Away with Arbitration.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 11, 19 May 1911, Page 8

Away with Arbitration.

■ a With Incidental Reference to Edwcrd Tregeer's Defence.

We must get rid of compulsory arbitration. It is not a sound Working-class weapon. It spells disaster. It is | crippling us. The Arbitration. Acts- of Australasia have, been weighed in the balances and found wanting. They have been tested by Time, and already are obsolete, i Tho Working-class has moved beyond them. They are the satellites of the ruling class. Industrial Arbitration has stood for industrial peace , , for identity of inter- j est between employer and employee, j for the perpetuation of the prowni economic system. Standing for these tilings it has blunted the edge of the Class Struggle, sapped the fighting spirit of the men of labor, led to the surrender of the bloodily-won right to cease work when Oppression kicked. It was cunning, was that process of reasoning which made tho Worker believe in "industrial peace," harmony between Capital and Labor, mending Capitalism. Amazing deception \ There could never be peace between Labor and Capital, inasmuch as their co-existence implies want on the one hand and wealth on the other. Industrial peace, under Capitalism, is the baseless fabric of a nightmare. And what says the poet: — Peac between Capital and Labour, is that all you ask? Is peace the only thing , needful? There was peace* enough in negro slavThore is a peaco of life and another of death, It is well to rise above violence, It is well to rise superior to anger. , Bat if peace meaJis final acquiescence in wrong—it your aim is lese than justice and peace, forever one—then. your

The Arbitration that was to end industrial war failed (fortunately) in its •'great expectations." To the extent that it succeeded it weakened Work-ing-class organisation. In the endeavor to end the '"brutal and barbarous strike" (as if the injustice behind the strike was not the greater brutality and barbarity)— Arbitration has broken down. Cirt of its own claims is its impotency demonstrated. But, from the true Working-class viewpoint industrial war is devoutly to be wished. Under Capitalism. In "peace" is flabbiness, apathy, degeneration. The Workers advance to their own, resist encroachment, move onward, by War. Mr. Treg-ear's point as to the analogy between industrial arbitration and international arbitration i.s neither apt nor convincing. We do not admit the analogy—the things are different. Consider the folly of suggesting arbitration as better than political war, or than the Avar of principle ? At the same time, International Arbitration is so barren and useless, so hypocritical and capitalistic, that it 73 not a working-class proposal at all. It has not prevented war, and will prevent no war unless capitalistic interests are better served by bargaining than by fighting. With all the talk of International Arbitration, the great nations are busy spending a thousand pounds every minute in preparing for war. The real hope for and sign of peace is working-clasl war against war: the Workers'" proposal is to stop war by the general strike. This is the spreading preventative. On his own argument, we have Mr. Tregear there. Tho strike is going to bo stronger than international arbitration-—has been stronger and shall be stronger than -industrial arbitration. Which brings us to emphasising the most insidious and dangerous menace in arbitration. It is arbitration's making of the strike unlawful and criminal. Arbitration logically results in the stoppage of the strike and the felonising of the striker. In this it is a curse of curses. Prohibit the right to leave work whatever bo the rotten conditions of employment, make it compulsory for men to stick to their toil be it positively harmful to limb r.rd life, or destructive of manhood, and then — Serfdom Resurgent, or Chattel slavery germinating for another reign of terror. This surrendering of the right to strike has not yet been gripped in all its devastating implications. If striking is barbarous, working when one ought to strike is individual and class destruction. All working-class progress lias come of "the strike. In essence, in inspira--1 tion, and in impulse.

Read Jaures words (page 14). Tlie right to strike is vital. But arbitration in Australia lia« taken away that right. Remember Newcastle ! The striker 'became a criminal and was jailed. Even if the strike be not desired nor admired, yet in case some day your disbeliever in it may want to resort "to it—and because of the protectiveness GATNED BY HOLDING IT IN RESERVE he will be thousand times a fool if he surrenders his last stand-by to his •enemy. Mr. Tregear seems to say that the return to Parliament of Labor representatives, and consequent passage of sister-Acts to the Arbitration Act, would make arbitration workable and beneficial. But wo remind him there would still remain the Gibraltar-like barrier of "the dangerous and perishing machinery of the competitive system." This is the enemy, and not "fallible human beings." Only when these latter concentrate on removing a cause, and leave effects alone, can the Workers be benefited. Now, in Australia the Workers have done that which Mr. Tregear wants them to do here, and, presto ! Labor-in-power uses Arbitration to buttress wage slavery. The strike is made punitive and penal. Read a cable from Sydney of May 10: "Mr. Verran, Premier of South Australia, is visitng Sydney. In an interview and referring to the Renmark labour troubles, be saJd that the policy of his Government was straight itoa compulsory arbitration. He liad no svmp-ithy for unions that preferred revolutionary tactics. The Government < infrMi-ded to introduce a Compulsory, Aibitration Bill. The principal provision vouVl be to make every union and every Association of employers register under the new law. Once Parliament says that all industrial disputes ;nust be decided by law, then strikers will be treated the ■same as any oth&r law-breaker. J- Hβ opposition to labour legislation. So, it is apparent that a Labor representation which endorses compulsory arbitration may out-Herod Herod in its baneful application. We may agree with M. Jaures in his insistence on the need of the representation of organised workers in the government of the country, but, lest Jaures be quoted in favor of Mr. Tregear, we haeten to remind our critics that between Jaures aud Tregear is this important difference—the first presents Labor representation as an alternative to compulsory arbitration, while the second presents it as an accessory and adjunct. Affirm the critic still that arbitration would be a good thing if" administered properly and we reply that it could only be administered properly by

