The Dominion. SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 1912. THE PHILOSOPHY OF STRIKES.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1390, 16 March 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 1912. THE PHILOSOPHY OF STRIKES.

Most of the newspapers in this country and in other countries have been restricting their comment upon the great coal strike—the latest news concerning which is gravely depressing—to some.very useful discussions of the dreadful wastefulness of these large checks to industry and the social and economic evils of tho syndicalist idea. The cable messages of the past few days have given some strike statistics so plain and formidable that we may rely upon even the least reflective newspaper reader understanding that every largo strike means the destruction of wealth that must be somehow replaced. There is therefore little need to explain in detail what the coal strike means in pounds, shillings, and pence. Hundreds of thousands of men cease work and become non-producers without ceasing to be consumers; hundreds of thousands of others are unwillingly forced into non-productiveness or merely partial productiveness; and all the time the consumption of wealth must go on. Modern civilisation is a hand-to-mouth affair—in the total,_ what is produced in any one day is consumed in that day. Check the production, aud' society, in the total, is pushed under the waves, and can only raise its head above the waters through pain and privation. It is a hard fact that the greatest pain and privation must be borne by those in whose supposed interests strikes arc engineered. But this side of the strike question is not the most important one. ■ Concurrently with the condemnation of strikes as wasteful and as tending really to defeat the purposes in which thejr are undertaken—a criticism that is very wise and very useful—we usually find denunciations of the strike as a thing criminal in itself, and of strikers generally as offenders who ought to be punished by law, even where there is no specific law under which strikes are made illegal. We gravely doubt whether, in the long run, more injury, direct and indirect, will not result from the establishment of striking as a crime, 01 as a matter for State suppression, than from the free play of the thoughts and impulses of organised and unorganised wage-earners. [We need hardly say that > where men work under a contract with the State not to strike, as in New Zealand, the suppression. of strikes is a high duty of State.] The enormous social waste and inconvenience of strikes, the essential folly of the strike weapon, and/the inability of the excited striker to perceive that the strike leaders are generally heartless and clever self-seekers—all these things combine to sweep many people into a willingness to applaud the statutory prohibition of striking as a social offence. Yet there is just as muchto be said for the liberty to strike (in those cases, of course, where there exists no contract not to strike) as for any other liberty that is part of the general body of freedom of exchange. Even to many of those who have a true understanding of the , principles of liberty it may appear that precious as is the right of every wage-earner to leave his job if it does not suit him (provided that he docs not leave in breach of an agreement), it may appear that this is a right the observance of which will be a greater evil than its denial. There is no real right, however, the denial of which, for any reason whatsoever, will not bear an evil harvest sooner or later. One can no more safely tamper with real human rights than with the lawsV Nature. As we have seen in this, country, great injury results from arbitrary' enactments against the law of supply and demand, whether in the field of industry or of commerce. This view of strikes does not, of course, rule out tho State altogether. It will always be the duty oj the State, in the event of a strike, to preserve law and order—to suppress rioting/to punish sabotage, tc protect the lives of peaceable citizens and peaceful workers and the property of everybody. But there, ii the State is to remain healthy, the State's duty ought to be able to begin and end. This is not a time, we know, when the advocacy of a return to first principles can hope for much popularity; yet we hope the clay is far distant when fidelity to first principles will want advocatea. It will be asked of the follower of first principles: "What is your remedy foi strikes? Your cure for the evik which you admit must flow from The answer must be: the effect itself.. Let the State discharge its duty of preserving law and order, of protecting life and property. Lei the community prepare itself to meet strikes effectively, partly by lookinp ahead and maintaining a reserve oi industrial means, and partly bj organising the human material tc carry on the industrial machine. It would not be long, if those responsible for the business of government adopted this policy, before the wageearners who are susceptible to the preachings of the syndicalists came to realise that.strikes do not pay, The general -failure of general strikes, or of strikes in the vital industries, would long ago have killed j the syndicalist idea were it not that ! the leaders of public opinion have too often encouraged the idea that strikes should be avoided rather than endured. It is the old story of Dane,peld over again. Nobody is ever the better for a big strike, and least of all the striker himself. To encourage him to strike by seeking k means of avoiding strikes, one is doing him tho cruellest disservice. In a valuable article on "Strikes" in the February Fortnightly there is a reference to the Swedish general strike which is full of significance. This was the most complete example of a general strike: the whole social machinery was held up. There wae even nobody left to bury the dead or convey the sick to hospital. Then the social senso of the Swedes nwokp. The means of life of overj- dweller in Stockholm, wngo-earner nnd capitalist alike, woro threatened by the notion of trade unions renresentini; two-thirds of the organised labour of Sweden. The remaining third, n non-politicnl organisation of workmen, known ns the "Swedish Workers' Association," when the political assault on tho whole social fabric lieoaine apparent, withdrew all it* member.-- from solidarity with the Strike Committee. With the "Swedish Worker* , .Association" stood every inhabitant of the upper and middle classes of Stockholm capable of takiiiß a hniul in the workinp of'thc community. The combined classes drove cabs, did ambulance worlc, stoked steamers, ran the pas, water, and electric works, unloaded ships, acted as tram conductors. The wreckers of the State were defeated by a solidarity baspd nn founder principle; then thnt; of' Syndicalist T"ninn< linn, Mi« nobl» Kliilnril; oi n. imltnl o>lll. .iawl&j, xortlos jsftlauilj- ia Uu) ialorata

of all, anil therefore in the interests of each. The principle behind the policy adopted by the people of Sweden is the principle, that should be constantly pursued, in thought as well as in action, by all countries, and by all Governments. It will not end strikes, but it will end the syndicalist idea, and it will avert the great evils of a wholesale State interference with the working of the industrial machine.