LABOUR AND CAPITAL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17325, 27 May 1918, Page 6

LABOUR AND CAPITAL.

TO TUE KDITOIt. SIE, —Mr Percival Witherby's report on labour and capital is valuable because it represents a popular concoption of the causes supposed to be at the bottom of the friction. Your critical comments in your loading- artk-ks however, show us that the problem requires a deeper consideration. It is plainly discernible that Mr Witherby is not an expert economist. If there exists a misunderstanding between labour and capital the first stops to be taken, must, be to discover the root causes and explain how they originate. This Mr Witherby has failed to do. He says: " After all, the root cause of all trouble is misunderstanding, and misunderstanding alone." This can certainly not bo acceptcd as a scientific explanation of tho root cause, for it is merely a play upon words, and reminds us of the parson who preaches that "if everybody would only do the right thing, then God's Kingdom would reign on earth." The trouble arises from tho fact that everybody, in the first instance, does not know what the right thing is; and, secondly, when they do know, they most often do not know how to act so that harmony can be realised, and when we oonsider the complicated nature of economic problems, the right thing to do is an extremely- obscure proposition, requiring much time and patient labour, involving scientific research. Now, it will be noted that Mr Witherby regards the friction between labour and capital as arising from a misunderstanding which has its origin in the selfish attitude of both sides; and he thinks that if this seLfish attitude could bo removed the road would be dear for an industrial agreement which would had to a solution. This would, of course, be a sound conclusion if the root cause was a personal one. and confined to the relation between employer and employee. Economic science, however, shows us that the root cause is not a personal one, nor docs it originate from, a cause that exclusively affects tho 'relation between labour and capital. The root, cause arises from the fact that we determine prices, or the money value of all raw material, by an arbitrary and -unscientific system of competition, in which tho buyers who offer the highest price determine tho cost of production, and hence the price to be charged to the consumer. It is the steady rise, in the prices of all the necessaries of life that give rise to the discontent and rebellion amongst the ranks of the workers; but the root cause of this trouble lies in the system, and is outside the scope of any agreement that might ha entered into between the workers and their employers. This proves conclusively that 'the root cause is not selfishness, and hence cannot be personal, out is urimarily economic in its origin. Selfishness only enters into the problem ns a factor when a person refuses to give his moral or political support to a truly effective proposal for the removal of 'the evil. As no such proposal has even been placed before the community, it is idle to abuse the capitalist or any section in the community as responsible for the industrial unrest that prevails. Every attempt at a solution must imperatively consider value as a primary factor. In this respect, the Labour Party is completely astray in its well-meaning efforts to frame a solution. It thinks that if it had possession, or if the Government, had possession, then all tho rest would follow easily. This is a serious delusion. The law of Nature is an over-present controlling force in all government, as well, as all private, enterprise. It is 'the price of raw material, plus wages, that determines tho cost price of all commodities, below which thev cannot be produced. This shows us that a price paid' in excess of this amount involves an act of exploitation. This act takes place in the open market, where the buyer of the raw material is the active agent. Therefore, until this custom has been abolished, it makes no difference whother_ a factory is owned by the State or a private individual.—l am, etc., W. SIVEKTSEN. ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL. TO THE JWITOR. Sir, —At tho last meeting of tho executive of the Otago Football Association the refereo reported that he had ordered a member of the Green Island team off the field for dangerous play and deliberately kicking an opponent, and had cautioned another member of the same team for rough play in the match against Old Boys on the previous Saturday. As a spectator of this latter match, I wish to protest against the referee's repot* and to say that from my personal observation rough and dangerous play was indulged in chiefly by Old Boys. Green Island has a standing unpopularity extending over a number of years, due almost entirely to the attitude of the referees and officials of the association. As ono who has played both at Home and in the dominion, I am bound to say that I have never noticed anywhere such extremo bias displayed by referees as is shown generally towards the Green Island team. It would seem that the slightest bit of rough play on the part of Green Island, however unintentional, never escapes the eaglo eye of the referee, who in most ea«?s appears blind to the same conduct by th? players of opposing teams, and I have no hesitation in saying that the rough play reported on this occasion was the result of extreme provocation. At this match the refereo had the fairness to caution ono of the Old Boys' players, yet no mention was made of the matter at the executive meeting, while a Green Island player, for the same offence, is to appear before the next meeting of the committer to explain his conduct. It is not long since a plaver was advised by the referee that ho would never attain prominence in the football world so long as he remained associated with tho G r oen Island team. Again, in the selection of ground Green Island is invariablv allotted the worst to play upon.—l am. etc., Spout. CLYDESDALES AT THE OTAGO SHOW. TO TOE EDITOR. Sir,—Since writing my last letter upon tho above subjtct I fully intended not to refer to tho matter again. I should have boon quite content, to let sleeping dogs lie. It has been brought to my knowledge, however, that, particularly at certain salevards and in loud, angry language not of the choicest, the authorship of my last letter has been attributed to a gentleman who was entirely innocent cf it. I make the hold assertion that it would be a relief to meet a conqueror at. future shows who would lie blessed with such a high sense of honour tlmt, ho would give full credit for tho perfection of all his competitors' horses.—l am., eh r- ~ .. Jakes. May 25.