SOCIALIST PARTY CONCEIT

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, 20 July 1925, Page 7

SOCIALIST PARTY CONCEIT

To the Editor of the “Timaru Herald.”

Sir, —If there is one thing that characterises the Socialist politician beyond all other it is the inordinate conceit manifested on behalf of liis party. To read their professions, as given in various speeches, one might be pardoned for concluding That there are no limits in regard to the extolling of their own virtues. They present themselves, since they are - lie party, as “the salt of the earth,” the sole possessors of tho attributes of human sympathy and right sentiments of goodwill.

A gentleman of this party, the present Mayor of Christchurch, recently set before an audience in Timaru his version of three essential differences between his party and tlio other parties in New Zealand. These differences were thus set forth: —

(1) The Labour Party (socialist) stood for the needs of the people; others stood for the rights of property.

(2) Their party was a religious party. (3) His party believed in the brotherhood ot the British race but they also believed in the brotherhood of the human race.

The Rev. J. K. Archer, for that is the person of whom we write is presumably an educational man and should lniwo what he is talking about. How then are we to regard these assumptions which he presents. First there is the inference that property rights and needs of the people are in no sense related. One could understand this as coming from a very ignorant pei-son. Any individual of ordinary comomn sense will realise that there can bo no regard for the needs of tho . people where-the rights of property are ignored. A man could not have a pair of boots to walk in were he not allowed a property right in such commodity. Tho other parties certainly recognise tho rights of property because those supply human needs. It is not true to say that the “Now Zealand Labour Party” is a religious party. It is purely secular as a party, and furthermore it is only the political therliood and others not it is a proposiway of secularising tlio Sabbath which is set apart under tlie -Christian religion.

With regard to the assumption that Sir Archer’s party has regard for brotherhood and other not, it is a propostion that it far front, being founded on fact. What spirit of brotherhood, for instance, do the members of this party show towards those of tlio British race who happen to be employers of labour, owners of capital, or even wage-earenrs who dare dispute the dogmas of the party? Brotherhood is the last thing thought of in these cases. This speech after all was but another of the tiresome moral posturings of the Socialists who are forever engaged in praising themselves. Their attitude of “I am holier than thou” is an offence to common reason. By such speech they prove themselves not greater but less than others whom they condemn. Blessed are the boasters, for they shall succeed., is a strange doctrine coming from politicians who claim to bo religious. It is certainly not in keeping with tho tenets of the Christian faith, and might be passed over altogether were it not that- we find it repeated nnuseum by the Socialist party politicians.—Yours. etc..

NEW ZEALAND WELFARE LEAGUE