• revolutionary working-class Cabinet Snd Parliament and Court, and wlicn tvo have got these wo shall as easily abolish tho present iniquitous competitive system as amend Arbitration. Any ether administration than abolition must fail: as a matter of fact, while capitalism is entrenched behind »11 onr social and legal institutions, neither legislation nor administration can bo fundamentally curative. Back ©f the Parliament that "amends; , is the Judge and Court which emasculate. Therefore, the workers should ORGANISE NOT TO MEND I.LT TO END WAGE-SLAVERY, recognising that only with their supremacy as », class will exploitation disappear. 'Arbitration cannot end exploitation. Its success from the capitalist point of view means its failure from the workers' point of view. Not Judge Sim alone is hopeless (and he is helpless, after all, for economic reasons) but so sympathetic a. Judgo as Australian Commonwealth Judge Higgins is equally hopeless, in that getting £3000 a year hi.-meif lie sets down a worker's "living v r.y.e ,, at 7s per day. Lesson blazing lore for thee, O blinded toiler. Tested by experience it is obvious, to say the least, that arbitration has not materially increased the powers ©f the workers in matters concerning hours, conditions or wages. But had it been "successful," it could not have done so. Aware of maiiy of the abstract arguments for thu srajsrcrri/E of Arbitration, we yet claim arbitration as unworkable under present conditions, and wonder why the workers ever anticipated benefit from it. Sympathetic administration, we repeat, could only make arbitration a splendid prop "of capitalism. This isn't Baying that there is not a case to be made out for arbitration. It is saying that, however strong such a case, the iaso against is more powerful, and from the emancipatory standpoint positively unanswerable. This Aye believe Mr. Tregear recognises. Though we do not concur with iiis "UNTIL" we note its tremendous concession. We are of those ' i c aalIy and practically determined to end the system of competitive wage-earn-ing," and sco nothing for it but telling the workers the whole truth about an illusive, delusive and impossible arbitration. We would that Mr. Tregear would march on with vs —for I»ist the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within, They enslave their children's children who make compromise with sin. Fivo or six years ago Mr. l>. McLaren, M.P., wrote something which was true then but truer now. In the '•"NT .'/.. Eeacoiv' he said: r 'T!io Labor leader wJio tells his fellows .that the struggle with capitalism is anythin.gr else than ' r oruel war" is either a traitor or a coward, and which ever it be lie ought to l>3 retired. I know that somo of my fellow-unioniste m New Zealand believe that, while it is absolutely dangerous to join with the forces of capitalism in the field of industry, it is quite a safe thing in. the field of politics; but I cannot agreewith them, as I have never learnt that there is any distinct line of demarcation between politics and industrialism. To Labor I say. We must get our own g-unw; carry on. our own negotiations; ilg'ht our own ba.ltles and secure our own rights and privileges—for only thus will they ever be secured. The ulterior object of the Arbitration Act, I sub-mit, is to keep the trade unionists as quiet as possible, so that the industries of tho colony in ay supply regular and continuous profits to those who havo invested their capital therein, and the Act is bo framed and administered so as to keep in existence a largo standing army of non-unionists to prevent any serious outbreaks on the part of Labor agitators. I woiild define, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act a»s —"An Act for the special protection of employers and encouragement of non-unionism in New Zealand." Repeat on top of this the following •weighty declaration—repeat it twenty times, please: "The only sure tactics are to fight unceasingly, to keep the Bpirit of revolt ever awake in thr» workingman, and never to acknowledge satisfaction—for how can tho laborer ever be satisfied bo long as his labor is exploited. . . . Repeated strikes are. for the proletariat a powerful

medium of education, an excellent practice for action."—M. Delesalle. Yes, wo must get rid of legalised arbitration. In upholding it we tacitly admit the permanence of capitalism. We virtually agree upon the right of capitalism to exploit when we are prepared to arbitrate as to the degree of the exploitation, an admission which unerringly finds its expression, at the ballot box, and to this extent destroys the aspiration for the Social Revolution. What have the workers demanding the full product of their labor to do with an institution whoso determining factor is profits; with an institution that is merely an extension of that legal tribunal which is capitalist-made. Under the influence of arbitration men drift into indifference and apathy sink into inertia, in relation to their class position and advancement. Selfreliance is undermined. A Court is leant upon, a, Judge depended upon. Men forget that anything worth having is. never given, but has always to be wrung from the oppressor. In much the same way as the serf went to his owner, so the workers under arbitration go to a member of tho capitalist class for justice, and are thus dependent upon capitalist ideas of justice. They have been taught to do this, rather than to trust to their own pristine might and right, and doing it they have not only gained nothing, but lost much they won in the days when they were ready to fight. " Let unionists declare war upon a chloroforming arbitration, never surrender their right to strike nor any other right, understanding that between robber and robbed there is nothing to arbitrate over ; that Arbitration at its best doesn't copo with unemployment, and tiie deprivation of food, shelter and clothing to numbers of the proletariat ; that they must fight their own battles, and fight them i:i fulfilment of their historic mission to be the next ruling class and instrument of upbuilding a New Order. Not arbitration, but Industrial m Unionism, is the need, is the remedy. And so, against the former and perseveringly for the latter the Industrialists and Socialists tramp as armies tramp. They sound a trumpet blast. They beat tho tocsin. They call the warning: Away with Arbitration.