On Collaboration between Labour and Capital 1919

“Hunting with the Hounds”

That movement of manufacturers and dealers in the basic commodity from which all other commodities spring, i.e., the commodity labor power, like all other merchandising movements, breeds an officialdom that instinctively manifests a more or less sympathetic concern in the doings and activities of other movements of like character. And it is quite to be expected that there should be a sort of affinity between trading fraternities that at least would express itself during normal times, when no extraordinary circumstances had arisen to disturb the trading family life. At times there occurs trouble in the otherwise happy family of capital and labor. Perchance the laborers are not satisfied with the meals provided at the family table, thinking the fare too meagre. On the other hand the capitalist may deem it too plentiful and rather tending to induce gout or fatty degeneration of the soul amongst the laborers. A family row results and the ordinary peaceful and orderly family life is often violently disturbed. In the heat of passion either one or the other brother, either capital or labor, may refuse to listen to the voice of reason and confer with the other for the purpose of settling the dispute and restoring harmony. But after awhile the feud burns itself out and the quarrelling brothers become reconciled. They are once more on friendly terms. At least they are no longer in open hostility. Then the “labor leader” once more appears in the limelight of capitalist favor. He is called upon to address meetings of the Board of Trade, Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturers’ Association, Rotary Clubs and other similar organizations for spiritual uplift by way of the trade route to earthly glory. He becomes a great man again in the happy family of the exploiter and the exploited, the ruler and the ruled, the robber and the robbed, the master and the slave. Everything is lovely until the next row breaks out, and the same old tale has to be retold.

* * *

There is nothing at all out of place in our “labor leaders” getting their shins under the banquet board of Rotary clubs, manufacturers’ associations, and similar worthy institutions of like character. What could be more appropriate and well calculated to strengthen the bonds of fraternity and good fellowship between trading organisations than that their respective officials and members should meet together in friendly concourse and draw inspiration each from all and all from each? From such feasts of reason and flow of soul great good may come in the way of establishing permanent, pleasing and profound harmony between the profit-hungry skinners and the oftentimes grub-hungry ones who are skinned.

* * *

Local celebrities in the labor world are no less prone to shed their effulgence upon gatherings of capitalist pirates or grace their banquet boards with their illuminating presence, than are the higher-ups in the “collective bargaining” business, which is but another name for wholesaling and retailing slaves upon the instalment plan. And there is nothing incongruous in this close affiliation of traders in different lines. Trading in the commodity, labor power, is no less noble and uplifting than trading in the other commodities that come forth as a result of its consumption. As labor power is the commodity that functions as the raw material from which all other commodities are manufactured it would appear that the organisations of manufacturers of that particular raw material or commodity should be among the most highly-honored and honorable in the land. Such being the case it seems rather grotesque that the officials of the organisations of commodity manufacturers and dealers, whose merchandise is in reality the parent of all other commodities, should always be the ones to be patronized to the extent of being asked to grace the meetings of the dealers in inferior commodities with their august presence. But such is the case, although it would appear far more appropriate and fitting if the “collective bargaining” organizations were to do the patronising, by inviting their capitalist brethren to sit at their feet.

* * *

How the mouths of local talent in the fine art of appeasing the capitalist class by gracing his banquet board with their noble presence and soothing his sordid soul with tuneful piffle played upon the harmony string, must water when they read of the splendid opportunities afforded the higher-ups in their business, who are allowed to sit at the feet of the great at the capital of the nation and profusely anoint them with the unctuous bullcon [sic] primarily intended to act as a soporific to the wage animal, but found equally pleasing and somnolent to the beast that devours him. The president of the Trades and Labor Congress—which, by the way is a subcommittee of Sam Gompers of Washington, D. C.—was recently the “guest of honor at the manufacturers’ dinner” at Montreal. His name is Thomas Moore, but in the headlines announcing the epoch-making event he is affectionately referred to as “Tom.” The Montreal Daily Star rapturously proclaims that “capital and labor are more friendly,” the proclamation being induced evidently by “Tom’s” presence at the festive board. “A splendid spirit of friendship and appreciation was in evidence.” The stunt was pulled off at the “Ritz-Carlton.” This hostelry is not a cheap joint whose patronage is in manner confined to wage animals. Its atmosphere is considered, however, as eminently calculated to afford the necessary inspiration to enable duly qualified “labor leaders” to speak eloquently and convincingly of the hopes and aspirations of those who neither eat nor sleep there, and also to set forth, in a manner not at all offensive to brother Capital, the proper means to induce brother Labor to sit up straight and keep his nose wiped, without forcing unnecessary expense upon his always-well-behaved and loving brother. And “Tom” accepted the inspiration and spoke as none could were they not inspired. He “thought it was an indication of a more friendly attitude between labor and capital in Canada today when he, the head of trade unionism in Canada, was the guest of honor at a banquet of an association which was supposed to be the strongest opponent of trades unionism.” What else “he” could think under the circumstances of the “banquet” and himself as the “guest of honor,” is not altogether clear. But the “head of trade unionism in Canada” hastened to assure the misguided members of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, whose “guest of honor” he was, that “in opposing trades unionism too strongly, the association and other kindred bodies of employers are really hurting themselves in the eyes of the workers, who have reason to look upon their trade union as the court which gives them justice if they are ill-treated.” Of course, “the workers” are, as is always the case, greatly disturbed lest the employers do something to “really hurt themselves.” That is about the only thing that workers ever lay awake nights worrying over. As for themselves, if they are “ill-treated” their trade union will give them “justice.” It’s a wonder the assembled banqueters didn’t either throw up or burst their buttons with laughter.

