TOPICS OF THE DAY
•
LABOUR SHOWS THE WAY.
WEhave never doubted, and have frequently said, that the revolutionary fever which follows all wars would in the end pass quietly out of the veins of the British people. Revolution does not affect us as it affects many other races, for our methods are instinctively different, though our instincts may well be derived from ages of experience and practice in self-management. No doubt, as the late war was the greatest of wars, so were the effects likely to be worse than those of previous wars. We cer- tainly expected a long period of unrest, with a lean time and a good deal of suffering for everybody. We are thankful to be able to think now that it looks as though the bad time were likely to be shorter and less bad than we could possibly have expected a few months ago. The most gratifying sign of all is that Labour itself is showing the way. It would have been more right and seemly if the rulers, who have been put in their places by the choice of the people, had performed this office, and if the people, recognizing that they were well and bravely led, had responded as British people always do respond to good leadership. The improvement is coming in another manner— from the massed good sense of the workers, and from minor but none the less splendid acts of warning and inspiration on the part of certain Labour leaders. It may be that this new tone will be caught by the Prime Minister, who will conduct affairs with more appearance of responsibility, with more steadiness and less impulsiveness. Let us hope so, for really this is a test-time for popular government. Never had the people more power ; and if democracy at its zenith is not more earnest, more dignified, and more honest than the narrower forms of government which went before, there is at least some excuse for those who ask themselves whether we are on the right road after all. Yet can any man say with his hand on his heart that our present Government satisfy the standard of what a sell-respecting and respect-commanding Govern- ment of the people ought to be ? Are men appointed to offices because they are likely to be the best public servants and not for some intimate reason hidden from the public ? Are ideals held constantly before the nation in preference to political programmes which are thought the most likely to capture popular favour ? Is the Prime Minister himself, who ought to symbolize in his own person the responsibility and the dignity of popular government, surrounded by supporters who are respected and trusted for their qualities ? Do the Honours lists suggest that the Prime Minister wants to hold up as examples to be imitated men who have served the interests of the com- munity rather than the interests of themselves ? Does he confer fame on those who have done great work, or as a rule only on those who have done great work for him ? However these questions may be answered as regards the past, the Government may fairly take their courage in both hands now, and appeal to the nation to save itself by its own efforts—appeal to it on grounds of idealism. pride, and patriotism rather than in the old manner purchasing compliance by promises of a new heaven set up on earth by legislative enactment.
Let us look more closely at some of the good signs. The Executive of the miners have decided not to proceed with their wildly undemocratic recommendation of " direct action." Of • course both the miners and the railwaymen will work by other means for nationalization ; they have every right to do so, as long as their-method is the Constitu- tional one of trying to persuade a majority of their country- men. It is not as though they had to persuade a recalci- trant and wickedly selfish majority of capitalists and employers. Although capitalists and employers are cer- tainly members of the democracy as much as anybody else, it is not necessary to win over a majority of these people, as the majority of votes lies with the workers them-. selves. -Those workers who believe in nationalization have only got to persuade their fellow-workers who so far do not believe in it. If they succeed, all of us who are demo- crats will accept the result. Meanwhile it is all to the good that the idea of trying to gain a particular end through imposing the will of a small number on the greater number by means of violence and the paralysis of life has Leen abandoned, at all events for the present.
Another good sign is the agreement come to between the employers and the Trade Unions in the shipbuilding and engineering trades. Mr. Brownlie,.Chairman of the Executive of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, has spoken of this agreement as the " most statesmanlike ever drafted between employers and employed." He stated his belief that if only the men knew the facts there would he no more strikes. And- indeed Mr. Brownlie has no great reason to believe in strikes, for, as Mr. Alexander Thompson lately pointed out in the Daily Mail, the last great engineers' strike cost the Society between 1,300 and 1,500 million pounds. In November, 1918, the engineers demanded that the weekly working hours should be reduced from 54 to 44. After some negotiations the employers agreed to 47, and this was accepted. As a result the engineering and ship- building Unions promised that " the greatest possible output ' should be secured. In spite of the 47-hours week, there have been strikes this year at Belfast, on the Clyde, and on the North-East Coast. Another ballot of the Unions had to be taken, and this time the decision by a huge majority was in favour of a 44-hours week after all. The employers and the men's leaders met again, and both sides talked about America ; as Mr. Thompson tells us, while the employers described the terrific competition in shipbuilding promised from America, the men declared that a 44-hours week was a success in American yards. These were more or less matters of opinion, but what was not a matter of opinion was that the output in British yards, instead of being maintained or increased, as the men's leaders had promised, was considerably reduced. Naturally the employers were not prepared for another experiment on the lines of the first experiment which bad proved a failure. A deadlock seemed to have been reached. Now we come to the agreement which Mr. Brownlie has praised as the most statesmanlike ever drafted. Both sides agreed to appoint a Committee of Inquiry composed equally of masters and men to discover precisely what the effect of a 44-hours week on output would be. Foreign as well as British experience into be brought under review. The most encouraging thing about this agreement is :that both sides appeal to facts and want to be guided by facts. When the facts are ascertained the differences should Le easily settled.
