We oppose the existence of private property relationships which force those without ownership rights in the means of production and distribution to “seek employment.” This, to be sure, is a revolutionary concept for it is an approach that leads to the very core of an understanding of the case for common ownership. In essence, the problem arises from the poverty of the working class which is inseparable from the wages system. If we were living in a society which conveyed to all its members common ownership rights of all the means for producing and distributing wealth then, as and when we made our individual contributions to the process of wealth production, we would, from an economic and social standpoint, be working for ourselves and not for an employer.
From this viewpoint, it can be discerned that the socialist regards employment under capitalism as an inescapable and degrading condition for the working class, one that reformism is incapable of curing. We refuse at all times to politically support a system of society that, because of the ownership rights belonging to a class, forces the majority to seek their survival and livelihood by employment from the owning minority. Those with proprietorship, whether it be an individual, corporation or state, possess the monopoly and legal right entitling them to employ. This compels the rest to be employed, or as circumstances dictate, to be unemployed.
It is significant to observe that unemployment becomes a focal point whilst “employment” is accepted as a way of life, seemingly destined to remain with us forever. Unemployment appears as the persistent challenge awaiting an eventual solution, notwithstanding that the class struggle embraces both conditions. Statistics verify that the problem of unemployment is an insoluble one as long as capitalism remains. The “experts” and “the economists,” true to character, disagree as to exact causes and applicable remedies. However, they are all apparently in complete unison in their approach to the existing system. This sacred cow is never accused or pin-pointed as the cause of the quandary. Such an attitude, of course, would pre-suppose the possession and acceptance of socialist knowledge coupled with a disregard for the security of their jobs should they ever publicize the correct scientific approach.
Capitalism operates as a gigantic worldwide market place in which commodities are produced primarily for sale and profit. Should the market place fail to absorb the commodities produced, unemployment, either on a comparative large or small scale, occurs. In addition, the actual employment of members of the working class depends upon the wishes and economic requirements of the capitalist class. For example, increased productivity resulting through the utilization of labor-saving machinery, with the consequent displacement of workers, could create unemployment to a limited degree. These various factors give rise to a standing army of unemployed, whose numbers from time to time may vary dramatically, but its existence is assured as long as the system remains.
In August, 1982 unemployment in Great Britain reached 3,292,702 or 13.8 per cent of the work force, its highest level since comprehensive records began in 1948, topping the 2,979,000 registered unemployed at the height of the Great Depression in January, 1933. True, this figure represented 19 per cent of a smaller work force but when you transfer the numbers to actual human beings, pitifully trying to survive, what difference does it make?
Unemployment in the U.S.A. reached nearly 12 million in November, 1982. These figures only disclose part of the situation. They do not take into account large numbers of demoralized workers who have stopped looking for jobs and others who are working part-time. Far higher percentages of unemployment are to be found amongst various sections of workers such as teenagers, black and Hispanic minorities, and those in heavily industrialized areas that have been hardest hit, such as the automobile and steel factories. A CBS news broadcast on October 10, 1982, contained a report from the AFL-CIO which claimed that there were 14.5 million actually unemployed who were looking for full-time jobs. In April, 1982 black unemployment in the U.S.A. climbed to 18.4 per cent, teen-age unemployment rose to 23 per cent and the unemployed in Detroit was 15 per cent.
The prestigious Wall Street Journal in an editorial on May 11, 1982 suggests the following:
“The answer to the unemployed problem is simple and obvious, but it is being resisted by Congress because of political fears that are only a little short of craven. The answer is to shift the nation’s priorities back toward production, away from non-production . . . All it needs is better leadership in Congress, that is to say removing the people who got us into this trouble and who refuse to admit that their politically convenient ideas were all wrong.”
Unemployment is linked to a market place unable to purchase the commodities already being produced. Therefore, it is surely ridiculous to suggest shifting “the nation’s priorities back toward production,” or in other words producing more for a market already incapable of coping with existing inventories. Industry, of course, does not function altruistically to provide employment for needy workers. The purpose of capitalist production is not to produce goods and services per se but to produce commodities for sale and profit. Unless a market can be reasonably expected production will not be forthcoming. As to the hoary plea for “better leadership,” this is the time-worn favorite peddled by the reformers when they imply that the cause is always with the shortcomings of the individuals or parties running the system but never, the Lord forbid, does the fault lie in the way in which capitalism functions.
Prime Minister Thatcher, in England, has blamed the unemployment rate increases on the recession and the failure by previous governments to tackle Britain’s economic problems. She apparently has not been able to improve matters since her government assumed power—in fact the reverse has happened. President Reagan, in the U.S.A., blames high interest rates, but history will show that when interest rates were comparatively low, unemployment was still with us. And when Canada’s jobless rate rose to a postwar high of 9.6 per cent in April, 1982 the Finance Minister, Allan MacEachen, volunteers some choice trivia:
"The key to world recovery at the present time, for the U.S. and for other countries, is a change in the monetary policy that is being pursued in the U.S.”
