(b) The War has imposed necessary conditions of maximum production upon industry. It would be absurd to attribute this to the creative power of Capital. We must not simply take the business man -at his own valuation-as a super-Prometheus. Capital is just as traditional in its operations as any other social force. But Capital has adapted itself to these conditions of maximum production, so that it can more readily preserve itself by the maintenance of these conditions after the War than by any possible reversion to the previous position, whatever difficulties, chiefly in the way of labour " organisation," the latter alternative may be supposed to avoid. The factors mentioned above in the situation as regards Labour are of decisive importance here. The position is all the more favourable in that schemes of reconstruction are called for. Such a state of affairs is the paradise of the "projector"; plans for industrial peace (of the churchyard sort-for Labour), business organisation, the "economic emancipation" of women, technical education and the like, are given a new lease of life.

(c) This is really a continuation of (b). The nation strictly does not come in here; it is not an interest. All we can mean by the nation as a commercial entity is certain firms, or certain agglomerations of capital, which are found to operate in the world market under certain conditions, chiefly of credit, which are common and peculiar to them. These conditions, in the case of British trade, have hitherto operated indirectly; they are the outcome of, and represent the advantages or disadvantages following from, that degree of stability which belongs to the national life of Britain.

It would appear to be tolerably clear that the position after the War will be that, instead of such indirect conditions, there will be definite and legislative provision, either in the way of tariffs or of bounties. In this sense it might be said that the nation now tends to become a single commercial or economic entity. The force behind this will have been the development of capitalistic industry itself in Great Britain, as we have briefly considered it; and it will involve a conception of economic power different from the idea of economic advantage associated with the defence of the free trade policy. All this may well be accompanied by the perpetuation of that "Government control" by which the adaptation to conditions of maximum production was first made possible, and this seriously affects the position of Labour. Where the Government gives guarantees for the successful carrying out of certain industrial operations, it is not going to have the whole thing spoilt by strikes, and it will be impelled to strive, even by the most conciliatory" methods, to remove the possibility even of the threat of a strike.

(2) The chief problem for the nation arising out of the War I take to be the right determination of the relations between the political and the economic conditions of its social life. I agree that the constructive scheme known as National Guilds represents a practical solution to this question which does justice to its various elements in a measure which is not attained by any other national policy which has been propounded. But it is now a question of the peculiar policies to be adopted from particular points of view. In such a case what I think is chiefly important is to

determine certain criteria, or regulative ideas, which, drawn from a general theory of the public good, can be applied as negative conditions for the action which is taken with reference to the prevailing tendencies.

Thus, (a) while the general policy for Labour is to perfect its trade union organisation, with a view to the assumption of economic control in industry on lines of responsibility, there are certain conditions on which the use it makes of its power should be such as to insist. These concern particularly, in view of the situation, the institutions of Property, Contract, and the Family. If Labour directs its action with a view to securing that, whatever be the industrial arrangements after the War, they shall not be such as to involve anything of the nature of a property right in the labour of employees, shall not involve, in respect to “ agreements," the declaration of contracts where there is no proper contract, shall not be such that they can only be carried out through a disintegration of family life, it will have done as much as it could towards its own emancipation, and at the same time "deserved well of the State."

(b) The present social order being itself capitalistic in fact and in tendency, I think it follows from what I have just said that the only policy I could recommend would be addressed to individuals, and not in their capacity as capitalists.

(c) I feel that, as regards the industrial situation, what would best express my attitude here is the old formula, "Laissez faire, laissez passer," though it might need some reinterpretation. So far as this question may be supposed specially to refer to the legislator or politician, the chief requirement would

appear to be that he be on his guard against classlegislation, and be ready to look for it, even where it is least expected, and where the common advantage is most loudly proclaimed. In particular, there will be the greatest need for precautions against spurious contractual legislation based on unfounded assertions of social equality. If we hear a little less from those that think and act politically about the equal privileges of Capital and Labour, it will be all to the good. If and when the State cannot act without making such false assumptions, let it refrain from acting at all! But there are some questions of statecraft for the close of the War. Perhaps the chief is the question of Federal Government. Again there will be every reason for the State taking the steps considered appropriate to it in the establishment of a “guild" system of organisation in the teaching and medical professions.

(d) PHILOSOPHY

(1) Aesthetic

MR. L. MARCH PHILLIPPS

I am asked to express an opinion, for what it may be worth, on the industrial situation which may arise after the War, especially as it may be expected to affect the relations between the worker and his work.

Let me state the main conditions of the problem as it exists at present; the answers to the above questions will then occur of themselves.

Fifty years ago a very important discovery was made. It was found that the happiness or unhap

piness of the worker proceeded out of the work he was doing. Hitherto it had been thought that his happiness or unhappiness depended on the amount of pay he received for his work. It had been tacitly assumed that, however degrading and brutalising the work itself might be, it could be ennobled by the amount of money paid for doing it. This was now shown to be a mistake. Work of a certain order, work which exercised and developed the better faculties of a man, his imagination, his power of thought, his emotion, was a source of felicity; work of a purely mechanical kind, which exercised the hand but not the mind, was a source of misery. Wages, money, in no way affect the question, for they do not alter the character of the work itself.

It was an immense discovery, for it put in our hands the clue to our national happiness or unhappiness. We are a nation of toilers; for the vast majority of us, life is work. And this work, which is our constant occupation, is, day by day and hour by hour, distilling into our lives the misery or happiness with which it is charged. There is no evading the issues at stake. If it is true that the age is mechanical, and that modern society seems pledged to that kind of production, so also it is true that out of that kind of production can arise nothing but debasing and brutalising effects. If it is unthinkable that man should change his methods, it is also unthinkable that he should persevere in methods which can produce nothing save endless and hopeless misery. Which of these is to win the victory -the concrete fact or the abstract truth? The majority, of course, back the fact, for they ignore the mental processes which change facts. But those