Yet another good sign is the powerful arguments which Mr. Brace has been putting forward in the Contemporary Review and elsewhere on the desirability of piece-work. To be paid by the piece, Mr. Brace believes, is entirely in accordance with the independence of the individual British worker. We think so too. The only reason, we imagine, that piece-work has fallen into disrepute among the Unions is that the piece rates used to be cut when it was thought by the employer that a man was able to earn too much. The wise employer—always within reason, of course— instead of cutting down the wages of a man who earned much, would have advertised the man's prosperity in order to encourage the others. If the man had earned so much as to be able to drive down to the works in his own motor- car—which is the ideal joy of the American factory hand— it probably would have paid the employer to encourage him to do so. There was waste all along the line when men—in order to prevent cutting of piece rates—were deliberately producing much less than they could. A man who produces by his own efforts what two men would produce where piece rates are cut down is obviously saving his employer 50 per cent. of the establishment expenses. The expenses of running the factory—of motive-power, lighting, and the pay of the staff—have only to be paid for eight hours instead of for sixteen hours while he is pro- ducing goods.
Finally we must refer to the fine address which was given by Mr. Barnes on Monday at the International Con- ference on Labour and Religion. Some organizations, said Mr. Barnes, were getting under the control of those who had little idea of reciprocal service. He was afraid that they were getting under the control of those who " wanted to pull down the pillars of the State on the off-chance of something arising from the ruins more to their liking." He -confessed that he had never believed in the materialistic doctrines of rancour and iliwill, yet those floctrines were now " accepted by an increasing number." There must be a helpful contact between all the classes. Mr. Barnes in deprecating acrimony pointed to the divine lights by which the mass of labouring human beings ought to be led. Very different was this from the defiant gesture of M. Viviani some years ago, who boasted that he and his anti-clerical friends had plucked down the lights from heaven. We were specially interested in Mr. Barnes's reference to some of the modern leaders of Labour who, he said, " had been to Oxford or Cambridge or some other place, who thought themselves superior persons and posed as guides, philosophers, and friends to people who had often got more sense than the guides and philosophers themselves." Readers of the Spectator may remember how often we have suggested that working men, who are capable of conducting their own affairs with excellent judgment and in a thoroughly businesslike way, have made a. cardinal mistake in allowing themselves to be led by a kind of intelligentsia who have never done a hand's turn of manual labour, and yet have imposed upon the unhappy misguided workers a whole set of fanciful ideas which can end in nothing but disappointment. In the past British workers have had a good look at Marx and his doctrines and at all the other Socialistic teachers, and in the end they have followed their own sober way. So it will probably be again. When they have had another good look at the teaching of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Mr. Philip Snowden, Mr. Sidney Webb, Mr. Tawney, Mr. G. D. H. Cole, and others, they will find that they have followed false guides and will break adrift.
A curious and interesting fact is that some of the young intellectual bloods of Oxford and Cambridge, such as a generation ago used to burn midnight oil while they palished epigrams to be brought out the next evening at a Union debate as brilliant improvisations, seem more inclined now to spend their time in the laborious work of examining statistics and sketching out schemes for the syndicalization of industry, and even for a Bolshevistic State. Far be it from us to condemn angrily. In the days of youth dissatis- faction with the existing social system is generally nothing but a sign of a generous and chivalrous desire to right wrongs. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that every boy ought to be a Socialist till he discovers what Socialism really means. We call to mind a charming passage in Lord Ribblesdale's Introduction to the Memoir of his son, the late Charles Lister. - In that passage Lord Ribblesdale described how a Socialistic meeting arranged by Charles Lister was held in his own park, and how the urbane Socialistic speech-makers in pouring denunciation upon capitalists and landlords were careful to make an exception in favour of a particular piece of land and a particular landlord ! Oxford and Cambridge would be of very little use if they encouraged undergraduates to applaud the sentiment of that old aspiration to servility :-
"Lord bless the squire and his relations And keep us in our proper stations."
But if there is a new fashion among undergraduates to become -like those Russian students who used to do the intellectual work of revolution, the movement is something to be watched as well as something to move curiosity. It may be too much to assume that the victory of British common-sense is already in sight. But even if it be de- ferred it is none the less assured. Those who fight against the tyranny of " direct action " and such things, those who wish to help themselves and their wives and children by steady labour, those who believe in working for their country because it is a country worth working for, are all fighting the battle of freedom ; and
"Freedom's battle, once begun, Bequeath'd by bleeding sire to son, Though baffled oft, is ever won."
Previous page
