dictators went on unchecked in 1920. In March, 1920, an official report showed that out of 260 enterprises in Petrograd 134 were individually managed. In the small enterprises the former owners were usually still in charge, and most of the factories which had changed their form of management since January, 1919, had gone over to individual control. Further, the majority of the directors were not workingmen. Of the committees still in charge 49 per cent. were drawn from the manual worker class; of the individual managers only 29 per cent. The British Labour Party delegation which visited Russia in the summer of 1920 found one-man control of factories general. Whether this development has spread to the trust committees and the committees controlling the various sections of the Supreme Council of National Economy we do not know, nor do we know to what extent the unions still control appointments to the various positions. A series of theses' on the position and duties of the unions, written by Commissar Zinoviev, in February, 1920, suggests that the subordination of the unions to the soviets and the Communist Party was necessary in view of the growing dissatisfaction against labour conscription and the hostile attitude of the river transport and printing unions on wages matters. We do know that rigid discipline has been imposed, that overtime is allowed, that piecework and premium bonus systems have been introduced, and that the growth of political control over economic life tends to produce in Russia a system little different from the collectivism or "state capitalism'' which prevails in other parts of the world.

Books Recommended. Stoddart, J., “The New Socialism”; Harley, J. H., "Syndicalism"; Levine, L., "Syndicalism in France"; Sorel, G., "Reflections on Violence'; Cole, G. D. H., "The World of Labour,'' "Self Government in Industry,'' "Social Theory''; Hobson, S. G., "National Guilds''; Penty, A., "Old Worlds for New,"“Guildsman's Interpretation of History"; Brissenden, P., "Story of the I.W.W."; Postgate, "Bolshevik Theory''; Lenin, N., "Soviets at Work"; Russian Constitution. There is no good book yet on the working of Bolshevik economic policy.

P.S. The year 1921 saw the re-opening of the door to foreign trade and to private enterprise. Factories were handed over to capitalists; banking, distribution, theatres, etc., were placed on the old basis, and large concessions were granted to foreign financial groups. Though the Bolsheviks retained political power, their economic policy had to be trimmed, watered down, and in part abandoned-or postponed. Meanwhile other countries realized the folly of ostracising Russia; trade agreements were made, and in January, 1922, Lenin was officially invited to participate in a conference called for the purpose of attempting to restore the fabric of the European economic system.

CHAPTER XXV.

WELFARE WORK, CO-PARTNERSHIP, AND

PROFIT-SHARING.

TRADE unionism, socialism, syndicalism, and guild socialism are all parts of the attack made upon capitalism by the employee class. They have been met generally by an assertion on the part of capitalists that the system is "all right,'' in this the best of all possible worlds. But the assertion is not quite unanimously supported, and in many lands a few voices have been raised in dissent. These voices, while defending capitalism in its general outlines, and opposing strenuously the proposals of the socialist and the syndicalist, have nevertheless been willing to admit that all is not as perfect as it might be, and that some improvements could be made, especially in the attitude of capital towards labour. In the industrial war labour has generally been on the offensive, and capital in places has been willing or compelled to vacate its front-line trenches.

We said "willing or compelled. Instances are not wanting where employers have realized that the old system could with advantage be amended, and have therefore on their own initiative taken steps which do not accord with the traditional policy of their class. There has been no compulsion on them. They have acted either from humanitarian motives, or from a recognition that certain improvements would benefit both their employees and themselves. But in the majority of cases compulsion or fear have beer. the moving forces. The growth of a strong political party, the rapid advance of unionism, the outbreak of a strike fever and period of labour unrest, these menaces to peaceful industry are necessary to evoke from any big body of employers the admission that improvement is possible. During such periods suggestions for welfare work, profit-sharing and copartnership become most prominent; but when normal times return the zeal for reform subsides, though not without leaving its mark on the organization and methods of some firms.

Welfare Work. This mark may be merely what is called welfare work-i.e., an effort to foster the well-being of one's employees during their working and leisure hours. Welfare work dates back to Robert Owen, whose experiments at New Lanark showed that humane treatment of workpeople was not incompatible with substantial profits. Similar work was carried on by a few people here and there after Owen's time—e.g., Krupp at Essen, Godin at Guise-but in the majority of industries no thought was given to the labourer's welfare. Low wages, long hours, unhealthy or unsafe conditions, all were regarded as natural; they were part of the policy of buying in the cheapest market.

