DOES THE LABOUR PARTY SUPPORT BOLSHEVISM?

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18021, 9 November 1920, Page 8

DOES THE LABOUR PARTY SUPPORT BOLSHEVISM?

(Contributed by the New Zealand Welfare League). The New Zealand Welfare League has challenged the members of the N.Z. Labour Party, in a letter of the Ist October, to declare whether they support Lenin’s Labour policy or not. The following is the answer of Mr Fraser, M P., and the League’s comments thereon: Wellington, October 21, 1920. Mr Arthur P. Harper, Secretary, N.Z. Welfare League, 39 Johnston Street, Wellington. RE LABOUR PARTY’S POLICY AND PLATFORM. Dear Sir, —I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of Ist October on the above subject. In reply I have to refer you to the Constitution and Platform of the Party, as well as to the reports of the various annual conferences held since 1916, for- the attitude of the Party on all social and political subjects, national and international, of outstanding importance. In cannot agree (hat the opinion of the Welfare League concerning the New Zealand Labour Party is of the slightest importance. Yours faithfully, (Signed): P. FRASER. President, New Zealand Labour Party.

23rd October, 1920. Mr P- Fraser, M.P., President, N.Z. Labour Party, Wellington. Dear Sir, —Your favour of the 22nd inst. to hand in reply to ours of the Ist :nst. We note that you refer us to the Constitution an 1 platform of your Party, and to the reports of the various annual conferences held since 1916, but we can find in these no definite explanation of your Party’s attitude towards Lenin’s labour policy, these references are not sufficient to indicate whether your Party will support or oppose the principles of mass labour subjection to “the will of one person” enunciated by Lenin to b e what Socialism requires. There can be no doubt that President Lenin of the Russian Soviet Republic definitely affirms that “Socialism demands the absolute submission of the masses to the single will of those who direct the labour process.” Now, our definite question to yourself and io your Party is: Do you agree and uphold this definite affirmation of the Bolshevik labour policy and will you fight for it or against it?

With all respect w e do not consider you to be serious when you write to us, “I cannot agree that the opinion of the Welfare League concerning the N.Z. Labour Party is of the slightest importance," because in a recent address given by you in Palmerston North, you referred to the Welfare League’s criticism of the Russian situation and sought to justify your tacit approval of the Russian Soviet Revolution by suggesting that we had misrepresented the position in Russia by quoting parts of the statements of Labour delegates taken from ’ the context. It is evident that your voluntary references to the League show that it concerns your Party more than your care to admit However, it is not the League’s opinion of your Party or your Party’s opinion of the League that is now presented. The issue is whether your Party supports the Russian Bolshevik labour policy of forced, labour- and absolute industrial subjection of the masses? Your Party has had much to say of recent times on the subject of Slavery of the workers in Samoa and in New Zealand, but whilst you are acclaiming a Government that has set up the rifle as its standard of liberty, that practises slavery in the form of forced labour, that brazenly asserts that “Socialism demands the absolute submission of the masses to the single will of one —the Soviet Dictator”; that enforces industrial conscription. under which individuals have their tasks alloted and afe punished by starvation for failure to comply with commands; your professions of humanity must be seriously discounted. Your Party either supports Lenin’s doctrine that Socialism demands mass enslavement or it does not, and if it is an honest poltical party it should have the courage to say straight out where it stands on this question. Your Party claims to have 25,000 members (?) but in January of this year there were 82,553 members of

unions registered under the Industrial Conciliation Act—you certainly comprise a ininerity of the workers. These workers, we feel certain, would all be pleased to read your answer to the definite question we put to you—“ Does your Party > support Lenin’s Labour policy or • j not?” ! I Yours faithfully, SECRETARY. REPLY OF MR. J. McCOMBS, M.P. Mr J. McCombs. M.P., has written five letters to the League. Two on 6th October deal with an article which appeared in the Christchurch Sun on August 17(h, one on llt.h Oc- ■ tober deals with the same question and closes with this reference to our letter of Ist October re Lenin’s Labour policy: “As I destroyed your former letter I would be pleased to have another copy of the questions ( you wish answered.” A copy was sent to Mr McCombs on the 19th, and to that he replied to the 23rd, to this effect: “I gather ; you wish to know if I think there should be unity of will in the workshop, to which 1 unhesitatingly answer, yes. As to whether Lenin's methods for securing that unity is the best possible for Russia I am unable to say; but bf this I am sure, that in view of our historic development, Russian methods would be un- ■ suitable in British speaking countries.” To that we replied on the 27th. "We did not ask, as you infer, whether there should be unity of will in the workshop, but stated plainly that Lenin affirms the principles of absolute power of dictatorship on the part of those having charge of the direction of the industries, and complete subjection on the part of those engaged as operatives. You will not question that. Lenin says: ‘Socialism demands the absolute submission of the masses to the single will of those w-ho direct the labour proces,’ and our very direct questions to yourself and your colleagues are these: “(1) Does Socialism demand such dictatorship over the masses? “(2) Do you hold this doctrine of Lenin’s to be true or false? “(3) If you hold it to be false will you fight against its promulgation?” On the 28th Mr McCombs replied thus:—“l have again examined your I quotation from Lenin and cannot discover in it anything more than that there must be' discipline and unity of control in the workshop and in the direction of labour processes. This unity I hh.ve already said could best be obtained by giving the workers representation on a board of control. In carrying out the decisions of that, board the manager or director would be entitled to expect strict obedience and co-operation of his fellow employers. Your three queries are therefore beside the mark in that, they beg the main question by assuming that your interpretation of Lenin’s statement is the correct one.” We have replied to Mr McCombs last letter and now the issue stands thus: When Lenin says: “How can we secure strict unity of will?” and answers it thus: “Ly subjecting the will of thousands to the will of one,” we interpret that to be an affirmation of dictatorship. Mr McCombs cannot discover in it anything more than that there must be discipline and unity of control in the workshop So that Lenin’s words “absolute submission to the will of one person” means not “absolute submission” but qualif d submission. Well, the public may judge which interpretation is right.