Slings and Arrows: “ Rats, Lice and History ” (1953)

The Slings and Arrows column from the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Rats, Lice and History ”

When the news burst upon an incredulous world that fourteen doctors had been arrested in Moscow for plotting to assassinate Soviet leaders; when furthermore these charges were added to by the accusations that they were in the pay or under the influence of international Jewish organisation, the Daily Worker, ever faithful to its masters in the Kremlin, rushed into print with stout assertions of the truth of all the charges. They denied that any anti-semitic motives were involved. They fervently expressed their belief that in the Soviet Union innocent people could not.be falsely accused and imprisoned. But unfortunately for the Daily Worker, within a few months the Russians themselves changed their tune and the doctors were released. Those who had accused them were imprisoned and charged with almost every crime from faking evidence to exacting, by illegal means, confessions from innocent people; from denying civil liberties and violating the Soviet constitution to fomenting racial prejudices. The Daily Worker, still faithful to their masters announced with pride that these events proved what safeguards there were in the Soviet Union and forgetting their previous support of the charges against the doctors, joined in denouncing the original accusers.

When strikes broke out in East Berlin, and workers were shot in the streets, when an unemployed worker was condemned to death and executed within a half hour of sentence being pronounced, once again the Daily Worker rushed into print to justify the ruthless savagery with which the workers of Berlin had been treated. Nothing is too vile for the Communists to swallow. Once again their masters had let them down, for Dr. Grotewohl, premier of East Germany, admitted that no amount of outside agitation would have succeeded if there had not already existed in the Soviet Zone “an explosive situation caused by misunderstanding.” So much for the Daily Worker's accusations that the strikers and rioters were “fascists and riffraff ” sent in by the Americans to foment trouble.

These swift and sudden reversals of attitude should have taught the Daily Worker the need for caution. But when the second in command of the Soviet Union was arrested and charged with treason and plotting, and was heaped with the most virulent execration, the Daily Worker again came to the defence of the accusers of Beria. “Beria—The Truth,” was the headline splashed across the front page. Are they sure it is the truth? Is it not on the cards that the accusers of Beria may shortly be arrested and charged with extorting confessions, and using illegal means as is the case with the doctors? May it not be possible that Beria will be released and this former hero, present scoundrel become the future hero? Another question poses itself. Will the Daily Worker issue any guarantee as to the integrity of any Soviet leader, and why is it that when the Communists choose leaders, almost one by one they turn out to be traitors? 

Let it be remembered when next the Daily Worker and the Communist Party pretend to represent the interests of the workers, that they are prepared to defend and also to perpetrate any infamy as long as it suits the Russian riding class. They demonstrated this in their support, opposition, and then support of the War; they showed this when they condemned striking miners at Grimethorpe, and they have shown this in their support of the shooting down of strikers in East Berlin. And also be it remembered that when workers struck for more tolerable conditions, the Russians showed themselves to be as ruthless, as anti-working class as any state they term “Capitalist cannibals,” but whose treatment of workers they not only emulate but surpass.

Readers may remember that before the war a book was published dealing with the effects of plague carrying vermin on history. We apologise for stealing its title for this paragraph but could think of nothing more apt.

#    #    #    #

Who are the Workers?

Who has not heard the assertion that the workers are those who do the least work, and constantly demand more money for less effort? Many and varied have been the appeals for increased production, harder work, wage freezes and so on. Yet, although some sections of the working-class have responded nobly to the call, others have turned a deaf ear and pointed out that increased production coupled with wage freezes mean only more dividends for the bosses, and eventual unemployment for themselves. It is to such curmudgeons that we quote the example of a man who has not one job but well over a gross. Mr. J. Arthur Rank, according to the City Man's Diary in the Evening Standard (July 14th, 1953) is a director of one hundred and eighty seven companies. In the face of such supreme effort can any worker fail to give of his best?

The City Man with a fine show of industry himself, works out that if Mr. Rank does a forty hour week he is able to devote 12½ minutes to each company providing he does nothing else. “Over a year, allowing him a month’s holiday he could spend one and a quarter days on average on the affairs of each company.”