* * *

“The speaker made a powerful appeal for the association to back up the unions in their fight against bone-dry temperance legislation, and asserted that those who were the strongest advocates of such a measure were the ones who preached Bolshevism and social revolution.” And there should have been uproarious applause. No doubt there was. The assembled employers were also told “that the enemies of organized society were the very ones who sought to stir up friction between employer and employee, and sometimes in the past such men and members of the association before him tonight, had suffered (just think of it.—Ed.) from the mistakes of unions led by such agitators, but that the responsible trades unionist was the capitalist’s strongest bulwark, if only a friendly co-operation was extended to him, since the trade unionist and, indeed, the worker fully realized that the downfall of the capitalist and the cessation of the work in the factory spelled his own idleness and possible starvation.” The balance of Moore’s twaddle, as far as reported in the daily press, was of the same dull and innocuous type. Pleading for better housing for the workers, for unemployment insurance which would keep the temporarily-discarded slave from completely starving to death, the doing away with child labor, liberating married female slaves from industry, so that they could stay at home and mind their kids, and a sickening mess of similar bleatings for mercy at the hands of the gang assembled thereat, constituted the balance of the intellectual menu provided by the “guest of honor.” When he got through with his piffle there was “great cheering,” all of which may be either taken as an expression of hearty accord with the aforesaid piffle, or extreme joy because he had finished. The next speaker was a legal sharp who spoke eloquently and convincingly about a new “Insolvency Act.” We are justified, however, in feeling sure, that it was in no way intended as a reference to either the intellectual solvency or insolvency, as the case may be, of the illustrious “head of trades unionism in Canada.”

* * *

If there is a worker in Canada or elsewhere, either a member of a trade union or not, who does not know that he and his class are slaves, he is by no means well enough informed to be safely allowed out of sight of a jail or an insane asylum. If he knows that he and his class are slaves, he will then be fully aware of the fact that there is no common ground between his class and the ruling or master class. He will recognise the truth of Moore’s assertion and assurance that the “intelligent trade unionist,” of the type of Moore, and who can doubt that he is himself the type that he refers to as “intelligent,” is “the capitalist’s strongest bulwark?” If there was anything at all dangerous in the type of “intelligent trade unionist” like Moore, that was in any manner dangerous to the master class, does any sane man think that they would be received as “guests of honor” by any association, or aggregation of exploiting brigands or commercial bandits on earth? There is nothing, and there can be nothing, but deadly enmity between masters and slaves, unless the slaves have lost all trace of manhood and become as veritable cringing curs to lick the boots of their tyrannical and brutal overlords. It is evidently the mission of the Moores and such creatures to keep the rank and file of their unions in leash for the employers and masters. If that be not their mission and purpose then their actions and words belie their professions of faith to those whom they are supposed to represent. In the first place no organization of labor, if it be genuine, can consort with masters’ and employers’ organizations without stultifying itself. No man who is known to be true to the working class and immune to the blandishments of the employers, will ever get any invitations to officiate as “guests of honor” at their gatherings. And no man who is really loyal and faithful to the cause of labor in its struggle to break the chains of bondage to rulers and masters, will ever so far forget his manhood as to have anything to do with these associations and organizations of the ruling class, except to fight them to the finish and fight them in the open. When slaves or their representatives officially break bread with the rulers and robbers of labor, and pour the oil of gladness upon the raw nerves of those robbers, the nerves that inevitably run down into their pockets, there is no danger of the condition of the slave class being improved in the least. “No man can serve two masters.” He can not “run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.” And he who as a “labor leader” attempts to do it should not be flattered by being considered an object of suspicion. His guilt is too apparent. So much for Moore.

E. T. Kingsley