President Warren G. Harding in 1921, after listening to conflicting opinions offered by his economic advisers, at least possessed somewhat of an insight and frankness when he confided to a secretary, as reported in the Los Angeles Times, February 20, 1977:
“John, I can’t make a damn thing out of this . . . I listen to one side and they seem right, and then—God! I talk to the other side, and they seem just as right.“I know somewhere there is a book that will give me the truth, but hell, I couldn’t read the book.“I know somewhere there is an economist who knows the truth, but I don’t know where to find him and haven’t the sense to know and trust him when I do find him. God! What a job!”
In October, 1982 unemployment in the Netherlands increased to a postwar peak of 13.4 per cent of the work force. West Germany’s jobless was reported in early March, 1983 as having surpassed the 2.5 million mark, climbing to 10.4 per cent of the labor force in February, 1983. Sweden’s unemployment rose to 3.6 per cent of the labor force in February, 1983. Belgian unemployment in March, 1982 stood at 12.2 per cent of the labor force. In December, 1982 unemployment in the 10 European Economic Community countries reached 12.035 million—a post World War II record. In December, 1982, 12.8 per cent of the Canadian work force were unemployed— the highest level since the 1930’s. Japan’s jobless rate for January, 1983 topped 2.7 per cent, a 30-year high. In November, 1982 unemployment in Australia was reported at 8.2 per cent.
It should surely be obvious by now that if a formula existed to cure unemployment, then it would have been discovered long ago. Further, even if there were an absolute solution, it would not serve the interests of the ruling class to implement it. The continued presence of an unemployed segment of the working class enables the employers to exert downward pressure on wage levels, assuring them of surplus workers as and when they are needed.
The U.S. federal job-training program financed by the Labor Department under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act has already been termed a fraud by avowed supporters of the system. The program assumes that unemployment is caused by persons needing job training and job skills, whereas in actuality there is a shortage of jobs available even for those possessing the necessary skills. In effect, people are being trained for non-existent jobs.
Reformist approaches towards unemployment have included government subsidization, nationalization, and the Keynesian goal of full employment through appropriate government intervention. All have failed as evidenced by current worldwide unemployment.
Governmental attempts at industrial intervention by means of subsidies are really an artificial process that ignores the prevailing economic climate. They might temporarily keep some workers employed, but this would be at the expense of the capitalist class as a whole since the funds would be provided through taxation. Such schemes tinker with the problem at best, are always short-lived, and can only be used on a very limited scale.
Nationalization in no way guarantees a solution because the same market conditions that create the challenges in private industry, namely selling commodities at a profit, predominate whether the businesses are owned privately or by the state. A graphic example of the desperation of American workers in government or nationalized occupations took place in March, 1982 when it was reported that
100,000 swarmed the post offices in the Miami area during a period of one week, applying for 700 positions that may not be available until 1985.
The U.S.S.R. has state capitalism operated on a national basis under the tyrannical dictatorship of the so-called Communist Party. Employment is controlled without any semblance of democracy, without legitimate trade union activity, and without permitted political opposition. The centralized control allows individual industries to be maintained financially, should the need arise, by support from the budget. However, as a consequence, efficiency in production is impaired and jobs are unnecessarily overstaffed. Denied the protection of unfettered trade unions (they exist in name only as they operate under direct Government control), and with no democracy, “employment” in Russia is wage-slavery at its very worst. Should you be designated a “dissident,” even your slave status could be jeopardized and you might find yourself among the 2 million people currently imprisoned in the Soviet penal system.
The Keynesian doctrines, formulated by J. M. Keynes, supports government action in order to maintain a demand for commodities through its own direct investments in the economy, which would hopefully result in more or less full employment. None of these devices, used and supported by past governments, in particular by both the Labour and Tory parties in England, have prevented recession, depression, inflation and massive unemployment.
It should be borne in mind that any growth in the total number of employed reported at any time is related to the fact that greater numbers of workers in the same family have had to seek employment in order to maintain the standard of living of the household. The numerical glorification that is sometimes touted as an example of more people being employed now than in the past is an attempt at making a virtue of the necessity of survival. Mothers, for example, are forced to leave their infant children in day-care homes in order to go to work and supplement their husband’s pay—this out of dire need and not as a means of “achieving economic freedom” or so-called “equality” with the menfolk. In a study, conducted by the Federal National Mortgage Association by the Louis Harris organization and reported in the Wall Street Journal on September 15, 1982, 91 per cent of those polled said they believe it takes a two income household to afford a mortgage today.
The working environment is geared to a profit motivated society which at all times places the successful production and realization of surplus values in a priority position as compared to human welfare. Physical conditions in a multitude of industries and instances, viewed from certain aspects, have of course improved substantially as capitalism has progressed from the 18th through to the 20th century. But this surface appraisal can be most misleading without further probing and evaluation. Although the socialist supports all trade union activity which results in the improvement of working conditions, our prime concern has never been, nor ever will be, the refinement of capitalism in order for profits to be accrued in more conducive surroundings. Granted, wage levels and working conditions are of paramount importance for the very survival of the vast majority as long as capitalism exists. We nevertheless limit our energies in this regard to trade union support and activity, but politically refuse to become involved in how best to run a system that we want abolished in the shortest possible time.
