Letter: A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike (1937)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike

To the Editorial Board,                                                                                                                                                          

The Socialist Standard.

 

Woolwich, S.E.18.

Dear Comrade,

I have been invited as a member of the Communist Party to express my opinion on your article, “ A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike.” (See July The Socialist Standard.)

Your article, in the first place, does not examine the economic history and the relation of the class forces leading up to the agreement, but takes part of the agreement, without regard to the situation, and then condemns Arthur Homer and the Communist Party. You are content merely to repeat what a capitalist paper says, instead of as Marxists examining the whole question in the light of its relationship, taking into account as many facts as possible. Had this been done you would have been in a position to express an opinion.

Although not in any way connected with the mining industry, I submit the following facts:—

In 1933 the Bedwas Lodge was driven off the colliery it had controlled for many years. Under police protection the pit was filled with blacklegs and two thousand men were out. From 1933 to 1936 things were relatively quiet, but in 1934 Emlyn, Parc and Dare had been won back to the S.W.M.F. and Taff Merthyr had been weakened, but Bedwas was still 100 per cent. Miners’ Industrial Union. This had cost the Union money and funds were low. It was obvious that the strength of the Industrial Union was at Bedwas. In 1936 the attack on Bedwas started, and eventually 900 men signed revocation cards. Provisional strike notices were handed in. Ninety per cent. of the coalfield supported them. The Bedwas owners left the Coalowners' Association in order to fight. The huts were ready at the pithead to house the blacklegs.

On the last day of the expiry of the notices the owners said they would be willing to meet the Union if they withdrew the notices. There were stay-in strikes.

The owners met the Union. It now became clear that there would not be a strike. If a strike took place the Company would be smashed, the Company was carrying a million pounds of debt and not another penny was available. If the output did not provide the wages, the wages could not be paid. It was easy to close the colliery and destroy the men’s employment as the price for wiping out the Company Union. Therefore the Bedwas agreement was entered into.

In most instances the agreement is the same as that covering the coalfield agreement, and in some instances there are advantages in the Bedwas agreement. Double shift and new machinery are dealt with in the same manner as the coalfield agreement. Wages differ very little from that in the coalfield agreement.

It is Clause 13—machinery for settling disputes —which has caused uneasiness, but after consultation with the men and the old Bedwas Committee, it was agreed to. Either the agreement or close the fit.

The Independent Arbitrator takes the place of the Finality Committee now functioning in the coalfield, but whereas in the cases of dispute 99 per cent. of the cases of “failure to agree" implied defeat for the appellants, every dispute must now reach a conclusion.

If there is a coalfield fight, Bedwas can do as every other colliery, each individual can terminate his contract and secure release from the agreement. In the event of the Company failing to carry out the agreement there can, and probably will be, strikes.

The Bedwas agreement has not endangered coalfield agreement, although it contains formulations agreed to under duress.

Finally, the agreement has paved the way in a period of relative weakness for die final elimination of Company Unionism in the coalfield. Then is your article justified—you must make the choice—is this an advance from the 100 per cent. Company Unionism and the isolation of the Federation from Bedwas or not? You say that “at best it could be described as compromising and dangerous." Do you understand that the class struggle is full of compromises and dangers for the working class? It is a question whether you will face up to them or not. 

Yours fraternally, 

S. Rodgers.

Reply.

Our correspondent’s letter criticising the article, “A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike," is not very convincing. He says that the alternative to the Bedwas Agreement, signed by Arthur Horner, was closing the pit and throwing the miners out of employment. Such situations can indeed arise, but when faced with a demand by the employers that the Union shall sign a degrading agreement, the workers at least have the alternative of refusing to give their officials authority to sign— in other words, of giving up official recognition of the Union for the time being. The employers would enforce the terms, whether the Union signed or not, but there would be a certain value in the workers refraining from giving collective endorsement to them.

Our correspondent’s letter is, however, hardly consistent with itself. Having stated that the Bedwas workers had to accept the agreement or lose their employment through the closing down of the colliery, our correspondent goes on to say that, in the event of a coalfield fight, the Bedwas workers can individually terminate the agreement and come out on strike. Surely in that case they will be again faced with the closing down of the colliery and the loss of their employment: if it applies in one case so, it will in the other. This “right" of individually terminating his agreement is possessed by every worker, organised or not, but what a right ! It is an admission that real trade union organisation is for the time being impossible.

Ed. Comm.

What the T.U.C. overlooked (1955)

From the October 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the war, and for that matter for long years before it, the British workers have been told to look forward to an era of "plenty and prosperity."

Prosperity would be ours—but for the “dollar gap,” just increase output by 8 per cent (1948) and prosperity would be ours—but for adverse balance of imports and exports—but for German-Japanese competition—we would all be prosperous if only we would work hard and harder and harder.

So it goes on with ever new threats to be met, ever new targets to be reached, ever new crises and problems while the sought-after “prosperity” somehow always manages to elude the workers.

Working overtime, wives out to work, to make ends meet, but NOW is not the time to ask for more. The “country” could not stand it.

When could the country ever stand it? NOW is NEVER the time to demand more. One of Capitalism’s many paradoxes is that the workers of the various countries line-up and identify themselves with the very people who rob them. Another is that while they talk of “unfair” competition causing unemployment here they are not adverse to seeing what can be done in order to cut someone else's throat and let them be unemployed.

It seems that some British workers are so lacking in international solidarity that they are not opposed to unemployment so long as THEY are not unemployed. Of course, the same holds good for workers in the rest of the word—Capitalism has them all at it

Insecurity of existence dogs every wage-slave's footsteps, insecurity which makes him obedient, and as word goes round of “crises” and “market troubles,” insecurity it is that plays a large part in shaping resolutions and arguments at Trade Union Congresses. The fear of increased want and hardship drives workers to work harder and longer to stave off the evil day instead of finding out why they are insecure to begin with.

When one considers the effects of PROFIT production it is as a prime piece of impudence when Mr. Tiffin said “I sometimes wonder if wage claims with the lid off are in future going to be the answer to the search for a life of comfort and security.” (Daily Mirror 5/9/55).

The Socialist Party of Great Britain's attitude to trade unionism is a clear one. While society is class-divided into Capitalists and wage workers, employers and employees, whose interests are directly opposed to each other the “collective bargaining power” of workers is vital to resist the downward pressure of the employers on wages and conditions also, whenever possible to push up wages and improve hours and conditions of work. .

But even this leaves the workers who are the producers of the wealth, in a position of arguing with the non-producers as to how much they may have of it.

Our aim, while thoroughly realising the workers’ need to struggle, is to get the wealth producers alert to the urgency of looking beyond profit production to a system where the wealth society produces will be freely available to everyone.

When the means of production are no longer., owned by the Capitalist class and workers no longer bargain for bones; when the wages system has been abolished and the whole community will own in common the means of production. When we contrast this with what transpires every year at the Trade Union Congress, we can almost understand what our critics mean when they naively tell us we can’t have Socialism because of “the backward countries”!

