Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1920. A FOOLISH POLICY.

Hokitika Guardian, 21 December 1920, Page 2

Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1920. A FOOLISH POLICY.

The thought for the times to-day is culled from an article i|i the “Irish Times” expressed by Mr Cl /nos ALP , the well-known English Labour iendor on the subject of under-production, which he sums up as a foolish po! c\ He goes on to’say that “with the very best intentions a number of trade union leaders have stumbled on the wrong road in their eagerness to reach a short road to redress qf workmen’s grievances. They are under the delusion of thinking that jf men leave certain work undone they will be more work for others, and that if certain additional goods are produced, the result is a benefit not for the worker, but for the employer. If now, by some wonderful device in mechanics, wo could speodily produce all the houses and clothing', all the domestic materials and necessities of tho home which the workers find so dear because they are so scarce, how much happier the masses of workers would be . We cannot work by magic. AVc can call to our aid only the machinery, plant, and methods of production now available to us. ’ These methods frequently could bo improved upon. Employers and tho system which they have developed are often to blame for under-production and waste of time and energy. But whatever be the cause, the central fact is that the profiteer, the capitalist, the speculator, and not the worker profit most by under-produc-tion. Scarcity is the friend of the producer. It is the friend of the dealer. It is the friend of the man who sells the articles which others have laboured to produce. Tho producer is more than a producer. He is tho consumer also, and lessoned production in any of the common necessities of life puts him between tho two difficulties of shortage of goods on the one hand, and shorter purchasing power in his wages rH tho other. The capitalist system in which wo have production for profit.”' says Mr dynes, “is not in the least threatened or impaired by lowered .production. Systems grow out of ideas. Labour and Socialist papers exist to distribute ideas; what folly it would be for Socialists to refuse to put a Labour paper or hooks plentifully upon the market because in doing so somo capitalist printer had made a private profit in producing them. "What folly it is to continue to increase the burdens ,of Wage earners and consumers by discouraging increased production when the result does not in the least weaken the system which Labour men denounce. Tt weakens the appeal of the critics of the system. I would not mind my colleagues keeping their heads in tho clouds

if the result wore not to keep such a largo number of very poor people in a state of intolerable suffering. When wp have to consider whether, it is better or worso for tho workers to have an increased supply of the commodities thev want, high-sounding condemnations of the capitalist system help hut little. It

would be better to examine the particular question, and decide on the merits of the ease'and tho facts before us. I agree,” says Mr Clynps, “as to the defects of the existing order. I admit the necessity for fundamental change respecting the ownership of properties and tho system of government and the need to elevate community welfare above all

schemes for private gain. But I refuse to allow my detestation of existing systems of government to determine every conclusion that has to be reached’ on a definite question where common sense should settle What is best to bo done. In short, much as I hate the capitalists system 1 decline to make it worse by action and argument which only iiitensi- I fy tho sufferings of those who, because ‘ of scarcity, arc enduring very great privations. It is the poor who suffer from under-production. Tho rich are not going short because of the dearness a:., scarcity of houses, furniture, clothing, food and other common needs. Scarce l as the needs of life are, they arc still plentiful enough to supply the needs of the rich, whose purchasing power enables ' them to bid very high prices for their motor cars and other luxuries. Tluu can get all they want because they him big purses and because they are comparatively few. There is so much less ■ new furniture on the market that second hand furniture is now much dopier than new furniture used to be. Houses and clothing are subject to the same influences. Yet there are Labour men who, under - the influence of their theories and principles, rave against an increase) of things for want of which' poor people are nearly starving. Only increased output can provide them oil the scale of our requirements,, and \ve cannot afford to wait to meet needs which are pressing until the whole socin order is remodelled. We should do now what is wanted now, and at tho same time go ahead with the task of converting people to now and better - principles. To say there ought to bo mnr .people engaged in production is sound enough. We need better distribution of commodities, and there ought to be improvements in a score of other dire tfons. But all the evidence in favour of these reforms provides no argument, against placing at the disposal of the popple in greater quantity the things they want. The greater quantity can only come from increased production, which would benefit employers not nearly as greatly as it would the workers themselves.”