UNDER-PRODUCTION

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 November 1920, Page 3

UNDER-PRODUCTION

ITS MEANING TO THE WORKERS.

LABOUR'S FOOLISH POLICY.

(By the Rt. Hon. J. R. Clynes, M.P.)

With the,very best intentions a number of Trade Union leaders have stumbled on the wrong road in their eagerness to reach a short cut for the redress of workmen's grievances. They are under the delusion of thinking that if men leave certain work undone there will be more work, for others, and that if certain additional goods are produced the result is a benefit not for the worker, but for the employer. They say that "more production means to many already dissatisited workers simply more and more profits to shareholders." When I read statements like that, written by good labour men, I despair of making universal that sound instruction in elementary economics upon which the acceptance of labour and Socialist doctrine must finally rest. If it were true that more production merely means profits it would, of course, mean that less production would mean lees profits The very reverse is the case. Any industry can be taken as proof. Turn to agriculture, production in which depends almost entirely upon heme material and home labour. Or turn to the second largest industry—cotton—in which production depends absolutely upon raw material carried to us thousands of miles over-seas. In both cases the result of underproduction lias been the same —pore profits and not less for the capitalist and employer. When.our food became scarce the prices went up as the profits went up. Many devices were tried to increase production to rescue the mass of consumers from a market in which there was great scarcity of the things they wanted. In the cotton industry, production decreased because operatives were drafted into the Army, because difficulties as to shipping made it_ impossible to bring the raw materials, and because (atfer the end of the war) the working hours of the operatives were quite properly reduced. All these factors reduced production, and again up and up went the price of the commodities produced and up went the profits of the capitalists and manufacturers. A low rate of production is not a great embarrassment for the employer. • His profit is made even more 'secure "by restricted production than by production on a scale of abundance. Plenty is the friend of the worker. Increased production lessons his difficulties. Decreased production increases his burdens and diminishes the purchasing power of his wageSHELPTNG THE PROFITEERS, ft If, now, by some wonderful device in mechanics we could speedily produce all the houses and clothing, all the domestic materials and necessities of the home which the workers find so dear because they are so scarce, how much happier the' masses of workers would be We cannot work by magic . We can call to out aid only the machinery,

plant, and methods of production now available to us. These methods frequently could be improved upon. Employers and the system which they have developed are often to blame for underproduction, and waste of time and energy. But, whatever be the cause, the central fact is that the profiteer, the capitalist, the speculator, and not the worker profit most by underproduction. Scarcity is not the friend of the producer. It is the friend of the dealer. It is the friend of the man who sells the articles which others have laboured to produce. The producer is more than a producer. He is a consumer also, and lessened production in any of the common necessities of life puts him between the two difficulties of shortage of goods on the one hand and shorter purchasing power in his wages on the other.

The capitalist system, in which we have production for profit, is not ill the least threatened or impaired by lowered productions. Systems grow out of ideas. Labour and Socialist papers exist to distribute ideas. What folly it would be for Socialists to refuse to put a Labour paper or books plentiful ly upon the market because in doing so some capitalist printer had made a private profit in producing them.

What folly it is to continue to increase the burdens of wage earners and consumers by discouraging increased production when the result does not in the least weaken the system which Labour men denounce. It weakens the appeal of the critics of the system.

I would not mind my colleagues keeping their heads in the clouds if the result were not to keep such a large number of very poor people in a state of intolerable suffering. When we have to consider whether it is better or worse for the workers to have an increased supply of the commodities they want, high sounding condem nations of the capitalist system help but little. It would be better to examine the particular question and decide on the merits of the case and the facts before us. MORE PRODUCTION ESSENTIAL. I agree as to the defects of the exist ing order. I admit the necessity for fundamental change respecting the ownership of properties and the system of government and the need to elevate community welfare above a.ll schemes for private gain. But I refused to allow my detestation of existing systems of government to determine every conclusion that has to be reached on a definite question where commonsense should settle what is best to be done. In short, much as I hate the capitalist system, 1 decline to make it worse by action and argument which only inten sify the sufferings of those who, because of scarcity, are enduring very great privations. It is the poor who suffer from underproduction. The rich are not going short because of the dearness and scarcity of houses, furniture, clothing, food, and other common needs.

Scarce as the necessaries of life are, they are'still plentiful enough to supply the needs of the rich, whose purchasing power enables them to bid very high prices for their motor-cars and other luxuries; They can get all they want because they have big purses, and because they are comparatively few.

There is so much less new furniture on the market that secondhand furniture is much dearer than new furniture used to be. Houses and clothing are subject to the same influences. Yet there are Labour men who, under the influence of their theories and principles, rave against an increase ot things for the want of which poor peo,ple are nearly starving. Only increased output can provide them on the scale of our requirements, and we cannot afford to wait to meet needs which are pressing until the whole social order is remodelled. We should do now what is wanted now, and at the same time go ahead with the task of converting people to new and better principlesTo say there ought to be more people engaged in production is sound enough. We need better distribution of commodities, and there ought to be improvements in a score of other directions. But all the evidence in favour of these reforms provides no argument against placing at the disposal of the people in greater quantity of the things they want. That greater quantity can come only from increased production, which would benefit employers not near so greatly as it would the workers themselves. WORKERS, PLEASE NOTE THIS. The above article is from Mr. Clynes M.P-, a elading British Labour leader. It is taken as it stands, title and all, from the Glasgow Weekly Herald of September 4th, 1920. If the N.Z. Welfare League spoke like that some labourites would scoff at it, but coming from a leading labourite, they ought to consider the message conveyed.