O. M. S.
E has been a good deal of excitement during .l the week about the Organisation for the Mainten- ance of Supplies. The O.M.S. has been denounced as a class movement, and we ourselves pointed out last week that the personnel of its executive did a good deal, if not to justify that suspicion, at least to give the Labour Party and the Trade Unions a very easy excuse for saying that a class attack upon them was being prepared. We understand perfectly well the difficulties of organizing such a body as the O.M.S. A great deal of spade work must be done, and it can be done only by men whose time is fully at their disposal. The wage-earners could not be expected to find the time to help in such a cause, even if they dared. Nevertheless, we still think that it would be possible to associate with the executive names drawn from every class.
It is a great pity tacitly to allow those who are opposed to any such organization to exclaim, " What a blatant class movement ! Not a single 'working man has any- thing to do with running this thing, though it is said to be created in the interests of everybody ! The real purpose is given away by the constitution of the executive, which is composed of lords, admirals and diplomats. It is evident that a strike-breaking army is being enrolled ! " But though we are not at all surprised that Labour should raise this cry we are very far indeed from disap- proving of the principle of the O.M.S. We have frequently advocated it ourselves. We are strong supporters of Trade Unionism, and being also strong believers in the right of the individual to act as he pleases within the limits of the law, we recognize that there is a I;ght to strike, and even a right to conduct a general strike ; but that does not convince us that the interests of any class in this country should be rated so high that it should be allowed to hold all the rest up to ransom and expose them to extreme suffering and perhaps to starvation. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald himself, if we are not mistaken, has spoken of the chaos of a general strike as an intolerable thing which civilized people ought to hasten to make impossible. The attitude of the Trade Unions at the time of the coal strike was a very serious warning indeed, and in our opinion they cannot reasonably expect that the rest of the community should fold their hands and sit down and consent to be starved out. They talk of provocation. Why is a general strike not provocation, though a quiet attempt to resist its effects is provocation ? A few years ago when there was a threatened hold-up of supplies in Germany the professional classes threatened to strike in return and withhold all their services— medical service for instance. The trial of endurance never occurred, as the strikers abandoned their plan of campaign. Another instance which occurs to us was the strike at Winnipeg when the community saved itself by its own exertions—by rapidly organizing a substitute for all the labour which the strikers withheld.
It must be remembered that the Trade Unions have many privileges guaranteed to them by law. As organiza- tions they are above the law ; and the law has given to their individual members the right of peaceful picketing. It is called peaceful, but of its very nature it is generally intimidating. While Labour has these aids to easy victory is it to be expected that those innocent persons who are going to suffer, though they have no part or lot in the mdustrial dispute, should remain unmoved ? Human nature does not act in that way. The Labour newspapers are all saying in effect, " What would the capitalist classes say if the wage-earners enrolled themselves in some organization like the O.M.S. ? " It is apparently thought that the rhetorical question is unanswerable. The answer is simple. It is that the so-called capitalist classes would be delighted if the wage-earners enrolled themselves for any service under the authorities. Can it have escaped their attention that they are already enrolled in their unions to guard their own interests ?
But it may be said : Is not the Government the only body which can rightly improvise a force of emergency labourers and policemen ? We admit that that would be the ideal solution. But when it was tried Labour was just as indignant as it is now, and so far as we can recollect it was even more indignant. It cried, " Here is the Government of the day frankly declaring itself opposed to Labour I Even before there is any strike it is preparing to break it. How monstrous, cruel, wicked and cynical ! 7, It will be seen then that it is difficult to escape the con- demnation of Labour whatever plan is adopted for the protection of the community. We could wish that the Government would now say to Labour, " We note your objection to the O.M.S., and we will remove the cause of your displeasure. We will ourselves enrol a body of helpers."
It does not, however, greatly matter which way the thing is done. There can be no valid objection to private persons preparing to put their services at the disposal of the Government or the local authorities or the police if ever there should be a need for them—which we devoutly hope there never will be. What we do deprecate is that any encouragement should be given to fantastic societies which wish to be a law to themselves and to take action without authority from the proper rulers of the country. We would much rather that men should be enrolled in advance and that they should acquire some sense of responsibility and discipline than that hurriedly formed gangs should be let loose in a crisis. And if the O.M.S. can get rid of the appearance of being a class organization so much the better. We are informed that the greater part of the support which has been given to the O.M.S. comes from the wage-earners. That is a remarkable fact which should be pondered carefully. It means that many men who, in their capacity as Trade Unionists, are compelled outwardly to support an extreme policy secretly fear its results, and would be anxious when a crisis arrived to throw their whole weight against violence and revolution.
Previous page
