The house of Industry : a new estate of the realm

AUTOCRACY, TRADITION AND BIAS 73

curiosity about the “‘ wide powers’”’ of the supermen. They suggest, too, that if industry is to be effectually reorganised, the way to do it is to elect a House of Industry.

But why prolong the agony? We are down to the bones of the problem. Labour is not to be dragooned by five or fifty or five hundred supermen. Many thanks, no! Labour had a belly-full during the War. And Labour is frankly puzzled that any such proposal should emanate from Labour circles.

Thus far, however, the argument fails to do justice to the Mosley Group. Their case is that the times are not normal; that we must improvise for “‘a stated period.’’ I quote:—‘‘In the advancement of this immediate policy, we surrender nothing of our Socialist faith. The immediate question is not a question of the ownership but of the survival of British industry.”’

If it be a question of the survival of British industry, it is equally a question of the survival of German industry, of Italian industry, of American industry, perhaps of French industry.

Of all these countries (France excepted) Great Britain is the most prosperous, or the least unprosperous. Plainly, therefore, there is some industrial malaise common to all. Is it just a world trade depression, soon to be conquered by adjusting consumption to production? Or does it portend the disintegration of Capitalism ?

Sir Oswald Mosley can have it either way. If the former, his improvised autocracy will be out