LABOUR AND DOUGLAS.

Waikato Times, Volume 113, Issue 18930, 27 April 1933, Page 9

LABOUR AND DOUGLAS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The reply of Mr John Sykes to my letter of April 20 is quite excusable and understandable under the circumstances, and the writer is willing to concede as much. In his role as chairman of the meeting he was in honour bound to resent the aspersions on his chief, and I give him credit for his defence. With Mr Sykes himself I do not wish at this stage to enter a controversy. I have hitherto treated this genial contributor as one worth saving, and since he has admitted to the writer on various occasions that he does not understand Douglas I continue to give him the leniency due to one who has yet to ilnd himself. This attitude, however, does not apply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holland), since he is eminently qualified to pronounce upon the proposals of Major Douglas, and is not justified in subtly evading them as he has undoubtedly done in the instance under review. Why does the official Labour Party persistently ignore or evade the Douglas school of thought? The answer is, I think, abundantly supplied in the address of Mr Holland and the literature supplied in the theatre on that occasion. The references to currency reform were of course intended to include Douglas, hut Mr Holland knows, or should know, that “currency reform” is a misnomer foi Douglas. He knows that the Douglas masterly diagnosis of the costing blunder, contained in the A plus B theorem, the just price regulating factor, and the national dividend to supplant the wage or labour claim to real wealth, would, when understood and applied, make his present Labour platform look crude and drab, If not utterly absurd. If he had frankly discussed tills with us and avowed his differences we could doubtless have voted for his party with our reservations, since doubtless the present Labour Party would create a diversion of sorts If resumed, and anything is preferable to the present nightmare drift. The two pamphlets, The Way Out and “The Machine," demonstrate that Mr Holland is a wide and varied reader, and that his personal literary talents are of a reasonably high order. In both these publications, however, one is struck by the studied persistence with which the Douglas literature is avoided. It Is dangerous ground for orthodox Labour, because it might make their following develop an "undesirable independence of thought leading to Labour’s perennial nightmare of a split. It is now highly desirable that the Douglas group of Hamilton should confront official Labour with their case and make them face and answer same or 'take the ignominy due to default. The contention that a socialist plan is necessary to go hand in hand with the conversion of the hanking system is no adequate answer, since iiouglasism implies a plan; Ibu principles laid down are applicable to different countries, possibly by different kinds of plans, eonlorming to the peculiar features of the different countries. .... • , 1 hope to go further into the points of divergence with Mr Holland a little later; for lhe present 1 wish to assure Mr Fykes that I hear him no 111-will for his outspoken letter, since even his reference to "puerile rubhigh” conforms ill with the glowing tribute lie, paid a local scribe at his recent Hamilton mass meeting.— I am, etc., C. A. MAGNER. Te Kowhai, April 23, 193&.