The conference this year had been softened up in advance by talk of “automation,” “economic crises,” and so for the “leaders” to pilot through resolutions on “wage restraint” was quite easy.

It is also easy for the big boys and the Press to scream “Communist” in order to discredit delegates from the A.E.U. or the E.T.U., but this implies that workers are really satisfied and quite happy until the “agitators” get at them. Look at this as the “motive” for a so- called Communist According to the Daily Express (8/9/55) Arthur Horner was opposed to wage restraint not because workers need more wages:—“He declared that the miners could not produce the coal the country needs because there are not enough of them.” More wages—more miners—more work—more coal—more profits.

Overtime is to stay—that is as long as the employers have a use for us. The 40 hour week has been defeated and a glimpse of the future shows us “joint production” councils, “pit by pit” output probes by employers and union. And the “big brother” who may be watching you might be a union “leader” acting “in the national interest.”

Ironically enough after years of Capitalist propaganda to the contrary the Daily Mirror (6/9/55) tells us “wages have chased the rising prices,” not the contrary.

Does the addled-headedness end here? No! “Cut the call-up” is on again. Why? Are they opposed to armed Forces? No! Now it is just that “the country” needs the manpower. The employers are finding the scramble for overseas markets hard going, and just for now the cry is for more workers.

What will become of the hired hands when the dreaded crash comes is left to our memories and imaginations but meanwhile the employer has a use for us all so let’s work hard, then, at least, when we are unemployed the Capitalists will have their nest egg of years of increased profit. And we on the dole-queues will be consoled by the fact that we tried. We did not ask for more wages because NOW was not the time; we worked harder and although we have nothing to show for it, we tried.

Of course the Capitalist might go to war (or rather send you to war); no unemployment then., We will all be employed in the glorious pastime of butchering one another in order that the Capitalist class of each country can hang on to or expand the wealth of which they have robbed us, the world’s workers, in the first place.

So let us discuss the “German Army” auction. Let us “increase output” to capture more markets and profits. Let us bury ourselves in Capitalism’s problems so that this wonderful system of war-machines, crises, poverty, hunger, exploitation, and war, can continue. What is the implication of this kind of attitude: Let us not bother our heads about Socialism, its “futuristic.” Why “cure” what we can “endure.” This in effect is what they say.

Under Socialism when we are no longer wage-slaves and everything the world over is produced solely for use, there will be no “incentive’’—and so it goes on, and if the employers’ outlook on life is not that of the workers what does it matter so long as the worker's outlook is that of employers? The curse of leadership is the blindness of those who follow and the inevitable rising of new leaders to repeat the follies of past generations of leaders.

The trust and confidence workers put in leaders is no substitute for class-consciousness and action to bring the end of this vile system.

Leaders, political or industrial, will never do this for the workers, it is their responsibility, their only urgent problem.

Harry Baldwin

Editorial: The Budget (1948)

Editorial from the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

At Budget time there is always a certain amount of excitement among the workers, rather like that about the result of the Oxford and Cambridge boat race—and with about as much justification. Always there is that mixture of hopes and fears—will beer and cigarettes go down? Will overtime be freed from income tax? Will purchase tax be reduced? Sir Stafford Cripps managed to please and displease nearly everyone, a bit on here, a bit off there. Beer and tobacco up a little, income tax down a little, purchase tax up on some things and down on others. The other principal features of the Budget were the capital levy which will raise about £100 millions from 140,000 of the very rich, the reiteration of the policy of freezing wages at their present level except where special factors justify an increase, and a refusal to freeze profits or to tax them more heavily. On this last point Cripps contented himself with a warning that if companies do increase their dividends to shareholders this year he will consider imposing a limit next year.

Speaking for the. Conservative opposition, Sir John Anderson, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, criticised certain features of the Budget, particularly the special levy, but otherwise be welcomed Sir Stafford Cripps’ “realistic and honest approach.” The Manchester Guardian (April 7th, 1948) praised it as “a strong, honest, and radical Budget,” and remarked of the capital levy that it is “in fact a stiff individual profits tax winch falls where it should, on the large personal capital.” That newspaper’s City Editor (April 7th, 1948) went further and showed that it is not even very stiff:–

”The levy on capital will not be severe even for those holding very large amounts of capital. Assuming an investment yield of 5 per cent. the tax would amount to 2½ per cent. on a capital of over £100.000.”

We may sum up by saying that if the workers find that the Budget makes little difference to their position so do the capitalists, and this is true of all Budgets no matter whether the Government is Conservative, or Labour. It explains why the Socialist refuses to get excited about Budget prospects.

What the working class get out of the capitalist system is the wage or salary they receive for selling their energies to the employers (including the Government and the administrative Boards which are Ihe employers in nationalised undertakings), and wages follow fairly closely the rises and falls of the cost of living. This is not an automatic process of adjustment, but takes place through the pressure and counter pressure exerted by the employing class and the workers in strikes and lockouts. When prices are falling unemployment is usually heavy enough to enable the employers to force down wages. When unemployment is at a very low point, as at present, it is easier for the workers to struggle for higher wages and thus try to maintain their standard of living in face of recently rising prices. Those who urge the workers not to take advantage of the present low unemployment to press for higher wages may discover at no very distant date that the opportunity will have passed. Unemployment will be the order of the day; or, as the City Editor of the News Chronicle puts it (April 10th, 1948), ”with the country probably over the inflationary hump and perhaps set on the, road to deflation with the help of the recent Budget.” Mr. Arthur Horner, Communist secretary of the Miners’ Union, apparently is among the short-sighted. According to the Daily Worker (April 6th, 1948) he said at Leicester, “The miners had not taken full advantage of the law of supply and demand of labour. If they had wages would have been much higher.”

When Cabinet spokesmen oppose higher wages they do so because their immediate and predominant responsibility, by virtue of being the Government, is to keep the capitalist system functioning in the only way that capitalism can function, that is by enabling the capitalists to make profits. The Labour Party grew up on the mistaken belief that under Labour Government there would be great possibilities to raise wages by cutting into profits. Rather late in the day some of them, certainly Sir Stafford Cripps, have come up against the, harsh truth that those who administer the capitalist system have very limited freedom of action—on all important issues they can depart little from the practice of their Conservative predecessors. Official figures on the proportion of the national income which goes as salaries, wages and rent and profits, etc., bring this out clearly. In 1938 wages accounted for 39 per cent., salaries for 24 per cent., and profits, rent and interest for 37 per cent. In 1947 wages accounted for 44 per cent., salaries 20 per cent., and rent, profits, etc., 36 per cent. (See Economist, April 10th, 1948, p. 596.) In each case the figures are after meeting income tax.) It will be observed that the percentage going to wages and salaries together, i.e., 63 per cent. in 1938 and 64 per cent. in 1947 has hardly changed at all, likewise the percentage to rent, profit, etc.—37 per cent. in 1938 and 36 per cent. in 1947.

