TRUE AND FALSE IDEAS
159
nicipal control over industry, the highly organised routine
trades, already in the hands of large capitalist companies,
and often partaking of the character of monopolies, furnish
the more favourable field for such social experiments. To
begin by “socialising” the irregular and backward industries
simply means a futile attempt to force progress
by shoving in the thick end of the wedge. Moreover it
is a sound principle to recognise that since industry
exists ultimately for the benefit of the consumer, it is his
interest and not that of the worker which should be kept
directly in view when it is proposed to assume an industry
under public management. This principle is not antagonistic
to the adoption of “relief works” for the unemployed.
But when a municipality decides that it is to the
public interest to meet some unforeseen depression of
employment by offering public wage-work upon conditions
less obnoxious and degrading than Poor Law relief, it
should do so with a clear understanding that it is departing
from the ordinary rules of public business, and should
confine its experiments within the narrowest limits consistent
with the provision of effective relief. To concede
any general demand to the effect that all unemployed
workers should be provided with public work at their
special trade, paid at standard wages, would mean an
attempt to reverse the national historic order of social
reconstruction, and to move towards the new industrial
order along a line of greatest possible resistance. So long as
periods of unemployment recur, which cannot be foreseen
or provided against by large numbers of workers, it is
desirable that the organised community shall take measures
by means of public work and wages to secure the sufferers
against the damage to life and industrial character