Since about 1890 welfare work has made many converts, and such outstanding instances as Bournville and Port Sunlight in England, the National Cash Register, Ford, and Goodyear Tyre Co. establishments in America, are only the best known among thousands of firms which to-day seriously study the problem of employment in nearly all its bearings. The war gave a great impetus to the welfare movement. The demand for unlimited muni

tious and the withdrawal of male labour caused a wider employment of women, increased hours, abolished holidays, revived Sunday work, and suspended factory acts. Output was the first consideration, but it soon became evident that long hours, insanitary factories, lack of rest and recreation, bad housing, poor food, and ill-health had their effect in producing industrial fatigue, low output, and frayed tempers. The Ministry of Munitions in 1915 therefore began a big campaign of welfare work, especially for women workers. In 1918 there were 800 welfare supervisors in munition factories; the universities offered courses of training for the work, and far-reaching official investigations were made on industrial fatigue in its various aspects. Similar developments took place in France, Italy, Germany, and America.

The motives underlying welfare work are mixed. The first is that which leads the employer to regard the wage-earner not as a "hand,' but as a human being, who should be treated as a man and not as a machine. The second regards "business efficiency and the well-being of the employees' as "but different aspects of the same problem" (Ashley). The war taught that "if a maximum output was to be reached-still more if it was to be maintained for a protracted period-it was all-important that the health and well-being of the workers should be carefully safeguarded'' (Mr. Ll. George). Industrial success depends on efficient organization, mechanical equipment, and commercial acumen; but it depends even more on the “individual health, mental development, and moral well-being" of the employee, upon his general attitude and feeling towards the firm-in short, his goodwill. In America this efficiency motive predominates, and much is done simply because it is "good business.'' All talk of welfare work is scouted; whatever is done is undertaken solely to promote increased output or reduced cost of production, and is described as efficiency work. It is a means to an end, and that end is not the well-being of the worker but the progress of the firm. The third motive is fear, fear of growing unionism. of industrial strife, or revolutionary ideas. This motive was given added force by the trend of labour thought since 1914, the repercussions of the Russian Revolutions, and the epidemic of strikes since 1918. In Australia welfare work has been undertaken largely in the hope that it will bring industrial peace and minimize the possibility of strikes. In other countries also it is an attempt to insure against labour unrest.

Of the varieties of welfare work there is no end. In the factory itself attention is given to lighting, ventilation, temperature, cleanliness, the removal of dust and fumes, the provision of seats, drinking fountains, cloakrooms or lockers, etc.; the employee's health is safeguarded, and his eyes and teeth may be cared for; "safety first'' is preached, and elaborate provision made for the prevention and treatment of accidents. "Hiring and firing' are organized, and attempts made to train workers for their jobs or to fit square pegs into square holes. Hours are reduced, rest periods introduced, and some firms have abolished work on Saturday mornings. In order to make the wages go as far as possible, stores are established, at which goods can be bought almost at cost price; sickness, accident, and old-age benefits are instituted. Dining rooms are provided, and meals sold at cost price, or below; rest rooms and lounges are general. Social life and recreation are encouraged, young workers are persuaded (or compelled) to take educational courses. Finally, where the firm is located out in the country, houses, parks, libraries, playing fields, concert halls, gymnasia, and other

adjuncts to social life are part of the welfare plan. Thus attention is given, in cases where welfare work is fully developed, to the environment in which the employee spends his working hours, the conditions of the wages contract, and the aids to material and social well-being during the hours of leisure. In a growing number of cases the control of these varied provisions is in the hands of joint committees of employees and employed, and some welfare firms have passed on to joint control of their industrial conditions by establishing shop committees, works councils, etc.

The Basis of Co-partnership and Profit-sharing. But welfare work leaves untouched the most vital problem of industry. It leaves entirely in the hands of capital the disposal of the surplus. The labourer still gets nothing but his wage; his labour is delivered, his life spent, in more congenial surroundings; but he has no direct interest in the industry beyond the fixed weekly wage. Welfare work leaves the capitalist structure unchanged; it merely alters the employer's attitude towards his work-folk and makes him recognize more fully the human element in them.

