POINTS OF VIEW

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 59, Issue 4218, 1 December 1939, Page 5

POINTS OF VIEW

OF LOCAL INTEREST. THE COMMUNISTS. Sir, —Since the issue of Wednesday morning’s paper there has been much favourable comment on Mr Semple’s castigation of the Communists. At the same time I do not think that the full significance of Communist activity is generally understood, particularly by those who enthusiastically uphold those activities. Mr Semple and other Labour leaders should, and probably do, appreciate that significance, and to his credit Mr Semple has the courage to speak clearly. The complaisance of the party as a whole suggests either that too many of the leaders aim at Communism, or at the best that they are afraid of alienating those of their supporters with Communist sympathies. Those who have followed political changes over the last twenty-odd years should realise that the threat of Communism is stronger against a Socialist Gpy.emment; if - pnly, on account of the not unnatural appeal of the class war to the undeveloped intellects among its supporters. The Communist programme has always run true to type in all the countries where it has been allowed to develop. It starts with a Socialist Government to, which the Communists administer simultaneously lip-service and pressure, and which can be relied on not to repress subversive activities. The Government is then embarrassed by labour and any other troubles that can be fomented with a view to dislocation of the economic system. Consequent depression leads to rioting, which is encouraged and led by the Communists. When conditions get beyond the control of the Government, the Communists, as an organised body with powerful outside support, step in as the saviours of the situation. In some cases disorder has been ready-made by the colfapse of an autocratic monarchy—.for example, Russia, Germany, and Hungary following the last war; but there has always intervened a desperate attempt at a constitutional Socialist Government. More recently the programme has always been checked by a counter agitation—by the Fascists in Italy, by the Nazis in Germany, and (without entering into the quarrel oetween Franco and the “ legitimate ” Government) by the “ Nationalists ” in Spain. This brings me to the second moral that recent history points. If a Government, and particularly a Socialist Government, is sincerely democratic, it must suppress subversive Communist activities energetically, if only to' avoid the counter danger of the Fascist type, which appears as an inevitable reaction. The hypocrisy to which both creeds can develop is illustrated by the Soviet-Nazi pact and the present war which it made possible.—l am, etc., JAMES B. W. ROBERTON. INSIDIOUS PROPAGANDA. Sir, —In your recent issue of the Courier “ Puzzled ” seems to be puzzled about what is the difference between communism and co-opera-tion. This is a simple question, and to the point, which of course demands a simple answer without any shade of mystery about it whatever. In answer, a whole series of thoughts can be strung out as pearly beads on the same thread; but one or two will suffice. As was brought out in another letter in the same issue, that Mr Savage would seem to own the broadcasting stations, which brings me to say that when our Government owhs the broadcasting stations for its own propaganda then that is on the pathway of communism. When the people own the broadcasting stations through their Government, and share and share alike in each other’s views, that is co-operation. In the press of to-day there is co-operation, in which Mr Savage, Mr Scrimgeour, and the people can advise each other, but not so over the air. Herein lies the essence of com'munism. Co-oper-ation means gentle persuasion on each other’s views as to how affairs and business should be conductedCommunism is force from the dominant few plus the relentless purge, which is the destruction of much life in opposition. That is the most dreadful and alarming phase of communism in its triumphant entry into any country on a big scale for the first time. I now take the opportunity to send out a school-boy howler: What is the plural of propaganda ? Lies ! —I am, etc., J. RIDDELL. THAT MASS MEETING. i Sir, —Mrs Coverdale has, like her parents, the late Mr and Mrs Ellicott, a fair share of common sense. However, she is a little severe on members of the Farmers’ Union. Every member of the Union is fully aware of the following facts: That sterling funds in London are solely the pro perty of the farmers; that they never have had, nor do they to-day, control their own money; that what to-day we call overseas debts are really debts contracted by past Governments in the name of New Zealand, and must be paid for by the farmers as the only body of workers who can send goods to all quarters of the world. They know’ that the Englishman gives us Is 2d per lb for our butter, and that he will give us a pair of boots for £l, whereas the New Zealand workers give us Is 2d for our butter and charge us £2 for the same class of boots. They know also that to-day the Agricultural Department vote should be £23,000,000 and the Public Works Department vote £500,000 per annum. Instead, it is really the other way' round. They know that next week the best men, women and children in the world will be put on very short rations in butter and bacon, while at the same time they are called upon (by us, remember!) to deal, with a gang of men who belong to* Hell and are, and ever will continue to be, very loyal to the evil thing that drives them down Damnation

