Goodbye to Socialism—and All That!

THE defeat of the Socialist Governments of New Zealand (November 30) and Australia (on December 10) is an event of moment in the history of the British Empire and of international relationships, because it is an almost certain indication of the defeat of the British Socialist Government early in the coming year.

The Socialist administration of the British Empire has done enormous, almost in calculable, harm to the Empire, and to the world generally; but it is not too late to undo some of that harm, and to intro duce a new note into international affairs.

When World War II ended, the vic torious Anglo-American partnership was completely in command. Their duty was clear. The cataclysmic events of 1939- 45 had thrown upon them an obligation to police the world, restore order to the nations and save humanity from the tor tures of an economic collapse. Instead of that, the British Empire—except Canada, of course—virtually deserted the United States, and went high-tailing off in a mad and giddy chase after “Socialism in our time.”

While the British countries have been learning, the hard way, that Socialism is not practicable—especially in a post-war period—the Americans have been left to carry the responsibility for world orderli ness; with the result that the Muscovite plot against Western civilisation has been carried to a point that many observers find terrifying. If there is to be a World War 111 (Western Democracy against Eastern Totalitarianism), blame for the disaster will be placed squarely upon the

British Socialists and their New Planner camp-followers. The Anglo-American partnership of 1945, had it continued, would have put the Moscow Communists very firmly into their proper place, and kept them there.

The Australian and New Zealand voters have pointed the way for the British. A British anti-Red Government will —(a) destroy the forces that have been con niving at the disintegration of the British Empire; (b) establish a British Commonwealth understanding that will enable the British Empire to speak with one authoritative voice in international affairs; (c) seek a much closer relation ship with the United States; (d) chal lenge the evil power of Moscow: (e) re store the pride of the British people in their flag, their ancient institutions, and their destiny.

THE British people do not take kindly to Socialism. Their character, their history and their natural viewpoint are opposed entirely to the subversion of the individual to the State.

The swing towards Totalitarianism in the three principal British countries, at the end of World War 11, was an amazing development. These nations, which had sacrificed so much and performed so gal lantly in the fight for personal freedom, surrendered themselves in an extra ordinary fashion to the dictatorship of Leftist visionaries. No one who knew British history expected the Red regime to last.

It perhaps was a desirable thing, in

this epoch of swift change, that the British should learn the fallacies of Socialist doctrine, and discover that Com munism is merely the logical develop ment of Socialism; but it was unfortunate for the world that they should have chosen the immediate post-war period for the great experiment.

If the Australian and New Zealand elec tion results mean anything, they mean that the British Empire is finished with Socialism for at least a generation; and this, in turn, will put new hope into the hearts of the millions of solid British people throughout the world, who have been literally sick with shame at what they have seen happening in the Empire during the last five years.

BUT we must realise that there was more in the Great Socialist Experi ment than mere post-war irresponsible ness. If it meant anything, it meant that the masses of common men were in revolt against the Money Power which virtually had taken control of the world’s affairs in the ’twenties and ’thirties, and which led to World War 11.

If we have any statesmanship left in the Empire, we should accept the fact that unrestricted Money Power (or Indivi dualism, or Private Enterprise) may be just as great a menace to our personal liberty and national security as is the Red Muscovite.

Effect In Pacific Islands

IN the Pacific Islands, the end of British Socialism is of importance, and will be generally welcomed. No communities have suffered more under the controls and regulations of rampant bureaucracy than the vote-less and voice-less people

of the biggest South Pacific Territories.

They have had to look on helplessly while well-meaning but generally impractical New Planners have marched complacently around their islands, introducing new un tried principles, deifying the natives and placing obstruction and frustration in the way of anything resembling large-scale private enterprise.

In Papua-New Guinea, for example, Socialism has — • Set up the Production Control Board, to buy the planters’ produce, and protect them from “the piracies and robberies” of the Big Firms—but which actually takes more from the planters, in the way of special charges on their copra, than they ever lost to the Big Firms. • Introduced a new contract system for native labour, so as to “save the natives from slavery”—but which actually has achieved nothing good for the natives, and has so heavily increased the cost of labour to the white employer that only the main tenance of high rates for copra, gold, etc., will allow him to carry on. • Established a monopoly for State owned coastal ships—and thereby has ac complished nothing except a general lowering of service efficiency and a marked increase in transport costs. • Created a vast, new organisation for the development of the Territories and the welfare of the natives—so that the Aus tralian taxpayers must now find nearly £4,000,000 per annum for the Territories, which under the bad old days of private enterprise were about self-supporting.

And so forth, ad nauseam. From Daru eastward to Rarotonga, and from Norfolk Island northward to the equator, there is scarcely one word to be heard in favour of the Socialist-inspired administration of the tropical islands; but there are thousands of frustrated and irritated resi dents who will cheer the announcement of Socialist defeats, because they expect that the re-establishment of middle-class governments in the British countries will mean the re-establishment of better living, trading and transport conditions in the Pacific Islands generally.

IT would be foolish to suggest that the end of Socialism means that all those plans for native welfare and advancement are to be abandoned. There has been no indication of any such change in policy.

On the contrary, it may be taken as cer tain that the new Governments will carry on with all enterprises designed to assist the native to higher standards of life.

But it is equally certain that those plans generally will be revised, so that they may be tied more closely to realities, where necessary.

R. W. Robson and Judy Tudor, 247 George St., Sydney, are responsible for Australian elec tion comments.