This is the dilemma of all Labour Governments, but no such dilemma faces Socialists. Socialism is not a scheme for redistributing wealth and income inside capitalism, but a system of society to replace the capitalist system

Notes by the Way: For Heaven’s Sake Don’t Shoot! (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

For Heaven’s Sake Don’t Shoot!

In a speech in London on 24th September, Mr. Herbert Morrison elaborated a familiar Labour Party theme, which is that the workers have now got what they wanted and must be very careful not to do anything to endanger their triumph:—

“Mr. Herbert Morrison, Lord President of the Council, declaring that the ball was now at the feet of the worker, said in London to-night that if he exploited his advantage against the needs of the community as selfishly as the old employer did when he was on top, the great victories of trade unionism would melt away, and would deserve to melt.” (Manchester Guardian, 25/9/48.)

Which prompts the natural question, if the workers really have got the ball at their feet and just when they are about to score a goal, their captain bawls out, “For heaven’s sake don’t shoot,” what was the use of starting the game at all?

* * *

Mr. Horner’s Bluff

In the row between Mr. Arthur Horner, Communist and secretary of the Miners’ Union, and the other officials of the union who are Labour Government supporters, his opponents argued that it was his duty to keep to the declared policy of the Union which is in favour of the Marshall Plan. Instead he supported the strike of the French coal miners which his Labour opponents maintain was a Russian inspired move to prevent European recovery, though ostensibly a strike for higher wages.

Mr. Horner defended his action on the ground of international working-class solidarity. He said that the French miners’ wages are lower than the wages of British miners, and that “if French miners are allowed to stay at their present level it will threaten the standards of existence of British miners.” (Observer, 17/10/48.) He told a Daily Express correspondent (16/10/48) that he would have supported the strike on its merits even if it had not been backed by the Communists—”I would on principle support the workers if they thought they were justified in refusing their wages.”

So far so good, but let us test the claim by Mr. Horner’s actions in other directions. Only 12 months ago members of Mr. Horner’s union were on strike at Grimethorpe colliery. Did Mr. Horner support them? Not at all. He opposed the strike, told them they were wrong, and accused them of wrecking union policy. This, of course, was before the Communists had switched over to their campaign against the Labour Government.

And what about the miners and other workers in Czechoslovakia who were honoured by a visit from Mr. Horner just before he went to France? On his return he admitted that “wage standards were lower than in Britain and the tempo of work harder ” (Daily Worker, 4/10/48), and that the Czechs work “six eight-hour days a week. (Manchester Guardian, 4/10/48.)

Since the Czech workers work longer hours than British miners and are lower paid, why doesn’t Mr. Horner offer his support to a strike of Czech miners and other workers to improve their position?

The reason is obvious. In Czechoslovakia the Government that enforces these low wages and long hours is a Communist Government, so Mr. Horner is against the workers and for the Government. In France the Communists are not in power, so it suits Russia to back the strike.

During the row Mr. Horner confirmed that he had been offered, and refused, a job on the Coal Board at £5,000 a year (five times his present salary). He also told the Sunday Express (17/10/48), “I would sooner go back to the pit than have another year of this torture.”

The tragedy of the whole business is that the trade union movement is being divided over the issue whether to line up with American private capitalism or Russian State capitalism. Mr. Thurtle, Labour M.P., forecasting Mr. Horner’s defeat, actually put it in the terms, “British patriotism will triumph over alien ideology.” (Sunday Express, 17/10/48.) Is it too much to hope that the miners themselves will remind all their officials that the union is supposed to exist to look after the interests of the members, and that at one time there was at least some conception of international solidarity, not with governments but with the workers everywhere against all their exploiters?

* * *

The United Nations—Promise and Reality

In his speech on world affairs at the Tory Conference at Llandudno, Mr. Winston Churchill opened up with a description of the purpose served by the United Nations Organisation.

“The Assembly of the United Nations, which we fondly hoped would be the majestic centre of world security and, later on, of world co-operation, and, finally, of world government, has been reduced to a mere cockpit in which the representatives of mighty nations and ancient States hurl reproaches, taunts and insults at one another to marshal public opinion and inflame the passions of their peoples, in order to arouse and prepare them for what seems to be a remorselessly approaching third world war.” (Evening Standard, 9th October, 1948.)

* * *

The Juicy Orange

The following is from the News Chronicle (4/10/48) :

“Millions of oranges are being buried every week in the Murrumbidgee area of New South Wales.

“Bulldozers turn them into trenches 100ft. long, 20ft. wide and 7ft. deep.

“Growers say the oranges are second grade and are dumped because only the best are saleable, yet they would be labelled ‘choice in fruit shops here and sell at 3d. and 4d. each.

“The growers blame the local marketing system and say they would like to give the oranges to schools, but packing and railway costs are too high.”

* * *

“Daily Worker” Reporting

The Communists complain, with good reason, that reports in the capitalist press are often biassed and distorted. The careful reader of the Daily Worker will find that the Communists do pretty well themselves. One of the things the Worker is reluctant to let its readers know is the enormous amount spent by Russia in the armaments race, though it keeps them well posted about the expenditure of the other Imperialist powers.

On 8th October the Worker published what purported to be a report of speeches made on that subject by Mr. Vyshinsky and Mr. Hector McNeil at the Paris meeting of the United Nations Committee on disarmament.

According to The Times (8/10/48) Mr. McNeil made the following statement: —

“Could anyone say—even, perhaps, countries in the closest relationship with Soviet Russia—that they knew the forces the Soviets deployed to-day, or what was spent on them last year?

“Soviet military estimates to-day amounted to 66.1 milliard roubles, against 17.5 milliard roubles in 1937, to say nothing of an estimated surplus of 41 milliards, the destination of which was unknown.”

Mr. McNeil’s statement may be right or wrong (the critically minded would ask for much more information before accepting the apparent conclusion that the Russian Government is spending four times as much as in 1937; and probably the value of the rouble is less), but his intended point is clear enough, that the admitted expenditure of 66.1 milliards might have been added to out of the 41 milliard budget surplus.

Now observe how the Worker suppressed the figures entirely and reduced these passages in the speech to the following mangled version: —

“After quoting figures of Soviet military expenditure, which he admitted he was not himself sure of, Mr. McNeil declared…..”

What have Professor Haldane and Mr. L. C. White and the other members of the Editorial Board to say about this?

* * *

‘Twill be a Glorious Victory

Some time not far off, the political Olympic teams will run their general election race. They are at present training and preparing, inspecting the track in the constituencies, and watching the political weather reports from the by-elections, all in anticipation of the great day. It will be a glorious victory for Labour over Tory or for Tory over Labour, unless, of course, the international situation produces another coalition. In that event it will prove to be what Lewis Carroll’s Dodo defined as a “Caucus-race,” one in which all parties win and all get prizes.

