WORKERS’ CONTROL OF INDUSTRY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 2594, 16 June 1923, Page 4

WORKERS’ CONTROL OF INDUSTRY.

ALLIANCE AND LABOUR PARTY POLICY.

The N.Z. Alliance of Labonr Constitution plainly declares for “control of all industries by the workers who operate them in the interests of the' community.” Whether it would be in the interest of the community is very doubtful, to say the least. The N.Z. Labour Party’s official platform says: “Where National ownership of an industry is effected, all labour for such industry and at least half the Board of Control in each case shall be appointed by the Union or Unions af - fected.” From these statements it is very clear that what these bodies aim at is control of all industries by the workers who operate them. MOVEMENT IN ENGLAND. One of the leading advocates of workers’ control in industry is Mr G. IT. D. Cole; and in a series of articles lie is at present writing for the I.L.P. organ, the “New Leader” on “Trade Unionism,” he discusses the question of control: —The purpose of trade unionism is—quite simply—workers’ control. And workers’ control means not just firing the boss, but doing his job for ourselves far better than he ever made ns do it for his profit. Mr Cole goes on to say that workers’ control must be the immediate objective of the unions. The shop stewards’ movement broke down because it had not the offirial support of the unions; we must make a new and far bigger shop stewards’ movement, says Mr Cole; but we must make it, not apart from the Unions or in spite of them, but by changing fundamentally the me-

thod and basis of trade union organisation. We must build for control, and the first step is to remake the unions after a fashion which will fit them for the assumption of authority in industry. That we shall achieve only by making control the definite objective of our movement, and getting the ideal of control accepted as a passion and a mission bv the mass of workers themselves. SOME SOCIALIST CRITICISM. The question ai'ises: Is workers’ control in industry practical? Can an organised adequate system of production be maintained under such a scheme of control as that proposed by Mr Cole and other Socialists? Perhaps the best people to answer this question are the Socialists themselves. If we -quote _Snnioliefe txra elm 11 fnlrl tllflf.

they suffer from bourgeois prejudices, or are dominated by “bourgeois ideology.” So we will let Socialists answer. The organ of the Social Democratic Federation, ‘Justice’ 5 April, referring to “the I.L.P. pronouncement in favour of Syndicalism and Pacifism,” says:—-Control of industries by the trade unions, even with associated committees of consumers, whose power of control would prove illusory, seems to me another distinct infringement of the Socialist principle . . . The trade interest and the common interest would be perennially in conflict. This cannot be socially advantageous, and is consequently immoral. Besides, the underlying causes which have led to the failure of the National Building Guild —(need I define them?) —will be operative for many generations yet and render impracticable any such scheme. We cannot afford to make experiments which'are-foredoomed to failure. Mr Ramsay Macdonald says on the same subject in his book “Syndicalism,” that: The workman is just as capable as the capitalist of keeping national interests and concerns constantly in front of him when he is working under conditions which make exploitation in his own interests easy, and which offer him every inducement to regard himself first and everyone else afterwards. An old experienced Socialist propagandist, Mr Robert Bin toll ford, reviewing Mr Henry Ford’s book: “My’ Life and Wiork,” in the Illustrated Siindny Herald, 8 April, says “I ani’ an old Socialist, and spent many years trying to find a way out of our industrial morass. Mr Ford lias found a better way . . . He has found in time what T found too late, that, the masses of the people, spoken of as the wage-earners, or the wage-slaves, or the workers, are a ■ . ... .1 • ,• . o

figment of the enthusiastic reformer’s brain. Democracy is described as the rule of the majority. But the faht is the majority do not want lo rule. They will not take the trouble; they are incapable of the elfort; they do not want to be “bothered.” What they do want is a fairly comfortable and not too laborious living, with plenty of simple pleasure and amusement. The masses are not ambitious. They prefer to be directed and led. On the question of committee rule, which the Socialists advocate, Mr Blatchford says : —We cannot succeed in war or business by a control of committees, not even committees of Fords and Foehs. The true way is to put the one Ford or the one'Foch in command. These Socialist views on workers’ control dispose of the plausible arguments of Mr Cole. Workers’ control in industry is impracticable.

LESSON FOE NEW ZEALAND. In our Dominion we iind business people; 1 educationalists, ekucrh people, people 1 interested in social reforms, shutting their eyes to the plain fact that what these Labour bodies want is not merely better conditions for the working operatives but to drive out of business all who are now engaged in it and to substitute control of the industries by the unions of workers. On grounds of sentimentality, abstract thinking and general dillettante faith

and impulse we find large numbers playing with the fires of revolutionary thought. The work of our League is to warn people that tire burns. If they fail lo understand we will at least have done our duty in making these things plain. (Contributed bf the New Zealand League.)