FIVE-DAY WEEK AND THE SABBATH.

Evening Star, Issue 22413, 10 August 1936, Page 13

FIVE-DAY WEEK AND THE SABBATH.

TO ill IE EDITOR. Sir, —The church, being nnablo (tnougli doing its best; to prevent tUe continual struggle of the working class to better conditions, is now being asked by Mr G. Bteel to take advantage of the “ extra, leisure ” of the tive-day week—though I am unaware this is to be a national institution—with a view to propagating its doctrine for the benoiit ot manuind. Mr Steel states, “ the excuse for increasing the secularisation of the day was because it was stated to be the only leisure of the workers.” Your correspondent will no doubt agree that this excuse is partly correct; therefore why did the church not take the initiative in the struggle for more leisure, if the effect, ns he states, may place the church back in its honoured position? But in what country and at what period has the church ever endeavoured to better the conditions of the masses ?

Referring to Sunday, your correspondent states, “ the day should be anticipated with gladness all the week. Had Mr Steel any idea of the conditions of thousands of our factory workers he would liave no doubt about the day being anticipated with gladness. It certainly is—more so by these people than by tho idle rich or the actual church folk themselves. By these thousands of Unman robots (and in this mechanised ago that is all they are), employed by our technical exploiters, our illustrious captains of industry, tho day is not anticipated with gladness “ because it is the Sabbath, but because it is a break from the world of continual toil these people live in. Let Mr Steel imagine, if he can. that parasitical class anticipating Sunday with gladness. Why, if it "’ere not for the incessant clanging of the church bells on Sunday disturbing their slumber they would be quite unaware of the occasion. Your correspondent talks of benefits derived from tho Sabbath. Apart from the particular benefit to the workers mentioned bv me, what other benefits are there? "This particular day only becomes a benefit because man still exists under an obsolete, broken-down system of exploitation. Science to-day could offer him all the necessary benefits, but not while Capitalism stands in the wav. “ Six days shalt thou labour.” At long last, however, roan, through his continual struggle for better conditions, is beginning to realise that this six-day theory, like many other theories once accepted by tho Christian Church as revealed truths, may bo at fault in the interpretation. Perhaps after all it should be six days of, six and a-half hours each. This would almost be in keeping with our perliaps possible legislation. I note, however, “ three times through the year, at least eight days’ holidays are to be given.” Again I ask, given to whom, by whom? Is Mr Steel not aware that when _ complete freedom exists (as will be possible under world Communism) holidays do not exist—not in the sense of holidays from labour. Holidays are part and parcel of the present Capitalist system; they arc absolutely necessary for the “ wellbeing ” of tlie employee, therefore for tho “ welfare ” of the employer. The employee in this mechanised age of today is no more nor less than a part of the machine he operates. In Mr Steel’s new era, however, will the population be divided into classes? Will they be governed by a particular economic system? For a ‘‘whole year,” we are informed, no plough must disturb the land. Will the population remain more or less stationery, or will it increase as to-day? If so. from whence comes the food, according to the “ law of the Lord,” after six years of “commercial activity” (in which, _ I should imagine, tho productivity of the actual earth itself is being absorbed) ? The seventh year, we arc told, is to be a year of “ holiday from toil.” From a “ rested earth ” there springs a “ regenerated growth that adds health and life to animal and man.” Why the Lord could not have been “ completely perfect ” from the beginning and embodied the necessary nutritious values in the very air we breathe, 1 do not know. „ , Mr Steel ■writes:," The difference between the Socialist and the Christian is that the former desires (note, ‘ desires ) tbs nation to be the owner of all the land, while the Lord desires the people each to be the owner.” I should greatly appreciate some elaboration on this property question. Are these people to live entirely on the fertile wealth of the soil and remain independent through such? Are they going to disband all forms of industrialisation, meaning all means of transportation, communication, and commerce in general, work that requires the combined efforts of the people. Such combined efforts would not leave sufficient time for soil cultivation ; therefore why the need to actually own the property? Or would they establish a real brotherhood, of man, through which it will be possible to raise the well-being of the whole of humanity and to reduce to a inimimum tho time devoted to material production, a society in which culture will flourish as never before, a new culture of a humanity that will abolish all State boundaries? ' If so, this is Marxian Communism. —I am, etc., S. Mulqueex. August 8.