THE "NEW" POLITICS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23004, 6 October 1936, Page 14

THE "NEW" POLITICS

TO THE EDITOR

Sir,—The New Zealand Welfare League, writing in your issue of October 3 in reply to "S" in reference to whether a method is practicable or not, says: "We can tell him one way to find out and that is: Know what the details of the method are and have them investigated.", It is a pity that advice had not been followed some hundreds of years ago, because, if it had, poverty would have been unknown. At any rate since the advent of the machine age there has been no shortage, or need have been no shortage of physical wealth. Science and engineers have made it possible to produce, with the aid of machines, solar energy and the' fruits of the earth, all that the inhabitants of this planet require. What do we find at the present time? Total production increasing at an ever accelerating pace and total incomes diminishing. The more we produce the more we go into debt. If the cause of this does not lie in a faulty monetary system I don t know where it does lie. We know that there are goods in plenty, so that poverty is quite unnecessary. Only a small percentage of electors know how the present system works, but they are gradually beginning to recognise that something more than a change of Administration is needed. If they demand that poverty be abolished without increasing prices or taxes, or depriving owners of their property, or decreasing its relative value, then it is the function of Parliament to carry out .their demand. The Government is the servant of the people, elected to carry out the will of the people, or, as one writer recently put it: "Parliament is not the nation's ruler, but the guardian of its unwritten constitution and Its liberties. ... The tragedy of representative Government to-day is that it is getting progressively more out of touch with the people and less and less a reflection of their desires. The reason is that Governments everywhere are in fact mere sanctioners of policies which they did not initiate and which arc out of sympathy with, and, indeed, deeply opposed to, the will of the people." The league says: "If an undisclosed and improperlyunderstood change in our monetary system were forced on us it would cause wholesale ruin and disaster to everyone if it proved wrong.' Those who at present control the money system will not consider even a suggestion for its radical modification and improvement by anyone, and this power that controls money controls everything. There is one power stronger than the money power, and that is the clearly-expressed will of the people which it is the purpose of the electoral campaign to invoke. The function of the Government, then, would be to call together the experts and economic advisers and say to them: "The people demand the abolition of poverty. We command you to do this job within such and such a time and to do it without a rise in prices or taxation. If you don't do it we will remove you from your position and appoint another set of experts to whom we shall give the same order, but with a shorter time limit. We were put here to see that the will of the people is carried, out. and we are going to make sure that it is carried out.'

I should think that if the New Zealand Welfare League intended to justify their title they would help in this work of mobilising the public will. The abolition of poverty is the primary task before us to-day.—l am, etc., Le Tocsin.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —If you will pardon my temerity in daring to question the pearls of wisdom uttered by that ancient body, the New Zealand Welfare League, who evidently regard themselves as the highest living authorities on all questions of economics (new and old). I should Hke to point out that the league's ideas relative to poverty, machines and the use of power are nearer 150 than 15 years old. Its evidently ancient and honourable members must still adhere to the ideas and impressions acquired during their childhood, and I really think someone should do something about it. Perhaps the league has not heard that thousands of tons of wheat were burned in Canada—and children were hungry—that 6,000,000 pigs were destroyed in U.S.A. —where there were 11,000,000 unemployed—that 200,000 cows were burned in Holland—while infante died from malnutrition. There are in England to-day 13,000,000 people who have less than six shillings a week to spend on food Is there any logical reason why this God-given food, which was wantonly destroyed, should not have been given to the starving and poverty-stricken for nothing? The league objects to money being given to people unless they work. Does not a person getting a dividend get that for nothing? Has the league any bright ideas as to how those who have been displaced by machines are to live unless they get something for nothing? How a body of people can be as ignorant of the benefits science has conferred on mankind as to believe that poverty cannot be abolished can only be accounted for by lack of knowledge, wilful blindness or senility. I doubt very much if during the entire life of the leafue it has ever made one constructive proposal or criticism which was for the welfare of the people of New Zealand. But they never miss a chance to "knock" anyone who is not a reactionary.—l am, etc., Ken. W. Bcnnct. TO THE EDITOR. Sir—A most intriguing atmosphere of mystery surrounds the New Zealand Welfare League: quite suggestive of the "Three Just Men," of Edgar Wallace. No record is known of its meeting; no publicity is given to its members. Its title suggests devotion to a study and resultant remedy of the sociological evils of the day? but over a period of years I have seen no indication of any desire on the part of its members (or member) to be interested in any other feature than its own peculiar brand of economics. Inat the monetary system of one country controls our well-being I entirely agree, but from a different angle to the so-called league. The New Zealand Welfare League sees naught but disaster in monetary reform: danger in the aspirations of the Labour Party. A decade ago the views of 90 per cent, of us were also static. It is only when we calmly take stock of the altered views of today that we Realise how far we have travelled since then, and we dimly realise that the tremendous change inour own individual outlook but reflects the unusual change of thought of our people in spite of use, prejudice, and conservatism. The various influences to-day converge on the Labour Party, which, all powerful as it seems to-day,,is in itself merely another note struck in the vast svmphony of sociological and economic changes of the present. The views and response individually and collectively of the Labour Party itself, too, must progress and change; nor may its decisions of to-day achieve a solution; but while functioning in its purpose as an instrument of destiny, u is fated to be a mighty step upward and onward. It will surviveso long as its ranks hold those who follow the various creeds of social service, creeds which one and all at least agree that service to the common purpose rather than to the individual is necessary for a proper implementation of their ideals. Rugged individualism exists no more; the name to-day is simply.a cloak for crass selfishness and greed in an age when the success of one merely achieves the downfall of another. Ihe New Zealand Welfare League revels in the past. To me it is most like a man standing on a sandbar in the middle of a rapid. His gaze concentrated on the. current, he imagines himself and his sandbar rushing backwards. The league apparently blinds itself to what is materially evident to those who study the process of evolution, that in the course of evolution of thought (and action follows thought) an exalted state of society will result from a co-mingling of the principles that are highest and most akin to the creeds of social service I have mentioned. Can the league answer plainly and directly the following:— Do we not produce many times the requirements of New Zealand's people in food, clothing, and most of everyday requirements? Can we not as easily multiply our production to any requirements of surplus? If other lands are over-supplied with what we produce, why should we withhold this abundance from our own? State simply why we should reduce our standards to that of countries beyond our horizon, instead of availing ourselves of all the requirements of daily needs, leisure, luxury, and culture produced within our own shores. I should finally advise the New Zealand Welfare League -to present their title to, say, the Labour Party, and seek another more in conformity with their consistent attitude to the common people of New "Zealand.—l am, etc., J. B. Birtles.