LABOUR

Hokitika Guardian, 4 February 1929, Page 3

LABOUR

(II v X.) I I I At the time of the election I endeavoured to point out the danger of political parties having meaningless names and .stated that the most dangerously misleading name was that of “Labor.” As “Labor” lias been so generally accepted now as a recognised political factor, and as the mother country even recognised not only a "Labor” party, but even for a time accepted, under Ramsay Macdonald, a Labor Government, it seems rather late in the day to say there can ho no such tiling as a Labor party. And yet that is the actual position, and, however imposing the edifice of Labor may appear, it is really built on a foundation as unstable as shifting sand. Sir PTfT.p Gibbs says: “Labor is an impossible abstraction—like tlio United States of Europe.” To realize this it is only necessary to endeavour to define, labor. Now labor in its proper senso means nothing more or less, than exertion bodily or mental, toil, effort. Starmouth, as a recognised authority on the English language, in changing the noun to the adjective, inadvertently struck the first difficulty in definition and had to give a double meaning to laboring: (1) exerting bodily strength or intellectual power; (2) engaged at work not requiring skill; toiling. It is only in recent years that an attempt has been made to give to the word “labor” a political significance and the result has been hopeless confusion—and worse.

To illustrate. The day after the last election one man said: “I haven’t any time for the labor agitators—Holland, Semple, Frazer and that crowd. They ■are always raking up trouble. But I voted Labor on principle—because I am a working man!” Now how many voters, without thinking the matter out did likewise? How many, without knowing what political programme they were voting for, what issues were involved; or into what hands they were really placing the destinies of the country, voted “Labor” because they were working men or women? That is why “Labor” is so dangerously misleading as a political label. It is an attempt to evoke class consciousness, which is had enough in any case, hut particularly deplorable where the classes cannot be defined.

It would be quite impossible to classify out all the workers with hand or brain on the one side and the nonworkers on the other. And even if it could be done it would be obviously unfair. In New Zealand we have practically no hereditary wealthy and leisured class. Those who are not do pendent for their living on personal exertion consist for the most part ol elderly people living on superannuation or pension—largely consisting of retired civil servants supplemented by those who, towards the close of an active and strenuous life, are enjoying that leisure for which they have worked hard. These, together with the old age and military and naval pensioners comprise the great bulk of the nonworkers in this country. They are by no means a class apart. Their interests are the interests of the whole community; their money is spent in the country in which it was made; and their political views are as diversified as their religions. They are a class—if they can be classified—which deserves well of their country, and add to its prosperity even though with them the period for personal exertion is passed, and they are therefore no longer “workers.” They suffer most directly and acutely by any rise in cost of living. Their income is fixed, or it may bo is reduced with depreciation in securities and falling off in returns from investments. They are the investors and small shareholders in industrial undertakings, and it is the obvious duty of the country to watch and protect their interests and not persecute them as drones in the hive and “capitalist exploiters.” Ho much for the non-work-ers.

When we come to the “workers” wo find even greater diversity in type, in environment, and in social and political outlook. The wide ramifications of “Labor” call for all sorts and conditions of men, all classes of intellect, and all grades of physical fitness and manual dexterity. The work done by the scientist in his laboratory, the managing director in his business office, and the laborer in the smithy are as widely dissimilar as the types of men who bold up their respective jobs. The scientific, technical and business side of industry is as essential as the manual labor side, but it is carried on hv a different class of men and women, working under different conditions, with different responsibilities, and with very often an entirely different outlook on life. The organiser, the thinker, even the. dreamer, are the mainsprings of industry. Their hours of work cannot be governed by any award, or their rate of wages fixed. So far as organised labor is concerned they are, and nlw avs must remain outsiders. But they are an integral part of “Labor” nevertheless and workers in the most complete sense of the word. Berton Bralcv asvs:

Back of the beating hammer By which the steel is wrought, Back of the workshop’s clamor 'flic seeker may find tlie Thought. The Thought that is ever master Of Iron, and steam aim otcei, That rises above disaster And tramples it under heel.

The drudge may fret and tinker, Or labor with lusty blows, But hack of Inn; stands the thinker, 'The clear-eyed man who knows. For into each plough or sabre Each piece and part and whole Must go the brain of labour, Which gives the work a soul.

