LABOUR CONUNDRUMS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 34, 10 February 1913, Page 6

LABOUR CONUNDRUMS

— " '«» "Complete economic emancipation" tv a phrase used in a circular issued by the United Cohgre&s Committee which ie trying to organise a large Socialist Party for industrial and political purposes. What is the meaning of those words! The literal uense is a relea^ from workaday worry, a happy life under the breadfruit tree, with no concern at all about the bills of butchers and bakers. Probably the meaning in the peculiar committee's mind is freedom from " wage slavery." The word "'emancipation" itself means a taking out tf bondage, but what is the bohdage of Labour in New Zealahd? Who are the "slaves," if there are any " skves " ? Js the strike of tha slaughtermen, for instance, fc revolt against "slavery"? Tne tolled' case is a remarkable example of economic freedom. They were offered a rate at which, it is said, a first'class operator can earn np to £9 a week (with no large amount of overtime), bub they chose to fight for their own figure, which would bring in about another £l a week. Who are the "slaves" in this case? Who wei-a the "slavei" in the Waihi affair? Tnere the members of a Socialist union of miners struck as an indication to employers that n6n«Soeialists should be forced t* joih the Sodftliat body Who were the people to be t '©m4nci« pated" at Walhi? By the. wild language uled by some^ ot the persons who seek to enslave Labour to their own irresponsible will, people in other countries, not familiar with the facts, might imagine that the average worker of New .Zealand was voteless; that he toiled and m&iied twelve ot fourteen hours a day for a wretched pittance 5 that he had never a shilling to spare for the horse-races or the moving pictures; that tlie soul was harried out of his double-worked, half-starved body. Certain "leaders* 1 attempt to convince the workers that their plight is as wretched as the condition of the most miserable serf of Russia, and they preach the nottaenfee that employers and workers must necessarily be enemies iti politics, industrialism, and all else. Why? The agitators do not give convincing reasons. Why should it be the interest of an employer to have discontented, illtreated worker^ bo incensed by "injustice" as to be driven to wwpltfe perpetually against him? In fact, why should an employer be looking for his. own benefit in procedure which, as he would know lh this democratic country, would simply mean his own injury? An employer's self-interest must induce him to do everything within reason to have the friendly eo-opetatton of his workers', for he knows well that it is in theifr power to damage him without giving him the means to fasten the blame definitely on anybody. Why, then, should the employers be constantly accused of madness by the advocates of •"emaneipattoii**? Many of these 'apostles are not workers themselves,, in the ordinary sense. They get their bread by "clarion calls" to thd bfead-fruifc tree. . The Post has been .charged with making "efceited demonstrations of displeasure . '. . because the Federation of Labour (the Red body) ahd the United Labour Party are making approaches to each obher with a view to union anil combined action in the face of & political danger common to each." This statement of The Post s attitude is, of course", hot correct, as our readers have been able to perceive. Out concern, oa bfehalf of the geher&l public, is -tfl p^Wuade "United Labour" to reveai its true colour. At present it has a hue reflected .from the red flag. The ultra-Socialist Federation of Labour is uncomproniisingly committed to Socialism, and the proposed basis of unity is unreservedly Socialistic. We Wish to knaw, before the municipal elections, whether the United Labour Party is likely to be merged in the projected Unites Socialist Party. Meanwhile, what has become -df Mr. George Fowlds and, hi& "new evangel ''f Will he favour the crimson apoplectic constitution of the proposed "Social Democratic Patty"?