MR BODKIN AT KUROW

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23222, 21 June 1937, Page 6

MR BODKIN AT KUROW

TO IHE EDITOR

Sir,—We ask the hospitality of your columns to make public our expression of thanks to Mr W. A. Bodkin, M.P., for his wonderful exposition of the aims and objects of the New Zealand Labour Party at his meeting in Kurow last Friday. His reiteration of our objective, "the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange," was very valuable propaganda for us, especially as many of his hearers were most unlikely to have attended a Labour Party meeting to hear our objective outlined by our own speakers. . . , We endorse Mr Bodkin s opinion of the outstanding quality of the Socialist writers he recommended. We must also compliment him on his knowledge of mass psychology!: His demonstration of the method of introducing jingoism —" Britons never shall be slaves," and the old pioneer spirit sort of talk—at a flat part of the address, was most instructive to our younger members. It never fails to rouse a bored audience and bring a few cheers. Mr Bodkin's method of making a comparison between the increase in the £IOOO a year man's income tax and the cost-of-living increase of five £2OO a year men, ignoring the cost-of-living increase to the £IOOO a year man, was most instructive. We were amazed lo see the members of the audience accept the subterfuge without question, and hope that they are more astute in their business dealings. Our observers would have iaised the question, but as Mr Bodkin's method with questioners was to make a 10-minute speech where a monosyllable answer would suffice, they took pity on the audience. Finally, we thank Mr Bodkin for telling the people that our aim is to provide for the community as a whole rather than to allow individuals to exploit them for private profit, and we admire his frankness in disclosing that the National Party intends to give the big firms and wealthy individuals carte blanche to plunder as they will. -I am, etc., W. Anderson, Hon. secretary. Kurow branch, N.z.. Labour Party. Kurow. June 18.

[lt is likely to be true, as the writer of the above letter implies, that the electors of Kurow were not aware of the objective of the Labour Party, since the members of that party were careful during the last election period to refrain from enlarging upon their ultimate, aim. But it is whollv false to attribute to the National Party the intention ascribed to it in sthe concluding sentence of the letter, and it is perfectly certain that Mr Bodkin did not speak in the terms imputed to him. -Ed., O.D.T.]

TO THE EDITOR Sir.—There is, unknown lo Mr Bodkin, a grim humour in his remarks at Kurow to a meeting, presumably, ot farmers. He affects to be concerned (1) over the possible expropriation of farmers' land and effects by the Labour Government; (2) the reduction of the farmer's position to that of a nominal holder of lands; (3) the lowering of the standard of living of the farmer to that of the worker (nothing more); (4) the pooling of all produce fur the function of eliminating poverty. To his first claim I lind no proof presented by him in support of it; he cannot state any authoritative assertion or legislation to that end; he does, indeed, mention a paragraph in the Standard on which he has placed his own construction. Another with a different bias would, no doubt, construe it quite differently. He supports this view with a quotation of certain expressed views of Labour members; but Mr Bodkin realises, no doubt, that many of his own expressions are not those of his party as a whole 1 . These accusations of intentional confiscation being premature suppositions, I proceed further to suggest that the assertion of a will to take the land from those who do not possess it, and only in the rarest of cases will ever possess it, is, to put it mildly, " pretty rich." Now I should like Mr Bodkin to express openly his estimation of the number of farmers who really own their farms, or the infinitesimal proportion which, under the system he supports, will ever, by reason of good fortune or chance combined with long years of the most rigorous toil and constant self-denial of the decent cultural requirements of themselves and their family possess in actual fact their land, stock and effects. Mr Bodkin must know that the substitution of the freehold for the lease in perpetuity tenure merely meant a change of ownership of land from ■ control by the State to that of financial institutions under the mortgage mantle, and enormously extended the sphere of operations, and debased proportionately the morality of the methods of certain firms. How can any farmer in all fairness at present claim his farm as his own when, waking or sleeping, through all his endless daily and seasonal duties, his infrequent pleasures and. most of all, in his hours of rest, he cannot forget the lowering cloud of mortgages that never lifts off'his acres? How can he help remembering the firm which because it has lent capital on his stock, requires of him periodic exact itemised lists of his stock, plant or crops, compels him to sell and buy all stock and goods through it alone, and, by virtue of this power, can buy. trade and profit on his produce at its own figure, and in return compel him to accept its goods (wire, machinery, groceries etc.) at its own rates? No. Mr Bodki.i knows as well as I do who are the real owners of the land. They are certainly not the farmers. His concern, then, is not for the farmer. Why, so desperate was the position of farmers some years ago that many of us urged the Government to take over both land and stock mortgages, and at that time we certainly were not remotely concerned with Labour Governments or Socialistic theories.

The standards of living of numerous farmers is such that their womenfolk would be overjoyed to experience the comforts, conveniences, leisure, and amusements of their town sisters. Compare, for example, the conditions of life in the wooden 5-roomed dwelling of the farmer with the neatness and luxurious fittings of the 5-roomcd brick villa or bungalow of the town worker Compare, too. the meagre returns, the uncertainty, the exposed life, and the inevitableness of the fate of the mort gage-harassed farmer, to whom the living wages of the industrial worker would be marvellous. Mr Bodkin will surely have enough knowledge of economics to realise tha 1 the sole purpose of. production is to satisfy consumption. If, therefore, as to-day, the distributing system has failed, despite our haphazard but onceabundant production, to supply all the needs of consumption in our own country it is more than high time that we pooled our production and had a stocktaking of our resources. The ultimate end of such procedure would be to furnish from the wealth of our pro-

auction the goods which many require, but at present, because of a faulty economic system and the incentive to profit, are now wasted-or at least «'••'• mant. Surely if Mr Bodkin is irncerned, as he should be, in the w rare of the many as opposed to the uciess profits of the few. it is his duty to assist to this end. jt • ■ ■■■, I will assure Mr Bodkin that the working farmers will not only call for stronger State intervention to permit them more just reward and surer returns for their labour on the land; but they will compel the Government to furnish an agricultural or rural bank or similar method of financing the requirements of farmers, for no legislation will be effective till a system of finance is provided for farmers to draw upon, leaving them free to buy and sell when, where, and how they please. -I am, etc.. J. B. Birtles.