You miners who labour in the bowels of the earth, you stokers who work in hot furnace rooms, you clerks who become prematurely bent over your ledgers and all you who bemoan your lot; you with only one job to do and forty or forty-eight hours in the week to do it in spare a thought and perhaps a tear for the man who has one hundred and eighty seven jobs, all of them vital and important, and who can only devote 12½ minutes to each in the week. Think with awe and respect of a man who is such a genius that he can direct the fortunes of all those companies in as little time almost as it takes to make a cup of tea. No wonder he is the wealthy Mr. Rank, while we wallow in the poverty of only one job.

#    #    #    #

Jolly Old Pals

At every General Election since the war, the Labour Party has claimed support on many grounds. Not least of these is the claim that a Labour Government would minimise industrial strife and that the Unions would get such a square deal from their pals in the Labour Government, that strikes would become extinct as a method for settling industrial disputes. They made our flesh creep with tales of what would happen in the event of the return of a Tory Government. Those who remembered the past might well be forgiven for believing these tales.

Just as other claims made by the Labour Party have been exposed as sham and hollow, so this one has received a nasty blow and from none other than Mr. Arthur Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. At the Annual Conference of the Union Mr. Deakin rose to defend himself against the charge that he had said the Tories were not all “a bad bunch.” He admitted expressing these 'sentiments but continued:—

“With Sir Walter Monckton as Minister of Labour we have had a square deal, and done things which were difficult to do when our own people were in that position."

(Manchester Guardian, 16/7/53.)

Not for the first time has a Trade Union leader discovered that whatever the intentions of his friends in a Labour Government may be, the task of administering capitalism, as well as political considerations, compel a Mr. George Isaacs to say “no,” where a Sir Walter Monckton would say “yes.” And in reverse the Trade Union leader would not wish to put his friends in a difficult position by threatening action, where he could use that weapon on a Tory Minister with possibly good effect.

Will we see Arthur Deakin and others stumping the country asking support for Tories, because they give a “square deal”? What will happen to the Labour Party then?

#    #    #    #

Without Comment

“Would not the Prime Minister agree that the only way to improve the standards of living of the backward races and to avert economic world disaster is to allow all peoples to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest markets because if goods cannot cross frontiers, armies will. Will he set the people free?” Sir Waldron Smithers.

Answer by the Prime Minister: “Those seem to me, on the whole, to be unobjectionable sentiments.”

S.A.

Party News Briefs (1953)

Party News from the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Delegate Meeting. The Annual Delegate Meeting will be held at Conway Hall. Red Lion Square, London, on Saturday and Sunday, 5th and 6th September. Commencing each day at 11 a.m. A Social and Dance will be held in the Large Conway Hall on the Saturday evening from 7.30 until 11 p.m. Tickets for the dance can be obtained from the Social Committee at Head Office or from Branch Secretaries.

#    #    #    #

Provincial Tour. A London speaker, Com. Coster, is going to Manchester during the third and fourth weeks in August to assist the Branch in its Summer propaganda. It is hoped that Ashton under Lyme and other Lancashire towns will be visited during this fortnight.

Comrades D’Arcy and May will be visiting the Nottingham area for two weeks during August.

#    #    #    #

Canada. Comrade Luff of Victoria B.C. has collected £5 10s. and sent it to Head Office to help Party Funds. This is greatly appreciated especially as our Canadian Comrades have their local propaganda to finance.

#    #    #    #

Correction. In the July issue of the Socialist Standard a reference was made to the Mitcham Discussion Group. The impression given was that this was a Party Group. This is not so, but it is a debating Society which Comrade Turner addressed on behalf of the Party.

#    #    #    #

Internal Party Journal. With next month’s issue of Forum one year of publication will have been completed. During the summer months there has been a slight reduction in sales, probably because some members are not in regular contact with their branches.

If you have missed some of the earlier issues, you are invited to place a regular order, either with your branch literature secretary or by postal subscription through Head Office (6 months 3s. 9d., 12 months 7s. 6d.). Forum needs to be read regularly if the significance of references to past articles is not to be lost.

#    #    #    #

Ealing Branch

Ealing Branch is at present engaged in a further drive to increase the sales of the Socialist Standard. A special Branch committee has been formed and good progress is already reported. New areas are being tried for door-to-door canvassing, and extra efforts are being made to extend the number of shops selling the Standard. Apart from the shops already supplied, the Branch Committee has succeeded in getting a further twelve to give the paper a trial run. Total Branch sales of the Standard are now up to 24 dozen per month.

