THE OWING ELECTIONS

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 11927, 21 October 1919, Page 6

THE OWING ELECTIONS

AND THE NATIONAL DANGER. Under the above heading the National Executive of the Welfare League are distributing the following circular: — In the face of the great questions that this country has to settle within the next few years, the coming Elections are probably the most important held. The great issue before the country is “ Consitutional Reconstruction v. Revolutionary Socialism.” The old Reform and Liberal Parties are no longer divided on any important matter or principle, and their political platforms, if they differ at all, ditfer only on minor details, yet the Leaders of these two Parties have decided to divide the country on the old party lines. In other words, the electors in favour of sane reconstructive Legislation are being asked to split their votes, not oil a matter of principle, but of personal prejudice, in favour of one or other leader, instead of combining to combat a movement organised and headed by men of professed revolutionary ideas. The inevitable result of this split of votes will be that the revolutionary party will either be returned with an actual majority, or, what is more dangerous, it will win enough seats to hold a balance of power in the new Parliament, and dictate an extreme policy without the responsibility of office. The New Zealand Welfare League stands for coutitutional reconstructive legislation, formulated by the ablest and best men obtainable in the country. The League deprecates the division of sane and moderate electors on a matter of personal prejudice. The League does not stand for either of the official leaders of the old parties, it does not care what leader comes into power at the next Elections so long as such leader has a party strong enough to control the House, to enforce law and order with a firm hand, and carry out sane constructive legislation against ail opposition. | As the personal contest between , the old party leaders appears to be i unavoidable, the League will chiefly i ' aim for the return of candidates who reserve their independence of either party, failing such a candidate it will advocate the support of the besf offering' in each seat, whether he be Reform, Liberal, Independent, or Independent Labour, The League will ask die electors to lay aside their old party prejudices and agree to concentrate their energies on returning the best man, regardless of party, and thus avoid the return of a revolutionary candidate by dividing their votes. In advocating this line of action, the League desires to emphasise that it is anxious to see Labour properly' and adequately represented, but not by the revolutionary elements which now undoubtedly dominate the party' machine. The • only pledge the League proposes to ask of a selected candidate is to promise that he will ‘‘under no circumstances combine wth the revolutionary party on a vote of ‘no confidence. ’ ” The attached leaflet is one of many statements, by the recognised leaders of the so-called Labour Party, which show their ultimate aims. Their officially declared objective is ‘‘the Socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” The attached speeches show this “is to be brought about by ‘ ‘dispossession” and ‘‘expropriation” by force if necessary. THE VITAL QUESTION.

Is the large Moderate majority in this Dominion going to risk the domination of an organised minority with these declared aims, or is it by combination ([going to control the destinies of this great country? JJThis is the question to be decided at the coming Elections,

NECESSITY FOR ARMED FORCE UNDER LABOUR GOVERNMENT. VIEWS OF SOME LABOUR MEN, Extracts from Speeches at Annual Party Conference. The following extracts of speeches are taken from the ‘‘Maorilaud Worker,” and were made during the Annual Conference of the Labour Party : Mr W. E, Parry stated that lie did not think the Labour movement stood for passive resistance. When a Labour Government came into power, if it desired sincerely to enact legislation on behalf of the working-class, it would require ail the power at the command of the State to enforce its legislation. ,He would be pleased if it» could be demonstrated by anyone that 'the owning class would submit to expropriation without a struggle. The sion as to whether the inevitable change (in society from Capitalism to Socialism would he brought about peacefully or violently, unfortunately, did not rest with the working class, if it did there would never he resort to violence, hut he failed to trace a 'single instance where a possessing class submitted quietly to dispossession of the privileges and predatory power it held. . . They #must have the organised force oc the State behim the transformed class State before the new order of Industrial and Social Democracy

could be brought into exsisence. . . , He supported a volunteer force for defence purposes, because such a force would be necessary to protect working-class interests when "a Socialist Government was in power. Mr F, R. Cooke said he was a Socialist and not merely a pacifist, and fie stood against war and b loodshed because they were the weapons of capitalism. When they had a Socialist Government in power in New Zealand they could then sensibly discuss the question of defence or an armed force. . . . He was not opposed to fighting for his class, but he certainly objected strongly to either himself or his sous being used as cannon fodder in capitalist wars. If a Socialist Government were in power, he, along with all class-conscious workers, would rally to the Red Flag, armed or unarmed, and would gladly give his life if necessary, and his family would join with him too. Mr F. Bartram said that while he agreed with practically every word uttered by the previous speaker, he did not concur in his conclusions. He desired to point out that the Labour Party’s platform was not merely a statement of what Labour stood for. It was that, of course, but it was something more. It was th-e political programme to “be enforced by a Labour Governmeu when it was returned to power. Mr ‘R. Semple said . . . Personalty, he saw no signs of the ruling class anywhere getting into a reasonable frame of mind, or preparing peacefully to vacate their trenches in face of the onward march of the workers. H« was afraid tliat the struggle ahead might be a long and bitter one, and Labour must not adopt L the purely passive attitude. . . , While Hie Labour Party must always set its face against physical force and violence, it need not surety shut its eyes to facts, particularly facts concerning the European situation. All possibilities must be thought out and considered.