Might of the roaring boiler, Force of the engine’s thrust Strength of the sweating toiler Greatly in these we trust; But back of them stands the schemer The thinker who puts things through, Back of the job—the Dreamer Who’s making the dream come true.

It is owing to the vast range covered by labor that the interests of one section mav.be widely different to those of another. Some workers are wage earners (with wages ranging from a few pounds a week to several thousands a year according to earning power); some are paid entirely by results; some partly by results. The farmer who knows he cannot possibly receive more than his land will produce, less the out-of-pocket cost of production has a different outlook to the a'rtizans who looks to h.is “employer” for the maximum wage he can demand, or to his Union and the Arbitration Court to force an increase of wages for reduced production. The professional man has a different outlook to the business man, and the business man sees things from a different angle to his typist, his clerk, or bis employees. Yet all are workers and their interest are very largely identical. They all depend on the development and prosperity of industry. Some have considerable wealth which may or may not be utilised as capital; some have little wealth and no capital beyond their physical fitness or acquired skill to render some service this community requires. Some again —and it is this class which comes specially under the domination of the, labor agitator—have neither capital nor have they the necessary skill or fitness to render their services in demand; they are the first to swell the ranks of the unemployed, lie cause they are economically unemployable and the problem of keeping them from poverty and destitution is a humanitarian rather than an industrial one. Fortunately this latter class is a comparatvely small one in New Zealand which is the country of ilie capitalist worker and the working capitalist. Anything, however, which tends to violently disorganise industry ends at once to increase this unfortunate class as is illustrated just now in Britain where 200.000 coal miners are reported to have been out of employment for years and are unlikely ever to he employed again in the only industry for which they are by training ntted. Even in New Zealand the fixing of artificial wages, i.e. -wages not based on production, and overtime, ana other restrictions have seriously affected some industries, with consequent unemployment. It has to he recognised mat problems cannot be dealt with by any one section of the workers, and that all sections collectively make up the forces of progress which are known as “Labor” or more correctly “Industrialism.” Labor is unrepresentable politically, as the workers include all schools of political thought. The party which can be most closely identified with it is the Liberal party owing to its wiclo humanitarian outlook, and its policy of securing the greatest good for the greatest number. Combined with this, however, the Liberal Party has to faco its responsibiltv to the people as a whole, and if it were to be identified solely with any one section of the community, it would cease to be a truly representative political party. Political Labor can only represent one section, and a small section of the workers. Probably, with the exceptions above referred to, 90 per cent, of the people of New Zealand are workers, “but only one in fifteen are unionists or organised workers. Yet we find a political party which is a mere offshoot of the labor unions polled some 186,000 votes at thu last election when an effective catch cry was that the only alternative to Reform was Labor. That has been disproved now, the circumstances cannot arise again, and no doubt at future elections the Liberal votes will go to the Liberal Party. But the past election should serve as a warning of the danger of allowing a false and mislead -

ing label to bo attached to any political party without challenge. The time has long passed when the terms “working men” or “working classes” were used to denote social and intellectual inferiority. They were, as a matter of fact never so used except by those whoso pretensions to gentility were questionable and who therefore hoped that stiff collars, frock coats, expensive dresses and an idle life would be taken as the ball mark of social superiority. The vulgar pretensions of the “new rich” have boon the cause of much of that bitterness of which the anarchist labor agitator has availed himself in the endeavour to bring about a "class war,” revolution and chaos. We are, in actual fact, practically all workers, and should be proud that this .is so, and that we are units in a class comprising the whole of those yho labor with their physical strength or intellectual power—a class comprising all ranks and qualifications. To endeavour to persuade the workers that they must necessarily bo Socialists, .•Communists, Anarchists or Red Feds, or that they must subordinate thenpolitical beliefs to a programme evolved by labor agitators and trades union officials is an insult, the more ridiculous when it is realized the numerous classes which “Labor” covers. I cannot do better than close with the trenchant remarks of M. Preston Stanley: “Think! Can you? Do You? Dare yoii ? Dare to have your own opinions about every matter of human importance, and for your own sake and the sake of those around you see to it that your opinon is really based on your own thinking.”