The Branch has now approved a report from its Propaganda Committee suggesting that it run its own education classes during the next winter season. Starting in October, it is proposed to run weekly classes on economics, and a further series on history is planned for the period after Christmas. Further details will be announced later.

Phyllis Howard

SPGB Meetings (1953)

Party News from the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Editorial: Socialism is democracy (1979)

Editorial from the November 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Democracy is something to which almost all capitalist politicians pay ritualistic tribute; to declare that they are against democracy is regarded by them as inviting the kiss of death. Sometimes they tell us that democracy—or rather their version of it—is under attack, which usually means they are about to demand some vast sacrifice from the working class, allegedly to protect democracy.

The result of such sacrifices—and the working class are usually only too ready to make them—is not to strengthen democracy. Today, for example, there are huge areas of the world and tens of millions of people living under dictatorship—and this after several wars which were supposed to defend democracy. The fact that many of those dictatorships refer to themselves as democracies exposes just how the word is misused and distorted and, therefore, how precarious is democracy’s hold.

How does the socialist view democracy?

How will socialism be a democratic society?

A socialist is, first of all, a politically conscious being, someone who has come to an understanding of social dynamics so that they know how and why capitalism works and how and why socialism will abolish capitalism’s problems.

Socialists do not have any political leaders. Nobody can deceive us that, say, Tory monetarism is good for us, that Labour stands for working class interests, that socialism exists in places like Russia, China, Cuba.. .

Nobody gives political orders to a socialist. No member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain lays down policy statements for the rest to accept and carry out. Socialist policy, based on our understanding, is made by our members, all standing equally.

Every SPGB meeting is an open event. Our branches, our conferences, our executive committee meetings—all are open to anyone who likes to come in and see how a democratic socialist party runs its affairs. We have no secret sessions. Socialists know what is going on in their party and so can participate in it to the full.

And here we have three interdependent elements which are essential for any democratic society: knowledge, freely available information and participation. In a socialist society people will be knowledgeable, not in the sense that they have ploughed through every word ever put down on paper by Marx and Engels but because they will be aware of what sort of society they want, how it had to be achieved and how it must be kept in being.

In socialism all decision-making processes will be open and free—which implies that social knowledge will be available to everyone. (Only a short time ago this presented some huge technical problems, but with the recent rapid developments in computer technology and communication systems, these problems have diminished.)

People in socialism will process information through their social awareness and in this way will take full part in forming decisions and in carrying them out. Indeed, their participation in making decisions will itself carry the responsibility for implementing them.

All of this, and much else, will make socialism a vibrant society in which the world’s population will be aware of what is happening, how it happens and will themselves make it happen. For the first time in history, the human race will assert its control over natural forces with a control over its own future. This is the true meaning of democracy.

In contrast, capitalism offers an arid prospect, in which humanity’s abilities and co-operative drives are stifled. Socialism is exciting because it will set us free. We will not only want abundance; we shall design it and we shall work together to bring it about.

Running Commentary: Man of Steel (1979)

The Running Commentary column from the November 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Man of Steel

Is your boss a bastard? Does he refuse to accept anything but the highest standards and does he berate you when you produce, as you often do, less than the best be it engineering, sales or documentation?

If he is, then do not be too hard on him; he may only be doing as he is told. Perhaps he was present at the September meeting of the Steel Industry Management Association when Sir Charles Villiers, chairman of the British Steel Corporation, advised all managers to be “bastards” to any of their workers who turned out sub-standard work.

It may be that Villiers is a sensitive man. BSC is not famous for being a vastly profitable concern and he, as its £30,000 a year head, is often under fire from the press. A little aggressiveness towards his employees, he may have calculated, could do his reputation no harm.

Or perhaps he meant it. Villiers is not just a representative of the capitalist class—he is a member of it. Educated at Eton and Oxford, a member of the exclusive Beefsteak Club (where none of his steel workers would be allowed past the doorman), living in Eaton Square (where none of his steel workers could afford much more than the space for a garden shed) and, before taking over at BSC. chairman of merchant bankers Guinness and Mahon.