At the 1945 election nationalisation was a big issue, but just now, though nearly all preparations for the elections are made, there is one thing missing—something substantial to fight about. Liberals, Labour and the Tories fall over each other in their anxiety to agree about foreign policy and Western Union, about opposition to Russia, about detestation of Communists and Fascists and love of democracy. At home they all claim to have fathered the National Insurance scheme and to be in favour of social reform, more houses, more production, more exports and more wages—but not now. It used long ago to be said of the Labour M.P.s that they were hardly distinguishable from Liberals. Now it seems that the epithet Lib-Lab has to be broadened to Con-Lib-Lab so that it covers all three parties. Early in October the Tories held their annual conference at Llandudno. This is the summing-up made by the Political Correspondent of the Observer (10/10/.18) : —

“No one can read this programme without being struck by one singular fact: the wide agreement that exists between the Tory and Labour Parties. The Iron and Steel Bill may change all that, but at the moment the Tories have no real quarrel with either Sir Stafford Cripps or Mr. Ernest Bevin. There would be few fundamental changes if they were returned to power. They have accepted the Nationalisation of coal, gas, electricity, transport and the Bank of England, either implicitly or explicitly. They may try to unscramble … air transport, but that is not very important. They would keep up the export targets and reluctantly continue austerity. There would be changes in emphasis, private enterprise would be encouraged and not bullied, and there would, of course, be a change in leadership. But the fundamentals would remain because the present economic situation puts any Government in a strait-jacket.”

So much for the Tory and Labour Parties. Within a week of that assessment the Liberal Party published its “Programme for Britain,” and this is what the Liberals say in it about Nationalisation: —

“The profit motive is not wrong. On the other hand, unrestricted private enterprise does not give the best results, from the community’s point of view, in every industry. Liberals believe that postal services, railways, gas, electricity, and coal should be publicly owned. Competitive private enterprise should, however, be encouraged in many fields, and Liberals are utterly opposed to the Nationalisation of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” (Manchester Guardian, 15/10/48.)

In default of any other issue to bemuse the electors perhaps the three parties will agree to re-inflate the old bogey, the House of Lords, and stage a smashing exhibition of shadow-boxing about that.

* * *

Nationalisation and Wage-slavery

In a speech very briefly reported in the Evening News (24/8/48) Sir Geoffrey Vickers, V.C., who is Coal Board member for Manpower and Welfare, is said to have claimed that the Coal Board “were trying to abolish ‘wage slavery’ just as human slavery had been abolished.”

Sir Geoffrey is an optimist to say the least of it. Perhaps the kindest explanation is that he uses the term without knowing what it means. In the meantime the Coal Board (was it the Manpower and Welfare Department?) prosecuted 96 miners at Chorley, Lancashire, on 13th August for taking part in an unofficial strike. Fines of £10 were imposed on 87 of them. (Daily Mail, 14/8/48.)

We notice that the workers’ discovery that nationalisation or State Capitalism is much the same as private capitalism, has even reached Mr. Ernest Thurtle, Labour M.P., who writes every Sunday in the Sunday Express. “It is a plain fact that there is much disappointment among the workers in these industries at the way in which the changeover from private ownership has worked out.” (Sunday Express, 29/8/48.)

The former coal owners are being looked after. In its report on the three months April to June, 1948, the Coal Board states that it paid £3,900,000 to the Government as interest on loans and on “interim income” (pending settlement of compensation) to former coal owners.

* * *

Workers who worked too hard

The following was published in the Manchester Guardian (3/9/48) :

“Sixty workers at a Merthyr factory making agricultural machinery have had to be dismissed through ‘ redundancy’ although the works this year has produced more combine harvesters a day than ever before. This is due, said the manager (Mr. C. R. Light), yesterday, to a stiffening in the home market and currency regulations which prevent the delivery of foreign orders, some of which have been completed.

“More than 2,200 people are unemployed in the borough.”

* * *

Civilisation comes to Ethiopia

In an article on the Administration of the law in Abyssinia, published in the New Statesman (29/8/48), Mr. Elwyn Jones, M.P., has this:

“There are still public hangings in the capital for the more serious crimes. In the Addis Ababa jail an electric chair has been installed. I was assured that this was a gift from U.N.R.R.A.— which, if it is true, must surely be the grisliest manifestation of ‘relief and rehabilitation’ of all time.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Answers to Correspondents (1937)

Letters to the Editors from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

J. Cohen (E.3).—We note that, after reading the article “Big or Little Unions,” you considered it ”a clear case for organisation by industry,” and you say that, as our speakers have stated that we ”are not believers in that, would it be possible for the Party to be consistent?” As neither the Transport & General Workers' Union nor the suggested separate Union for London busmen is an organisation by industry, we fail to see why the article is regarded as an argument for it. Perhaps you will explain.

As Socialists, we stress the need for the workers to organise on a class basis, whereas organisation on a craft basis or on an industry basis is compatible with the holding of quite reactionary views.

Ed. Comm.

J. Cohen (E.3).—You ask what would be the position of members of the Socialist Party who may also be members of the South Wales Miners’ Federation; and thus be affected by the agreement signed by the Communist, Mr. Horner (see July issue—"A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike”). You ask: ”Are they to see that the agreement is kept or are they expected as Socialists to take no action in agitating to break the agreement, run the risk of expulsion or quietly acquiesce in its operation or help in its operation?”

It should surely be plain that, if a majority of members of a Union approve or acquiesce in a bad move by their Union officials, a minority of Socialists can only try to get the majority to recognise the facts of the situation. Until that has been done the situation obviously cannot be remedied. When the majority are won over they, the majority in the light of the circumstances prevailing in the particular industry, will have to decide what are the best steps to take to get a better agreement.

Ed. Comm.

S. Rodgers.—A reply to your letter criticising the article, ”A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike,” has been crowded out of this issue.

Ed. Comm.

R. D. Lovett (Brentwood). —Thanks for comments on and criticisms of the ”Left News.” We do not think the writer you particularly mention is worth space for a reply in the Socialist Standard. There seems to be nothing original in the case he makes.

Ed. Comm.

James Jefferson (Elgin).—As you are not acquainted with the position taken up by the S.P.G.B., we suggest that you read the Socialist Standard and our pamphlets.

We notice that you agree with us that the Labour Party is not a Socialist party, but you think if Socialists got inside they could convert it. You quote Marx, who, like the S.P.G.B., saw that poverty can only be abolished by dispossessing the capitalist class of their ownership in the means of production and distribution. The Labour Party, while professing to want to abolish poverty, rejects that necessary means of doing so. You want to convert the Labour Party to Socialism, but yourself suggest that it adopt a non-Socialist programme of higher old-age pensions, unemployment pay, etc.

Ed. Comm.

J. McClellan (Leeds).—In reply to your question about the Socialist attitude towards religion, we would recommend your questioner to our pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion,” for a full statement. Briefly, however, the Socialist view is that the essential feature common to all religions is a belief in the supernatural, a belief which is ruled out when we apply to it the methods of science through the use of which human knowledge has been built up and progress has been made.

Gods of all kinds are expressions of man’s ignorance, fostered nowadays mainly in the interests of the ruling class.

Ed. Comm.

