THE UNITY CONGRESS AND ITS FRUITS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3098, 30 July 1913, Page 5

THE UNITY CONGRESS AND ITS FRUITS.

By the Hon. J. T. P-VCL, FI.L.C. Tile Unity Congress concluded its sittings the other day after being in session for nmo days. From some points of view it was a nine days' wonder. It was the biggest thing of its kind Vet held in tangible results it promises to bo absolutely barren. To understand the Congress Inc reader must recollect that it evolved from tho January conference of trades unions, which was called by the Federation ot Labour. It was pretended by its promoters that tho January conference was to uni > the forces of Labour, yet a large part ot organised Labour which was to be orougn* together was never invited, to bo present. The first act of the January conference was to invite delegates from the Dominion Executive Council of the U nited Labour party. Mr E. Tregoar and Fir W . 1. Mills attended, and wore elected members of the Unity Congress Committee which promoted the July congress. From that time onward the United Labour party rested on its oars, hoping that the July congress would be a true reflex of tho opinions pf the rank and file of the workers, and bo competent to frame a platform and constitution in tune with (heir needs and aspirations. rU hopes have been dissipated by the actions and attitude of the congress. , One of the reasons for the failure of the Unity Congress was the inability of tho Unity Committee to frame a workable programme as a basis. It is universally admitted that the committee put in a amount of work; but it was labour wuich introduced confusion into the congress. The constitutions submitted ran into something like 16.000 words —easily the longest in the world, —were verbose and involved, and largely unsuired to our country and its necessities. It was quickly apparent that tho committee meant to fight against reasonable alterations to their programme. The members of the committee wore ranged in line facing the congress, and assumed such functions as a Government would. They were there to get their constitutions through, and forgot for most of the lime that they were the Unity Committee, taking part in a Unity Congress. Mr Mills truculently told (he congress during the debate on the I.W.W. preamble that they were going to have their constitution, preamble and all Fir Young (the chairman of tho committee) told a section of the delegates that they had no right to be present; so that with a cumbrous programme, an uncompromising Unity Committee, and nearly 400 delegates present (the majority of whom had never previously sat in a conference), the expected happened—the congress for practical purposes was a fiasco.

I said last week that the congress was in reality a. mass meeting. And it was in essence and in fact. Mass meetings have their uses, but they are not ideal machines for the creation of working consitutions. Instead of a spirit of unity one found the spirit of victory and conquest ever dominant. The ultra-militants dcc'ared that «c could never hope to do anything in Now Zealand unless wo adonted the most revolutionary objectives and programme in the world Doubtless we will see many claims that the adoption of the full Socialist objective—“ The socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange ” is a declaration from the Now Zealand workers in favour of revolutionary (Socialism In real fact only a very small proportion '-f the workers are convinced .Socialists. Socialists are not made by cajoling a number of delegates to vote for the Socialist objective. il he militants fought for victory—not for unity. Any suggestion of compromise was rejected with scorn. Yet compromise is a law of life. None of us can live decently happily unless wo arc prepared to abate some of our Joss-cherished predilections. Compromise meets us at every turn in everyday life. And when one remembers that, the compromise sought at the Unity Congress was a compromise among workingclass delegates for the advancement of the workers of New Zealand. The man who multiplies the misery of the world and seeks to solve it in our small community is likely to pass through life without having accomplished anything. And the man who lias become the slave of fetish and cant is similarly situated. The two leading schools, of thought have not yet been harmonised in any country. The only way they could be harmonised here was by the exercise of toleration and mutual confidence. A large section of the delegates present at the congress were intolerant to a degree. The suggestion that we were engaged in practical politics was spurned; yet surely the new social Democratic party aims at being a practical political party. It is fair to assume that it desires to have Labour directly represented in Parliament. Yet it lias fastened an impossible burden on any of its number who seeks the suffrages of his fellow-men. A programme that might —or might not —be acceptable in 50 years’ time is hardly the sort of programme which will appeal to the present generation. And it is clear already, judging from the newspaper reports of the election contest for the Grey seat, that the Social Democrats do not yet know what lias and what has not been agreed to. Thar reminds me (hat the congress was compelled lo pass more than half of the constitutions without a word of discussion. If no other charge of incompetence could be brought against this congress, that alone proves its incapacity to consider the large volume placed before it by the Unity Committee. The congress might have hem able fully to study and 'consider a short programme and a concise constitution; but it was simply overwhelmed by the mass of printed matter placed before it. And one great difficulty is that every union interested cannot have the services of an interpreter every time the constitution is under discussion. Mr Mills would doubtless explain what he thinks the constitutions moan, or in his own words he would tell the public what lie meant the constitutions to mean. Winch reminds me that a friend of mine suggested the other day that Mr Mills was a master in explanation. “ lie’s always trying to make you believe that a white cow is a black pigeon.” Turning to the matters which most closely interest the unions, the question of finance bulks large. Each body affiliated to the new organisation is to be asked to contribute 4s per annum for each of its members. That tax would bankrupt a large number of the organisations if they decided to shoulder it The miners and a section of the waterside workers have been paying it; but that is by no means proof that the large body of unions could or would attempt to pay it. And to a largo extent it is an unnecessary tax. The promoters of the new organisations dream of big staff's and big

