Page:Kangaroo, 1923.pdf/233

 and life to hold them separate and yet sustained in accord, the loving comrades would smash one another, and smash all love, all feeling as well. It would be a rare gruesome sight.

Any more love is a hopeless thing, till we have found again, each of us for himself, the great dark God who alone will sustain us in our loving one another. Till then, best not play with more fire.

Richard knew this, and it came to him again powerfully, under the dark eyes of Mr Struthers.

"Yes," he answered slowly. "I know what you mean, and you know I know. And it's probably your only chance of carrying Socialism through. I don't really know how much it is feasible. But—"

"Wait a minute, Mr Somers. You are the man I have been waiting for: all except the but. Listen to me a moment further. You know our situation here in Australia. You know that Labour is stronger here, perhaps, more unopposed than in any country in the world. We might do anything. Then why do we do nothing? You know as well as I do. Because there is no real unifying principle among us. We're not together, we aren't one. And probably you never will be able to unite Australians on the wage question and the State Ownership question alone.  They don't care enough. It doesn't really touch them emotionally. And they need to be touched emotionally, brought together that way. Once that was done, we'd be a grand, solid working-class people; grand, unselfish: a real People. 'When wilt thou save the People, oh God of Israel, when?' It looks as if the God of Israel would never save them. We've got to save ourselves.

"Now you know quite well, Mr Somers, we're an unstable, unreliable body to-day, the Labour Party here in Australia. And why? Because in the first place we haven't got any voice. We want a voice. Think of it, we've got no real Labour newspaper in Sydney—or in Australia. How can we be united? We've no voice to call us together. And why don't we have a paper of our own? Well, why? Nobody has the initiative. What would be the good, over here, of a grievance-airing rag like your London Daily Herald? It wouldn't be taken any more seriously than any other rag. It would have no real