note is that such doctrines are totally irreconcilable with the efficient conduct of any war.

"Conscription of Wealth."

We can now appreciate to some extent the meaning of the phrase, "conscription of wealth," for which the revolutionists have succeeded in securing the unanimous approval of the Trades Union Congress.

II.

In the preceding article we discussed the general character of the revolutionary movement. It is now necessary to distinguish it from other movements with which it has a partial similarity, and with which from time to time it is united for practical purposes.

Of these the Trade Union movement is by far the most important. This has been from time to time revolutionary in charac ter, in so far as it has come into open conflict with government and has disputed the application of law. But its direct object has always been the improvement of the social and industrial condition of its members, and it has never made the entire destruction of government one of its aims. Most of the revolutionists are within its ranks, and a large number hold representative positions as shop stewards or local delegates; but they have not won the formal approval by the members of their principles, though they frequently win their assent to the practical measure of a strike of which the aim is really revolutionary. Besides the recognized trade unions we have every grade of socialistic and industrial propaganda, contemplat

ing social improvements which fall short of revolution. We have the "pacifists" and conscientious objectors, many of whom hold anarchic theories, but all of these are distinguished by their middle-class or "bourgeoise" associations.

Its

As apart from all these we may now attempt to define the British revolutionary movement under discussion. It is a ferment working within the area of British organized labor, claiming for the "proletariate" selfdirection and enjoyment of the whole product of industry, indifferent to the successful conduct of the war, and irreconcilably hostile to the existing order of society. apostles are young men and women of intellectual capacity and oratorical skill, disciples of the teaching of Karl Marx, and without acknowledged leaders. Its propaganda is widespread and makes its appeal to every Utopian theorist in the middle classes, as well as to every discontented working man in whatever trade. It disowns every practical theory of reconstruction, and its policy is that of "demand upon demand, strike upon strike, blow upon blow, until the 'Capitalistic State' is destroyed. It is now time to trace the actual progress made by this movement, and to estimate the danger that it portends, from the standpoint of loyal and patriotic citizens. In so doing we shall not accept either the facts or the phraseology of the revolutionists, but present the story of the industrial struggle of the last three years from an independent point of view.

(To be continued)

I

F we only thought that Russia was in the mood to receive friendly advice, we would hasten to suggest to her that she should be very careful what she does in this critical moment. As we see it from this vantage point, Russia is in great danger of becoming too democratic.

This would be a great blunder. Too much democracy at a time like this is insufferable, not to say suicidal. Democracy means "rule by the people," but, of course, we don't mean any old kind of people, and especially we do not mean people who have to work too hard to gain a livelihood, and who, therefore have not had time to at

tend a "finishing" school and learn the arts and artifices of capitalist economics and capitalistic respectability.

By all means let us have "rule by the people," but let the "people" be selected with taste and discrimination and a due regard for the established order of graft and other duly recognized emoluments, perquisites and honorariums.

And so it must be understood that when we say we are fighting to make the "world safe for democracy," we don't mean any old democracy chosen at random; we mean a nice, well-behaved democracy, hand-picked, breast-fed, vacuum-cleaned, im

maculately groomed, strictly disciplined to respect the established order and in all other particulars completely eugenicized. It would be absurd to think we would go out and fight for a democracy that was so democratic that it didn't respect the rights of monopolistic land owners, trust magnates, successful food speculators and all the rest of that self-sacrificing gentry to whom God in His infinite wisdom has turned over the resources of the earth and endowed with the divine right of gouging their fellow citizens until their stomachs are empty and their backs are bare.

If Russia wants to have a democracy like our own we will be with her to the limit; if she wants a democracy with free speech, provided it is not too free, with free press, subject to the approval of the postoffice and other officials; with freedom to criticise the government, provided no vital subjects are touched upon, and with a constitution that can be treated as a scrap of paper whenever the government seems to be inclined that way, why, then, Russia will find in us a friend good and true; we will hold diplomatic and political intercourse with her so long as she recognizes our superiority, and we will hold commercial intercourse with her so long as we can do so at a profit.

Russia made a big mistake in not listening to Mr. Root when he was over there. As one of our leading democrats, he could have let Russia into the mystical secret of how to bust a trust without injuring it. She should have listened to

Charles Edward Russell, who could have shown the Bolsheviki how to be socialistic and not socialistic at the same time.

Or perhaps Russia was not ready for the true gospel when the Root-Russell invasion took place. If so, we have still other democrats we could send over there. We could send Charley Murphy, than whom no more powerful and influential democrat resides in our great metropolis today. Or we could send Roger Sullivan if Russia desires a democrat more representative of our great agricultural districts. Or we could send the ubiquitous Theodore Roosevelt, whose every epithet is surcharged with democratic ebullience. Or we could send William Randolph Hearst, who, when the wind is in the right direction, is as good a democrat as one could wish to find. Or we could send John Pierpont Morgan, who loves the people for what they have done for him, and who exudes democracy from every pore. Or we could send John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who loves the people so much that he never forgets to remember them in his prayers.

