PUBLIC OPINION.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 18024, 20 May 1930, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION.

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, biu lor whose views wo have no responsibility. Correspondents must write In ink.

MOTION WITHOUT PROGRESS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Once upon a time ft company of English and American travellers were assembled on the lounge deck ot a transatlantic liner, and 01 * l,O men, a young American full c)‘l megalomania, was indulging in bin babimal criticism of all things Englishone of the Englishmen became disturbed out of his usual serenity ently to reply as follows: —“Young man, you arc typical of many Americans, for you sit there rocking yourseu upon a deck chair, which is motion without progress, and you arc chewing gum, which is mastication without nourishment.” This delightful piece of humour, which Pulitzer, a great American newspaper magnate, delighted to tell against his own countrymen, was recalled to my mind at once when reading your leader the Political Poistion,” which at tea t 1 the attraction of being a solo numbei and not merely one of a chorushave put Reformers and then into power, but these political have not induced any progress, m i } sort of national nourishment of a ha kind. In each case -some of the individual members are of sterling v>o ’ but the parties as a whole have produced the goods. Their shockuio failures at land settlement, and refusal to get the country down to a sonc economic footing for now and. I c future by gradual reduction of tai, and consequent lowering of and production costs, have made man} who have supported parties the past feel quite “fed up.” The salient feature of your leaner namely, the growing danger of slavement to bureauorasy —has been a factor I causing concern for some yeais to the)observant ones, and the present party in power is, oil account oi tn inexperience you refer to, even worse off than its predecessor. Though not a farmer, it seems to me that the Country Party and the political section of the New Zealand Farmers Union are the only ones who have a definite policy likely to give this Dominion tli tremendous expansion it should experience in the primary industries, ui late years there has been only really valuable piece of legislation namely, the Rural Credits Actr—loi which we may thank the union, an Mr Poison in particular. This gentleman, by the way, is almost the only politician who is displaying any originality and constructive initiative in the matter of helpful prospective legislation. I used to agree with the view that the union should- not enter party politics, but the experience of the past few years has led me to the conclusion that along that road alone lies any firm hope of economic salvation for this primary-producing country. I am not under the impression that the farmers alone produce the Jo per cent, of exports, with no assistance from 'factory and transport and others; it is the industry that .needs the support, and thereiore al engaged directly or indirectly theiein liv which policy the rest of us will get our due share by our respective contributions to the national welfare Mi Poison should make a plurality oi the present one-man Country Party. Such action might cause an upheaval, but the sooner the better; vye cannot have omelettes without breaking eggs. r l ie farmers themselves should also realise that they have little hope of securing effective and direct representation until and unless they build up poetical fighting funds, as do other interests. The time is ripe for a bold forward move on the part of the farmers, and if they can secure the services as candidates of other men of brains and ability, such as Mr Poison, Captain Ruchworth and Mr S. N. Ziman, they should stand a very good chancei of securing more effective representation at the next general election. So may those of us who are dubious about Labour and dissatisfied with other parties have a more appealing choice.— I am, etc., „ ~T T T T. E. McMILLAN.

LABOUR PARTY. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The criticism levelled against Mr H. E. Holland and the Labour Party by your correspondent “New Zealander” is not worthy of consideration, and it certainly was not written by any writer who has the interests of this country at heart; and I must confess that it is very pleasing to find the enlightened workers differ entirely from your correspondent’s outlook. This has been brought about by a careful -study of the political atmosphere. By an enlightened mind the worker is determined that his position as a wealth-producer can only be improved by supporting the policy of the Labour Party, and it is very grati-j fying that men like Mr 11. E. Holland, by his writings and propaganda, is prepared to devote his life to remove the anomalies that exist. Now, “New Zealander," may I ask of you if you have given any consideration to the rapid growth of the Labour movement throughout the world and to the causes that have brought this about? The anti-Labour parties have at length found that there are public and industrial issues that deserve consideration, and can no longer be evaded; and it is indeed gratifying to observe that by continued agitation by the pioneers and present-day Labour leaders many principles for which the Labour Party stood have been endorsed, if reluctantly, by the anti-Labour parties. Why is this?' Because they are torn between their desire for workingclass votes and their long-established connection with wealth and property. They have recoiled with inconsistency from the logic of their own case against Capitalism, whiie attempting to gather the fruits of Labour - or socialistic policy; but it is too late in the day. The workers are aware that all anti-Labour parties are copying the principles of Labour only as a means to an end —to keep the power that unthinking workers have given them in the Parliament of New Zealand. A careful study of the political situation proves conclusively that some rich anti-Labour leaders in their desire to retain that power have gone so far to catch votes that they only stop short of rationalisation; and here the distribution of wealth is the case that affects the workers most of all. The workers are becoming aware that the Labour Party is the only party that is out for the better distribution of wealth. But let me tell “New Zealander” what wealth really is. Wealth is not the ownership of land and ) capital, as many people really believe, j The workers are taught to believe it I is. Wealth is composed.of the perish- ! able things of life which are produced j every day by Labour’s application to i the land, yet the workers are short of j the very things they have produced, i i have seen old miners for whom

owners have no further use crying with the cold and still short of the commodity they have produced in abundance, while people who have never tolled have these things in plenty. It is upon the 'question of wealth that confusion exists. People imagine a rich man possessing wealth and living upon that wealth. They visualise the inheriting of it from father and paying wages out of it to the people he employs. Nothing of the sort. Tlic whole nation, rich and poor alike, lives upon the current daily wealth production of the world. The rich man owns land, but he does not live on the land; -he lives upon the wealth produced out of the land by industry. He owns capital; but he does not live on Ills capital; he lives on wealth produced day by day by industry applied to his capital. He’doe’s not pay wages to anyone; the industry produces its own wages as well as its master’s income. Therefore if a man lives without working he must, out of necessity, he living upon the labour of those who toil. What the rich man does inherit is the power over these sources of wealth, and the value of that inheritance is that it is a means of making immediate perishable wealth upon which the world Jives how into his life as fast as it is produced. Wealth is not a fixed or permanent tiling. People repeat the foolish statement against Socialism that if we divide up the wealth of the country to-day there would bo inequalities tomorrow. The simple-minded error into which they fall is that of supposing that the wealth of the country is a fixed and permanent thing which you can get together and divide up. It is in the distribution of wealth among the people that all anfi-Labour parties have failed, and as they do not intend to carry it out the ultimate victory' for the Labour Party must follow, as the Labour Party and its 1 programme is going to solve it. These inequalities must be removed, and because their removal is an urgent necessity the Labour and Socialist movement has drawn into its ranks millions of thinking men and women of all classes Many of these people have come from the anti-Labour parlies. Both United and Reform, Liberal or Tory, stand united against the worker. So “New Zealander,” the future in politics is between Capitalism and Socialism, and you will have to decide. I ask you to come with us to win back the wealth of the world for the workers who produce it. —I am, etc., W.II.