PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21243, 14 October 1940, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear. UNION CONDITIONS (To the Editor.) Sir,—l think our enemies and potential enemies should be warned beforehand that if they intend to invade New Zealand they must first join a union, that all activities, whatever branch of the fighting it may be. must not exceed 40 hours a week, and they must be prepared to hold at least two stop-work meetings each week, and additional ones at the least provocaion.—l am, ec.. W. H. THOMPSON. Whatawhata, October 12. CANADA'S WAR EFFORT (To the Editor.) Sir,—Under the above heading in your issue of October 8. we learn that the Deputy Air Minister has been talking in Toronto about the remarkable achievements of the Air Ministry. One wonders if the Federal Minister of Agriculture can “ flute ” over his achievements. Here are the facts. Western Canada has a record wheat crop, on top of a heavy carry-over from last season.

The Federal authorities have been pressed since early in June to make provision for storage and finance. Not a thing has been done. Threshing is in progress and the edict has gone forth that only five bushels per seeded acre can be delivered to the elevators and paid for. The average yield per acre is 26 bushels. The western farmers are faced with the position that barely 20 per cent of their crop can be stored and paid for. New Zealand farmers could visualise what the Canadians are up against if. say, at the middle of December word suddenly went out that only 20 per cent of dairy produce could be taken into store and the same proportion of lamb, mutton, wool and beef, etc. The result would be chaos. The Federal Government has been asked to accept delivery of the wheat m temporary storage on the farms and pay for wheat by means of “ negotiable vouchers ” to enable the western economy to survive. But nothing has been done yet beyond advice to the farmers to get finance from the regular channels—calmly ignoring the fact that everything has been already pledged in the growing of the crop. Now, after 12 months of hard labour and the production of a bountiful crop the farmers are to be ruined while Ministers prattle of the war effort.—l am etc., ’

_ R- G. YOUNG, Gordonton, October 11.

NATURAL SOCIALISM

(To the Editor) Sir, —In a previous letter, in answer to Mr A. Warburton, I referred to Mr T. Harris’ Marxian socialism, and quoted Marx as holding that “the expropriation of the peasant from the soil is even the basis of the capitalist mode of production.” Bernard Shaw says a similar thing in “Woman’s Guide,” etC 7, *' of lan downing arose capital. In each case the authors mean the private collection of the social or site values. Merely “owning” land would be worthless. What the holders want is a legal privilege enabling them to collect the full annual value due to the existence of population and progress.

As Thor old Rogers (referred to by Mr Warburton) said, the collectors of this value reap the lion’s share of the fruits of human intelligence. Lenin knew that Marxian Socialism could be only a temporary scheme. He told Bela Kun, the Hungarian Communist leader, not to go for Socialism as they had done in Russia (because of the then low standard of education, only 1 per cent having any schooling at all), but to make every person go round to the police station and pay in the land rent. That, said Lenin, would bring justice and freedom to the people within years avoiding decades of Socialist rule.

Mr Harris wants to know if my policy is applicable to what he calls a “capitalist economy,” but which Marx and Shaw show is fundamentally a land rent monopoly economy. Well, at the present time the local bodies of this Dominion, 60-odd per cent of them, rate on the unimproved values. This permits them to collect only a part of the social values, but they collect that part under the present “economy.” If given legislative power to collect the full annual ground rent, what is to stop them from doing so, and passing a proportion on to the State l'or State services? Mr Harris wants to know what my policy is for the next election. If he will send me his detailed address I will send him a copy of my policy for any time. As to elections as we know them, my policy includes their abolition. Beyond that, 1 am not interested in them, and their persistence can only land us finally into a dictatorship of the Right or the Left. Justice and freedom are not in them. Regarding the “interlocking nature of landlord, industrial, merchant, banker.” etc.. I have already informed Mr Harris that his favourite author correctly says that the land rent monopoly is the father and mother (if the lot insofar as they are monopolistic or economically prejudicial. Remove the “basis.” For the especial information of Mr Harris. I may say I have a first hand acquaintance with the Communist manifesto, and with that monumental work “Das Kapital,” or “Capital.” Also, I have had the advantage of following, in print, the greatest debate ever held on the Marxian economics. No need to waste space trying to teach grandmother how to suck eggs. Mr Harris knows his Marxian “bible” too well to dispute my quotation therefrom. Now I want to bee how many “tracks” his mind has. If he will kindly explain to us, from English history, the origin and rise of these industrials, merchants, bankers (especially the bankers!), and the other odds and ends he mentions, 1 will tell him how to deal with any monopoly element associated with

them. Meanwhile, I would impress upon him that removing the cubs without killing the “mother of all monopolies” will be of no final avail. If he removes her. the rest will "die a natural death”—without issue! I am, etc., T. E. McMILLAN. Mataxnata, October 9.