It should be recognized that plant, retail and office modernizations are not related to the activities of political reformists at all. Rather, they are the result of either trade union pressure to improve working conditions or the desire of the capitalist to remain competitive by providing up-to-date facilities. Within the bounds of certain economic considerations, to the degree that the workers are kept comparatively happy and healthy, so to that extent their exploitation is that much better accomplished. In a world which literally can be described as an armed camp, wherein the majority are economically imprisoned, you will not find us clamoring for more “humane prisons,” but for a society in which prisons are non-existent. Likewise, we will not be found in association with the reformists—they decry the inhumanities of capitalism but never urge for its abolition in order to effectively deal with fundamental causes. The main task therefore confronting the “imprisoned” should be the abolition of the prison and not in diversions which look for improvements in its operation.
In any event, the superficial, physical upgrading of working conditions that have been accomplished are more than offset by the pollution of the environment that capitalist industrialization has created. Its waste products, indiscriminate use of chemicals and materials, radiation and nuclear poisons have all resulted in an enormous detriment to health over the past several decades. Cancer, for example, has enveloped us like a plague. I, for one, do not need any further proof beyond my own common sense and personal experience to realize that there isa relationship of cause and effect between our modern-day pervasive pollution and cancer. Furthermore, the mental health of the population, as evidenced by the inundated clinics, hospitals and sanitariums, and directly caused by the stresses and insecurities of a competitive, anti-social environment, should be taken into consideration when comparisons are made between past and present conditions.
The analysis of the environment should be examined in its entirety. This would take us beyond the factory gates and offices, to be confronted with a world balancing on the precipice of nuclear war. Such an approach, together with a veritable multitude of deplorable working conditions and social circumstances that still prevail, and for that matter will always remain in some form or other under capitalism, should remove all reasons for complacency or satisfaction from the reformists.
In March, 1980 The International Labor Organization reported that more than 55 million children under the age of 15 are being exploited around the globe. They stated, as an example, that match factories in India employ more than 20,000 children, some as young as 5, for a 16-hour work day beginning in some instances at 3 a.m. On a visit to Toledo, Spain several years ago, after being charmingly offered a glass of port by one of the factory managers, we were escorted through the factory where I was horrified to see young children 8/10 years old, working at the benches with detailed and intricate filigree which of course could be ruinous to their eyes at such an early age.
On February 27, 1981 it was reported in the Arizona Daily Star that in the New York City garment industry sweatshops have grown from fewer that 200 to 3,000 in the last decade.
It was reported in the New York Times, February 5, 1982 that according to Dr. Loren Kerr, a leading authority on occupational disease, the deaths of 4,000 coal miners each year can be safely attributed to black lung disease. He is quoted as saying:
“Most coal operators are anxious to increase production, even when it raises dust levels above legally defined limits. Federal inspectors must insist on adequate ventilation and water spraying to control this dust today, or else years down the road, miners will suffer an avalanche of new breathing problems.”
In an article in the Wall Street Journal, June 18, 1981 it was stated that after a Supreme Court ruling on cotton dust it could be expected that the textile industry would be installing new, more efficient equipment that could help eliminate the incidence of brown lung disease. The article further states:
“Even as mills modernize and reduce dust levels, problems concerning brown lung disease remain unresolved. Questions regarding compensation for workers who contracted the disease long before mills began to clean up, how smoking affects susceptibility and what specifically causes the disease are still unanswered.”
In April, 1978 the U.S. Government, through its Health, Education and Welfare Secretary, said that as many as 5.6 million Americans may die of cancer or other diseases as a result of the exposure to asbestos in shipyards and other workplaces since the beginning of World War II. As a sequel to this the Manville Corporation, the nation’s largest producer of the mineral fiber asbestos, filed in August, 1982 for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The company had become inundated with thousands of law suits, together with the potential of many more in the future, most of them filed by workers claiming the inhaling of asbestos fibers, which damaged their health and often led to death. The cost of this pending litigation had been estimated at $2 billion or more—hence the reason for the company seeking the protection afforded by the bankruptcy laws.
It is glaringly obvious that through the years the working class have never had disclosed to them the true occupational hazards of their employment. Such disclosures might well have deterred some; it would certainly have given others leverage in wage and environmental negotiations; but, notwithstanding, most no doubt, out of economic necessity, would still have been forced to an exposure resulting in ill-health and untimely death.
Whether employed or otherwise the dark cloud of insecurity will always permeate the lives of those living in a class society. No reform can ever properly convey the precious attribute of security to those dependent on their masters, within a capricious, anarchical system impersonal to human values. When the working class finally awaken to their true position of servitude as employees, with socialism on the horizon, it is more than likely that the international atmosphere will be resounding with cries of “take this job and shove it!” And such crudity may well be forgiven in view of the historic and belated justification.
