LABOUR MUST CHOOSE.
MR. FRANK HODGES has recently made a handsome acknowledgment that Labour took the wrong turning in trying to impose a policy—the policy of the mining "pool "—on the country by means of industrial shock. In his speech he pointed to the ballot box as the proper means of conquest. He attributed all the sorrows and sufferings of the miners to the obstinacy and folly of what he calls "the Ablett mentality." All this was a very strange confession, though a very welcome one. It seems that Mr. Hodges, Mr. Herbert Smith, and other moderates were convinced all along that the policy of the pool was disastrous, and all they wanted was a satis- factory wages settlement which might have been had at any time. Unfortunately, there was a tiny majority—it may have been only a margin of two votes—of extremists on the executive of the Miners' Federation. Unfortunately also, there were many extremists in the delegate conference, for these delegates are chosen by the miners' lodges, where voting is notoriously slack and determined minorities can frequently, if not usually, get their way. The result was that when Mr. Hodges and his moderate colleagues were telling us that they were out for a fight to the death to win the principle of the pool, they were speaking on behalf of a cause in which they did not believe. Of course, something may be said in extenuation of their action on the ground that individual members of any group or party must speak the mind of the majority. But it is surely carrying that principle much too far to apply it to such a vital issue as an attempt to paralyse the country for a cause dictated by a tiny majority who were apparently not even representative. We earnestly hope that Labour leaders for their own sake will recognize that this was not a proceeding which has commended itself to the country. The country was misled, and it is no exaggeration to say that Englishmen do not like being misled, and harbour resentment against those who mislead them.
Now that all these facts are known we are bound to say that a well-remembered speech which Mr. Lloyd George made on March 23rd to the Coalition New Members Group seems to us to have been exactly justified. In the House of Commons on Thursday, July 7th, Lord Robert Cecil, referring to that speech, hotly blamed Mr. Lloyd George for having made an attack on the working men of the country at a critical stage of the miners' dispute. Mr. Lloyd George at once protested. Lord Robert Cecil retorted that an attack had certainly been made on the " electorate " of the Labour Party. Lord Robert Cecil must have meant the hand-workers as a whole. But Mr. Lloyd George succeeded in showing, to our satisfaction at all events, that he had attacked only the "Labour Party." In the March speech he mentioned various moderate Labour leaders by name, and pointed out that moderate though they no doubt were in conviction, it was useless to trust to their moderation when they were pushed into extreme cour es by wild men behind them. The justification of Mr. Lloyd George's warning has surely, as we have said, been amply given by the revelations made by Mr. Hodges. We cannot think why Lord Robert Cecil should have chosen the debate on the settlement of the coal dispute as an appropriate opportunity for blaming the Prime Minister. Even if the Prime Minister seemed to be unduly provo- cative at tlee time, very few people will be found now to Bay that he did not accurately judge the whole situation.
With the complete and admitted breakdown of industrial action, the time has come for the Labour leaders to choose their new course. We sincerely hope that they will not think that any purpose will be served by trying again to ride two horses at once, and by making popular speeches to uninstructed audiences about the wickedness of capital- ism. The .word " capitalism " is used for popular con- eumption in we know not how many different senses. It has become a mere term of abuse which is cheered by people who do not or cannot think. Yet Capitalism is as old as the history of organized society. Every one ii a capitalist who has a share or an interest in a working company. Every one is a capitalist who owns anything, or pays anyone else to do any kind of job for him. Manual workers are themselves capitalists. If they do not own shares which they can buy in the open market or which most private employers would be delighted to sell to them, they are capitalists through the contributions which they make to the sources of production by means of their own energy. No better system than what is loosely called " capitalism " has ever been invented for uniting the forces which produce and distribute wealth. Under capitalism the hand-worker has during the past 200 years grown out of all knowledge of his former self in the steady improvement of his conditions of living and. his political power. The plain implication of the acknowledgment which has just been made that Direct Action has failed is that Labour in its own interests must come to terms willingly with Capitalism. Even if capitalism had not the virtues which we see in it, it would still be the only means of regen- eration, because it holds the field. If the Labour leaders want to behave like men bereft of all statesmanship they will go on provoking applause here and applause there by abuse of capitalism. They will encourage their followers to follow the policy of "ca' canny" and to prevent un- employment by restricting production, and they will end by finding wages continually reduced by the steady spread of scarcity. If, on the other hand, they want to behave with statesmanship and in accordance with the real con- victions of men like Mr. Hodges, Mr. J. H. Thomas (who has just received an overwhelming vote of confidence from his unions), Mr. Clynes, and others, they will announce in no uncertain terms that while they arc out for the best wages they can possibly secure—and good luck to them ! —they recognize that trade will never recover till employers and employed sit down together as friends and talk things over together, brain reinforcing labour and labour brain, for all that they are worth. This is the only way to pros- perity for all. The two roads are easy to distinguish and easy to describe. Labour must choose now which way it is going to take.
Previous page