This, say many, is not enough. We must go deeper. The gulf between capital and labour must be bridged. Both are in the same boat, and the sooner they learn to pull together the better it will be for both of them. Mazzini once declared that the progress of the worker was from slave to serf, from serf to wage-servant, from wage-servant to partner; and the advocates of co-partnership declare that the time has now fully come when the wage-servant shall step to the status of partner. The employee must feel that he has a direct proprietary interest in the progress of the business; that its prosperity will mean greater prosperity for him; that he is more than a hireling. The word partner is to take on a new meaning. In the past it was applied to the men who provided the capital, and to them all the profits went. But now the man who provides the labour must be regarded equally as a partner, and when the profits are shared out the labour-partner is to receive his share along with the capital-partner. A new principle must guide the distribution of wealth. It was well outlined by the late Earl Grey as follows: "If there should be surplus profits available for division after labour has received its fixed reward-i.e., trade union rate of wages-and after capital has received its fixed reward-i.e., the rate of interest agreed upon as the fair remuneration of capital; I say, if after these two initial charges have been met, there should be left surplus profits to distribute, that instead of their going exclusively to capital, they should be distributed between labour and capital on some principle of equity."

Having got so far, we must distinguish between profit-sharing and co-partnership, for the two terms are often used indiscriminately. In some schemes labour's share of the profits is handed to it in cash, or put into a provident fund. It is a money payment. This is profit-sharing. In other schemes the worker's part of the profits is absorbed by the business, or is used to buy shares, which are then allotted to the employee. He therefore becomes a shareholder in the company, a capital-partner. This is co-partnership. Obviously the latter method goes deeper than the former, in that it transfers to the employee by virtue of his labour a part in the ownership of the business, and gives him at least some of the rights and responsibilities of a shareholder.

Motives. Since the sixties of last century hundreds of profit-sharing and co-partnership schemes have been inaugurated in England and elsewhere. In the United Kingdom nearly 400 were established between 1865 and 1919.

In France there are outstanding successful experiments, such as that of the house-painting firm of Leclaire in Paris. American firms, such as Westinghouse and the International Harvester Co., have established systems, and in recent years several large Australian companies have instituted schemes which compare favourably with those of other lands. Instead of describing a system here and there, it may be better to present a composite photograph to show how profit-sharing and co-partnership schemes are constructed and operated.

The motives underlying action on the part of an employer are similar to those which produced welfare work. (1) The desire to prevent employees from joining trade unions, or to entice them from unions already joined. This motive played a prominent part in the early days. A profit-sharing scheme was established at Briggs' colliery in Yorkshire in 1865 in the hope that the men would accept it as a substitute for trade union organization.' This hope was doomed to disappointment, and the scheme was abandoned. The South Metropolitan Gas Co. (London) laid down as one of the essentials of its co-partnership plan (1889) that no one should be employed unless he signed a declaration that he was not, and would not become, a member of the Gasworkers' Union; but in 1902 this veto was withdrawn. In America schemes frequently had the same aim. In most cases this motive has brought failure in its train; it might work well where the employees were unskilled, clerks, young persons, or women, but most male adults chose the union in preference to profit-sharing. Since 1900, therefore, most advocates of co-partnership have abandoned the hope of using it as a hammer to break unionism; they have recognized that the union has come to stay, and that in all their plans they must admit its existence and its value to their employees.

(2) The desire to prevent strikes and preserve industrial peace. It is hoped that if workmen feel they have a direct interest in the welfare of a firm, and that their prosperity is wrapped up in its progress, they will not join in strikes, since they may already be getting the things for which workers in other firms are fighting. Also it is thought that a strike may be prevented if the men know that a stoppage of work might lead the employer to abandon the whole profit-sharing scheme. Beyond that is the hope that such a scheme may create an atmosphere of greater mutual confidence, thanks to which any grievance or dispute can be amicably settled.

(3) The desire to increase efficiency and productivity. If men feel that they are a real part of the business, they will work better, use machines, tools, and material more carefully, accept efficiency methods more willingly, and produce more goods and better goods. By offering a share of the profits the sum of profit will be increased.

(4) The desire to break down the non-human relations which characterize modern industry. Here and there an employer has been fired by the teachings of Ruskin, the eloquence of some co-partnership propagandist, or the promptings of his own conscience, to break the cash-nexus and realize the essential humanity which ought to underlie business. Out of this has come a determination to work for the benefit of his employees as well as for himself, to ally their well-being with his own, and to make them partners with him of whatever good fortune may result from their united efforts. All these motives have had their weight in inducing men to establish new schemes and to work out detailed plans built on the principle or expedient they have adopted. Let us look at the details.