Notes by the Way: What, the Workers think of their well-off leaders (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

What, the Workers think of their well-off leaders

Writing on the Dock strike Mr. Trevor Evans (Daily Express, 30/6/48) says that Mr. Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union “made the elementary mistake last Sunday morning of arriving at the gates of the dock where he was to address the strikers in a chauffeur-driven, impressive limousine.”

Mr. Evans thinks that the above is the kind of thing that has undermined Mr. Deakin’s influence with the members of the union. Doubtless he is right. On the same day, however, Mr. Alexander Werth, Manchester Guardian correspondent in Moscow, expressed the view that the differences of wealth between the poor and the privileged in Russia have no such effect. “There are,” he writes, ” no murmurs when a chief engineer or a general is given a three-room flat in a new block in Moscow.”

Mr. Werth may be right, hut perhaps it is merely that he didn’t hear the murmurs. As he explained (Manchester Guardian, 25/6/48) that ”many Russian town-dwellers still live in conditions of what we would consider intolerable squalor and overcrowding,” and that in Moscow u four or five to a room is not uncommon,” it seems much more likely that the privileges of the lucky few are resented even if it is not wise for the Russian worker to express his resentment aloud.

The Communists and Unofficial Strikes

Recently the Communists have been giving their support to “unofficial” strikes, as when the Dockers came out. It would be a mistake to think from this that the Communists have consistently done so. Until they decided to come out in opposition to the Labour Government, which they had supported at the General Election and for long afterwards, they opposed unofficial strikes and denounced the strikers as the following examples will show. On 26th November, 1945, Mr. Ian Mackay, Industrial Correspondent of the News Chronicle, quoted from a speech made by Mr. Harry Pollitt at the Annual Congress of the Communist Party held in London on 25th November. Mr. Pollitt said :

“I am going to face you with the direct issue. You are either in favour of the party line as set out in the report or the line that mass strikes are the only way to realise the workers’ ends. If you are in favour of strikes I warn you that you are playing with fire in a way that can help to lose the peace and reduce this country to ashes . . . You can get a coal strike in the coalfields tomorrow if you want it. But if you do will it advance the working-class movement of this country or the prospect of our nation remaining first rate in the family of the United Nations?” (News Chronicle, 26/11/45.)

While Mr. Pollitt was making his speech London gas workers were actually out on .strike.

As recently as September. 1947, when the Grimthorpe miners were out on strike the Daily Worker featured a speech by Mr. Arthur Horner, Communist Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, under the bold heading: “Horner Says Grimethorpe Men Are Wrong.” (Daily Worker, 9/9/47.)

The Daily Worker commenced the report of Horner’s speech with the following summary : “The 140 Grimethorpe strikers were accused yesterday by Mr. Arthur Horner. the Miner’s secretary, of holding their 700,000 mining colleagues to ransom and threatening to destroy all the benefits of the five-day week.” Mr. Horner’s argument was that the Union bad given a pledge to the Coal Board and Government that the miners would produce as much coal with the 5-day week as they did before in 5½ days. If they did not produce the output lack of coal can “bring down the Labour Government.” Of the Yorkshire men he said:

“The attitude of the Yorkshire miners was also wrecking the whole policy of reforms which the Union was aiming at.”

These were hard words for a Union official to apply to his own members and they contrast strongly with his remarks to Lord Hyndley, Chairman of the Coal Board, made at Whitley Bay during the Mineworkers’ Conference. To Lord Hyndley who was on the platform, Mr. Horner said : “By and large we can say you have done well and we will continue to help you to do very much better.” The Daily Herald (9/7/48) reporting this, says it was made “with a slight bow to Lord Hyndley.”

Labour Government and Profit Boom

Under the heading ”Has the Profit Boom Ended?” a City Correspondent of the Daily Herald (27/6/48) wrote that “there is substance in the belief that for some companies the industrial profit boom is at an end, and lower earnings during the next year or two may mean dividends cannot be maintained at the current level.”

The Labour Government holds that it is not only practicable but necessary to plan the running of the social system. They have plans for everything and claim to be able to mould the system to their will. How then did it come about that there has been a profit boom? It would seem either that the boom in profits was in accordance with the Labour Government’s plan, or that it happened because their planning did not work. In either event it leaves them with some explaining to do.

Full Employment, for how long?

The Central Wandsworth Labour Party (Mr. Bevin’s constituency) has published a leaflet urging electors to join the Labour Party if “interested in maintaining full employment and all the other advantages that the Labour Government have gained for you.”

It also tells us that “unemployment is less than it has been since the first count 50 years ago.”

The conclusion we are asked to accept is that so long as we have Labour Government unemployment will remain at the present comparatively low figure of 300,000. It is very doubtful whether Mr. Bevin and the other leaders still believe that they can prevent capitalism from producing its periodic industrial crises, but whether they still believe it or not we shall in due course see unemployment jumping up to the million or two million mark again when the increased production campaigns here and elsewhere have run their course.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan on Tory vermin

In a speech at Manchester Mr. Bevan, Minister of Health, let himself go about the Tory Party. “They are lower than vermin,” he said. (Daily Mail, 5/7/48). For them he had “a deep burning hatred in his heart.”

It was not always so however. In 1940 when the Labour Party decided to enter into coalition with the Tory Party under a Tory Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Bevan said:

“The Government have been in office for two weeks and like my hon. Friend the member for Llanelly . . . I felicitate them upon the way in which they have set about their task.” (Hansard, 30th May, 1940.)

The Press naturally made much of Mr. Bevan’s abuse of the Tory Party but actually a more revealing passage in his speech was one that attracted no comment. He said that Churchill’s policy would mean ”cinemas, mansions, hotels and theatres going up, hut no houses for the poor.” (Daily Mail, 5/7/18.)

It is the last phrase that is significant. Mr. Bevan and the Labour Party charge the Tories with seeking to meet the needs of the rich. The Labour alternative is to try to help the poor by building comparatively low rented (and small) houses for them. It is only Socialists who seek the abolition of both rich and poor, of both the property-owning class and the propertyless working class.

Edgar Hardcastle

Notes by the Way: Cock-eyed Trade Unionism (1950)

The Notes by the Way Column from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Cock-eyed Trade Unionism

Before the Labour Party became the Government, when Labour propaganda was more exuberant and unrestrained, trade unionists were always told that a Labour Government would push up wages at the expense of profits.

But Labour in power is very different from Labour in opposition, and now the Government devotes its principal efforts to persuading the workers not to make wage claims. This turnabout reached the peak of the fantastic late in December, 1949, when the Government held parallel meetings, with the T.U.C. on the one side and with the British Employers’ Confederation on the other.

The purpose was first to persuade the T.U.C. to accept wage-freezing and recommend it to its constituent unions. The T.U.C. agreed. The Government then appealed to the employers and we are told that they also pledged their support to Government policy on wages, production and profits. Here are some Press reports of the pledge given by the employers' spokesman to Mr. Bevin:—

“The Foreign Secretary gave a review of the present national situation, and asked for the co-operation of employers in the necessary efforts to secure stabilisation and increased production.

