The daily Nome industrial worker., 1916-01-07

A A people are utterly opposed to pre- paredness. Another enormous sec. tion is utterly indifferent whether the country is prepared for war or not. There is no denying this fact It is in evidence in newspapers and in leaflets, in pamphlets, magazines and reviews. Moreover, far from .,eing Q silent opposition, it is yi3or- oas and active, and far from being carefully concealed indifference or an indifference covered over with a ifypocritical feigning of interest however faint and lauguid, it is open, avowed and not at all asham- ed.
 Tho attitude of the first section, and although the preparationists assume that it is due to ignorance and to lack of Knowledge of real and inn minent danger, is far better ac- quaintcd with the facts than the very men who accuse it of ignor- nncc. It openly sees in the propc- gauda what is four-ffths of it's ba- sis, the eagerness of the munitions trust to fatten itself at the public expence, ard they unanswearabl.' lrrt Cut that the preparationists de. cline almost unanimously to remove the profit element from the muni- tions industry, and to have the goy- ernment. if it has to be preparol prepare itself, by building up itl own manufacture of war material men, guns and ships, powder and war appliances.
 The other section is indifferent because of the fact that conditions do not appear to them to be really worth fighting for, and while indus trial conditions, working conditions, may be better in America than In come other European countries which may be possibly enemies in the future, the improvement is nor SO marked as that they would un- hesitatingly and eagerly, give ul their lives in defense of them.
 This attitude is explained by an analogous situation in England, very illuminatingly dwolt upon by the Chicago Tribune when discuss ing tho English coal strike.
 The article is worth quoting at some length. because it will explain where preparaticnist3 must begin, if they would build up q thoroughly inv,nc:ble fabric against attack:
 Tn war circumetcncc9", said the Tribune writer, 'thc employing class finds increased profit, and the em- ployed class is called upon for in- creased work. Great Britain has insisted upon an individualism which to the workers meant pro- gress by strife. It now asks for q communism which means progress by sacrifice, and tho worker de-
 
 British Empire is to be worth fight ing for and working for, why should it not be worth something to it's workers.
 The question as the British work CTS propound it has the ugly aspect of disloyalty but why should not the state establish itself as something worthy of tho great sacrifice it ask5? If Britain is to ask men to work for and die for her, let her make her self worth dying for. The same sti- pulation will soon apply to the United States.
 There Is intelligence in the Brit ish labor movement, and it wanis more than sentiment. Men fight for what is dear to them. S0rf1o times the value is sentimental sometimes it is practical. Sentiment for sacrifice in war will never grow sturdily in soil never enriched by g consideration of human needs i,, time of peace. If the British work man be surly and disloyal, 1t is be- cause his government did not re- veal in time of peace sufficient con sideration for him to make national emergency worth 9 personal sacri- fec. .
 Precisely the same frame of mind is in evidence in not one or hund- red but in thousands of workers in this country, and it is very notice, able in classes whose jobs are un- steady and whose lot compe1s them to travel from place to place in