The Daily News. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1919. NATIONALISATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 November 1919, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1919. NATIONALISATION.

The evolution of the human race has exhibited many notable characteristics, especially along the line of personal gain, and the progress of civilisation, with its unfolding of new avenues of wealth j by the medium of industries, has been marked by a continual striving for increased profits derived from skilled and unskilled labor. There has also been an intense hankering for a royal road to fortune, resulting in an artificial existence. A common expression of modern times is: "There's no sentiment in business," meaning thereby that men are not straining and striving to build up large industries for the mere pleasure they take in the operation, but because it is the only way they can get wha't they want—money, position, power, or fame, writes the Round Table in an excellent article on the question of nationalisation. It is worth nothing that in industrial life, as in other fields of human action, it is the gradual permeation of activity by the altruistic spirit that constitutes improvement. Under the feudal system men were compelled to give service on such terms as were dictated by the overlords. Those times have long since passed, and the masses have fought for and obtained their freedom. It has taken many centuries of hard toil, under conditions that afforded little recompense and a dreary outlook of betterment, for the workers to realise their power. Education and the boon of a free press have gradually done their uplifting Avork—imperfect as the results may yet be. To-day Labor is organised and become a force that needs skilled handling if it is not to become disruptive, and if uninspired with the idea of public service. No one can contend that this spirit is yet sufficiently developed in mankind to stand by itself as the basis of industry, though it can perform wonders in times of crisis, as the history of the last five years testifies. Hence the demand for nationalisation as a solution of the industrial problem. During the time of evolution the population of the world has grown enormously, and it is obvious that the more people there are to be supported in moderate 1 comfort, the Store intense must

production be, in order to satisfy not only the immediate wants of the community, but also a margin out of which increasing production can be built. The incentive to production is profit—whether it be labor or capital; for a system without profit cannot expand in a ratio that will harmonise with the increase in population. The division of the profits of industry is the bone of contention between employers and workers, the first grievance being that some, at least, of the workers, do not receive a "living wage." That trouble may now be regarded as solved by means of awards and concessions. The second grievance, however, though less acute, is far more difficult to arrange, for it concerns the amount of profit that the workers should receive over arid above the living wage. Admitting that in so far as the profits of industry go to support in idleness people who would otherwise be usefully employed, or to provide extravagant personal expenditure of the few, or to the accumulation of millions at the expense of the workers, they might as well, if not better, have been divided among the producers. At the same time capital is as necessary an ingredient in production as labor, and whether it be the capitalist or the State, is entitled to its fair share of profits and a just return on expenditure for equipment and management. That, concludes the Bound Table, nationalisation would put an end to disputes as to the distribution of profits is self-evident, because all surplus would go to the State. Would the workers benefit thereby? Most probably not. All the evidence shows that State-owned services can be performed much more cheaply to the users by private enterprise. It must also be remembered that profit is the stimulant of competition. Nationalisation would certainly kill the incentive to profit-making, and in so doing destroy the mainspring of production. The only sensible solution of this problem appears to be "profit sharing," and it is in this direction that the aims of Labor should look. Under such a system no worker would be allowed by his fellows to do as little as he pleased, for they would all be interested in profit-making, and it would be conducive to discipline, to co-operative effort, and to keen management. Unless profit remains the mainspring of industry it will be a bad outlook for the workers, whose best interests would be served by profit sharing and not by nationalisation.