salaries. Already considerably over £2O per week has been allotted for salaries alone. On top of this there arc office expenses, more expenses for members of the executives of the two bodies, to say nothing of the very necessary expenses to carry on the district work. This latter has to a large extent been carried on by the Trades and Labour Councils, and it has been a very big work on the whole. The aim of the new bodies is to centralise all the funds, prised if the majority of the unions tell the* now executives that something much promising to pay the expenses of these very necessary local bodies. I shall not be surraoro simple and economical is far bettor suited to the needs and capabilities of the workers. The new tax is unnecessarily high, and will prove an unbearable burden on the majority of the unions in this country. Another vexed question is tho power of the new body to call unions out on strike. Unions are fairly safeguarded against spasmodic outbursts on the part of single unions without full consideration. That is a wise provision. But on the other hand unions may be ordered out on strike by the National Executive of the now body. That is evil. The unions are not likely to allow any National Executive to think for them and order them out on strike when tho executives please. With others, I tried very hard to safeguard tho interests of individual unions, and for that purpose moved to add these words to the end of tho clauses dealing with strikes : “Provided always that every local union shall have opportunity in accordance with its rules to declare its decision on such lockout or strike.” That proviso was defeated by 191 votes to 101. and by its decision the Congress showed plainly that it. was not willing to allow unions to make their own decisions.

in many ways the liberty of unions is considcrab'y circumscribed. For instance, no union or federation of unions—in fact, nobody outside the executives or those endorsed by the annual conforonco of both the new organisations —can approach Parliament or a Minister of the Crown by deputation or otherwise on any matter relating to Labour. If the new executives were composed of angels or there were visible signs of protruding wings something might be said for these restrictions. As it is, they are just the hallucinations cf a few men who want to create a corner in Labour, and stand I>. fore the world as the only men who cau he trusted to speak on behalf of Labour. It is a sorry exhibition of egotism and overweening ambition. It is beyond question that a largo number of the congress delegates pin all their faith to the strike. Past fai'ures prove nothing to them. They dream of the strike on a grand scale. They will not believe that the general strike is doomed to failure —they do not seem to realise that the general strike is the declaration of war against society. And society will win every time. “An injury to one must bo made an injury to all ’’ is the cryptic style in which they dress it. .So that if an injury is done to a section of the workers here in Wellington, the workers in Dunedin must lie made to suffer also. “ Strike in sympathy ! ” As Mr J. Ramsay MacDonald, chairman of the British Labour party, puts it in his latest pamphlet, ‘‘ Labour Party’s Policy”;— The sympthetic strike threatens society itself. You begin a strike against a company or in a trade, and you fight it out. Lhat is Labour against Capital. But you call a sympathetic strike, and stop the supplies that society wants. That moment r.ociety begins to protect itself against die .strikers. That is not Labour versus Capita!; it is Labour versus Society, and the mom mt r. becomes that Labour has very little chance of winning its liattle. A sympathetic strike as a Labour protective device docs little but pander to the dramatic imagination of that section that calls itself the extreme section As a matter of fact, it is ‘ extreme ’ only on the side of Capital. It plays the capitalists’ game. Ihe sympathetic strike only increases (ho problems of Labour, makes the Trade Union battle more difficult tha i it is, and almost foredooms iho i>oor men v. ho have come out to certain defeat. I shall never he a party to devising Labour legislation with the idea of making it of such a character as to render the sympathetic strike easy.

The congress has not unified Labour. Tlie United Labour party has decided lo continue, and it is presenting _ a united front to the new organisations. '1 hose latter have just issued a circular letter addressed “To those bodies hereto affiliated with the United Labour party.” '1 he circular teems with misrepresentation!.', and _ the United Labour party has deemed it fair to the organisations interested that the circular should be ans ven d. r i he I nited Labour party lias also issued a leaflet, ‘‘ Declaraton of Principles and Statement on Present Crisis,” and definitely affirms the following basic principles as the mean ng and purpose of our movem.nl : - 1. That our purpose and policy is evolutionary and constructive in character, and aims by constant revision and improvement of existing conditions of society to advance the well-being of the people as a whole, and not merely the sectional interests of a, class. , 2. That we repudiate, as a party and as individuals, the policy and methods of revolutionary action put forward under the various names of Syndicalism, Industrial Unionism, and Direct Action, under which the workers would he committed to panned industrial strife, stimulated cla-s warfare, and the use of force < instead of the process of law. 3. Thar we oppose most strongly the exploitation of the people by monopolies of all kinds, and seek to organise all who are opposed to such exploitation into one party. 4. That in the field of industry our policy is to endeavour by means of conferences, conciliation, and arbitration, or other methods of legal regulation, to effect the peaceful settlement of industrial disputes, reserving tiic strike only as a last resort. 5. That in the field of politics we stand as a distinct party. We uphold the rights of tlie people to the fullest measure of self-government by the free selection of their representatives, both national and local. Our object is to establish by law and just administration such conditions as will secure equality of opportuntiy to all and ensure that wealth created by society shall be owned by society and used l for the benefit of all, while that produced by the individual shall be owned by tlie individual. So it will Ik> seen that the much-adver-tised Unity Congress has simply been the means of wasting several hundred pounds of the unions’ money; but presumably has gratified the personal ambitions of a number of individuals. The tragedy of tho

whole business is that it failed to do what might easily have been done with the exorcise of ordinary tolerance and capacity—it failed to unify tho Labour movement on a sensible constitution, and a programme which could be realised in our own timo.