THREE NOTABLE ARTICLES

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2955, 15 December 1916, Page 18

THREE NOTABLE ARTICLES

WAR EFFECTS UPON COMMERCE ABE SOCIALISTIC PRINCIPLES PRACTICAL? "Whether we like it or not we are rapidly approaching the time when many of the principles advanced by the Socialists must be accepted by the nation if it is to continue abreast of its competitors."—"The Times" Trade Supplement. "We have all learned a great deal since August 1, 1014. We are more qualified as'well as more inclined to'understand one another aud to bridge the gulfs that seemed so impassable."—"Morning Post." "If each party—employers nnd employed—insists on thinking only of its own interests, if each is on the look-out to snatch an advantage merely for itself, then the conclusion of military peace in Europe will be the signal for industrial war in Great Britain. We detest that possibility." —"Daily Alail." ,

At the recent Chamber of Commerce Conference held in Wellington, leading delegates were concerned with tho question of bridging the gulfs between Capital and Labour, and of how best honesty and high purpose could bo infused into employers and employed so that the industrial strength of the Dominion would bo raised to its utmost, and its productiveness and wealth increased.

Great minds in England are similarly athought. After giving expression to the idea of a larger measure of State control, already quoted, "Tho Times" proceeds l "Wo can, of course, set aside the wild extravagances which Socialist cranks have enunciated; there is no reason why. tho next generation should live in barracks, wear eccentric clothing, or abandon tho standards of morality recognised hitherto. But the logical mind cannot refuse to recognise that in-many activities of life the day of the individualist is ending, and that, whatever system may ultimately bo evolved, the future of industrialism is bound up.with co-operation in some form,

"This question of the chemical industry, for instance, has shown us that the - nation cannot afford to allow its resources to bo squandered by the individual; it has shown us that small firms, inefficiently equipped, cannot provide great trades-which aro dependent on them .with the material essential for the success of their operations in the world's markets. The inevitable corollary is the establishment of great organisations to take the place of the small individual firms. "This does not necessarily mean that the small .firm is to be crushed out of existence. • ... It may, liqjrer, very probably'mean that some measure of compulsion will be necessary to convert the small firm into an integral part of a wider combination. "In -his way it is. .quite conceivable that we shall got: Socialism imposed from above rather than forced on us from below." ! ONE THINC IS CERTAIN. Tho "Morning' l'ost" pursues tho same theme with quite as much comprehension. "It is ill tho highest national interests that Labour should know clearly, what it hopes and intends to arrivo at, aud -that the . rest of us should decide what our attitude is to be to the now demands. "One thing is certain—that not only has the war changed all the conditions, but that it is impossible to approach the problems from tho 'old points of view. It would be a poor thing if wo could come ouo of such nil ordeal as that through which we aro passing with the same prepossessions, tho same confident' iu'dgmerits, .and'thp same limited vision;... . . . "It should be one of the compensations for all that we arc, suffering and have still to suffer, to provido us with a new starting-point, based upon a new consciousness of national unity. We must recognise, for instance, that that part; of the nation—arid it is' by far tho largest part—which is len'own as tho 'working classes' has borne its share of the burdens and- sacrifices of the war with fine patriotism. Its , constancy and loyalty have been not the least part of our national: strength under the unparalleled strain of the last two years,

"To forfeit'the fruits of that manifestation would ,be criminal perversity indeed; for it is evident now that, however extreme and unpalatable may bo some of the aspirations that are urged on behalf of Labour, the constituent body is sound at the core. . . .

Many problems can only be solved by experiment. But at least we have a sure test in tlie formula 'to promote the happiness of tho nation as a whole,' and a sure foundation in a general and sincere determination to satisfy that test.

