The condition of the working classes

*THE WORKER*

Brisbane, February 2, 1895.

The Editorial Mill.

Our Motto: “Socialism in our time.”

“I am coming to recognise that reform through Parliament is too slow, and that after all the people must do their own business.” Thus saith a hard-working Melbourne wage-earner who is annoyed because the Victorian Government dropped the taxation of unimproved land values and the people looked on with stolid indifference. This man is only one of a type becoming most numerous in these colonies, whose multiplication may be viewed from a certain standpoint with considerable alarm. Talk of the above kind means either physical force revolution or physical force anarchy. The writer cannot grow enthusiastic over either. Karl Marx once was of opinion that the revolutionary plan was the only method of securing reform, but he altered his views somewhat after observing the great political changes since 1871 and prior to his death; and when it is plain that people who won't vote straight at the enemy are not likely to shoot him, but may turn their guns on friends, most men will steer clear of the physical force revolutionary party. What is most to be dreaded is the making of physical force Anarchists who, tired of the terribly slow movement of the parliamentary machine, may take upon themselves to reform society by the aid of dynamite. If ever such men do make their appearance in this country the Tory Australian politicians may regard themselves as solely responsible for the manufacture of political iconoclasts, whose operations may – and on the continent do – baffle the cleverest police.

_____________

Ferdinand Lassalle, the great German Socialist, who was killed in a duel some years ago, has spoken some strong words in refutation of the oft-repeated claim that the workers of to-day are infinitely better off than their ancestors of years ago. “It is by comparing different periods with each other,” says Lassalle, “that the condition of the working classes in the later century and generation seems to be superior to that of former centuries and generations. This involves a grave and tangled discussion embracing much painful research. Grant that the minimum of subsistence increases. Then do we stand any better off to-day because the minimum of necessities has increased during the last few centuries. If so, how can it affect you any more than when told the settled fact that your condition to-day is superior to that of the man-eating savages. It was no hardship to the to the savage that he could not buy soap or a coat, nor to the workman of later days that he had no tobacco before America was discovered, nor a book before the art of printing. All human hardship and sorrow depend then only upon the proportion of the means of contentment to the then wants and customs of life. Human conditions have ever been the same, dancing about the lowest circle of what in every period is customary and necessary to a bare existence, sometimes a little above – sometimes a little below. The condition of man can only be measured by this, the relation of the condition of his fellow-workers to the condition of the other classes of the same time. For what do all the heaped up riches and all the fruits of civilisation benefit the community when they are used only by a few, leaving unlimited humanity, the Tantalus of the ages, reaching in vain for what forever eludes the grasp, worse indeed than Tantalus, for he had not assisted in cultivating the fruits for which his thirsting tongue was damned to long.” Lassalle was a man of great scholarly attainment who considered the elevation of the working class ought to be regarded as the grandest achievement of culture, and therefore warranting the highest efforts of the State in its accomplishment. Australia wants a Lassalle or two to talk economics. Then “the movement” would have a little more life in it.

_____________

What's the matter with John Burns? For years it is said the American unionists had hopes that some representative of the workers of Great Britain would go amongst them, and by their influence and advice strengthen the American labour movement. Many times this invitation had been extended to John Burns, but his pressing duties prevented its acceptance. However at the last British Trade Union Congress so urgent was the American invitation that the congress appointed Mr. Daniel Holmes (of the National Weaver's Association), and Mr. John Burns (of the Amalgamated Society of Machinists and Engineers) to attend the convention of the American Federation of Labour. So far so good. When the convention was over John and his co-delegate did some travelling, and during the trip Burns is reported to have used such strong criticisms that Holmes found it necessary to dissent. In an 'interview' published by the WORLD of New York, Mr. Holmes is represented as attacking and dissociating himself from the Hon. Member for Battersea. The WORLD reporter makes Mr. Holmes declare that Mr. Burns is 'the most gigantic of conceit that had ever come to the United States from England.' The utterances of Mr. Burns, he is further alleged to have said, were insulting to their intelligence,' and he is represented as desiring all Americans to know that he did not in anyway endorse the sentiments put forth by Mr. Burns. It was reported later that Burns and Holmes had ceased to travel together. These reports together with statements that the New York Socialists gave Burns a rough reception, and the attacks of London JUSTICE and other labour papers would lead to the conclusion that the Burns of to-day is, as the New York capitalistic press put it, “a very different man from the one who used to associate with Tom Mann” at the time of the London dock strike. The WORKER is too far away to form an opinion from the meagre particulars to hand as to whether Burns has gone “cronk,” or because “too respectable.” One thing Australians who have had a reverence for the name of Burns in the past, may rest assured of and that is his incorruptibility as far as money is concerned. If Burns has modified his views it is not owing to the influence of ready money. It may be through flattery, and it may be that in a different environment his “extreme” views of 1889 may have undergone an honest change for the worse. Anyway if the British workers are dissatisfied with Burns they should cast around for man to take his place not waste time in denouncing him. This does little educational work. It certainly teaches the crowd not to put too much faith in or idolise a man. But if Burns was dead someone would have to take his place, and if he has gone “wrong” or because swell-headed the best plan is to regard him as dead to the labour movement, give him credit for his grand work in the past, and find his successor as soon as possible.

_____________

At the conclusion of the American elections the following telegram was despatched by the President of the American Federation of labour. “New York, November 7, 1894.

To Governor Cleveland, Washington, D.C.

Without much concert of effort by organised labour the people have answered at the polls your assumption of an unconstitutional and unwarrantable use of the military power to crush labour. Though the change may benefit us little, the rebuke will nevertheless be appreciated and remembered. – Samuel Gompers.”

The reference to the President's assumption of unconstitutional power is in connection with the ordering out of the Federal Troops (to shoot down the railway strikers) without consulting the States into whose territory the militia were sent. No doubt there would be a similar assumption of power in Australia in the event of a federation on the lines plotted by the premiers of the Parkes-Reid-M'Ilwraith type. The answer at the polls, however, would be somewhat doubtful. When a New South Wales electorate will elect an anti-labour man instead of shearer secretary Toomey, anything might happen.