LESS WORK CANNOT MEAN MORE PAY

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 32, 7 August 1919, Page 6

LESS WORK CANNOT MEAN MORE PAY

. Political science in New Zealand—if there is any—is confronted by ; two main problems : (1) How to increase production so asl to. enlarge ithe'sum total of'the country's wealth; (2) how to effect a more even distribution-—or, as some would phrase it,' a redistribution —of the existing wealth between the members of the community. ,The second problem is by far the harder to solve. It. is complicated by genuine difficulties; by honest differences of opinion; and by dishonest attempts to exaggerate, and thus to make class-war capital out of, those differences of opinion. The real economic difficulties inherent in the actual situation, when added to by the difficulties that are so industriously created 'by sectional strife, become so formidable that to find a more even, distribution of the fruits of industry is a task which may well make politicians pause. But though this is so —though it is like waving a red rag at a bull to talk of individualism, nationalisation, co.-partnership, or profit-sharingj-there are many practical measures of wealth-production which are not anathema to any, section of the community, which do not cut across the class-strug-gle, and which may even rise above the querulous warfare of party politics. At this moment we can see no immediate prospect of a reconciliation- of the views of Capital and the extreme Reds concerning the readjustment of the social equation. But there is every prospect that a great increase of the divisible wealth of the community can be effected by an_ intelligent programme .of public works, centring in hydro-electxnc power and in improvement of transport, the faultiness of which accounts for a big proportion of the present excessive cost ,of living. A constructive programme of 'utilitarian progress, bold in character but economic in design, would be entitled to support from all sections and from all individuals, except, perhaps, the,'Email minority of wreckers. In the politics of to-day the doctrinaire and the controversial receive too-much attention; the practical and the useful, too little. To say this is not to say that moral unrest can be cured by material progress; but the material must help, and cannot be ignored. Better transport, better housing, .better motive power, and other practical improvements, insofar as they increase the production of wealth, enable a wider distribution of it to be made. Increased production', combined will? a constitutional struggle for more oven distribution, may arrive somewhere. But a' fight over the, dividend, carrying with it the paralysis of industry, carries the community to no goal save national bankruptcy. . For that reason wo would like to see tho utilitarian .activities of government become a matter of greater public conce,rh; not a matter of greater interest than \ social-economic. redistribution, but of greater proportionate interest than' is now the case. In the present critical stage |of New Zealand's development, ri.eons|ruotion ami redistribution . should walk >hand. in, haadj ojihcivies

there will be nothing to redistribute. So immersed is the country in worked-up class-antagonism that people are in danger of overlooking the radical fact that the' war-debt imposes on us hard work and high production, which things connote the most scientific methods and the utmost good-will. , We repeat that we do not wish to exalt the material at the expense of the moral. Bigger production and better distribution are admittedly, in a very large measure, interdependent. Better distribution, by harmonising the classes, would mean bigger production; at the same time, it is a fact that, 33 stated above, bigger production would facilitate a degree of better distribution that otherwise would be impossible. This gospel of work is, of course, according to the revolutionary forces, a gospel of slavery. Constitutional reformers say: "Workthe existing system of production to the utmost advantage, and by political action improve the sharing of the proceeds." The extremists, as we understand them, say: "Break the system at any cost, whether production suffers or not." New Zealand has got to be either on one side or the other, and the Labour Party has got to be either on one side or the other. Until' this issue is definitely settled, reform of the social-economic distribution will meet with many moral obstructions, and the atmosphere may be unfavourable for a settlement. But it will always be found favourable for a utilitarian, constructive programme designed to increase the country's wealth and to cheapen the cost of living. If Parliament is not competent to solve the social problem—with the added complications of class antagonism—it should at least make a serious attempt to provide concrete things that may facilitate such a solution, and which ! are essential to solvency. In the interests of common sense, it is to be hoped that the Parliament shortly to be elected will become noted for its lack of political generalities and for its plenitude of sound and definite ideas of practical progress.