Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

statesmanlike spirit. To those keen and able men who in the past have found their only outlet for energy in rebellion a new life will open up. Any scheme which permanently raises the status of Labour and elevates the worker into a state of co-operative independence; which enables him to assist in working out a system leaving far behind inimitable injustice, is the joint concern of Labour, Capital, and the State: and the first employer to adopt such an enlightened policy will leave far in the rear all his competitors. And any nation which exhibits sufficient wisdom to base its national life on co-operation need have little fear of competition from abroad.

A great and fruitful field lies ready here. Capital needs continuity of Labour. Capital must pay the price. Co-partnership and profit sharing are of no value. Labour knows that the result of the introduction of these schemes in the past has invariably broken down the trade union spirit. And because the results of experience, and the fear that any such schemes are dodges to be used by Capital to increase its profits, a new line must be struck; a new and real measure of reconstruction decided upon, acceptable to both sides.

Will Labour table such proposals? I think not! Will Capital make itself responsible for the new proposal? I think not either!

Here the State must step in. The State must call the parties together and submit a programme. Labour and Capital in their various groups form a nation within a nation. When they decide to fight each other the interests of the community are not necessarily considered. Sometimes their mutual fightings

are definitely anti-communal. The representatives of the community have therefore a clear duty: and the scheme when tabled should aim at setting up a chain of responsible authority in each trade from the workshop, the district, the industry, and the nation. Let each industry work out its own machinery from the general framework which shall be at the basis of all. The greater productivity which will ensue will lead to a vast augmentation of national wealth. Let the State table proposals to deal with this matter also. Shall the State scoop off the results which will result from the new harmony? Is the profit of Capital to be limited? Are the trade unions, as such, to share in the increase in wealth? Shall the distribution be social or individual? If individual, is the distributive agency to be the trade union or the employer? If social, is distribution to be secured through the local authority or the State? Shall a new authority be set up in each industry as distinct and apart from the State, and with powers to deal within its own trade with all excess profits? Or, shall such excess profits be paid into the Treasury and earmarked for the development of the trade itself? These and a thousand other questions arise.

But the broad generalisation remains that any system of industry which gives Labour a real chance must result in a keener and fitter nation of producers By greater productivity Labour will earn its right to greater leisure. It must be granted security of tenure. Industry must be democratised. And these questions should be dealt with now. The State has a great opportunity. The parties are ready, and each has failed to make the first move. And if the State

proposes to move, let it move quickly, and move

now.

MR. W. N. EWER

I (a, b, c) In official and semi-official circles it has apparently been decided that the years following the War will be on the whole years of "good trade": that the need for the replacement and restoration of capital --for actual physical "reconstruction "-will cause a boom which will go far to tide us over the period of demobilisation, and of reversion from war to peace organisation.

Personally I find it hard to share this cheery and convenient optimism. And I anticipate rather that with the end of the period of currency-inflation, and of artificial creations of credit, will come a financial collapse accompanied by a period of stagnant trade.

If I am right the position of Labour will be far worse than if the Whitehall optimists prove to be true prophets. For periods of bad trade not only bear hardly on the individual worker, but are apt to be disastrous to Labour organisations.

In any event the outlook will be grave enough. Labour will awaken from its dreams of crushing Prussia to find that its position has altered seriously for the worse during the years of patriotic somnolence.

It will not only find the employers better organised and financially stronger than before the War; but it will find them equipped with new ideas and new devices for controlling Labour.

The post-war period is, it is abundantly clear, to be a period of "reconstruction" of the national reorganisation of industry. In the name of patriotism,

of national security, and of self-interest, Labour will be invited to play its part in schemes for increasing the productivity and efficiency of British industry, so that Great Britain may hold its own against the fierce competition of quondam enemies or quondam allies.

To this end two things will be asked of it: the making of definite sacrifices such as the abandoning of regulations which tend to limit output; and the conversion of its own organisation into a branch of a general national system of industrial organisation.

And in return it will be offered a number of benefits or apparent benefits-minimum wage acts, provision against unemployment, and the like.

In a word, a vigorous and cleverly-conceived attempt will be made to persuade Labour to accept and to take its place in a nationally organised system of industry upon a capitalist basis-to co-operate with the State and with the capitalists in making the industrial system more effective, more productive and more profitable for the capitalist.

(2) (a) In face of this policy on the part of the employers, the first difficulty of Labour will be that perennial one of making up its mind. It will have to decide whether it is content to accept the status and the functions marked out for it by its masters, or whether it is determined to reject them and to work for its own enfranchisement and for the establishment of industrial freedom and industrial democracy.

If it takes the first decision, its best policy will be to do as it is told.

If the second, it must first clear its mind of cant, and try to see the position as it is, not as it will be represented by the masters.

It must realise clearly that, for all the talk of national unity and of community of interest, the capitalist is the enemy, and must be the enemy until the struggle is ended by decisive victory; that no patched up peace is possible. And the conception of the classwar must dominate and condition all its policy and all its action.

It must therefore refuse categorically every invitation and every inducement to enter into partnership in a capitalist system of industry. It must decline to make a single concession that will in any way weaken its fighting strength; and in particular it must avoid any step which will in any way compromise the independence of its organisation, or will in any way make that organisation a part of the capitalist machine.

Probably the most tempting and most dangerous offer which will be made will be proposals which will come in the guise of schemes for giving to Labour some part in the control of industry. Here the central principle which should determine its attitude must be the refusal of any offer of joint control or the acceptance of any joint responsibility. Any measure of control which Labour assumes must be taken absolutely into its own hands, and must be regarded as a mere instalment, as a step towards the entire control of industry and of capital. And under no circumstances must it enter into any partnership with capital. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

(2) (b) Nefas est hostem docere.

(2) (c) Nefas est hostem docere. The State is the capitalists' and the powers thereof.

« ZurückWeiter »