SOCIALISM v. TRADES UNIONISM.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13110, 8 May 1908, Page 6

SOCIALISM v. TRADES UNIONISM.

Mr Keir Hardie does not seem to have been meny hours in England, after his return from his wanderings abroad, before he was expatiating to an interviewer on the progress of Socialism in Australia and New Zealand. This Dominion, he declared, was tho nearest approach to the ideal vStato that he hadi seen, its "air of prosperity" being "largely due to the Socialistic legislation" of the GoTornment. In Australia he was delighted to find that "the "cry of Socialism frightens no one," and that "private ownership of land '•and private enterprise in "the pro-

"duction of necessaries are doomed." In fact, he said, the Labo-ir Party in tho colonies is Socialistic. If 'Mr Keir Hardie had said that a portion of the Labour Party was Socialistic he wouldi have been nearer tbe mark, though it might not have served his purpose to admit that the doctrines he espouses so warmly ore not held by all Auetra-

coincidence that tbe Australian papers which published his assertions as to the spread of Socialism in the Commonwealth, should contain reports of the proceedings at the Labour Congress in Sydney, when a majority of the delegates representing labour organisations in all part® of Australia refused to subordinate trades unionism to Socialism. It was proposed that the preamble and constitution of the Industrial Workers of the World should be adopted as the basis of labour organisation in Australia. The "1.W.W.," ■Hβ it is termed—the

initials meaning, according to one delegate, "I won't work" —

is an American organisation. Its platform, it was explained, proposed the method of the universal etrike. In the words of one opponent of the proposal, it ''had its origin in a country "that is half a oontury behind Australia and its constitution is un- " doubtedly the objective of the Socialist Party." The motion led to a prolonged and strenuous debate. Its supporters argued that trades unionism in its present form had outlived its usefulness, and that a great forward movement was necessary. Among its opponents Mr Spence, M.P.._ representing tho Australian Workers' Union, was one of the most effective speakers, and his edvico, we are told, carried great weight. Ho urged tliat they should keep to the road along which tbe political representativ-cs of Labour had been marching for twenty 3'oars; it would lead to tho stage when Labour would control the law-making machine. But ho implored thorn not to "turn asido to explore by-paths that "lead to nowhere and cannot fail to "delay tho advance.' . In the eiul the proposal was defeated by o<3 votes to 23. There is undoubtedly a strongly Socialistic section of the Labour Party both in Australia and in New Zealand. But in tho Commonwealth at least trades unionism is still dominant, and the majority of thinking workers there apparently view with no favour the leap in the dark that the ardent Socialist would have them take.

lian workers. It is, however, an odd I "a.re a stupid people. TThey possess ' the finest literature in the -world, and one of t<he two greatest poets the world has ever seen," and yot they persist in doing the ■wrong thing after takinij generations -to decide upon their course. They have" "mo imagination and no power of organisation." He votee for i nationaJ "tieatre, as do many others, inokiding Mr Alfred Austin, Sir John Hare* Mr Arthur Bymons, 31r Alfred Sutro/ -Mr ZaoigwiH, ~Mx William Aroher, Mr Henry Arthur Jonte and Mr Piaiero. The national theatre which these entice would prefer is, we foar, very much in the clouds. Mr Forbes Robertson and Mt Goorgo Alexander estimaite ihat it would cost £500,000 to build and £10,000 « jear io keep going. To look to the Government for help in the present state of the finances would bo itlle.