CHAPTER III

WHERE WERE THE WORKERS?

NOR are these the only forces that have failed. Many had counted on the workers to preserve the peace of the world. We were assured that in these latter days the labourers of one country had much more in common with the labourers of another country than they had with other groups in their own land. Among the socialists a group had grown up who called themselves Internationalists, and it was argued that nothing could possibly induce them to take up arms against their brother workers in other lands. Class-consciousness was esteemed more powerful than nation-consciousness, and it was freely claimed that a new sentiment of solidarity and humanity had arrived to take the place of the old sentiment of nationality and patriotism. Perhaps the logic of history was on the side of those who thus reasoned, but here, as so often happens, abstract logic broke down in the presence of concrete life. Inspired and urged by sentiments that have a very deep rootage in the human spirit, these

men, with or without compulsion, hastened to answer their country's call to arms,- to rally round the flag.1

But it is not enough to say that the workers failed to prevent the war. In all probability we had no right to think for a moment that they would succeed. Doubtless we took their enthusiastic promises too seriously. We ought to inquire why they failed. There are three answers. The first we have already suggested. It is that there was a miscalculation as to the potency of the appeal to patriotic and nationalistic sentiment. The second reply is that the workers were not organised internationally, except on paper, and therefore could act as a unit only with great difficulty. The third reason is that within their own country they had only a modicum of political power, at any rate in reference to foreign affairs. The power to proclaim or to prevent war, to precipitate or to postpone war, was altogether beyond their control. All they could do was raise their individual voices of protest; they could not back up their voices with their votes in any effectual way. It is therefore hardly just to say that the workers failed to prevent this war. It is true enough that they did not prevent

1 See Chapter XVI, "The Frontiers of Friendship."

the war, but that is only an indication of their politi. cal weakness. If the peace of the world is ever to be preserved the political power of the workers, who do the fighting, must be greatly enhanced.

Fortunately there are signs and portents that the day is not distant when Labour's right to be heard in the determination of such momentous issues as war and peace, will be recognised and granted. For a mighty change is impending.1 The modern movement towards democracy, now temporarily halted, will, in the end, be greatly accelerated by the war. For a while, during the early months, the notion gained credence that the rapid growth and spread of democracy had so frightened Old World rulers that the war was precipitated by them to stem the rising tide. Unlikely as this now seems, and be it as it may, the ultimate effect of the war will undoubtedly be to increase the momentum of the democratic movement. Students of affairs in the several belligerent nations 2 tell us that we may expect radical reforms, economic and political, after the war. Attention is called to

1 See Article by H. G. Wells entitled "As the World Lives On," in the Independent for January 8, 1917.

2 See Herbert Bayard Swope's Inside the German Empire, especially Chapter IV. Also see Article on "The Social Revolution in England" by Arthur Gleason in the Century for February, 1917.

the fact that because of the exigencies of the war's demands, the workers in all the fighting nations have been compelled to co-operate industrially to a degree that their most enthusiastic leaders had never dared to suggest before the war. Enforced co-operation has been undertaken on a grand scale, so much so that prices and wages have been rigidly fixed by governmental authority.

It is interesting and important to observe and record what has been going on in Europe since the war began. In practically every belligerent nation, the Government has forced upon industry and manufacture, willy-nilly, a sort of paternalistic democracy, a kind of coerced co-operation. Much of the labour of production and distribution is being performed under direct government management. There is government control, and sometimes operation of mines, shipping and railways. Beginning December 1, 1916, all the South Wales mine fields came under the control of a committee representing the British Board of Trade, the Home Office, and the Admiralty. This committee manages the mines, determines the price, decides on the profits, and settles the question of wages. For the nonce, practically all competition and duplication has been eliminated. This mobilisation of labour and

control of industry became absolutely necessary. For no nation, fighting for its existence, could afford to indulge in wasteful methods. The economies brought about by the all but universal substitution of co-operation for competition meant just so much more money for the war-chests.

Many insist that after the war, having discovered the advantages and economy of such industrial co-operation, the citizen-workers will refuse to return to the old manner of unrestricted competition. They will argue that the enormous savings effected by co-operation have been spent in a costly war to meet the urgent needs of a national crisis. When the crisis is past they will insist that there should be a re-distribution in terms of reward. They will say to their several governments, "Oh, very well, we will tear a leaf from your experience. We, too, believe in co-operation, in democratising industry, but with a difference. Hereafter we will voluntarily co-operate and save for ourselves the usufruct of the labour of our own heads and hands.” It is an anomaly of modern times that while we have already achieved democracy, in no small measure, in religion, in education, and in domestic politics, industry should still largely be ruled by monarchs of the market. When a degree of democracy,