalities entered the field at all was because of the failure of private enterprise to deliver the goods satisfactorily. Boiled down this is the profit system for which Mr Sivertsen stands up, and it is this system, that has failed to operate at this crisis now. Where was the Bank of New Zealand in 1894 when its then chairman declared it was down and out? It would have had to close its doors had not a benevolent Government come to its, rescue (State enterprise) and assisted it with £500,000 in cash, and guarantees, and to-day this part-State and part-private, enterprise bank is in a flourishing condition. Ibis should surely be enough to show that our State enterprises are not so bad as Mr Sivertsen avers. I am afraid Mr Sivertsen will have to consider the position further. It is private enterprise that operates in trade, not Governments. It is also private banks that do the financing and hold big mortgages over industry and agriculture. This is all to be charged to private enterprise and not to Governments. Governments do the taxing and local bodies levy rates, but when these institutions get into difficulties it is because private enterprise has failed, and the mortgagors default and go bankrupt and the mortgagees foreclose, and business generally comes to a standstill; ami then Governments, after these private failures, have to resort to taxation in the form of wage-cuts and borrowing to keep alive the derelicts in the unemployed army out of which private enterprise cannot make further profit, and the State has to follow suit, because it is in debt to the private money-lender and he must have his interest. Then the Russian issue is brought in, with relation to repudiation, etc., and Mr Sivertsen says “ We are not yet prepared to follow her example in repudiating all foreign debt and taking possession forcibly of, all private property without, compensation, etc.” It is not necessary to dwell very lengthily on this aspect, only to show that, since the Socialists and Communists claimed many years ago that all reparations and war debts would have to be swept away, we now have the superior people, such as Sir George Paish, Professor T. E. Gregory (Sir Otto Nicmeyer’s lieutenant on hia late tour), the Bishop of London, the Hon. Alexander Shaw, and many other notables telling ns that the only choice >ve have left to us now.

is simply between repudiation and chaos, as this is the only practical economic policy.” When plain, working-class writers and speakers say these things, we are called by all sorts of names and our ideas are classed as “ fallacies but when the sirs and lords and doctors give voice and pen to them, then leading articles and other eulogistic references are made, and something, perhaps, is done. I am not so much concerned about who does the job as long as it is done. All I want to see is that any barrier shall be removed that is preventing hungry and cold and ill-housed people, and especially little children, from getting what is their bounden right. Mr Sivertsen raises many issues, but when all is boiled down he will find it is associated with private enterprise and thej. profit system. Let me just give one little example of lack of planning and coordination. Prior to the opening of the Mayor’s depot 12 months ago, a farmer friend of mine was in my house from Balclutha, and he said to me that if the committee would pay the cost of the goods and send him the empty sacks back, he would deliver a ton of swede turnips on the Balclutha station. I immediately rang the Mayor and told him and gave the man’s name and address, but those turnips were never asked for, and hence never got to the depot, although we had people here who needed them. I suppose that just because the Railways Department would not carry the turnips free the offer was not accepted. Our Prime Minister prates about a lot of sympathy, and says law and order must be upheld when it is the policy of him and his Government that is causing the breaking of law and order. It is no use blaming the law-breakers when conditions drive them. Will their example be a lesson? It was only a small example of repudiation of law and order, but it was very effective, and produced what- tne peonle asked for. The Russians acted on a bigger scale, and have as a result complete possession, and are using it for all. —I am, etc., P- Neilson.