TOPICS OF THE DAY.
LABOUR AND THE BOG.
FVERY one who has watched industrial movements with a strategical eye must have noticed that Lab our was marching towards a position from which not its own efforts but only supreme good luck could possibly rescue it. We are reminded of the account in Herodotus of the famous Serbonian bog. The bog, really a great lake, was at the mouth of the Nile near the present Damietta. Gales of wind used to blow the drifting sand from the sur- rounding slopes and wastes on to the lake, and the surface of the lake thus acquired the appearance of solidity. According to Herodotus, armies thousands strong, mis- taking this bog for firm land, recklessly marched into it and were engulfed. One might pause to ask why the vanguards of these incautious armies did not warn those coming behind before it was too late. But it was not within the romantic sweep of the art of Herodotus to go into little matters like that. Enough for us perhaps—and it was at all events enough for Herodotus—to know that human beings do sometimes allow themselves to be swallowed up in bogs, even though the simplest precautions would have saved them. The worst fate of all, no doubt, is to be swallowed up in a bog which you yourself have prepared. We do not say, of course, that Labour will be swallowed up in the bog which some of its leaders have been steadily preparing for many months, but it is clear that Labour has been brought to the edge of the bog and is now gazing upon it. The feelings of individuals in the great Labour army are no doubt mixed. Some say that there is no bog but only solid land, and that courage will take any man safely across. Others say, if not to their comrades at least to themselves, that the bog is really a bog and must be treated with the only safe methods for dealing with bogs. Others, again, permit themselves to comment rather forcibly and disloyally about the leadership which has brought them to this unhealthy place. As we write on Thursday a very important meeting is being held by the Special Trade Union Congress on National- ization. We necessarily write in ignorance of what is happening at that meeting, but we may deal safely enough with the general principles involved. The Labour leaders who are demanding what is vaguely called nationalization, without so far precisely defining the word, have committed the error again and again of pledging themselves to action " to force nationalization upon the Government," while continually postponing the redemption of the pledge— postponing it because, as a matter of fact, they did not know what else to do. The later phases of this process of mortgaging the future of Labour arc within the recollection of all. During the last few weeks there has been a great campaign throughout the country to try to persuade people that nationalization of the coal-mines was the best policy for everybody. So far as this campaign itself went, we must speak of it with respect. It was a perfectly legiti- mate attempt to convince people by argument. The miners themselves, however, perhaps spoke of it with too much respect, for they attributed to it a particular kind of gallantry and generosity ; representing it as a sort of last effort to meet an obstinate country on fair terms and to help people to safety in spite of themselves—whereas it was really the ordinary British method of political progress, to depart from which should bring the blush of shame to any good citizen. While the campaign may have made some converts, it certainly has not set any rivers on fire. The final effort in fair means has evidently failed. Unfor- tunately the pledge that if this campaign failed the Special Trade Union Congress should consider " how " to force the Government still holds good. As we write the Congress is discussing " how " to force the Government.
Whatever way we look at the matter, it appears that the Congress is on the edge of the bog. and this is admitted by one of the best known intellectual advisers of Labour, Mr. G. D. H. Cole, though where we speak of a bog he speaks of an impasse. In an article published in the Westminster Gazelle of February 27th, Mr. Cole says that to proceed by Direct Action means " either defeat or revolution, neither ot which the Congress leaders at all desire," while political action (or legitimate persuasion) " offers a probable prospect that a General Election itself will result in a further deadlock." If the Government, Mr. Cole goes on to argue, do not want a dissolution, it is difficult to see what weapon, other than Direct Action, Labour has for enforcing one. But suppose that a General Election were actually enforced by Direct Action. That would mean " entering the election under the most disadvantageous circumstances." Mr. Lloyd George would shout Bol- shevism ! " at the top of his voice, and the election would probably result in a landslide to the detriment of Labour. On the other hand, if the Congress decides for political action, it is deciding about something with which it has no real concern. Political action is the business not of the Congress but of the Labour Party. We agree. To declare a grand advance of " political action " with drums beating and banners waving is to declare for something which 'Labour is free to do any day of the year, and which it actually has been doing for months, though unsuccess- fully. If the Congress met to decide only this, it met to be ridiculous. Mr. Cole then flies back to the possibility of Direct Action, and points out that even if Direct Action were approved, it seems that the Congress could not issue, a strike order. Probably all the affiliated Unions would claim tlie right to settle the question of a strike or no strike for themselves. Mr. Cole says that if the miners want a strike—for they are more concerned than anybody else with nationalization at the moment—the Congress could no doubt promise them full support. But he admits that a strike of miners alone would be open to the same objection as a general strike—namely, that it would mean ' either defeat or revolution." Of course a miners' strike—and such a thing is possible, since the miners decided at their own meeting by a majority in the proportion of three to two In favour of Direct Action—might lead gradually to a general strike, but we very much doubt that. The railwaymen are enjoying a settlement which they are probably not anxious to disturb, and the road transport workers have just agreed to submit their wages dispute to arbitration. Having discussed all possible methods by which the Congress can redeem the pledge to force the hands of the Government, Mr. Cole sums up by saying ; " All of them seem to me to be open to the gravest objection ; and yet I do not see any other course that does not involve the virtual abandonment of the claim for mine nationaliza- tion." This is what has come of the persistence of many Labour leaders in preparing the bog for themselves, although they were fairly warned by friends and enemies alike of what they were doing. The Congress meets, not to decide the issue whether the Government shall be forced, but to decide how they shall be forced. The necessary end is humiliation for the Congress, however much explained and disguised.