Road. They know that Mr Chamberlain should declare a state of Free Trade in the Empire for the duration of the war. They know that his father, the late Mr Joseph Chamberlain, fought all his life in the House of Commons for this very thing, and had he succeeded there would be no war on to-day. They know we cannot change horses in the ’middle of the stream, as it were, and that all should get behind the Government and make them switch over the .Public Works Department’s millions in order to grow food products for England, as that is her one and only danger. They know that at any mass meeting of farmers, if the chairman asked for all who were members of the Farmers’ Union to hold up their hands only about one hundred hands would go up.—l am, etc., JAMES MILLEN. Parawera. THAT MASS MEETING. Sir, —I read with interest in your Points of View column the letter signed by Mrs Coverdale. Mass meetings are effective' to the extent of bringing those with a common grievance together and making their position known to those in authority. The Farmers’ Union generally, and this branch in particular, came in for considerable criticism. In these two decorates embracing the Te Awamutu farming community, National Party members were returned at the polls, so one would expect a preponderance of anti-Labour members on the executive. The Farmers’ Union, being a non-party political body, the effect of the present legislation has been to create a close understanding amongst its members—as evidenced by these mass meetings. With regard to your correspondent’s no-confidence vote in the Union, I would like to point out that the Union is a democratic body. Every land owner can become a member (and it is in his own interests that he should do so), which would entitle him to all voting privileges, such as the appointing of the executive committee, the president, and representatives to attend the sub-pro-vincial conference at Hamilton. I have been on the executive for a considerable period, serving under such gentlemen as Mr J. G. Wynyard, Mr A. Hanna, Mr E. Wilson, Mr G. T. Crowley, the late Mr A. Bryant; and our sitting president, Mr W. G. Neill. With the present socialistic trend of affairs the work and responsibility of the Union has increased tremendously, and I say unhesitatingly that our president, Mr Neill, has been called upon, and has given much thought and time in the interests of his fellow farmers, fulfilling his duties with ah entirely unbiassed mind, reflecting credit on himself and this branch. He is entitled to the thanks and appreciation of the farming community, and I appeal to all formers for their loyal co-operation.—l am, etc., A. S. WYLLIE, Treasurer Te Awamutu Branch. MASS MEETINGS. Sir,—Referring to the letter under this heading in Wednesday’s issue, I regret that such a letter was ever written. As president of the National Party in the district, which from the above mentioned letter came, and as a member of the Farmers’ Union executive, I want to say that the Farmers' Union in particular, and the farmers of the district in general, are fortunate in having such an unbiassed and capable president as Mr W. G. Neill. I can only speak of the executive in Te Awamutu as I have known it, but since there are various shades of political opinion represented on it, the decisions made generally are sound. This is no time for bickering; it is time to get on with the job. I appeal to every farmer to join the Union, attend its meetings, give his views, and, make it what it should be—the voice of the farmer.—l am, etc., J. L. WALLIS. Te Kawa.

THE CORRESPONDENCE COLUMN.

Sir,—<“ Points of View ” is certainly a very appropriate heading for the column deyoted to opinions of your readers, if one may judge from the two totally different viewpoints of writers in Wednesday's issue of the Courier. These letters are a welcome change from the now somewhat tedious repetition of recent utterances of “ There is and there is not a shortage of tea and sugar,” followed by a succession of reports of protests by Farmers’ Union meetings about their grievances and their alleged status as Public Enemy No. 3, and now we are to have another series of reports re proposel mass meetings by another section of the community. Truly the war news is becoming a secondary consideration in the minds of The first writer is, I take it, the somewhat militant-minded wife of a farmer, and is not satisfied with the efforts of the Farmers’ Union, and can evidently see no good at all in the work of the Labour Government in its relation to the farming industry. The later part of her letter, woman-like, contains advice that it is well for all aspirants to, and indeed presents members of, Parliament to read and digest; it may help them to gain eminence in their career !

To get back to the letter under consideration: — If all those farmers (and they do exist) who support the present Government were not allowed to be members of the Farmers' Union it would immediately become a partisan organisation and could not speak with the voice of the farming community as a whole. A union, be it of farmers, industrialists or any other section of the community, is naturally most concerned in furthering its own particular interests as it sees them; but a Government, be it Labour or of any other name, has the interests of all unions and those outside unions to consider, and in doing this there are bound to be repercussions in one direction or another, and the greatest good for the greatest number, as I see it, it is no doubt done by most Govern- , ments. The personal references in i this lady's letter should be very (gratifying to all the gentlemen concerned, although the first mentioned is rather abruptly removed from the

pedestal upon which he had been placed. Referring to Mr Sinclair as being of a calibre not met with in politics these days, preceded as it is by a eulogy, is very high praise indeed; but what of the poor 78 men of our Parliament wno fall short of his attainments? I say 78, because not in the same category as Mr Sinclair in our correspondent’s opinion, she says there are two successful members of Parliament.

Her next lines are rather hard on Mr Sinclair, but the moral in this case is “beware of the bagpipes—shun them as you would the works of satan,” but rather stick to your convictions through thick and thin if you would some day be a successful member of parliament. In the second letter under review, all who have read it must agree that it is the expressed opinion of one whose position as a farmer has been greatly improved by the legislation of the Government and who sees good in all that has been done on behalf of all classes of farming. Will these letters diametrically opposed to each other, make any difference to their many readers, or will they just find a responsive chord one way or the other as people were previously inclined. This writer, who signs herself, a woman farmer, wishes her distressed sister could, like the writer of the second letter, see good for others in what is being done by our present Government.—l am, etc., A WOMAN FARMER.