LABOUR’S ELECTION EXPENSES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22825, 9 March 1936, Page 14

LABOUR’S ELECTION EXPENSES

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —Replying to your correspondent, Mr P. Neilson, I may inform him that I did not contribute anything in cash towards the support of the Labour Party, but I am still curious to know if it qan produce an auditor’s certificate to prove that no extensive financial support was given to it by persons who are not members of the wage-earning class. It is in the interests of this class, to which i happen to belong, that I ask the question, because I do not think it is consistent for a worker to support a political party pledged to “ the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange,” as its leading objective, while that party receives financial support from members of the capitalist class. Likewise a party which is socialist should take that name, not evade the issue by saying (as Mr Neilson does) that its opponents call it socialist. The name “ Labour ” does not include (or necessarily imply) that the party embraces Socialism, and I think the inconsistency should be eliminated so that the workers will know exactly what Labour stands for. In the interests of truth it may be necessary for genuine Socialists to join another political party whose principles are free from ambiguity, and let the right wing, moderate, and capitalistic elements now under the Labour banner go under the expressive and well-known caption of Liberal. This would simplify the problem, but I believe that our interests as workers lie more in the direction of the united front. To achieve that, however, the present Labour Party would require to be more frank and not evade the questions I raise. Evasion is a policy which will not bring success. The workers want straight answers to straight questions, and are waiting now to get them, as witness also the resolution recently passed by local workers on the Post Office in support of the 40-hour week. The Labour Party is trying to fill a dual role —viz., satisfy the independent tradesmen, small business owners, and working farmers on the one hand, and the wageearners who are confirmed Socialists on the other. I contend that such a role cannot be successfully filled by any workers’ party, but is the business solely of a strictly capitalistic party such as a Liberal Party. Between the two aides I maintain that the present Labour Party does not truly represent the rank and file of the wage-earning class, because the leaders are bourgeois instead of proletarian. That is why I. and many more class-conscious workers, will not, and cannot. become members of the Labour Party, but prefer to await the time when the radicals and the moderates part company. Meantime we shall support whatever measures we consider to be beneficial to us as workers, and refuse staunchly .to support reformist leaders who may'lead us astray. Many who voted for Labour did so because no other workers’ party was a likely winner, but much of that support will fade out in

the future unless Labour redeems all it§. election pledges to the people. Factionalism will split the workers' eule unless these defects are remedied. One cannot serve two masters. Either the Labour Partv is a workers' party or it is not. If it is, why enrol capitalists; and if it is not, why enrol workers? It it represents both then the name " Labour " is a misnomer, and in such a case its members are clearly not Socialists.—l am, etc., Citizen. Dunedin, March 6.