Probably there will be yet a further postponement of the crisis ; but if there is it will be patent that the policy of forcing the Government—that is, of imposing the will of a group upon the mass—has quite broken down. There will then be an extremely favourable opportunity for all manual workers to ask themselves whether they have not been following false lights, and to make up their minds whether the old way, the British way, the Constitutional way, is not after all the best. In this connexion we should like to pay a little tribute to Mr. Frederic Harrison, who has published an appeal to Labour. In spite of his great age, Mr. Harrison writes with an energy, a vivacity, and a clearness which young men might well envy. We should spoil Mr. Harrison's words by a summary, so let us quote some sentences :— " Your official leaders declare that Nationalization of Mines is only the first step.' They talk of the general transfer of all the great forces of industry to the ' Nation.' But that can mean nothing but a gigantic and tyrannical ' Bureaucracy.' And we are all sick of ' Bureaucracy,' and we know that it spells worry, loss, and failure. You are quite right to reject Bureau- cracy ' and all its works. But how can the Nation ' manage mines, or anything else, without an enormous staff and hard- and-fast orders—red tape in fact ? Oh ! they don't want management by the ' Nation' (that is the old enemy= sect tape ') ; they want management of mines by the miners—of course, `for the good of the Nation' ! They go rather slack, naturally, for mine-owners ; but how furiously they would work for the ' Nation' ! Why, swagger like this can hardly take in the smallest pit boy. . . . When we come to what is called Direct Action,' that is terrorism—to pass from rotten economies to a dastardly crime—you who are about one-tenth of the nation in voting power want to put more money in your pockets, and think an Act of Parliament of your own making will do it for you. So, if twenty millions of free electors do not accept your Bill, you intend to strangle mines, rails, docks ; so that infants may die, business may be suspended, wages stopped all round—and general hell given them.' Given to whom ? Why, to your- selves and your own kin . . . How is the forthcoming Labour Budget going to find another £8,000,000,000 ? Is it to be more paper money—and the loaf to go up to 2s. ? You know very well—or rather, your leaders know, but they hide the truth— that you are now living on doles—i.e., on charity. Your labour does not produce the value of what you receive in payment. Most, of your living is paid for by others. Your bread costs nearly twice as much as you give for it. Your coal does the same. Meat, railways, sugar, trams, tubes, cost in wages much more than you pay."
The doctrines which Mr. Frederic Harrison denounces seem almost too mad for anybody to believe. Yet it is a fact that they are not only preached but are believed. On the subject of the Special Trade Union Congress we read in the Daily Herald of Wednesday the following words :- " The decision of Congress is of immediate importance to every one. If to strike is the decision, the country will have to face the biggest fight in its history—a fight of a decisive character between Labour and Capitalism. If, for whatever reason, Congress decides against direct action and for political action, the country may make up its mind to an early and considerable increase in the cost of living."
According to the Daily Herald, therefore, the way to make things cheaper is to have strikes all round, and the way to ensure continued and increasing dearness is to have no strikes ! If Mr. Harrison has come across anything more insane than this in his studies, we should very much like to hear of it. But after all the danger that such madness will beguile many people is not very great. The upward tendency for Labour at the by-elections seems to be dying away, and that must mean that the voters with their usual common-sense are beginning to see that they have been misled. If only they will think a little further still and a little more deeply, they will become quite convinced, not only that rotten economics must lead them to the disasters of which Mr. Harrison speaks, but that the vast majority of the people are not at all opposed to Labour but sincerely wish that every manual worker in the land should have good pay, good conditions of work, a good house, and a full share of the amenities of life. But these things are not obtained by nationalization, whether that word implies State Socialism or Syndicalism or Soviet Communism. All experience shows that they are obtained by the enterprise of individuals engaging in free industrial exchange.
What a dreadful remonstrance has just been issued by the Russian Soviet Government from Moscow ! " Shame, Comrades ! " it begins, and then goes on to reproach workmen with idling while there is a terrible lack of trans- port. Each workman, says this grand remonstrance, has practically wasted four days. How tesaible !—no " let-up " for the Bolshevik workers, no week-ends, no wakes, no visits to the Russian Blackpool. The Russian working man's desire for the pleasures of life must be instantly scotched. The railwaymen, say the dictators of Moscow with due horror, "are arranging to have two days a week of idleness." Therefore it is essential to introduce martial law into the railway workshops and impose upon the guilty the full penalty of martial law. . . . Only then shall we. . . save the Soviet Republic." Well, they may save it who love it. But will the British working man get even so far as a courtship ?
Previous page
