The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1920-04-24
DIRECT ACTION

 miners delegates, to have recourse to political rather than direct action marks a turning point in the history of the British labor movement The reasons for the decision of the Con gress are difficult to arrive at from a study of the speeches which were de- l livered, and it is impossible to say l wh hether the suggested general strike was rejected on grounds of principle ! or simply on the more immediate l ground that it would not be success | fud. Possibly both considerations en- tered into the decision. The militant campaign which labor has conducted since last autumn has not been a conspicuous success; the railway l strike was rendered comparatively in- effective by the strong action taken by the Government; and the recent results in certain bye-elechons fndi- cate a certain setback to the Labor party's rapidly growing popularity in | the conStitu eneieS It is possible, therefore, that the decision of the | Trades Union Congress was not come | to without some consideration of the prospects of the Labor party at the l next general election On the one hand the adoption of violent methods would seriously jeopardize the partys chance in the country, while on the other hand the decision it has taken will greatly enhance it's reputation for statesnan1ike action. Once more the British Trade Union movement has exhibited a sanity and restraint which are unknown in labor move nentS abroad.
 It must not be forgotten, however, that the trouble with the miners is not yet solved. The Trade Union Congress decided to institute a viz orous campaign of political action in order to induce the Government to carry into effect the recomm enda- hons of the Sankey commission At the same time the miners themselves may possibly resort to the weapon of the strike in order to force the Gov ernment's hand, but it is the more general opinion that they will confine their demand for the present at least to an immediate rise of wages Such an increase of wages cannot be re- sisted in view of the fact that the cost of living has gone up by fifteen points since the Sankey award last year, and 1t is only eqIi table that the condition of the miners should not be allowed to be disapproved owing to circumstances outside their control It is suggested, howoyen that the in creased wages demanded will not be confined to a rise commensurate with the rise in the cost of living, but will aim at obtaining some of the adva,n- tages which the miners claim they would obtain if the mines were ma tionaFized. Of course, a strike on this issue would be a direct challenge to the Government, and would have to be dealt with in a very different way from a strike aiming at a simple rise of wages.
 1 While all of these disputes and dis cussions are going on nobody seems to question the fact that under ma tionaIization the miners positi on would be greatly improved. Never theless the whole wisdom of their present proceeding turns on the truth , or fauacy of this premise One would have thought that the experience gained in the war would have opened ithe eyes of a great many people to the fallacy of standardization either to secure more economical prod1ctio on or better conditions of labor for the workers. These lessons, however, seem to have fallen on deaf ears, and the demand for naturalization today . is as insistent as if we had never had the experience of nat1onahzed rall- .. ways with the general strike, and se- were labor troubles in factories under government control. In our opinion tionaIization---w11ioh is a very diff ferent thing from the. form of control advocated by the Guildsnen---would
 not in the very least improve the status or condition of the miners, for the simple reason that it would not give them any more share in the ownership of the industry than they : have at present. NationaHzation is essentially a movement in favor o1 the consuming public, because it en- ables industry to be controlled by the representative of the public in Par 7 ilament The whole tendency of a t nationally controlled industry is there fore to lower the selling price of a product
 3 At present the pressure of the con
 sumer to keep down prices is trans F mitted through so many agenries--- 7 the retailer, the wholesaler, the inn Iporter, and the employ ii
 reaches the worker in such dimin-
 ished strength that he is capable ot
 resisting it to a large extent by trades
 union action. But under nationaliza-
 ton this pressure of the consumers would be exerted directly through their mana cement of the industry and trades action on the part of the
 worker would become corresponding ly weak. Moreover, it must not be
 forgotten that to strike against a na- tionally owned industry is to strike
 against the government have always
 received a very different measure o1
 public support from strikes agains1
 private employers The one valid ar , gument for standardization is that il
 tends to reduce the waste of compe- :, tition. The applicability, if not the
 validity, of this argument, however, is
 being lessened more and more at the
 present day owing to the tendency o1
 employers tbemselves to amalgamate
 and combine so as to abolish the wastage of competitive production
 One consideration that induced cer- !, tain economists to favor nationaliza-
 tion, has therefore disappeared in re = cent years.
 This argument, like all others ir
 favor of the State owning industry 7 was based on the consumers point ot
 view. What arguments can be offered
 in favor of standardization by pro- ducers it is impossible to say. This difficulty, however, does not seem tc ; | trouble the miners, who apparently
 have made up their minds for them : selves on this difficult probIem.-The
 Irish Statesman.
 cDENrnS NGur 0N DOTE