Yet his speech was a curious thing. Firstly, what if all workers took him at his word and refused to turn out anything less than the best? What then would happen to capitalist industry, which turns, out mountains of trash when it is trash which pays?

Secondly, what was a member of the capitalist class doing, being so frank about class relationships under capitalism? The idea that we all live in a happy, united society of common interests is hardly best served by such a hard headed attitude.

He who lifts a comer of the truth about these matters will not be popular with the other members of the ruling class. Will Villiers soon be crying all the way to the Eaton Square dole office?

Pym's number one 

Another member of the ruling class to be offering some urging to workers recently—although with a rather different attitude—was Sir Francis Pym and all his friends will hope to see this ambitious politician's keenness rewarded.

Pym also went to Eton, then on to Magdalen College, Cambridge. He belongs to Bucks, the Cavalry and the Guards which are not brands of cigarettes but expensive West End clubs. He has a stately home in Bedfordshire. Clearly, he knows on which side of the bread is the capitalists' caviar.

So it is natural that Pym should be anxious to see the working class, who don’t go to posh schools or join exclusive clubs and who live in council fiats or mortgaged semis, readily accept the cuts in their living standards which the Tory government is so busily planning.

But of course Pym is a gentleman so he does not use coarse language. Instead, he hopes to inspire us all; speaking at the recent Manchester Central by-election, he said he thought we are “. . . fighting another Battle of Britain, only this time it is to the Many that we need to turn."

Politicians often use the trick of persuading workers to accept their lot by referring to former military events which are described —at least in British history books — as triumphs. Harold Macmillan was fond of ruminating tearfully on the agonies of the 1914/18 trenches. Harold Wilson, at a time when he seemed to be convinced that he was Winston Churchill, once urged us all to have a little of the Dunkirk spirit.

Both were playing the same game. Both were making pretty speeches about poverty, which is not pretty and which no worker should willingly accept.

It is likely that Pym was not aware of one very important implication of his speech, when he talked about the Many. It is, in fact, the Many who really matter. He did not appeal to the the capitalist minority to fight another Battle—to look up their shares in the Financial Times more assiduously, to buy extra large estates in the country, to lounge with greater intensity in the tropical sun. He addressed his plea to the majority, to the people who count because they produce everything and who run capitalism from one end to the other. He was talking to the working class.

And the workers, who are on the receiving end of government policy should beware. They should look with complete scepticism on all politicians' blandishments and know that—like Passchendaele, like Dunkirk—there is something nasty in store for them.

China syndrome

It must be very difficult being a supporter of the idea that socialism exists in China, when you get so little help from that country to back you up.

One after another, news from Peking indicates that, far from being a place where the means of production are owned in common, where there are no classes, no money and where there is free access to wealth (not that such a state of affairs is possible in any one part of the world), China is steadily seeking a prominent place among the powers of world capitalism.

Recently, for example, the Chinese government has signed some big trade agreements with the Western capitalist states; symbolic of this has been the normalising of its relations with the United States.

Now comes the news that China is trying to join the International Monetary Fund and in line with this is making what are meant to be reassuring noises to any capitalist thinking of investing in that country.

Chinese Vice Premier Gu Mu said in Peking recently that China is preparing new foreign investment regulations which would make it more attractive to investors. He added that overseas investors need not fear another “cultural revolution”—in other words that there will be political safeguards for such investments.

If China gets into the IMF it will be able to borrow from the World Bank, something it may see as essential if it is to expand its export trade into new areas. This comes as an emphasis to the fact that China is a rising threat to the more established capitalist powers—and may one day assert this threat, like Germany and Japan, by emphatic military means.

It also comes as an embarrassment to those who cling to the unsupportable idea that there is something different in China, something worth working class support, even sacrifice. The facts say otherwise; capitalism exists in China and increasingly makes no bones about it.