“Sir Greville Maginess (president), on behalf of the Confederation, gave the assurance that the employers would co-operate fully in the national interest.” (Daily Herald 22/12/49).

The Herald went on to explain:—

“The mention of “stabilisation” is believed to refer to the continued need for restraint on personal incomes, including wage rates, profits and dividends.”

The Times (22/12/49) added a few points, under the charming heading

"Employers promise support for wage stabilisation.”

Lastly, Mr. Ernest Bevin appealed to representatives of 50 employers' federations for their help in securing stabilisation and increased production. The last meeting was remarkable in that it found Mr. Bevin, the old trade union leader, appealing, among other things, to employers for their co-operation in stabilizing wages. . . . Sir Greville Maginess, on behalf of the confederation assured him of the employers* support.” (Times 22/12/49).

So we have reached the ironical position that the Labour Government (which promised higher wages) asks for and receives the backing of the T.U.C. (which exists to press for higher wages) for a policy of wage-freezing; and as if that isn't funny enough, the Government then appeals to the employers (whose interest it is to resist wage claims anyway) to promise in effect that they will go on resisting them.

The supporters of Labour Government, of course, defend themselves by saying that circumstances compel the Government to act in this way.

We agree up to the hilt; with, however, the slight amplification that the “circumstances" referred to are that the Labour Government has taken on the job of keeping Capitalism going.

Mr. Horner and the “Daily Worker”

In its issue for 30th December. 1949, the Communist Daily Worker reported that the miners’ national delegate conference had voted in favour of “wage-freezing” by passing a resolution endorsing the policy of the Trades Union Congress General Council. The resolution read: —

“Having regard to the serious economic situation of the country, we approve the terms of the report of the General Council in relation to T.U.C. wages policy.”

The Daily Worker condemned the resolution and urged the miners to reject it; and described the “wage-freezing” policy as one "foisted on the Trades Union Congress by the Government.” The Daily Worker reporter, Mr. George Sinfield, stated that "several leaders” of the miners told him that if the policy of withdrawal of wage-claims is pursued there will be serious repercussions in the pits.

It will be noticed that Mr. Sinfield talked about the matter with several miners’ leaders, but one of them he does not mention. That one is Mr. Arthur Horner who is General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, and is a year-long member of the Communist Party. The Daily Worker said nothing at all about their esteemed Communist Party colleague, but the omission is made good by the Manchester Guardian. The latter, on the same day, reported that the resolution which the Daily Worker found so obnoxious and which was presented to the delegate meeting by the Union's Executive, was “moved by Mr. Arthur Homer," secretary of the Union.

Ask the Basutos to come and help us

The following are recent news items: —

“Professor G. I. Jones, lecturer in anthropology at Cambridge University, has been sent to South Africa by the Colonial Office in an attempt to trace to its psychological source the wave of ritual murders which is sweeping Basutoland” (E. Standard 26/11/49).

The other items refer not to Basutoland, but to crime in Britain:—

”Except for the year 1946 there has been an annual increase since 1938 in the number of indictable offences. The 1938 figure of 283,220 rose to 522,634 in 10 years.

The 1948 figure of 40 murders was the highest in the 10-year period. The lowest was 20 in 1944.” (D. Telegraph 6/1/1950).

“Number in gaol, highest for 38 years.” (D. Telegraph 29/9/49).

The Professor seems to be travelling in the wrong direction.

The Catch in the "Welfare State"

The Labour Government claims credit for having introduced or extended various social services, and tries to give the impression that they represent a clear gain for the workers. This is only half the story. In the first place part of the expenditure on unemployment pay, sickness benefits, etc., is met from the workers’ own national insurance contributions.

Secondly, as was pointed out by the S.P.G.B. when the Labour Party campaign for social reforms was in its infancy, when the workers are relieved of the need to pay for certain necessities, they have to struggle against pressure by the employers to reduce wages correspondingly.

Bodies responsible for arbitrating on wage claims, even when they do not put it down in black and white, take these factors into account in their awards.

And to put the matter beyond any possibility of dispute we have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, stating the position in set terms in Parliament.

He was explaining the Government’s insistence that there should be no departures from the wage-freezing policy except in the case of very low wages, and he made it clear that when you are considering whether a wage comes under this heading it is necessary not only to consider the wage itself but also the benefits provided under the social service schemes.

“The White Paper must, therefore, be observed strictly, and it is only in the exceptional and genuine cases where some wage survives which, together with all the subsidies and social services, is insufficient to provide a family with a minimum reasonable standard of living, that there can be any possible excuse for going forward with a claim for an increase.” (Cripps, Hansard, 27/9/49. Col. 26).

Old Age Pensions in the U.S.A.

The same issue is arising in U.S.A. in a slightly different form. There is an old-age pension scheme covering 35 million workers, the fund being financed by equal contributions from employers and workers, supplemented by additional income raised by taxation. The old-age pension is 26 dollars a month for a single man and 41 dollars for a married couple.

But in recent months workers in some big industries have, by strikes, forced the employers to agree to pay a non-contributory old-age pension in addition to the Government old-age pension. According to the Manchester Guardian, from which the above details are taken, the steel employers and the Ford Motor Co. have agreed to pay whatever amount is required to make up the old-age pension to 100 dollars a month. Workers in other industries are threatening strikes for similar agreements, and “it is likely that this system of industrial pensions, to which the employees do not contribute, will spread widely through American industry.” (Manchester Guardian, 5/1/50.)

Just at this moment the Truman Government, with its eye on forthcoming elections, is proposing to extend the Government old-age pension scheme both by bringing in millions of workers now outside and by increasing the amount of the pension, which at present is small by American standards.

The cost of the scheme will of course go up but the interesting point is that the American employers have an obvious financial motive for supporting the increase in the amount of Government old age pensions because the larger the Government pension the smaller will be the amount the steel and other employers will need to bring the total up to 100 dollars a month.

“Industrialists have therefore a strong motive for supporting, or at least accepting, a liberalisation of the Federal scheme. It will put some additional weight on their shoulders, both in taxes and in levies on wages; but it will relieve them of the threat of a much greater weight" (M. Guardian 5/1/1950).

It will be seen that capitalism works in much the same way whether it be called a Labour “Welfare State” or a Truman “New Deal ”.

No Wage-freeze here

The Government's attempts to get the workers voluntarily to refrain from demanding wage increases to compensate for the rising cost of living are meeting with more resistance and there is no doubt that one of the reasons is that trade unionists note and resent the way in which lucky individuals vastly improve their own position by being appointed to highly paid jobs on the Boards of nationalised industries.

In the issue of the House of Commons Hansard for 8 December, 1949, the Prime Minister gave a complete list of all the members of the Boards and all their salaries and allowances. The full-time posts range up to £8,500 (plus allowances), which is the amount paid to Viscount Hyndley, Chairman of the Coal Board, to Lord Citrine, Chairman of British Electricity Authority, and to Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Chairman of the British Transport Commission.