But what is the use of giving advice to Russia at a time like this? Russia is in that perilous frame of mind where she takes the word "democrat" too literally. She must come to her senses. She must see that she cannot take her place in the comity of civilized nations until her democracy is tempered and made palatable by a suitable admixture of autocracy, hypocricy, plutocracy and other necessary ingredients of modern diplomatic statesmanship.

Let others prate of grand estate,

We envy not their station;

With open hand, we firmly stand,

A friend of every nation;

Our lives we pledge, our honor wedge, (We'll never from it sever),

To keep from stain, our nation's name, And flag we love forever.

Chorus:

The Stars and Stripes will be honor'd O'er every land and sea;

An emblem of peace that's healing, Whose folds from stains are free;

And as we stand together

'Neath Liberty's beacon bright;

This shall be our motto:

"Force does not make right."

Let others hate, (we'll not elate)
Their destiny is blighted;
We'll build a wall that cannot fall,
In bonds of love united;
Our flag will fly, on ramparts high,
Through countless ages telling
That peace is king, let freedom ring,
No malice in us dwelling.

Let others sate, 'til they abate,
The tempest in them raging;
We know the cost, the laurels lost,
Of conflict when it's waging;
Our land will be forever free

From conquest, or its lust,

Our cause is right, our crowning might

Is peace-In God We Trust.

JAS. SMITH, L. U. 1080, Detroit.

London, December, 1917.

NE striking feature in connection with the demands for higher pay made these war-times by organized workers is the larger "bites" asked for. Before the war, if painters and decorators asked for anything, they asked for a rise of one or, possibly, two cents per hour and were satisfied to get half those demands. With the war, however, and the increased cost of living demands of this kind are forgotten. Painters first asked for increases of four cents per hour, then of six cents per hour, and now of eight cents per hour.

This is

The last and highest demand so far was made by the painters-along with the other building tradesmen-in Birmingham. The matter was sent up for arbitration and under the award of Sir William Robinson, the arbitrator for the Ministry of Labor, wages are to be advanced 22 cents per hour as a war bonus to painters and others when engaged on munition work. to be regarded as a war advance, intended to assist in meeting the increased cost of living and to be withdrawn (perhaps) when the cost of living goes down. This award affects 6,000 men and the increase granted is in addition to one of five cents conceded by the employers prior to arbitration. The wages of the operative painters and decorators in Birmingham are now 27 cen s per hour, which is a tremendous advance upon peace time rate but low enough when the tremendous increase in the cost of living is remembered.

There are now no disputes in the painting and decorating trade. Such members as are available are fully employed. Painting and decorating, which was neglected during the first years of the war, has now become an urgent necessity for many buildings and, so far as weather conditions will allow, much overdue work is being done.

The men in the painting industry are more thorc ighly organized today than ever before. The problem that confronts all organized labor is in connection with afterthe-war conditions. When hostilities cease some millions of men will be demobilized, among them many thousands of painters and decorators. Trade union regulations have been relaxed during the war. The organized painters will want to be assured that the men freed from the fighting forces will be re-absorbed into industry without unduly disturbing conditions and without wage reductions. They will keep employ

ers and the Government strictly to their promise that trade union regulations, held in suspense during the war, shall be restored.

The movement to comb out more men for the army will not seriously affect the men of the painting and kindred trades. First and foremost, the men in the "luxuries trades" will be taken; secondly, men in the export trades not essential to the war; lastly, trades essential to the life of the State and to the life of the nation in times of peace and war.

The question of the use of white lead is of moment to painters all over the world. In this country restrictions and control of its use are supposed to have been applied especially in war-time. There are many loop-holes, however, through which Government regulations are evaded. As a result the National Painters' and Decorators' Joint Council, which represents the employers and the employed in the industry, the latter three delegates of the National Operative Painters' Society,-has addressed a letter to the Right Honorable Winston Churchill, M. P., who is Minister of Munitions. I cannot do better than quote this letter in full as it is interesting, explanatory and important:

"Sir: We, representing the National Painters' and Decorators' Joint Council, beg to lay before you the following statement on a matter of urgent national importance, which nearly concerns your department. The above council represents the employers' and operatives' organizations in the painting trade throughout the country, and is, therefore, fully representative of the industry. Our object in addressing you is to draw your attention to the serious position due to the failure of your department to administer the regulations designed to control the use of white lead. Our indictment is as follows: (1) That the regulation prohibiting the use of white lead without permit is not being enforced. (2) That waste of this material is the condition of affairs on Government, and particularly on Admiralty work. (3) That controlled firms are apparently free to use white lead without restriction. (4) That this pigment is being used unnecessarily on temporary war structures, while its use is denied on permanent public buildings of national value. (5) That the officials of your department have caused great loss and inconvenience by inexcusable neglect of correspondence. Each of these charges we are in a position to substantiate by ample evidence.