Trotsky: the Prophet Debunked (1979)

From the November 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lyov Davidovich Bronstein was born a hundred years ago this month in Yanovka in the Southern Ukraine. He attended schools in the Black Sea ports of Odessa and Nikolayev, and by the age of 18 was a committed Russian revolutionary, with the basic aim of overthrowing Tsarism. In the 1890s the revolutionaries had become divided into two main streams, differing over the tactics to be adopted. One stream called themselves Social Democrats and claimed to be Marxist; they held that Russia would have to pass through the stage of capitalism even if the Tsar were overthrown and that the mass movement for this overthrow was to be sought in the industrial working class. The others were known as Narodniks (Populists) and held that a ‘socialist’ regime could be established in Russia alone following the overthrow of Tsarism by the peasant masses.

Trotsky associated himself with the Social Democrats, though the extent to which he really absorbed Marx’s ideas on history and economics is very much open to question. One thing cannot be doubted however: he was a courageous fighter for the Russian anti-Tsarist movement. Arrested for the first time in 1898, he spent two years in prison before being exiled to Siberia for four years. The abortive Russian revolution of 1905 found him a leading figure in the St. Petersburg council of Soviets, which earned him another period of deportation to Siberia. He escaped and spent the period until 1917 in exile in Austria, Switzerland, France and finally America.

While in prison after the 1905 uprising, he developed a theory which casts doubt on his understanding of Marxism. Under the influence of Plekhanov, the ‘father of Russian Marxism’, the Russian Social Democrats held that Russia would have to pass through the capitalist stage before becoming ripe for socialism. The coming revolution in Russia was thus seen as inevitably a ‘bourgeois revolution’, not necessarily in the sense of being led by the bourgeoisie but in the sense of establishing the political and economic conditions for the development of capitalism. Even Lenin at this time shared this perspective, not differing from the Mensheviks here: socialism was out of the question in Russia; the coming anti-Tsarist revolution could only be a bourgeois revolution, during which the working class might indeed play a prominent role, but after which it would find itself in the same position as the working class in the countries of Western Europe. (The disagreement between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was not over the nature of the coming revolution but over how the Social Democrats should organise themselves; into a vanguard party or into a mass democratic party.) This perspective was quite in accordance with Marx’s materialist conception of history, which teaches that socialism is only possible on the basis of developed capitalism and a majority working class which has become socialist.

Trotsky, who had refused to take sides in the split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks (though on the question of party organisation his sympathies were with the Mensheviks), rejected this. He argued that if in the course of the coming anti-Tsarist revolution, the working class were to get political power, it was unrealistic to expect them, or ask them, to hand over power to the bourgeoisie. According to Trotsky, they would not do this but would continue the revolution in a ‘socialist’ direction by measures of nationalisation.

“One may reassure oneself that the social conditions of Russia are not ripe for Socialism, without thinking that the proletariat, taking power, by the very logic of its position, must inevitably press forward the introduction of State management of industry.” (Quoted in Marx and the Marxists by Sidney Hook, p.201.)

This theory that the coming revolution in Russia should not stop at the bourgeois stage but should continue on towards ‘socialism’, Trotsky called ‘the theory of permanent revolution’. He borrowed this phrase from Marx at a time when the latter was under the illusion that the 1848 revolutionary wave would see a bourgeois revolution in Germany rapidly followed by a socialist revolution (an illusion soon abandoned).

Trotsky was not saying that socialism could be established in Russia alone (as did the Narodniks) but only that steps could be taken in this direction while awaiting the socialist revolution in the West. This was an opinion he held for the rest of his life, and was the basis of his later analysis of the Russian revolution. According to him, the Russian revolution of 1917, starting as a bourgeois revolution in March with the overthrow of the Tsar and ending as a ‘socialist’ revolution in November with the Bolshevik seizure of power, was the permanent revolution he had predicted in 1906. Russia under the Bolsheviks, according to Trotsky’s analysis, had started to move towards socialism but would not be able to complete this transition until the socialist revolution had occurred in the rest of the world too.

Actually, the measures which Trotsky regarded as ‘socialist’ (essentially state ownership and management of industry) were really of a state capitalist character. And in fact throughout his life Trotsky failed to make any distinction between state capitalism and socialism. Even during the periods when Lenin was frankly referring to Russia as state capitalist — in 1918 and again after 1921 — Trotsky refused to employ this term. For him, the state industries of Bolshevik Russia were basically socialist, not state capitalist, a view shared by Stalin (the disagreement between Trotsky and Stalin was not over this but over whether or not Russia in the 1930s had completed the transition to socialism).

