“LONG LIVE THE SOVIET.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17528, 4 May 1925, Page 10

“LONG LIVE THE SOVIET.”

COMMUNIST MEETING. WILD TALK AT TRADES HALL. MR ARMSTRONG’S REPLY. 'Long live the Soviet.” ‘‘Silly Royalty.” China will outlivo the British Empire.'’ These aro a few oratorical gems from the lips of three Communists who spoke on & “ Lnitcd Front ” in the Trades Wall last night. They attacked the Labour .Party lor excluding the ‘‘Vanguard of the Morins.” by the imposition of a pledge which the Communists could not sign. Mr H. i. Armstrong, M.P., who had been invited by the Communists to speak, attacked the Communists and declared that if three Commun’st . were put together in a conference Communism to pieces inside 21 hours because they could not agree on anything. There were about 100 peup.c present and Mr K. T. Carritt, a prominent Fu his introductory remarks the chairman said, in spite of what Mr Snowden had said, his remarks being quoted in Saturday's “ Star.” the Communist Party was always in the iieltl to endeavour 1<» ameliorate the lot of the worker. The (.ominunistx were not looking for bloodshed, but if they were driven to that, the Communists must translate their words into deeds. “ SILLY ROYALTY.' The Rev J. H. G. C happie said that every section of the Labour movement, and every section of the Socialist world, no matter what aspect of Socialism or Communism they took, should he :rue to their own honest thoughts. They should stand shoulder to shoulder and look on all Imperialist efforts as efforts to keep the working *dasss down. Wherever Imperialism had been tried out it had always been a curse. No permanent empire had been established on navies or on military force. Looking at the "East they could see China standing permanent. With her pacifist principles China had outlived all the empires bn lit c.n military efforts. “ And.” added the speaker, “China will outlive the British .Empire.” Ho thought, that all should stand against Imperialism. Referring to the educational system o° New Zealand, the speaker said that it was Imperialistic in outlook and militaristic in principle, and should he met with a united front that would instil peace, goodwill and internationalism. They should take a united front against any movement that made for war. The greatest weapon in the hands of the workers was civil disobedience. When the people of Britain had sufficient intelligence to refuse to pay rent for houses that were not fit to live in, bayonets would he of no use against then?. It was the silent weapons, the passive weapon that won d win out. The tendency of his talk was not to urge the use of force or violence, but to use the weapons o': Gandhi, non-co-operation. “ When y ui go to T/ondon and see the pageantry,” concluded the speake.’, “remember that orer £2.000,000 is spent annually to keep up silly royalty.” FALSE DEMOCR A CY. “ Comrade ” S. Fournier declared that he was not used to the public platform and was only there on behalf of his class, for the purpose of making e’ear what Communism meant. He would deal first of all with the misinterpretation of democracy made by the triumphant Labour Mayor at the May Day celebrations, through which the capitalist Press had slid that lie was “ wobbling.” Referring to the monarchy, j\lr J. K. Archer had said that he was prepared to take the oath of allegiance and give the multitude what they demanded. That was ‘‘false democracy.” As he looked about him he could sec some who had been in gaol during the war because they opposed conscription. During that time the majority supported Bill Massey in his policy, but the speaker and those others had stood by their principles. They then were in the minority, and still were in a minority. The | members oi the Anti-Conscription League would not have resisted the [ will of the majority—who wanted war ! —had they followed Air Archer's ! views. The masses during the war | were indifferent to the bringing in • of conscription and to-day they were ! indifferent as to what happened in l Germany. The Communists were not • ashamed to say that they -would use ; a hammer to break the shackles j oi the *‘ Mailed F ist ’ and when i the. chains that bound them ' were broken the majority of the workers would follow in the steps of ; \ he Communists. The militant minority would be the instrument of the masses. He agreed with Comrade ; Chappie in what he had said about Tm- : perialiam, which was to the heart of ! every Communist. A united front was i the policy ol the revolutionary Coin■rnunists in the world to-dav. ** Thcv j were the vanguard of the revolutionary workers of the -world. They were prepared to ioin an:-- element to light the i capitalist classes and claimed member j whose endeavour was to combat the op ! pressors of the workers. All honest and j well-meaning workers tended to grasp j the hand of fraternity extended to I them by the militant Communists. He • regarded the imposition of the Third i Degree Pledge formulated by the East • ; er Conference of the Labour Party as ■ being aimed at the exclusion of * the ! Communists from the Labour mov-e-J meut. It was the result of the agitai ‘ion of the reactionary elements in the Labour Part.'- who were antagonistic towards the Communipts. This attitude | ;vas causing disruption and disunity. | The United Front of oil the workers i in this country, as in al] others, would ! have to be based on the economic and industrial organisation of the workers finally expressed in the struggle for irresistible political power. The communists were working very hard and very effectively towards the United Front, and the merging of all the political and industrial organisations into , one great industrial body. The Com ! munists were not. out after the paid jobs in the Labour movement and the workers should not gllow a certain sec iion of th e Labour Party to cast ©uthe fighting vanguard of the worker- ” Only with the assistance of Comrim ism will the slaves of New Zealand !»•• made free men and be as their comrade

