Rangitikei Advocate. MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9477, 21 June 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

IN turning'over the pages of “Britain for the British,” a work by Robert Blatohford, the Socialist, we came across which we propose to reproduce in a condensed form because it is of real interest to all who care anything about the prosperity of the country. It is often urged, says Mr Blatchford, that if the workers were more thrifty, sober and industrious they would be much better off than at present and there would be no need for the changes proposed by Socialists. This, however, is not the case-—“of 10,000 mechanics one is steadier, more industrious, and more skilful than the others. Therefore he will get work when the others cannot. But why? Because he is worth more as a workman, But don’t you see that if all the others were as good as he, he would not be worth more? That is to say, if all the workers were sohar and thrifty they would,all be of equal value to the employer.” Now the thrifty man can live on less than the extravagant man and oan therefore afford to work for less. All.employers are competing for cheap labour and anxious to lower wages and therefore wages will come down, and the steadiness of workers will make them poorer. Mr Blatohford goes on to;point out that it is said that Britain is losing her trade because foreign manufacturers oau undersell her owing to the superior sobriety and industry of foreign workers. “Thus,” said the editor of the Clarion, “if you were all teetotallers and all thrifty you could work for less wages than your employers now pay and so they would be able ,to sell their goods at a lower price than they oan now and thus they would keep the foreign trade.” He completes his case by stating the well known fact that Chinese and Hindoos the most sober and thrifty people in the world are the worst paid workers. The conclusion he arrives at is that if the workers were teetotallers, worked twelve hours a day and lived on oatmeal and water they would be worse off in twenty years than they are to-day. Hence the omy hope for workers is Socialism.

WE have no hesitation in saying that nine persons out of ten who study the above argument, at any rate in the extended form in which it appears in Mr Blatohford’s book, will find no reply to it although they may feel that the result arrived at is unsatisfactory. We propose to put forward some considerations which go to weaken the force of the contentions of Mr Blatohford. The wages that men will accept are largely determined by their standard of living, and the British workman at present refuses to allow his wages to fall below the point

which will allow him to have something to spend on beer and other luxuries. Mr Blafcchford contends that if once workmen took to saving their money or spending it on useful purposes instead of wasting it, the employers would immediately be able to force down wages so as to deprive the workers of all the balance above the bare cost of living. The chief cause, which keeps this action from being taken at present is the strength of the unions and the fear of strikes. We are asked to believe that employers would seek to depress wages at a time when profits had increased owing to the fact that the workers had become far more efficient than formerly owing to increased sobriety, better food and greater regularity at work. Assuming that this supposition in not altogether absurd, wo must refuse to believe that the influence of trade unions would diminish when owing to the thrift of their members no subscriptions were in arrear and every unionist had a little in the bank as provision against thejproverbial rainy day. Employers can now exert some pressure on their who have nothing laid by and who would be on the verge of starvation if out of work for a fortnight, but when all men were thrifty their position would be far stronger than now. At the worst if employers did not prove amenable to reason the w orkers being small capitalists would combine as has been done by the co-operators to start business for themselves and the aid of a competent manager compete with their old employers on equal terms. Hence we believe there is no foundation for the theory that sobriety and thrift would injure the worker, on the contrary we believe that they would vastly improve his position. But those who tell the worker that it is folly for him to save are always sure of a hearing from tiia less intelligent and from these the Socialist leaders make their converts.

THE people of New Zealand will he amazed to learn that Sir Joseph Ward thought it, necessary to go down to the wharf on Friday under the protection of a large force of police. The thought of the Prime Minister being smuggled on board the Manuka like an unpopular criminal, is not a pleasing one, and we regret that he did not risk running the gauntlet of a few hoots and hisses instead of snowing his lack of confidence in the people of Wellington. Sir Joseph Ward will fnd that ha has done himself and his party more harm by this one mistake than by all the others he has committed during his whole public career.