Trotsky, then, with his theory of ‘permanent revolution’, was expressing a point of view which had more in common with Narodnik views about Russia being able to avoid capitalism. Trotsky had held this view even before 1917, and of course believed that after 1917 Russia actually had avoided capitalism. In short, he never really understood Marx, though he was an astute theorist of the Russian anti-Tsarist revolution. If we understand his reference’s to ‘socialism’ as references to state capitalism, then well before 1917 he foresaw that the Russian revolution was not going to be a simple bourgeois revolution, and that those who overthrew the Tsar could establish a state capitalism rather than a liberal capitalism as in the West. Lenin did not come round to this view until 1917, when Trotsky, for his part, overcame his misgivings about Lenin’s ideas on organisation. Lenin and Trotsky together can be said to have been the theorists of the Russian state capitalist revolution, with Lenin providing the theory of a centralised and highly disciplined vanguard party and Trotsky the theory that state capitalism rather than private capitalism could be established immediately in Russia.

But Lenin and Trotsky were not just theorists. They were also practical revolutionaries. Trotsky was in fact the chairman of the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet, in whose name the Bolshevik seizure of power was carried out. This is what makes his History of the Russian Revolution fascinating reading, in fact essential reading for anyone studying this event. For it is not the work of some historian studying in a university library but an account — and a well-written one — by a person who had played a key role in the event. It is also revealing in that it again shows to what extent Trotsky was not a Marxist. For, as Trotsky saw it, insurrection is an ‘art’; leaders attempting an insurrection must know the right slogans to put forward to mobilise the masses and exactly the right ‘psychological moment’ to launch the call to insurrection. He even suggested that the Bolshevik insurrection might not have been successful had it not been for one man: Lenin. A return to the Great Man theory of history if ever there was!

After the Bolshevik coup, Trotsky became a leading member of the government, first as Commissar for Foreign Affairs, then as leader of the Red Army, which under his command had by 1921 successfully defeated the counter revolutionary White Russians and their allies (including Britain, France and Japan). Trotsky carried over the military approach he had learned here to economic matters and advocated that the labour of production should be militarised, should be forced labour under military discipline. It was he who personally supervised the crushing of the Krondstadt uprising in 1921. Particularly revealing as to his frame of mind at this time is the pamphlet he wrote in 1922, Terrorism and Communism (first published in Britain under the tendentious title In Defence of Terrorism), in which he defends the use of terror against the Bolsheviks’ political opponents.

Trotsky quite clearly played a leading role in laying the foundation for Stalin’s later dictatorship, of which he was to be one of the first victims. Eased out of power in 1925, expelled from the Bolshevik Party in 1927 and exiled to Alma Ata near the Chinese border, he was finally forced to leave Russia in 1929. In exile Trotsky set out his analysis of the Russian revolution and its outcome in Revolution Betrayed. The Russian revolution, he argued, had been a capture of political power by the working class; under Lenin (and, of course, Trotsky) Russia had been developing towards socialism (state capitalism); the coming to power of Stalin represented the usurpation of political power in Russia by a bureaucracy but had left unchanged the social basis established by the Bolsheviks in 1917 — the state ownership and planning which Trotsky had always regarded as being in some way ‘socialist’. For him, Russia was a ‘degenerate Workers’ State’ in a period of transition between capitalism and socialism.

The theory is of course nonsense. It brings out once again Trotsky’s failure to make any distinction between state capitalism and socialism — in fact he actually says in Revolution Betrayed that state capitalism is impossible as a full society (chapter IX). This book is, however, still worth reading, since apart from being written by someone who had been prominently involved in the construction of the Russian regime, it became the starting point for the discussion that went on in the 1930s and 1940s about the nature of Russian society (and which still goes on in the Trotskyist sects). This polemic eventually led to some correctly coming to see Russia as state capitalist, a view Trotsky combatted until his murder in 1940 by an agent of his ‘degenerate Workers’ State’.

Trotsky himself took an active part in these discussions, and there is something genuinely pathetic in the sight of a man who had once been a leading anti-Tsarist revolutionary reduced to the leader of just one of many Trotskyist sects, to the level of a Tony Cliff or a Gerry Healy.

