IS ENGLAND MAD ?

Hokitika Guardian, 25 August 1921, Page 4

IS ENGLAND MAD ?

(By Ernest J. P. Bonn.) | The man who would attempt to express a considered opinion about Ame- . rica or Amerienn conditions after a . brief five weeks spent in a part of | that wonderful country would lose any j claim to bo regarded as a serious stu- j dent of affairs America is so vast and ; so varied that one can go there and ' find evidence in support of any theory or any scheme, however weird or wild. For instance the country is large enough to permit the Mormons to find a corner, and their tenets have got ■ i sufficient hold to make it advisable foi , i the immigration authorities to ask i you on arrival whether you are a ; ) polygamist; hut to draw conclusion - from these facts wuld lead to totally ) erroneous' rioncteptions. While tliercf fore. I shall hope to have a good deal ; to say about America in these columns - as a result of my very wonderful trip, ; j want at the start to make it clear that T have no claim to write ns nn authority. A weakness that is too common among our writers is the formation of definite opinions from hurried and ill-digested impassions. “For J (Joel’s sake, don’t write a book about r „s,” said a lady to me in Philadelphia, 3 and she said it s‘> seriously that T 3 agreed at onre. She seemed to posil tively shudder as she thought of the i long arrav of English writers who lrnve f rushed over to the United States for - a few weeks and rushed hack into f print. Anything that I have to say will, therefore, be rather about Eng- - land than about America. I have endeavoured to study American conditions 1 in industry, merely with a view to > seeing how far I might find points that t would be helpful to use in England. Sitting on the shores of Lake Miolii- ' gan, at Edgewater Beach, five, miles north of Chicago, looking eastward ' from the farthest point that I have ever reached from home, the question ’ burnt into my brain: “Is England ’ mad?” The secretary of State for Labour, Mr James J. Davis, tells me that i the guiding principle of America is: . “Nothing for nothing!” In Washington a few days after T had landed in I Now York, still full of English ideas still dreaming of the “right to work [ or maintenance,’ and that ideal condition of security for everybody which , we are all chasing in England Mr , Davis’s blunt, “Nothing for nothing” 1 jarred on snv conscience. Hero was • the horrid, material American point, • of view; here was the almighty doli lur with a vengeance; here was the 5 merciless drive of capitalism, squeezing ; the soul and the heart and the kindness out. of life and humanity.

Rut a run through from AYa.shingfon to Chicago, with a peep at Pittsburgh the centre of the Steel Trust’s operations and capitalistic oppression ell route, made me thing more kindly of James J." Davis and his “Nothing for nothing.” There are 30,000 unemployed in Pittsburgh, and I could not find any of them ; the Labour Temple m almost empty, and I spent a morning there waiting for the hopeless, broken out-of-work to come for consolation and guidance to his trade union leaders; hut he did not arrive. The secretary (<> the District Labour Council, Alt' Robert W. Beattie, took we a run in his 1.0(H) dollar automobile to show mr how the unemployed were busy overhauling their own motor ears or repairing or naiutiiig their own houses. \n occasional period of unemployment from the twelve-hour shift of the steel mill is necessary even to the unskilled labourer, in order that b ( may enjoy the fruits of the fi‘2 cents an hour which is llu 1 minimum wj• j_ rf evou aft or the roeont cut. Whether it was the effect of the hot breezes from the fresh waters of bake Alichignn on the hottest day of the year in Chicago, or the result of the fatigue of a couple of nights ill a lower berth, f cannot say. but T sal for an hour at Edgewater Beach and could not dismiss the question : “Is England mad ” I had discussed trade unionist Addisonianism, Sidney Vebbism, and ether forms of collectivism with Secretary Davis, lie summed the whole tliitm up in the expressive phrase: Let George do it.” At first 1 thought be was making a slighting reference to our Prime Al mister: but 1 found that Met George do it” is the typical American way of describing the Socialistic idea. -George” meaning “the other fellow. If viuTwere to offer the American workman an old-age pension lie would question your sanity or your honesty. ‘ Nothin,'' for nothing!” be would say to himself, and proceed to enquire bow lm was to pay for the proposed benefit, where it came from, who was making a nrofit out of it. how much he would lose on the transaction. His idea is to take the last farthing that is his out of till' ioh when lie does it, and then arrange the expenditure of that last farthing in his own way. Every filth street corner in America is a savings bank, which tells you, with mt asking what the American does with the Inst farthing when he has secured it. ‘‘Security? What right lias any man to demand security for another 9 AVhero is security anvliow? Security for babes and lunatics if yon like, but give me my independence, .niy rightful opportunity to use niv wits and energy, my chance to get oil and to do things.” This is the point of view of the bootblack and all above him.” Just imagine a hundred and ten millions of people "ho know i milling of old-age pensions, of health insurance, of unemployment pay, who have to make enquiries before they can tell you anything about the poor law, who can’t understand what limitation means, anil who, right down to every man and everv woman, and every hoy and every girl, are keen to show you some new - little trick or device which they have discovered for getting things done quickly. Don’t let me give any ‘also impressions. America is not Brawn, hut ii is, as T sec it, as near to an economic heaven as we mortals shall ever approach. It accepts the view that the function of (industry ia to produce goods and it throws an enthusiasm, n vigour, and a determination into this business of production which i simpK indescribable to one who is saturated with current English industrial thought. Tt is difficult for an .Englishman in America to discuss industrial problems, because the atmosphere, the point of view, the angle of approach, are all so totally different. [ have sought out well-informed employers \ have searched among the v inkers for those with whom T might discuss some of the ideals of English labour; T thought tile unemployed might help me, but T was disappointed. The American Federation of Labour, the conservative end of thp Labour movement, might almost adopt the Morning Post as its olfieial organ. T was told of a parson in Now York who was notorious for his “Red” views and 1 wont to see him in the hope that T might find some serious Socialistic thought; hut T found him back in the eighties. The only man | on the whole continent who seemed capable of qualifying for membership olf the English Socialist Party was a little Jew in the offices of the Printers atul Pressmen’s Union at Detroit, who talked seriously about production for use and not for profit.” The American Declaration of Independence gives to f-hnt great people

the riprlit to “life-liberty ami tho pursuit of happiness,” and they found tho easiest road to happiness in doing tilings in production We over here sneer at it and call it dollars, hut we don t understand it, and it threatens us with industrial destruction.—From London Export World.