NATIONALIZATION.
THOUGH we object to the problem of the nationaliza- tion of the coal-mining industry being settled while a loaded pistol is held at the head of the State and the
question is mixed up with half-a-dozen other problems, it must not be supposed that we do not see the advantages
which can be claimed for a policy of nationalization of the coal-mines. In the abstract they are enormously strong. No doubt if nationalization were carried out on scientific lines, and with real efficiency of organization, an enormous amount of waste caused by the middleman and by such mal- administration as the use of private wagons—a piece of individualism run mad for which there is little excuse— could be prevented. Great saving could be effected by the use of an improved and properly thought out system of distribution ; by the imperative allocation, as is now taking place, of the coal mined in a particular district to the factories at work in that district ; by the use of new and improved machinery, underground and above ; and by the intercommunication and co-operation of one mine with another. Last, but most important of all, enormous saving might be effected by a system of converting coal at the pit's mouth into electric energy, and then distributing it not by trucks but by cables to those who wanted the power. In connexion with this development we should refuse to send up the chimney to poison the air waste products worth hundreds of millions, but should eliminate the waste products before or during the generation of the electricity at the pit's mouth. But this is not all that nationalization if conducted on sound lines could do for us. If properly arranged, even while paying a good profit to the State, it would give higher wages to the miners and cheaper coal to the users of coal. It would allow for the accumulation of great stores of coal which would not only prevent undue fluctuations of price, but also prevent men being thrown out of work in the summer season or unduly hustled later. Again, nationalization should, if properly worked, render strikes impossible, and it should ultimately ensure an ample provision of good houses and good surroundings.
Yet though no one can deny that these things could and might come from nationalization, who will dare to say that, human nature being what it is, and especially bureaucratic human nature and labour human nature, we are at all likely in practice to get these ideals carried out ? We look at the example of the Post Office and the Telephones, and even of the War Office and the Admiralty, and turn sadly away with the thought of what fine ideals have been ruined by the Government stroke," by the petty and tyrannous ideas of mean-minded officials, by the jealousies of Depart- ments and the corruption of politicians, and by their willingness to obtain the suffrages of the electors by promising anything and everything to some organized minority anxious to get Government sanction for this or that commercial or industrial job—a job which, though it will be very bad policy for the nation, will be exceedingly paying and convenient for Little Ped- lington, or at any rate for Little Pedlington's leading citizens.
But we most not end on a note of pessimism. We are still optimistic enough to think that it might be possible in certain circumstances, and especially in so vital a case as that of the mines, in which all can see the necessity for economy and caution mixed with the sense of enterprise and progress, to work an industry under nationalization in such a way that it would not be a hideous scandal or a mere derision. People might, we believe, be induced to feel that the mining of coal was too serious a matter to be trifled with, that it was worth paying really good salaries to get the best men to run it, and that success in running the industry should be as well rewarded in public recogni- tion as, let us say, the successful manipulation of votes in the country and the coupling up of antagonistic groups in the House of Commons.
As a footnote to our attempt to show the " pros " and "cons" of nationalization we must find space to allude to a set of circumstances that are generally ignored in public discussions of the coal problem. There is a story of a witty Italian economist gravely asking a French colleague whether he had ever seen a consumer. Such a person or persons must, he thought, exist, but there was very little to be found about him in the modern books, and at all events he never made himself vehemently audible or
visible as did the producer. He was not, like the producer, to be found at emery street-corner and in every hedgerow,
and it seemed doubtful to him, the economist proceeded, Whether the consumer was not a mere phantom of the brain of the professors of political economy. We are bound to say it is astonishing how little we have heard of
late of the coal consumer, for it must be remembered that the employer or capitalist is a coal producer exactly as is
the miner. Though they may differ greatly as to the proportions in which the profits of the inevitable partner- ship are divided, they are both, when the coal conies to market, " agin " the consumer. Save in the case of the ironmasters, who so often have mines of their own, the consumer only flitted every now and then across the Commission room. And yet we cannot help thinking that this vague and unhappy phantom, whether he wants coal to warns his own poor bones, to cook his porridge, to bake his bread, or to roast his mutton, or again to boil the water for his bath or to wash his clothes, or to make the bricks for his house or the clothes for his back, deserves some hearing, if not indeed some little pity.
After all, and when all is said and done, is not the primal object of mining to get motive-power, warming-power, illuminating-power, as cheaply as it possibly may he got in order that mankind may have a sufficiency of all the good things that conic from coal ? When we say "as cheaply as possible" we do not mean that the cheap- ness is to be all on the side of the consumer. To get things really cheap it can never be wise to starve those who produce them, to give them dog-kennels to live in, or to make their lives so little attractive that they have little heart to think of anything but how to defeat or destroy their employers, or at any rate the man next above them in the social scale. "As cheap as possible "does not mean sweating either men or managers, but only, once more to use Lord Leverhulme's phrase, sweating machinery and dead capital, capital which is lent without risk —i.e., mortgage capital. These are the things we want, and if we can get them better and quicker by nationalization, then, in Heaven's name, let us have nationalization. But can we ?
But a truce to argument, for maybe the lists are already set and nothing can stop the combat to the bitter end. Still, let us remember two things. First, the miners have every right to get all they can in the way of wages and
of the general betterment of life, and he who denies them that right is infringing their just liberties. But while we
remember this let us remember also that no man, and no section of men, has the right to force the hand of the State, or to make it take action except by means of the vote. Citizens of the State, whether they be mine-owners or mine- workers, have the right to convert the rest of the voters to their way of thinking. When they do so and can get a majority, State action, whether sound or unsound in policy, is morally justified. Till, however, they can obtain that majority, and obtain it not by blackmail or any other form
of terrorizing but by a change of heart, if they try to force their claim they are bad citizens. Even though they may have a temporary triumph, they will some day or other receive the doom which falls on all who make themselves the enemies of the State.
Previous page