In conclusion, Trotsky is best seen not as a Marxist, nor as a theorist of working class revolution, but as a Russian revolutionary, as an exponent, in theory and later in practice, of the anti-Tsarist revolution which cleared the way for the further development of capitalism in Russia in the form of state capitalism. In urging the working class to adopt tactics that had proved successful in this non-socialist, state capitalist revolution, Trotsky helped in no small measure to sidetrack a part of the workers’ movement in Europe and North America and hence to delaying the coming of the world socialism to which he claimed to be committed.

Adam Buick

(A later article with the same title - and by the same author -  was published in August 1990)

It’s a lock-out (1979)

From the November 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Suddenly, the cry “All out, brothers” threatens to take on a new meaning, becoming not the command of the shop steward but the frustrated wail of the locked out worker, pressing round the unyielding factory gate.

For over a year now, workers in The Times newspapers have been locked out —and there are reports that, rather than face another twelve months of negotiations, the Thompson Organisation will close the papers down permanently. In case anyone has forgotten, this dispute began over the workers’ resistance to new methods of compositing, with likely redundancies. During the recent two day strikes in the engineering industry, the companies who are members of the Engineering Employers’ Federation retaliated by laying off workers and locking out others—notably at Rolls Royce. An article in the Observer (23.9.79) by Robert Taylor gave the substance of some guide lines issued by the EEF:

“Industrial action, such as go-slows, refusal to work normally and blacking of employees, products or machines should not he tolerated for more than a few days. After warning, with a sufficient period allowed for reflection, suspension without pay should be the normal response.”

This attempt at the sort of solidarity more usually expected from trade unionists —which employers, because of the essentially competitive nature of capitalism, will find rather more difficult—was illuminating. When factories stop because of a strike, we are subjected to a barrage of clap-trap from the press about, disruptive workers preventing the production of essential goods needed by pensioners, sick children . . But when the employers, also in the act of protecting their interests in the class struggle, bring production to a halt there is not a word of protest; withers in Fleet Street remain unwrung over jeopardised export markets, frustrated customers, deprived consumers and so on.

Agriculture

Perhaps the press will need a little time to catch on. The relative prosperity of British capitalism for some twenty years after the war outmoded lock-out; it was usually better to pay up on a wage claim than to shut the firm down. But it was not always so.

In the earlier days of British capitalism, before the unions were strong enough to offer effective resistance, the lock-out was often wielded to beat down living standards. In the 1830s it was used against the attempts to form an Operative Builders’ Union: the employers won, as the lock-out forced the OBU into deep financial trouble. In 1897 the Amalgamated Society of Engineers struck for an eight hour day, after a prolonged wrangle over the introduction of new machinery. The employers retaliated, with the first national lock-out ever. After six months the ASE was crushed and the employers, proclaiming themselves “masters in our own shops”, dictated the terms of the surrender.

There was a similar’ bitter story in agriculture, where workers were trying to live on appallingly low wages. In 1872, in Warwickshire, 200 farm labourers struck for a rise to 16s (80p) a week for their eleven hour day. Their case was such as to attract some support from the press (although not, presumably, in Church Times; the Bishop of Gloucester advocated throwing the strikers into the village pond). It was a bitter fight, which spread as the farmers imposed a general lock-out. At Chipping Norton, two magistrates who were also clergymen did their duty by both god and Mammon by sentencing sixteen women, some still suckling their babies, to hard labour for “intimidating” blacklegs. The strikers were defeated, partly by the effects of the agricultural depression of the 1870s, which helped to cripple their union.

Coal Mines

The Webbs described this type of dispute as the “.. . insurrection of the village and the autocratic spirit which it aroused in the owners of land and tithe. . . ” an attitude which lingered, even in more modern industry, almost as if the employers saw some advantage in behaving like feudal barons.

Before the First World War, there were about 1,500 separate companies owning the coal mines in Britain. In many cases, the company was personified by one rich, influential owner—Lord Londonderry, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Lord Rhondda, Evan Williams. Some of these companies were more “liberal” and “enlightened” than others — and some more efficient and profitable—and the mines were a traditional battlefield over wages and conditions, marked like shell-holes by strikes and lock-outs. The miners were bonny, experienced fighters and among the higher paid workers in Britain.

