The Club Smoking Room

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XXXIX, Issue 17, 26 October 1907, Page 27

The Club Smoking Room

By

HAVANA

LABOUR movements,” remarked a visiting member, “are as conspicuous in New Zealand as in all other parts of the world.

And yet your working classes are seemingly much better off than the .workers of other lands. Their hours arc short, and their wages good. lam told flirt carpenters and bricklayers often earn over ten shillings a day; that would be considered a big wage in England. I know of many cases at Home where good men at their trade have not been able to get half that sum. When T was in Tahiti the average pay for men engaged in the building trade was only two Chili dollars a day, equal to about 3/6 in our money. But high wages and short hours do not seem to satisfy them; they want to nationalise all wealth and do away with private ownership altogether. At least that is what I gather, for it is not easy to say exactly what it is that the Socialists really do want. Their leaders seems to be always urging the working classes not to rest content with what they have got, indeed, it would appear that contented wageearners are the very last class that the professional agitator tolerates. But perhaps I am wrong, and someone who has studied the subject can enlighten me.” <s>«><s> “I don’t know that' you are wrong, exactly,” replied a schoolmaster who has always been a champion of Socialism, but I do not think you have quite grasped the position. High wages in themselves are no_ criterion of the comfort of the worker. As you must see for yourself, they tend to enormously increase the cost of production, and therefore the cost of living. The rate of pay can only be secured by placing high protective duties on all imported articles, and the worker with a family is really worse off in the end. What we want is a radical change that shall make the whole community share in the national prosperity. It is ail very well for us, sitting here in a comfortable room, with big easy chairs and a feeling of having dined both well and wisely, to discuss this subject from a purely academic standpoint. But I was teaching once in a big London Board school situated in one of the worst parts of the East End, and I saw a good deal of the reality of things. I knew of one case where the mother WM a widow. Her total weekly earnings were 9/, and. out of this she had to feed and clothe three people. The two children were always half fed and half clad, even in the depths of winter. They could not possibly grow up physically fit for the struggle of life. This was by no means an exceptional case. And even in New Zealand, despite our high wages, life often presses very hard on a family when the breadwinner is taken away. Now we believe,” he went on, ‘’that every State has an interest in its citizens. We see cases daily wiilre children are without sufficient proper nourishment to enable them to-grow up strong and healthy. We see also that no amount of legislation in the direction of shorter hours and higher wages can really effect a permanent cure. What We want therefore is something by which everybody will feel that they are parts of a great society, that they have io work for the good of the whole community, and tliat the whole community is interested in their welfare. We believe all wealth should be vested in the State for the l>enefit of all its members. Our present system is hopeless, and no amount of tinkering will ever make it better. A man can only get rich by exploiting the labour of others, no man at present has a chance if he depends •ntirely on tlis own labour.”

“What you say,” remarked the lawyer, “has great truth in it as regards your facts, but have you ever considered that the remedy might be worse than the disease? Instead of the whole community being suddenly rich, the whole community might be suddenly poor. Let me give you an instance. A client of mine had been engaged on some work with eight other fellows. They had agreed to share the profits. From start to finish there had been constant bickerings. Each man thought he was doing more than the others. Disputes arose as to the amount done by each, and eventually the party broke up. My friend said he would sooner work for the worst boss going than work for eight bosses as he had been doing. In another instance, men were paid by the piece with a limit of 10/ a day. All amounts earned over the 10/ were to go into a common fund to help the men who could not earn this wage. As a result, whenever a man had done his ten shillings’ worth he knocked off for the day. He wasn’t going to ‘bust himself for another bloke,’ to use his own expression. Unless you allow a man to enjoy to the full the fruits of his industry you have no really powerful incentive to work. If you allow individual ownership, on the other hand, however much you may try to restrict it, you cannot help creating a capitalist class. Thus, suppose a’il mfen worked for the State, and got a pound a day. At the end of the year one man would have saved a hundred pounds, and another ■would have saved nothing. Unless Socialists intend that we should have no money, and should be fed in public, and wear State uniforms, it is hard to see how they hope to avoid the existence of a capitalist class; for, as Carlyle said, the man who owns sixpence is lord of other men to the extent of that sixpence.” <S> “I fancy you have not quite understood the position,” replied the previous speaker. “We do not propose to altogether abolish private property. What we want is an extension of our present system of State ownership as we see it in our railways. We see immense fortunes made by private combines and monopolies, fortunes wrung from the labour and the necessities of the whole of the people. Well, we want those monopolies and those fortunes to go to the State. The community as a whole should benefit by the revenue from all classes of industry, just as it does at present by the postal and railway service. Izad and minerals should also be the property of the nation. But the State would pay its workers as it does at present, and the better the worker the higher the pay. We already recognise that children should bo properly educated at the public expense. We merely desire that when necessary their physical well-being should also be cared for by the community. The State would take the position of the private employer. I put it to you as to which is better—our own system of railways or the English system with its low wages and threatended strikes?” <«> «> <?> “I am afraid,” put in the journalist, “that, short of approximating all our social life to that lived in a gaol, the Socialists can do very little towards bringing about an equality of wealth. The born business man would soon become a capitalist, and population wonld still press hard on the heels of production. But if it is true that children are the best assets of a nation, it is equally true that the beat citizens are those who have their own homesteads. The State should do all in its power to enable its sons to

possess homes of their own. A man has but small interest in a place for which he pays rent, whether he pays it to a landlord or to the Government. Those who urged the nationalisation of the land are in reality urging the worst possible form of ownership. We do not want fewer owners, we want more, Legislate, if you will, in the direction of small holdings. That is an excellent policy. But for goodness’ sake don’t try and take away an Englishman’s home. What do you say, parson, on the matter ?” <S> <s> “ I think,” remarked the cleric, thus appealed to for an opinion, “ that we fancy reforms can be sudden, and will afford a short cut to the golden age. The only real reform is a reformation of character. The English character is the result of slow and long growth. It is built up largely on the love of home and wife and bairns. It is also daring, adventurous, and enterprising. Make all Englishmen servants of the State, and compel them to live in State-owned houses, -and till State-owned land, and you destroy those fibres of greatness in our character that have made us what we are. Bui our insular isolation has crept into our private life. We want more insight into our fellow men, and more of that charity described by St. Paul. If we could all practice hte golden rule of always looking to the interests of others., as well as to our own, and of esteeming others us better than, ourselves, we should usher in a higher kingdom than the kingdom of communism. The five barley loaves and two small fishes can never be miraculously multiplied by the State. It can only be done when they arc passed from brother to brother in human fellowship and human love.” <®> <S> <®> “ To my mind,” summed up the cynic, in serious mood, “ the socialist argument is hopelessly illogical. They Siiy environment is everything. Change the environment and you change the man. They want all men to have the material comfort of the well-to-do classes. And at the same time they tell us that these very people who enjoy the advantages of good environment are the most selfish and depraved people on the face of the earth. How do they reconcile these two statements? They weep over the wars of the Baboo, and .it the same time pass stringent laws to prevent him from sharing in their own prosperity. Wlrat we really want, is, as our worthy padre remarked, a truer sense of Christian brotherhood. The socialist says we are all brothers, except the rich; Christianity teaches that rich and poor are met to gether, and the Lord is Father of them all.”