THE LABOUR PARTY'S OBJECTIVE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22268, 22 May 1934, Page 12

THE LABOUR PARTY'S OBJECTIVE

TO TUE EDITOR I Sib,—Allow me to thank Mr Neilson j for his answers to my questions. While he does not openly state that the Labour Party would confiscate private property, he does not leave any doubt that that is the intention. The justification for such injustice lies in his belief that under the present system many workers are now robbed. Such being the case, he considers himself justified in advocating robbery as the means to attain his ends. There can be no doubt as to Mr Neilson s idea of the party's objective, for he makes it quite plain. Thus my desire to thank him. If other prominent members were so definite the people would have no doubt as to their intention and as to the meaning of their objective. Such is not the case. Mr Savage, th# Leader of the party, has recently toured INew Zealand, leading the people to believe the party's policy would in effect strengthen the principle of the private ownership of property. In Dunediu he is reported to have said: "Hundreds of farmers and others bad already lost everything, while a large number we're on the brink of ruin. Labour proposed' to adjust all mortgages on the basis of an average of wholesale prices for the past seven years. Legislation pre- i venting foreclosure would b« enacted |

peiiding the stabilisation of an internal price' level which would enable holders to meet their obligations." Now, Sir, it must be evident that if the above were carried out it would have a tendency to increase the number of persons holding property. In other words, it would bring about a more even distribution of wealth. Speaking of the unemployed, Mr Savage said: "The immediate employment of all workers on work must be taken in hand if we are to save the country from bankruptcy. ... It was the intention of Labour to utilise to the fullest extent the very latest in the way of mechanical inventions . , . and to give the benefits derived to the people responsible for production. That meant snorter hours of labour and increased pay sufficient to enable those engaged in the work of production to enjoy the fruits of their labour . . . and again to establish some degree of independence and become useful purchasers in the markets of their own country." Again, no mention or inference that the intention of the party is the abolition of, private ownership! One would say that quite the opposite would be the effect.

Now, Sir, the conditions of the country are such that the people should be> told right out what is the intention of tue Labour Party. Either Mr Savage is misleading the people or Mr Neilson is wrong in his ideas of the intention of the party. I feel certain that Mr .Neil-, son does not represent the views of the great mass of workers. Whether he represents, the leaders' views and is more honest and more outspoken than they are I cannot say. Seeing that the matter is of vital. importance, and that we' have two Labour members of Parliament —Mr Munro and Mr Jones—in the district, it would clear the political atmosphere if they would inform your readers whether Mr Neilson's ideas are correct or not. It is obvious that it Mr. Neilson's views.. are correct the speeches of Mr Savage are mere political propaganda and misleading to the people. It' will be of interest to your.readers to take note as to whether Mr Munro and Mr Jones have anything to' say'ou the matter. I feel sure your columns will be open to them to express their views.

I notice,that "Greg" is a "student" of Socialism. I sincerely hope that, as he goes along, he will learn that Socialism cannot be brought about by the subjection of the so-called capitalist to the workers, but- it can be by voluntary co-operation between all sections for the common good. I trust he will learn that before a man can become a Socialist he must first become a good individualist. When he has attained that height there will be hopes of his becoming a Socialist and carrying out the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you—a thing which seems to be lacking with the average so-called Socialist of to-day.—l am, etc., C. M. Moss. N.E. Valley, May 19.