MUNICIPAL REVOLUTION.
ITo VIZ EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.") Sia,—I have read with great interest Mr. Lansbury's letter in your issue of October 15th on the subject of "Municipal Revolution." I think we shall all recognize Mr. Lansbury's disinterested and whole-hearted desire to bring about an improvement in the conditions of life of the people of Poplar, to whose interests the greater part of his life has been devoted. He wants to protect the workman against the ever-recurring danger of unemployment, and he wants " to get rid of the luxuries of' the rich and the penurious poverty of the poor." But it does not seem to me that he gives us any really practical advice as to the remedy. Obviously, in the first place, we must get the wheels of industry in motion again, or " reductions of staff " will continue until the situation becomes more and more grave. We must also increase the productivity of industry, and this can only be done if employers and workmen can both succeed in getting rid of the causes which give rise to suspicion on both sides, and arrive at an understanding as to what is a fair profit and what wages the industry can be expected to bear. Mr. Lansbury quotes Lenin's dictum: " To get more we must produce more; to produce more we must know more." This is obviously true, and it is good to know that such a conviction has been publicly expressed by the pioneer of the Bolshevik revolution, but what has Lenin done to bring about this desired result? Surely the outcome of his action has been the destruction of both capital and the brains- required for management and organization, so that production in Russia has for the time almost entirely ceased.
Again, it is idle in the present crisis to talk of removing wealth from the rich and handing it over to the poor. There must be some remuneration for capital, for organization and management, and for labour, and if we are to encourage initiative and creative imagination we must allow such remuneration to be adequate for the purpbse. We cannot compel production unless we resort to out-and-out Communism, the result of which in Russia I hardly think Mr. Lansbury can believe to have been really beneficial to any section of the &immunity, except perhaps those who have profited temporarily by the plunder of wealth. I believe capital has got to realize that no business will succeed if the workmen are kept in ignorance of the financial position and a disregard is shown for their legitimate claims and interests. On the other hand, Labour must be able to show an intelligent appreciation of the position, and must be prepared to modify their demands and accept a lower wage temporarily in order that the cost of production may be kept down. Failure to recognize these essentials is largely responsible for the present situation, which now requires urgent provisional measures.
Where it is necessary to give relief as a temporary expedient Mr. Lansbury will no doubt agree that it must not be on such a scale as to tempt the recipient to abandon his efforts to obtain work. As to what is actually essential, this is largely a matter for the medical officer, who should advise what amount, having regard to the present purchasing power of the £, is required to enable each particular family to obtain sufficient sustenance. It must not be forgotten that every penny spent in relief involves a heavier drain on the deplenished resources of the nation as a whole, and it mal-er it more and more difficult to recover the ground lost. Mr. Lansbury's reference to the payment of large sums of money ..o people to be idle or sit on committees does not seem to be practical politics. Every one should receive payment in accordance with services rendered, and a reasonable interest on money advanced as capital should be included in this category, otherwise there will be no induce- ment to save and invest, and thereby build up hew productive wealth. Inordinate profits or excessive wages are both equally to be condemned, and if allowed to continue will both equally lead to disaster, as recent events have shown. I would suggest, however, that at a time when thoughtful men in the ranks of both Capital and Labour are earnestly striving to arrive at a better understanding, Mr. Lansbury is not furthering the true interests of those whom he desires to benefit by proposing a short cut to the solution of our present troubles which must inevitably prove to be illusory and make confusion worse
Previous page
