TOPICS OF THE DAY.
IF LABOUR WINS. THOUGH we regret a touch of bitterness in the tone in which Mr. Lloyd George spoke of the Labour Party at the meeting of the new Members' Coalition Group just before the Easter holidays, we are entirely with the general propositions upon which the speech is based. We hold with Mr. Lloyd George that it is most undesirable that the country should be divided into two political classes—one containing all the " haves " and the other all the " have note." We do not, however, believe that this division by purses or bank accounts will ever take place. There will always be millions of men and women who, though poor when judged by their worldly possessions, are yet naturally conservative and opposed not merely to revolution and disorder, but to any attempt to substitute Socialism or Communism for the present so-called Capitalist system. The Capitalist system means liberty for the individual to make his own terms as to the exchange of anything in his possession or control for which there is a demand. Again, there will always be plenty of people among the well-to-do, and even among the rich, whose fancies, or sentiments, or emotions, or—and this is by no means an unimportant point—whose ambitions will lead them to throw in their lot with Socialist or Com- munist organizations. The intellectuals, meaninae thereby not the men of greatest intelligence but a particular type of educated men—the men with restless brains, and, above all, that very large class of people who can think a thing half out but never think it out to a finish, will always desire to associate themselves with the policy of revolution. The mere name " Revolution " attracts some people just as a mixture of beer and sugar attracts wasps. Again, there are the hirelings of politics who will always offer their services or their swords to anyone who can pay for them. As Lenin and Trotsky have found, if you once get into the seats of the mighty and hold the public purse, you will never lack people to be your helpers and servers, whether they are Letts, or Chinese, or home-grown wor- shippers of power. Finally, there are always those who are determined at all costs to back the winner, and whose ignorance, whose fears, and whose depraved minds lead them to arguments of this kind : " It stands to reason that the people who have not got much money and see others with a good deal will want to have it. But the ' have nots ' are a majority. Therefore, sooner or later the ' have note' are going to win. Now I am going to be on the side of the winners whatever happens. Therefore, come what may, I've got to be on the side of the Proletariat." For the reasons just given we are convinced that we are not going to have a division between the rich and the poor. What we are going to have is something very different. We are going to have a division between Revo- lutionaries and Anti-Revolutionaries. On one side stand the people who are determined that if an upheaval comes it shall come only by legal and constitutional methods, and, above all, by the Will of the Majority. Opposite stand the people who, following Lenin and Trotsky and the Russian Communists, declare that the Proletariat, by which they mean themselves and their own followers, are the natural leaders of mankind, and that for the good of mankind they must rule whether they are in a majority or a minority. They consider revolution to be a thing good in itself, and they are revolutionaries. Therefore they must inherit the political earth. But since revolutions can come only by force, they must use force. When a minority knows better than a majority, they must compel the majority to hold the wiser view. Of course there is nothing new in all this. Robespierre and Saint-Just preached it and practised it quite as strongly as Lenin, though for a shorter time. If, as we believe, the political issue of the immediate future is going to be a revolutionary issue, it was fortunate that Mr. Lloyd George should have spoken out quite plainly and have warned the country so clearly as to what will happen if Labour wins. But though we welcome Mr. Lloyd George's trumpet call, it is clear that he must not stop there. If he means what he says, as we are sure that he does, it behoves him to do two things. and to do them soon. The first is to maintain a homogeneous p arty opposed to revolution and determined to break those who want to rule by force and in the name of the minority instead of by law and in the name of the majority. You cannot fight a great political battle except with a body of people behind you who are united in purpose and loyal to a common leader. They must not merely admire their leader. They must feel that he is one of them and shares all their aspirations and desires, lied would never separate from them in the moment of defeat, if it should come, or, what is even more important, in the moment of victory, or what appears to be victory, for a political victory is usually only a milestone in the right direction, but not the goal. The next essential deduction from Mr. Lloyd George's call to arms is that the party which is to fight the revo- lutionaries must not be content with mere negations.
It must have a clear and well-understood policY—a policy which will create a sense of trust and confidence, a sense of enthusiasm, a sense of progress towards better things for the Nation, the Empire, and the World. Happily, Mr. Lloyd George has that policy, if only he is not afraid to use it, close to his hand. The policy already adopted by the vast majority of the Unionists is just the policy we need. We have stated before the main principles on which that policy rests, but we cannot state them too often.
1. The Unionist Party is pledged to oppose forces of Revolution under any and every alias, and is determined that the Will of the Majority shall prevail.
2. The Will of the Majority shall be ascertained not by guesses or rumours or impudent claims but by law and constitutional usage based on just principles.
3. The welfare of the poorer classes must be sought as the prime necessity, but without interfering with liberty or enterprise, and so diminishing production. There should be a far greater equality of enjoyment than now in the matter of material prosperity. But that will never be obtained by a deliberate effort, as now, to restrict production. 4. The maintenance of the unity of the British Empire under a system of alliance without interference between the component parts of the Empire.
We cannot go specifically into the results that should follow the adoption of these principles, but we may note that two things are needed for their fulfilment. (1) The introduction of the Poll of the People as a veto over Bills which may be carried contrary to the Will of the Majority of the nation. (2) A powerful effort to make the people of this country realize that Capital, by which we mean the accumulation of wealth—i.e., things of value in exchange—instead of being contrary to the interests of the poor or the hand workers, is their salvation. What they want is more, not less, capital in this country, because in the last resort Capital alone can create employ- ment for Labour. Capital's special function is in a thousand forms to look out for men and set them to work. Without it they cannot be set to work, as we see in those countries, such as Central Europe, which have been drained of Capital by the reckless printing of paper money. If there were only sufficient capital in the world, Labour would be able to cross its legs and sip its beer while Capital was humbly begging to be employed. But we must not indulge further in abstract economics. The duty of the moment is to urge Mr. Lloyd George to consider what we think he has probably not considered yet, but what he has never denounced—that is, the intro- duction of the Poll of the People to be taken upon. laws of special and vital importance. He has an opportunity to confer this enormous benefit upon his country. As a democrat he would be doing a great democratic act. ye would be putting up the strongest possible barrier against those dangerous minority forces the advent of which he dreads, and which he described so forcibly in his last speech.
Previous page