"The new unity that we have already achioved in war is a precious possession that must be preserved; and it 6hould be felt as a defect in that unity —a defect to be removed forthwith—if a suspicion can exist in' the mind of any great section of the community that its sacrifices are to he exploited instead of rewarded. We do not claim to speak for any existing party; but we are sure that we speak for the great bulk of the people of this country when we'say that few sacrifices would be too great to get rid of the old bad olass-antagonisms, and that no security can be complete that is not founded on the wolfaro and contentment of the nation as a wholel" ARE EMPLOYERS THINKINC ALSO? The "Daily Mail," which is found in the palaces of the rich and in the houses of the poor, is asking: "Are the omployers thinking?" Dealing editorially with a letter from a firm of manufacturers, the "Mail" saj6: "They were good enough to applaud our efforts to induce the Labour leaders to consider whether after the war the trade union regulations that restrict output should not be abandoned. But they totally ignored our point that if there is to be in the future, as there certainly has not been in. the past, the highest possible production there must also be the highest possible wages. They were quite willing to agree to everything iii, the proposal that promised to benefit themselves. They showed no disposition to recognise their own corresponding obligation to pay tho maximum wages in return for a maximum output.

"From that one-eyed attitude no good can come. Employers no less than Labour leaders must faco tho situation squarely. If each party insists on thinking only of its own interests, if each is on. the look-out to snatch an advantage merely for itself, then the conclusion of military peace in Europe will be tho signal for industrial war in Great Britain. Wo detest that possibility.

"The war caught .British industrialism on the very verge of a crisis that had long been maturing. An -unrest that 'social reform' was powerless, and will always bo. powerless, to restrain; an. ugly spirit of indiscipline inside the ranks of trade unionism; strikes against particular employers developing with increasing frequency into strikes against the community at large; Labour turning more and more from 'Parliamentary t propaganda to 'direct action'; a bitter feeling of enmity and suspicion among working men towards employers as a class, and amour employers a grudging 'legal' attitude towards working men as a class—such were tlm iihenomena.

"Aro they to reappear when tlm war is over? They most assuredly will if employers believo that, while

Labour has the upper hand now, tho balance will be adjusted on the return of peace, when tho market is flooded with the soldiers of the disbanded armies, and when sheer want will teach the working man his place? If there are any employers who look forward to the end of the war in that spirit they are simply helping to restore tho old strife and anarchy.

"In the straitened times that lie ahead of us it may prove a matter of imperative economy to assume national control over the railways and the coal mines, and to rescue these vital utilities from the strife-breeding wastefulness of private ownership. That in itself will be a long stop towards a sounder dispensation. But in the long run the key of industrial happiness and contentment will be found to lie in the attitude and conduct of innumerable employers throughout the country.

"They cannot begin asking themselves too soon how far they were responsible for the unhappy state of things that prevailed before tho war and how far they should contribute towards finding the remedy. Did they invariably recognise that in industry, as in all human relationships, it is the spirit that counts? Did tlioy not too often ignore the numberless aspects of the factory system that lie outside the weekly payment of wages?

"Did thej study the health and comfort and general' welfare of their employees? Could not Labour, whon accused of giving too little and asking too much, point in justification to the example of Capital? Were Hot British employers as a body rather singularly deficient in tho touch of personal syspathy and fellowship with their men? Did they show as much readiness as they might to reorganise their businesses on profit-sharing or co-partner-ship lines? ■

"Can they in any caso conteinplato for one moment sotting.up again the 'industrial system that collapscd when tho. war broke out?

"Its inadequacy, its vioiousness, were patent -to all men. It had to be shattered and rebuilt on a now foundation before Great Britain could really begin to. pull her weight. It produced littlo but a hideous spirit of 'olnss antagonism in times of peace; it utterly and absolutely crumpled up at tho touch of war, and its pjace is now taken by a system that combines the greatest output with the greatest contontment and well-being. Is not this tho onljr system that will enable us to hold our own in time of peace? "Theso are questions that employers must faco as frankly as the Labour leaders. In the great outburst' of energy and comradeship that the war has evoked there is an opportunity to elevate and pacify British industrialsuch as is '.hardly likely to occur again. Capital must join hands .with Labour in seizing it."