THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1926. THE STRIKE'S CONSEQUENCES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19321, 7 May 1926, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1926. THE STRIKE'S CONSEQUENCES

Facing the crisis into which the general strike has plunged Britain, the Home Secretary has appealed to all able-bodied men "to protect the community in this time of difficulty and danger." His words fall strangely on British ears. They have reference to an enemy within the gate. There has broken out what is tantamount to a civil war; indeed, in some respects it is worse than any civil war that Britain has ever experienced. There have been upheavals with strictly political aims, and some have involved much bloodshed. But their aim was more or less consciously the establishment of a better order, the creation of a larger place for civic liberty. This, on the contrary, is subversive of law, and menaces rather than upholds freedom. To give them their due, the organisers of the general strike are endeavouring to dissuade their following from excesses of violence; but in this endeavour they are but partially successful, and unless the strike comes to a speedy end their forces will get utterly out of hand. Theoretically, there is a difference between a general strike devoted to a strictly economic end and such a strike declared for the overthrow of an existing social order. The lino between these, however, is very difficult to draw and in the present instance there is little practical distinction. Originating in a particular industry, it has spread throughout the country. Its promoters are evidently not all content with achieving betterment for the coalminers. Some of them are set upon the complete destruction of individualist and capitalist society, and are determined to use this industrial outbreak for radically revolutionary ends. In this lies the strike's most serious aspect. Experience shows that a general strike, however initiated, tends to become an attack upon social institutions and to commit wholesale sabotage. With this sinister possibility in mind and already realised in a measure before his eyes, the Home Secretary makes his appeal. It has abundant warrant, as the news published today indicates.

Yet, even if deeds of red revolution remain the exception rather than the rule, this upheaval must work other havoc no less serious. Huge and far-reaching loss will be inflicted, especially upon the workers. It is calculated by Mr. F. H. Rose, Labour member for Aberdeen North, that the strikes and lock-outs in Britain during the last twenty-five years, leaving out those in the munitions factories during the war, cost the workers in wages alone £218,000,000. These disputes meant the loss of 654,000,000 working days on a conservative calculation, and on his average of 6s Sd a day over the whole period—an average by no means overstated —he bases the monetary loss quoted. To this must be added at least £10.000,000 absorbed by strike pay and lost in foregone union contributions ; and even then the full tale is not told. There are monetary losses suffered by others than workers, losses entailed through following years by reason of dislocation of industry and commerce, and losses of a moral kind beyond possibility of human reckoning. To the debit- of these periods of organised unemployment a colossal sum must be placed, and against this is no compensating entry. Mr. Rose, despite his sympathy with Labour in revolt, is constrained to declare that "the comparative advantages of the worker in our time are due in every case to constitutional effort; never to the strike." He is convinced that not one of these advantages "has been obtained or even hastened by industrial conflict." '

The present conflict has not yet yielded any basis for even approximate calculation, but the daily loss far outstrips any inflicted in the period surveyed by this Labour Parliamentarian. Under the control of the Trades Union Congress, according to a statement made last September at its annual assembly, are 4,500,000 unionists. Their number has been recently computed by outsiders to be 3,600,000. Putting it at 4,000,000. a total well within the claim made by officials of the Congress, there is seen to be a daily loss in wages approaching £2,000,000, inflicted on the unionists affiliated. But that is only a fraction of the immediate loss. Many thousands outside the control of the Congress are being thrown out of work, and beyond their loss is the sacrifice thrust upon a widely-spreading circle. When the struggle is over and the statistici;yis get to work, it will be found that there has been inflicted a staggering loss. Even a few days of so far-spreading an upheaval, entailing idleness and industrial dislocation, mean an immense setback, and its destructive influ ence is intensified through its happening at a time when Britain is with difficulty shouldering the burden left by the war. The Home Secretary may well issue his appeal for protective service from every loyal citizen. The risk of violent outbreaks is very real. Should they occur in any large measure, their effect would be terrible beyond description. Yet, should this fear not be justified by events, there, are inevitable financial and social effects of a gigantic order. An opportunity of untold gain at Britain's expense is being presented by disloyalists to her commercial rivals, and the seeds of a frightfully anti-social harvest arc being sown broadcast throughout the realm. However viewed, the upheaval is charged with dire consequences, and the best, that can be hoped is that from it, may be gleaned some salutary lessons not needing to be taught again for many a day.