who hare conquered one-sixth of the world—the Russians. Long may they live! Let us follow their example.” WORLD COMMUNISM. Mr X. M- Bell, M.A., said that the' aims of Communism would not be accomplished through Parliament. They were only a stepping stone to Soviets, v.vh'ch were a stepping stone to selfgovernment. Communists had nothing to do with violence. One of the first 1 a id foremost principles of pacificism j was that there was no hope of world i peace until there was world Com- I mu n ism. In regard to the “ third degree” pledge, ho was unable to sign it. ah hough he was in full accord with ' the platform of the Labour Party, ex- ! • ej/t in regard to compulsory registry- ; lion. The pledge meant disunity. When j the Government asked for the oath of j allegiance it was a sign that the belief i in royalty was dying and it was a j sign of weakness, and he was afraid it ' was a sign of weakness in the Labour ! Party when they asked for such a declaration. He urged the formation of j y Labour Advisory Committee, so that ; they could devise plans for the cduca- , tion of th e working class. THE CAUSE OF THE DISUNITED FRONT. Mr ,fl. T. Armstrong. Ml*.. said that he agreed to speak at that meeting, but whether he was in agreement with the previous speakers, or not had nothing to do with the matter. He was ulO enough to trust himself in their company without being led astray, as some 'Of them had been. Regarding the pledge, they would always find in the Labour Party men and women with divergent opinions. That was the reason why the annual conference was held. When the conference adopted a resolution, the whole i arty should face the line and show a united front. Mr Bell had said that be i would never sign the pledge. If Mr uell represented one section that had fallen out because the majority had signed something that was not in accord with their ideas, then how in the name of God could they show a united front. They were the cause of a disunited front, and then they called a meeting to decide why they had not a united front. If the three speakers who had spoken jjrior to him held a. conference to-morrow they would not agree, and would tear the Communist Part}- to shreds, as they were trying to tear the Labour Party.. Mr Fournier bad said that they wished to cast out the vanguard from the Labour Party, but there were different opinions as to whether the Communist Party was the vanguard at all. Some thought them to be “ clogs on the wheels of progress.” There were just as many who believed that the Communist Party was not the vanguard as there were ibose who believed that was. They would never have any working class movement at all unless some were prepared to give away a little bit. If he had liar: it his own way there would never hare been any pledge at all. It was a case that a member must adhere to the decision of the Labour Party or get out. If a member of the Communist Party was allowed to carry out the instructions of the Labour Party, which might be in direct contradiction to the directions of th© Communist Party, h e -would have to get out of tie Communist Party. The latter would not keep him. Mr Armstrong added that Ho had been approached by Communists and asked why lie saT on the Harbour Board, the City Council, and in Parliament, which were capitalistic institutions. His answer was why should he leave these institutions undisputed in the hands of the employing class. Several questions were put to the speakers and answerect. In reply to one Mr Fournier said that i: war broke out the Communists would be ready, men. women and children, to take up arms in the defence of the workers. It would be the same in the case of civil war. “We are distinct from the Communist pacifist.’’ ho added, indicating Mr Bel!.