The Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, February 17, 1943. POST-WAR SOCIAL PROBLEM.

Grey River Argus, 17 February 1943, Page 4

The Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, February 17, 1943. POST-WAR SOCIAL PROBLEM.

War-time trends are now being reviewed in the light of postwar necessities. It cannot be doubted that an increasing proportion of every population, not excepting even that of the United States, will be inclined to depend more than formerly upon state action for economic as well as social development. For one thing, governments as never before have been absorbing both the wealth and finance of their people, and of these assets a very great proportion is b'eing used up in the making of war. Of itself wjar has also accelerated vastly technical development, and social life has come to depend upon mechanisation. All of these Wends have a collective character and there are comparatively few organised or even dis- ( seminated attempts to pull against the collectivist current. Social security is a term the connotation of which is becoming over sea a reflex of its meaning in New Zealand, and in each instance the organisation of security for' the masses is regarded as almost entirely a function of the State, though the co-operation of employerdom is relied on. The Beveridge Report in Britain is paralleled by Mr. Roosevelt’s recent pronouncement that nobody in the community ought to be-ex-cluded from a general provision of means of subsistence and the opportunity to obtain a livelihood. Australia, like Britain, is gradually adopting the principle underlying our social security system. Coincident with these innovations, as also with war financing, very few incomes remain beyond the reach of direct taxation, and even in the past generation the change in this respect, marks a veritable financial revolution. The latest example of socialistic thought is. strangely the declaration of a British Minister whSse province is that of aviation, Captain H. H. Balfour. His theses is: “We should place the harvest of our wealth on a sound orderly process, refusing to accept large unemployment as part of our system; should fix a national minimum wage as a first charge on industry, ranking be' fore capital; should have regulated hours of employment, with paid holidays, and adequate standards of housing and family allowances.” Behind this and

similar generalisations it may be judged that there is a real apprehension of economic and industrial dislocation when the millions of men and women now absorbed in the industry of making war are demobilised and require to be placed where they can obtain a decent livelihood from normal forms of occupation. The enormous burden that will be thrown upon the state, or in other words, the bureaucracy which really carries on the modern State is one apt to perecipitate problems of greater difficulty, because more lasting, than any involved in war industry, for which there is unlimited credit It is to be desiderated that the powers that be will not entirely rely on regimentation of the. sort more or less unavoidable or essential in war time. The Minister aftrementioned, prefacing . his formula of social security, said that the State should encourage enterprise, adventure and initiative, and this is undoubtedly an important qualification. The working class, for instance embracing the vast majority, would have truer security in some stake in industry additional to that of mere wages. To the extent that ownership should be distibuted the entire reliance on State aid to tide over .unemployment would be averted. The idea of giving a minimum wage precedence over profits as a charge upon industry must be carried into effect, but it is doubtful if enterprise, initiative and adventure will be encouraged by a policy whereby the workers generally are encouraged to'•depend almost wholly on others for such security as they may expect. To guarantee bous-j ing, family allowances, holidays,' a minimum wage and unemploy- | meat relief and deny the oppor-| tunity for anything beyond this' status means a more radical division than ever between those dependent always on their labour

and those with productive property and its amenities. It is for the workers to see that in the name of proletarian security they are not legally established in a status of permanent class servility. In war there is greater equality than jn peace because each is a fighting unit, and it may be anticipated that after the war that sense of equality will remain with the great majority now risking life in defence of the general weal. This is not to say a general levelling down will be .their ideal. They rather may rebel against any code calculated to level down the great majority, and to consolidate the privileges of a minority. Society is not stationary, and if the masses should console themselves with the hope that security is assured on a basis of legal or economic servility, they would find their hope only a delusion.