As part of British capitalism’s war effort, the mines were taken effectively under state control in 1917. After the war, there was a brief, hectic boom for the British coal industry as it filled the gaps left by the devastated French mines and the immobilised German pits. This did not last long and the British export markets in Europe and South America abruptly contracted. Coal had been the basis of the power of Victorian capitalism; now it symbolised that power’s decline. By 1921 the losses of the mines were growing beyond the scope of government subsidies and in April that year, with a wage claim pending, the industry was abruptly passed back to the private owners.

Far from being about to negotiate a rise in wages, the private owners were proposing a reduction of over £2 a week. Flexing their muscles as they took over the pits again, they posted lock-out notices. The miners expected support from the railwaymen and the transport workers and when this did not happen the episode became notorious as “Black Friday”. The struggle went on for three months, until the miners were forced back to work on terms worse than they might have hoped to get originally.

Newspapers

More recent times have seen little use of the lock-out in Britain although, according to Robert Taylor, in France and Germany it is more common than the strike. But now, with the employers struggling from the desperation of a prolonged recession, may be the time for its revival. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph (23.9.79) Peregrine Worsthorne gloated over the engineering workers:

“Last year an engineering strike might have shown the workers to be invincible. So may one next year. But the same could be said about any momentous historical miscalculation — even the Charge of the Light Brigade.”

Of course Worsthorne, like all the conventional observers of capitalism, is seeing things very much in the immediate, superficial sense. Every dispute has its immediate causes and how it is fought out—and who wins—must depend on the conditions prevailing at the time. Strikes have a better chance of succeeding in a boom and by the same token a lock-out is more likely when there is a slump. This was the case with the farm labourers and the engineering workers in the 19th century and with the miners in 1921. And it is so today.

The Times shut down was an episode in a long decline in the newspaper industry, in which many papers perished and the profits of the survivors have been under strong pressure. The malaise is widespread; the September report of the Confederation of British Industry showed how the rest of the employers view their prospects. They expect their profitability for 1979 and 1980 to fall below the previous poor levels of 1974-5.

Behind such immediate prospects, and behind the temporary changes in balances of strength, lies the basic, inescapable fact ‘of the class struggle. This struggle continues without pause — often without its participants realising that they are involved in it.

Firstly, the struggle is about the division of wealth in capitalist society and this is where the unions and the employers’ federations operate. There are still a few strange people who doubt the need for the struggle, who doubt that wealth is divided so that some people have vastly more of it than others.

Poverty

Reality is against them. For a long time a mass of evidence has been accumulated, using different methods—income tax returns, estate duties, social surveys—measuring the extent of this inequality. Sir Joshua Stamp, in 1919, estimated that one per cent of the population owned over 65 per cent of the national wealth. Nearly sixty years later Louie Burghes found that one per cent owned 31 per cent of the wealth and the top 10 per cent owned 70 per cent. An article by Anthony Giddens in New Society (4.10.79) estimated that the top five per cent of “the rich” own 98 per cent of the total of privately held corporate stocks and shares. At the other end of the scale the Low Pay Unit reports that at the end of 1977 one family in eight was living at or below the supplementary benefits line, which itself is little better than starvation. The figures, along with the methods of collecting them, may vary from time to time. But the fact of inequality—and of the existence of riches alongside poverty—remains.

This brings us to the wider, more fundamental, aspect of the class struggle. In this case we are not discussing a struggle participated in by thousands of trade unionists, which gets the big headlines and has union leaders hurrying to and from Downing Street. We are talking about the ultimate, about the struggle over who owns the means of production and about establishing a new society of common ownership and free access to wealth.

For the present this struggle is the work of a minority, of a few who are aware of what capitalism is and of how it operates. This conscious few know that industrial disputes are not moral issues; they know that workers who strike, and employers who lock out, are simply acting in accordance with their interests in the class struggle. They are expressing the fact that capitalism does not produce its wealth for the benefit of its people, that capitalism is a society of disharmony.

And capitalism continues only because the rest— the unconscious majority—want it to. This was the symbolic quality about those pictures of the engineering workers hammering on the factory gates. The limit of their ambition is another style of exploitation. They are, brothers and sisters, on their way to nowhere.

Ivan