Sig,-In the C.T.S. pamphlet,
NationalisationWhat the Pope has said, it is made abundantly clear that nationalisation is something to he avoided, and not advocated, Nationalisation of any industry can be defended only if it can be first proved that in no other way can the interests of workers, employers, and public. equally, be safeguarded. • But every known alternative to nationalisation is to be tried first, for the function of the State is to regulate, not to operate, industry.
Further, the means of production, distribiaion and exchange are best left in private hands, for it is right and just that such things should be
private property. This 'merely repeats Pope Leo's insistence in Rerurn Novarunt that private ptoperty is a God-given right, which existed before, and should be defended by, the State.
It is thus extremely difficult, to say the least, in a " free" country like ours, to make out a case for nationalisation of any industry-a case based on the rights of the three groups, workers, employers, and public. But in addition, it is also netessary to prove that every known alternative has been tried!
Even given all these proofs that nationalisation is the only solution, it is staled that it is still an evil thing, for from it grows the totalitarian State.
Your correspondent, Irene M. Clayden, quotes Rule 4 of the Socialist Party, calling for " common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, etc," which I submit, cuts right across the fundamental principle of Papal teaching, If we accept the cation suggested by your correspondent, (which I ant unable to read into the text of Rule 4), surely the " Rule " becomes still more objectionable, for it would then be applied only when the interests of the " workers" required it.
Where do the other two groups in industry come in? If the " workers" form 90 per cent of industry or the community, as your correspondent asserts, does this preclude justice for the unfortunate 10 per cent? Marxists say }es, for this is in line with " class " warfare. Any Socialist I know of (except perhaps your correspondent) is intolerant of " private property," and " nationalisation " is a bee in the bonnet of each. Few are naive enough to suggest that the Party has any interest in, or knowledge of, Catholic principles.
Three Socialist councillors here, Catholics, state bluntly that they will always vote with the Party, right or wrong, for they don't want to be thrown out of it! 1 hey must vote with the Party, unless they take advantage of a " conscience clause," which allows them to abstain from voting, but woe betide them if they should attempt to vote against the Party. Councillors in other Parties may vote as they please, without repercu lions.
There is food for thought by Catholics in the pronouncements of some of the leading lights in the parliamentary Socialist Party. Mr. Attlee wrote that he favoured taking the " strong points" of the Russian system, and applying them to this country.
One of his chief lieutenants in parliament, stated that the Socialist state must evolve into the Communist state. Others of Ministerial rank have said that if the Party could not achieve its aims by democratic means, then it would employ " totalitarian expedients." " Political catastrophe' might be necessary in this country-but the Party would get its way. Dates, references, full text of these and similar statements, to anyone interested. Your correspondent assures us that the parliamentary group is controlled by various ward and divisional meetings, conferences, etc. If we accept this, then the majority uf the Socialist rank and file mutt think along the lines outlined above In my humble experience, the majority does! Exactly how the Catholic minority, advocated by your correspondent in the Socialist Party, intends to " convert " its erring brethren isn't quite clear: unfortunately, I can point to lapsed Catholics who were " converted " by the Party. When one considers what a monetrously powerful machine the Socialist Party has become, replete with every modern propaganda device, it is easy to understand how a poor Catholic, especially if he's not too well informed in Catholic social principles, can succumb.
Every Catholic in the Party is another vote for the Party: every vote for the Party is a vote for those
who rule the Party. It has been made quite plain that they seek control of all local authorities in the forthcoming elections so that the Socialist ideal of Central Government with District CommissionersParty men not elected-may be achieved. (See Problems of a Socialist Government by C. R. Attlee.) Finally, may 1 conclude by quoting a foreword written by Labour Party headquarters to Communist Manifesto (1948 edition. Allen & Unwin).
" In presenting this centenary volume of the Communist Manifesto . . . the Labour Party acknowledges its indebtedness to Marx and Engels as two of the men who have been the inspiration of the whole working class movement . . . who, remembering that these were the demands of the Manifesto, can doubt our common inspiration ? "
Where does Socialism end, and Communism begin ?
L. GERAGHTY (Mr.)