Other full-time members mostly receive £3,100 or £5,000, and part-time members £500, £750 or £1,000.

Many are former trade union officials and the large difference between what they were paid for that job and what they get on the Boards sufficiently explains the competition for appointments. The Labour Correspondent of The Times (31/12/49) points out that about a quarter of the members of the T.U.C. General Council in 1945-6 are now on State Boards. He writes:— 

“In addition to Lord Citrine, then T.U.C. general secretary, the list includes seven general secretaries of important unions—Mr. Ebby Edwards, of the miners; Mr. Jack Benstead, of the railwaymen; Sir Joseph Hallsworth, of the distributive workers; Mr. E. W. Bussey, of the electrical workers; Mr. W. P. Allen, of the locomotive engineers and firemen; Mr. George Gibson, of the mental hospital workers (who later resigned), and Mr. C. N. Gallie, of the railway clerks, who has a part-time appointment."

Apart from these ex-members of the T.U.C. General Council many other T.U. officials have been appointed to National and Regional Boards.

The Times Labour Correspondent also, for comparison, summarises the position in the trade union world:—

“One striking feature is the difference in the salary levels of members of boards and of trade union officials, who have often increased their earnings by four or five times by the change. Salaries of trade union officials probably average less than £800 a year. They vary from £400 or £500 a year up to about £1,500, or in one or two cases may be as high as £2,000. There are still chief officers who earn less than £1,000, though actual salaries are often augmented by such things as a free house and expenses arrangements." (Times 31/12/49).

Wisdom from Nigeria

To protect themselves and their dependants against destitution in old age people who can afford it take out life assurance policies and do so voluntarily. The Labour Government boasts that its national insurance and old age pension schemes are a very good thing, yet so little do the workers want to be compelled to contribute that the Government has to threaten them with legal penalties if they fail to do so. The purpose behind it is to even out the poverty of the working-class by taking contributions from the young to be returned when they are old; and from the more healthy to be paid out to the less healthy; and from those who are working to those who are unemployed. Some individuals can say that they gain out of this and welcome it, but in the final analysis the capitalist class anticipate that it is cheaper for them than was the old arrangement when the sick, unemployed and aged had to be given State relief and charity.

It appears from evidence given to the official inquiry into the troubles at the Nigerian mines that the miners have seen that there is a catch in the social reform argument. The following is from a report in The Times (19/1/50):—

"Mr. L. P. Ojukwu, one of the three I.B.O. members of the colliery board . . . told the Commission that steps had been taken to induce the workers to resume normal work when information of the go-slow strike had been received. On each occasion that he spoke to the men the reply was always that they wanted money. When he explained proposals for the extension of housing schemes, hospitals, and maternity homes and for the provision of other amenities he had been met with the argument: ‘Give us more money and we will provide these things ourselves.' "

They have something there and it is a pity we do not know what kind of answer they were given. It is an aspect on which our Labour Party defenders of reformed capitalism are always silent or obscure. 

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: A black future for the miners (1949)

Editorial from the October 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the mines were nationalised there were widespread rejoicings among the miners. They had been told for 40 years that nationalisation would bring great benefits and in particular that it would end the wage-slave position of the workers. At the T.U.C. in 1946 Mr. Shinwell, who was at that time Minister of Fuel and Power, confessed that it was he who “had the privilege of preparing the Nationalisation of the Coal Industry Bill.” He claimed that the miners “through their elected representatives and, indeed, many of them in a direct fashion, will play a much larger part in the administration of the industry than ever they have done before. We are thus offered an opportunity of raising the status of those employed in the nationalised industries and setting an example which must have a profound bearing on the position of the workers in general.” (T.U.C. Report, 1946, Page 366.)

Of course nothing of the kind has happened and the miners are now sadly disappointed. This year the T.U.C. asked the unions for their views on the working of the boards of nationalised industries. Here are two comments from the National Union of Mineworkers: — 

“Complaints from various areas include the fact that no functional change has taken place between management and workers from sitting together on consultative committees; advice by the workers' side is insufficiently regarded; the work of committees is impeded by lack of vital information ” (Manchester Guardian, August 22nd, 1949.)

“After more than two years of nationalisation, while relationships have to some extent improved, there still remains a good deal of dissatisfaction. The goodwill that has been built up so laboriously since vesting day is being replaced by cynicism." (Daily Telegraph, August, 22nd, 1949.)

Mr. Arthur Horner, Communist General Secretary of the Miners’ Union, in a speech at the T.U.C. went further still towards a recognition of the fact that nationalisation leaves the workers’ position unchanged. The Daily Worker reported him as follows: —

“ Nationalisation still presents us with the factor that the Boards of nationalised industries in relation to the workers are the buyers of what we sell.

“The nationalised Boards, in negotiating wages and conditions, are in fact buying labour as a commodity and we, as trade unions, are seeking to sell it under the best possible conditions.

“So although the basic relationship as between the workers and the nationalised Boards may have been modified, the fundamental difference between buyer and seller still remains after an industry has been nationalised.

“The Coal Boards must function as employers.

“We have had experience of three distinguished persons connected with this Congress— Lord Citrine, Mr. Ebby Edwards, and Sir Joseph Hallsworth.

“We have no complaint against the manner in which they have endeavoured to interpret their trade union principles, as functioning members of the National Coal Board.

“But, in spite of their desire to be of service to the miners, they, in the last analysis, are the employers, and, in relation to us, have an entirely different function from what we are called upon to perform.

“Nationalised industry in a country such as ours is not a free agent.

“You cannot place the nationalised industries in isolation. They are surrounded by a world of privately-owned industries.

“We find to a large extent that the nationalised industry is conditioned and circumscribed by limitations set upon it by reason of what takes place in the 80 per cent. of privately-owned industries.” (Daily Worker, September 8th, 1949.) 

When the mines were nationalised there was much talk by Ministers and miners’ leaders of plans to expand the industry, get more men into the pits, instal more efficient machinery and boost up output. At that time, with many continental mines out of action, the planners were able to forget that sooner or later the problem to be faced would not be that of producing more millions of tons of coal for export, but of finding buyers for it. Now the world situation has changed and the prospect no longer looks the same. Speaking at the British Association on September 5th, Dr. A. Beacham, Professor of Industrial Relations at University College, Cardiff, outlined the future as it looks to him. He pointed out that it was planned to increase output to 230 million tons in 1951 and to an even higher figure in later years. With each miner giving a larger output he estimates that this could be done with only a trifling increase of the number of men employed. But what happens then?—

“All the emphasis now was on increased output, but when the output became available adjustment might be severe. If the Board’s reorganisation scheme successfully raised production per man then labour would be redundant. . . . The Board must trim its sails before the storm, he advised, and press the Government for lower targets, quicken the elimination of uneconomic mines, and steadily reduce the labour force. (Manchester Guardian, September 6th, 1949.)

