Bystanders' Notebook, August 31, 1895.

*THE WORKER*

BRISBANE, AUGUST 31, 1895.

Bystanders' Notebook.

Change is the order of the day. Not spare change for that is mighty scarce, but transition. I might say this is an age of transition, but that has been said so often before that for the sake of originality I shall refrain. But yet it is true. Within this century the whole aspect of industrial economy has changed. The tyranny of the machine and the machine owner has become absolute. The change has spread to all industrial undertakings. From Silas Marner working “on his own” in his little cottage and selling the produce of his labour to the housewives of the district it came to be the capitalist-undertaker with his power loom and “hands,” while now he in his turn is crushed out by the enormous trusts which control the world's supply of necessaries and hold in the hollow of their hand the life of a nation. Up to quite recently the shearing industry of these colonies was in a comparatively primitive condition. So many sheep were to be shorn and the shearer contracted directly with the owner for the work, rates of pay, &c., being agreed to between them. The abuses of this system by the employers trying to take unfair advantages drove the men into combination, which of course had the effect of creating a like combination on the part of sheepowners. The constant disputes resulting and the consequent uncertainty of work being efficiently and expeditiously done, together with great loss on both sides, were portentous of change in methods in this punitive industry, and it is now arriving in the shape of the soul-subduing capitalist-undertaker, or, as he is called, a contractor, who, with his own machines and his own “hands” will take from the owner the whole responsibility of the work, give rise to a host of competitors of his own kind, take the work at contract rates (we all know what that means), grind the profit from his hands and generally bring a sample packet of the industrial Hell into the shearing industry.

The innovation cannot but prove acceptable to the pastoralist, saving him as it does all worry of management and the support of an expensive union together with trouble and loss in times of strikes, while it is in the very essence of the contract system to cut down the rates by competition to the lowest possible figure. Had there been the slightest doubt on this aspect of the subject it would have been dispelled by the unanimous boosting of the new system by the capitalist press, and the hope expressed that the difficulties in the way would soon be removed. With the worker it is very, very different. For him the entrepreneur has nothing but low wages and destitution. The immense army of unemployed now (thanks to our Labour Bureau) ranging the country like lions seeking whom they may devour are the materials on which the new system lives and flourishes-they are the embryo profits of the middleman. For the worker there is nothing but to point out that change so active in other respects has not been idle in the domain of politics. Already there is a new element whose object is industrial reform; already there is a change of front on the part of old politicians, and already an open fight has been brought about between monopoly and privilege and the advocates of reform. I believe that in politics now is the only redress for the worker. In a Democratic country like this it is possible through politics to pave the way for a complete change in our industrial system. I say “pave the way” advisedly, for I believe a complete change in any society, if history repeats itself, never comes about peacefully, but that is far ahead, and meanwhile, if the worker wants to scotch the heaven-born capitalist the parliamentary is his only safe and sure method. 

 May Day.