LABOUR'S POINT OF VIEW.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8465, 15 June 1907, Page 7

LABOUR'S POINT OF VIEW.

v (B,y_l)enK>s<) ,

LABOUR AND CAPITAL. 9 Jn venturing to describe my contributions to the Age as "Labour's Pointof View," I havfc, .no doubt, suggested that the >views which I ; shalLenunciat'e from time, to time, are -, those of the Labour .Party, and, pos- ' .sihly, I shall be told by various correspondents that my opinions, do not " "smack" of the tr"e.Labaur doctrine, , where they are found to differ from .the Labour-Socialist, whose views, ; I may .remark, no man can under- ; .stand, and who. as a matter,of fact. :; doesnot.know his own mind. This .observation may seem to be rather : far-fetched, but I am prepared to contend that it is within the mark ■when the demands of .the, Unions, as ; .a whole, are carefully .considered. If there is.one note in the voice of \ Labour more dominant than,another, jjkit'is this—that Capital, (or capitalists) , *""•?& the enemy -of Labour. Some .capitalists are .certainly .injurious to ; .the labouring man, because they ■ jure, practically, a * brake, on the ; IS wheel of progress 'in .which all classes of the community, as.a whole, are iritereated,; but what of the capitalist who has voluntarily in- ' veated his money in an .industry? But Jet us go back a little. What is JLaboW's pointoi .view? The Labour Party contains men of all sorts of Views, and, as a matter of.fact, it sbould contain all sqrts of men who are nevsr considered as being within the ranks of Labour. Who are the men who should be considered as be- ' Jonging to the ranks of Labour? Are they men who follow any particular Work, or QCCupation~~is the Labour Party comprised of Unions .whkh are really close corporations? These are questions which should be considered .by .every worker. Is a labourer one who earns a certain sum jper annum, or is he a worker who must belong to one of a, certain number of Uaions in order ,to ' qualify as a .unit in the Labour, Party? ! I find that I am rather at a dis-j advantage in the present article. cannot very w.eU .express any definite! opinions until I have asked a fewf; questions, and when I have asked a| ! few questions, the space at my dis- ; posal will be fairly well .utilised.! r- Consequently, I must reserve my ar- : f gumentß for future columns. But! , , there is one more question—is Capital i _ .invariably, the enemy of Labour? In i my next avticfd'. I hope- to point out, ' where Capital, is the enemy of Labour, :and where it isjts friend. I t abo hope to demonstrate to the mind at every ordinary and intelligent individual who may be .considered as coming within the rauks of Labour. ' But before discussing Labour and Capital, which I shall do more closely jn further contributions, I should like; to make i t clear that I am not wedded to political economy. Political economy is simply the science of wealth, or the Gospel of Mammon, jmd, although from that science statesmen learn much that is of infinite value to them, at the same time if any State were to enact laws and to administer them in strict accordance J with the Science of Wealth, its ( actions would be inhuman, cruel,; brutal, ancj degrading. National life would be' lowered, domestic life would be destroyed, and we should become merely human machines—we should cease to be men and , women. Not many years ago in thft Austral- «. Asian Parliaments and in the British Parliament it was generally considered as effective adverse criticism if it could be shown that a "popular" measuie was contrary to political economy, but we have advanced. Today there is not that constant cry that all Legislative acts should be i bused upon the Laws of Wealth. The modern statesman realises that Parliament should be humane and just, and that, though "man's inhumanity to man" may be very frequent, so far as individuals are concerned, it is the duty of Parliament to see that certain classes of the community are made in some measure to repay the obligations which they owe to other classes. No human mind will ever devise anything approaching perfect social laws, because Society, broadly speaking, cannot possibly be equity ably governed. Society itself, as a whole,: is the greatest possible condemnation of its own demands when viewed, in the stern light of justice • But,that is a question upon which I shall not trespass; at any rate, not upon the present occasion. I. will, however, say \ this—that the best which we can hope for in this new country is to avoid the awful of the social [| conditions which prevail in the Old Country. Are we going about the accomplishing of such an object in a proper,.way? I venture to say, "No." Are the demands of the Labour Unions calculated tojbring about the desired end ? Again 1 say, " No.' Mn replying in the negative to the second question just asked, I am chiefly influenced to do so owing to the conservative disposition of the Labour Unions. But I shall have to discuss all the queries I have put forward in future articles. The present one is merely "an opening;" the real debate will ' come later on. In my next article, however, 1 intend to refer to the Masterton Workers' League and to criticise the platform it has adopted.