THE PATH OF PROGRESS.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 555, 2 April 1913, Page 3

THE PATH OF PROGRESS.

By C H. Chapman. A cause of constant disheartenment and regret' to earnest workers for humanity is the ease with which opponents of the Labour movement manage to detach large numbers from the ranks of organised Labour and divert their progress by numerous and spec! ous schemes and proposals. Progressive parties are particularly liable to dsintegration from causes which cannot affect conservative parties and i which from the nature of the case do j not affect parties standing for privilege and institutions which support privilege. The personal interests of capitalists are so great individually and their numbers so small comparatively that, recognising easily how a certain policy will augment or deplete his banking account by so many hundreds or thousands of pounds, unless the capitalist himself has developed a keen regard for the public as against his own personal interests, there is no doubt in which direction hisinfluence will be used. Added to this is the fact that the capitalist is indifferent as to what use his capital is placed—that being determined by the highest return obtainable—he may be landowner, banker, or may finance private or public undertakings. The capitalist financing a brewery is perfectly well aware that his interests, in so far as they are based upon getting the biggest possible return from the labour .which is using his capital are to the interests of the capitalist financing steamship lines, farming operations, or manufacturing concerns.

The thing is so simple and is translated so easily into pounds, shillings and pence that only on rare occasions is anything but a united front shown by capitalists when important matters of policy are being considered. For instance, capitalists generally are opposed to trades unions (except of an emasculated kind) and favour assisted immigration which promises cheap labour, and are opposed to anything which tends to improve labour's bargaining power which may be affected by regulating the supply of labour available.

An understanding of this unity of interest enables us to appreciate the enthusiasm with which the capitalist press congratulates any body of employers who, when there is a dispute with their workpeople, are successful ion replacing strikers with blacklegs. It also explains the joy evinced when labour at th 9 polls receives a temporary check. Labour principles and policy are better appreciated—and on that account feared—by the average capitalist than by the workers. It is realised that the substitution of public control for private enterprise, were such enterprise has proved detrimental to the people, undermines the power of those whose income is derived from rent, interest or dividends, or swollen as a result of squeezing and underpaying. Labour, or by the cornering and controlling of necessities and consequent bleeding of the public by high prices; and that anything which makes for a better understanding between work people of varied occupations lessens the power of the capitalist to use the workers as mere tools in the production of wealth. The institutions supporting capitalism are legion. Grudgingly capital pays its actual producers, however productive their brains or labour, for services rendered; but on those who will protect its privileges and strengthen it in itß exploitation of nations it will bestow wealth and power without stint, the high places in Government, rich livings in the church, principal posts in the army and navy, and so on, being for those who will oppose progress and resist the demands made by the workers for a greater share of the good things they produce. The class feeling is manifest. Any tendency towards democratic ideas may he followed by the renegade being excluded from "gentlemen's" clubs —a recent notable instance being that of Baron De Forrest, who was cabled as being black balled from an aristocratic club. How does this bear on the recent Unity Conference? you may ask. In this way: To protect their interests, maintain their wages and to improve their bargaining power with the employers, and 'opposed to the instiutions of capitalism the workers have had trade unions and political parties. With few exceptions the unions have contented themselves with striving for slightly higher wages and slightly reduced hours. Except in very few instances only moderate success has been attained in either direction. This is equally true of unions which have pinned their faith on either Arbitration Court procedure or the more voluntary and sometimes drastic action following their disregarding of the court.

The resalt has, in the long run, been much the same. Capitalism has triumphed even when from expediency better conditions have been given to any set of workers. It has "made even" by raising prices to the consumers and still retains its powers to exploit, and waxes rich at he expense of all the workers.

Owing to their numbers, diversity of employment, jealousies fostered by their masters' press, differences of religion and nationality, personal enthusiasms leading sometimes to narrowness and intolerance, lack of confidence in themselves, want of experience of their leaders, the profusion of panaceas offered them by wellmeaning persons, indecision as to

which proposal for emancipation shall be given precedence, non-recognition of the great truth that the interest of one man who has his labour to sell are similar to others who have a similar commodity to dispose of—the particular direction or purpose of that labour being, generally speaking, a secondary (matters—and the fact that Labour is dependent on the Capitalist press for its information of men and happenings—this information being' coloured or suppressed to protect those who pay for its upkeep tL- workers have always been an easy prey to the exploiting class. All these things are obstacles which Labour has to surmount and will overcome. The recent conference is remarkable for several things. FirHt in order of importance I place that desire for unity which was so evident among the delegates. I have attended quite a number of conferences during the past seventeen years, and. with the exception of the 1896 international, at which I had the honour of being a delegate, I would place the January conference of New Zealand Labour as one at which it was most desirable to be present. Though not a delegate I wasjn close touch with many who were, and am convinced that practically all the delegates had recognised the obstacles and realised that anything less than unity on a workable basis wouln merely mean wasted time and effort. The basis is eminently practical. Its general adoption should leave malcontents in a hopeless minority, powerless to harm or prevent a rapid march forward of the whole of the Labour forces. Labour united will lose nine-tenths of its prejudices, can secure its own means of information, will learn its unity of interests, and, with the knowledge gained by its coming together realise that "Unity" is an other milestone on the Path of Progress.