The Grey River Argus MONDAY, March 24, 1947. LABOUR’S RESPONSIBILITIES

Grey River Argus, 24 March 1947, Page 4

The Grey River Argus MONDAY, March 24, 1947. LABOUR’S RESPONSIBILITIES

'J'HE fashion latterly of the capitalistic press in controversy can scarcely hearten its mentors. It is an illustration of that wishful thinking which was frowned upon in war time, a suggestion that the counting of heads will yet be Labour’s downfall, owing to socialism in practice falsifying the altruism which is its foundation in theory. In Britain the Government is blamed for economic problems, let alone the question of a solution. In Australia the industrial turmoil is likewise attributed to the Governments. In this country there is a disposition to demand that supplies of all kinds ought to be not only greater than t hey are, but equal in all' respects to those before the war. The expedient in all of these cases is to ignore the fundamental exigency of the time, which has been the war destruction, the phenomenal displacements of manpower, and the necessity still to devote so much manpower to reconstruction both at home and abroad, not to mention military obligations. If history is a guide, the situation will return when there will be over-production, but it is impossible immediately to make up for the destruction. Admittedly new factors have since the war arisen, in the shape of shorter working hours, and a stronger determination on the part of those who do work that the civilisation which they defended shall approximate more generally and honestly the standard they had in mind when they did fight and toil for victory. It is said that the methods which Labour Governments follow in this spirit are failing and that the people are being disillusioned. Calls for greater production per worker in Britain are quoted as proof that proletarian ideas are fanciful dreams, and ! that longer, rather than shorter hours are necessary. This is a capitalistic remedy, an attempt to get back to the times before the working class was fully conscious of its part and responsibility in maintaining society. No hint, however, is there at Hie reasons why Labour is to-day so widely burdened with Governmental responsibility. An illustration of the controversial methods of the capitalistic press is the recurrent publicity cabled here from Australia, the latest instance being a suggestion that Labour’s loss of office in Western Australia heartens the opposition parties. The best criterion of Australian politics is the Federal Parliament, but until the other day only one State was without a Labour Government, and the change over in Western Australia is not significant, since Labour remains tar and away the largest party in Parliament, whilst the new administration is a composition of all others, including independents, who in the Assembly will have a working majority of three. The South Australian situation is partly the result of an accident in that industries which could not find accommodation in other States have gravitated thither, and afforded extra employment. To go by the emphasis which the capitalistic press places upon industrial disputes, the -evils of bureaucracy, and the hardships~of the community, it might be imagined that Labour is utterly out of favour as a governmental movement. But the question of the alternative is deliberately left in the background by those finding fault. If the Labour Govern-

meiits remain confident and ready' to correct any mistake, the reason, is that they realise things would be decidedly worse for the masses if the post-war recovery process were under absolute capitalistic control. As things are, industrial control is still largely capitalistic, and that is one reason why there is conflict. The idea of amelioration of the worker’s lot is unwelcome to the typical capitalist, who wants to undo measures which, even if not entirely efficient, are so to at least the degree that they have bettered the lot of. the workers in in-, dustry. It is simply fanciful to imagine that the long working hours of other days may be restored on the wages basis. Some critics of present production suggest an improvement is possible, but specify extra inducements, which really mean a sharing of profit. Given this incentive there doubtless are many'more workers who would endeavour to take advantage of it, whereas the case against Labour is based by the capitalistic press upon the contention that more .work must be done for the present remuneration. It is likely enough that many capitalists realise tha.t their best chance of holding out is

through the agency of Labour Governments which will eliminate some of the worst features of exploitation in industry. In any case, the fact is manifest that where the industrial clash is hardest, the political mana of Labour is highest. An Immediate obstacle to quick increase in duction is the framework of the capitalistic system which may aim at maximum production but at the same time prevents fair distribution. It is no case for capitalism to say that some other ideal is not leading to perfection because capitalism has been tried and found wanting. Socialism may be no short cut to paradise but capitalism has produced a short cut to something very different from paradise. .Labour administrations may on occasion remonstrate with workers but with better reason than those -capitalists who themselves feel obliged as an incentive to ignore the individual’s equity and fall back inconsistently upon a collectivist argument. The final question is simply whether prosperity must be identified with industrial capitalism as it has developed, or whether it is attainable by alternative means. The Labour Movement does not identify them, because experience proves both that they are identical only for a minority, and that distributive justice is to be sought along lines which promise prosperity for the majority,