And to give point to the problem, the Miners’ Union got the delegates to pass a resolution demanding the calling of a conference of all the coal-producing countries to draw up an international coal plan. The Industrial Correspondent of the News Chronicle (September 7th, 1949) reported this as follows: —

“This means, in effect, an international governmental coal cartel, with power to regulate production, exports, prices and selling conditions all over the world. Moving the resolution, Mr. Ernest Jones, secretary of the Yorkshire miners, said Poland was seeking to re-establish itself in export markets and create a monopoly in Scandinavian countries. This, he said, would have a serious effect on the Durham, Northumberland and South Wales coalfields.”

Thus does Capitalism make nonsense of planning, for after the British, Polish and other planners have planned to increase coal production, the only way the British miners can see of avoiding the consequences of “over-production” is to establish an international body to regulate (that is, to restrict) production and exports once more.

Communist slogans for capitalism (1946)

From the October 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Leading Communist Arthur Horner, like the Jack Horner of old, has stuck his finger into the Trades Union pie, and pulled out a nice fat plum—the post of General Secretary to the National Union of Mineworkers. After the cheers of the C.P.G.B. have subsided, let us see if this appointment benefits the mineworkers, or the mine-owners.

Addressing a mass meeting of miners at Tonypandy, he said :—

“Production needs are so great that the time has come to apply the slogan “ If a man won’t work, neither shall he eat ” (Daily Express, 26/8/46). 

Horner, of course, has learned this brutal slave-driving threat from the source of all Communist inspiration—Soviet Russia, and although this self-same slogan was incorporated in the first Russian Constitution of 1918 for the new “Socialist State,” it is difficult to understand why Horner shall proclaim it in Capitalist Britain, unless it is for the extraction of more surplus-value from the miners. Perhaps he, like the Daily Herald, imagines that Britain is now a “Socialist State” !

This wolf in Marxist clothing continues:—

“The present manpower cannot produce the coal that Britain needs to maintain full employment.”

With unemployment figures growing all round him, this so-called ”leader” of the proletariat dares to suggest that “full employment” is even possible under Capitalism, which demands a constant reserve army of unemployed to act as a lever against the struggles of employed workers, much less that it is actually in existence now.

The next “ gem ” (he certainly “went the whole hog” at Tonypandy !):—

“ A large increase of manpower for the pits is vital if there is to be a rapid restoration of coal exports.”

Instead of telling the miners about Marxism, or Communism, this “revolutionary” is forced, by the very nature of his position as ”Labour Tamer ” in the capitalist circus, to sidetrack and confuse the workers’ minds with that old, old capitalist motto, “ Export or die,” which is so necessary (for the capitalist class) at this stage to beat rival capitalist states in the race to hustle commodities into the markets of the world.

Impressively, Horner juggles with figures containing heaps of 000’s, concluding that :—

“If we can restore the 1939 position . . . we can .. . wipe out the American loan and the burden its commitments represent.”

For these few words of cheer the British Capitalist class (who bear the “burden”) will have cause to thank “Comrade” Horner, and perhaps arrange a knighthood for him—who knows? But the matter should not interest the working class of either America or Britain, whose “burden” under Capitalism has always been that of “ making both ends meet ’’—whose wages represent the cost of keeping them fit for reproducing their work and their class. It is absurd to suggest that the American loan is anything but a business arrangement between the master class of America and Britain, and the millions that Horner quotes are of no interest to the working class of either country.

Speaking of unemployment in Wales (having already talked about “maintaining full employment”), Horner, like a Stalin contemplating a “purge,” says:—

“ The cause of the failure must be traced and ruthlessly eradicated.”

For once we can agree, but as the only answer to the social evils of the day is the abolition of the system of society that Horner is supporting, and the institution of a system based on common ownership of the means of life instead of private or state ownership, the task is left to us Socialists to explain to the miners of Tonypandy and workers, wherever the Socialist message can penetrate, their position in society to-day.

Armed with sound Socialist knowledge, and the will to unite for victory, the working class will achieve its emancipation, in spite of the confusion and disillusion spread by office-seeking Communist opportunists.

Michael La Touche

Editorial: Heartbreak House: The Swindle of Nationalisation. (1945)

Editorial from the October 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Leaders of the Labour Party, with the active support of the Communists, are putting over a monstrous deception on the workers in the mining and other industries.

If Conservatives were now in power they would be telling the workers that it is necessary for them to work harder in order to replace what has been destroyed by war and to produce articles needed owing to the present scarcity of coal, clothing, food, etc.

After the last war the same tale was told—and in due course the workers reaped the harvest of increased production in the shape of glutted markets, unemployment and wage cuts. Remembering what happened then many workers would now be sceptical about such propaganda if it came from Conservatives and the employers generally. They would suspect that they were again being tricked into sacrificing themselves for the benefit of capitalism and the profits of the capitalist class.

Now the propaganda campaign is in full swing again, but this time it comes from the Labour Party and Communists and it is baited with the pretence that under Nationalisation greater production will benefit the whole community and not the propertied class.

Mr. Michael Foot, Labour M.P., writing in the Labour organ, the Daily Herald (August 7th, 1945), puts the Labour Party case:—

“Partly owing to the war, there is a severe physical shortage of all the goods required to provide an abundant, life, and if that abundant life is to be assured in the future certain immediate privations will have to be endured in order to restock the capital industries. No Tory Government could make this appeal, for the worker would suspect that the summons to hard work, discipline and abstinence would result only in fortunes for the few and the later wastage of unemployment. The new Government is in a different situation. It also must appeal for hard work, discipline and, for a short period, continued abstinence. All these are needed to increase the total wealth for distribution, but a Labour Government at the same time can give concrete proof of its resolve to use this wealth for the benefit of the whole community. By its social insurance and health and housing plans it can show its determination to secure a greater equality in the distribution of wealth. By its nationalisation proposals it can show its resolve that the re-equipment of industry shall not merely bring greater profits to the few. By its financial measures it can prove that, when this period of shortage is over, no return will be allowed to wasteful unemployment.—(Daily Herald, August 7th, 1945). 

Mr. Foot in his article was answering criticisms made in the Economist, August 4th, the central point of the criticism being that if the owners of a nationalised industry receive as compensation the same income that they were drawing already there is no surplus from which the workers could receive higher wages unless (through more machinery, greater efficiency and harder work), the productivity of the industry is increased. Mr. Foot’s answer is that the Labour Government will get this greater productivity and it will benefit the workers and "not merely bring greater profits to the few.’’ (our italics).

The Labour Government having in the words of the Daily Herald, convinced the electorate "of its detachment from class interests '' (i.e., working class interests), and "of its devotion to the welfare of the whole community". (Daily Herald, August 1st, 1945), no longer adheres to its old propaganda in favour of drastically redistributing the national income in order to help the workers.

Instead it has taken over the familiar capitalist argument that the only way to improve the lot of the workers is to increase the total national income. Mr. Herbert Morrison clinched this in his speech to the National Conference of Labour Women on September 5th:—

“If we were to be able to provide better benefits under the social insurance measures, reduce taxation, and provide more of the goods of life for everybody, the only way was by increasing the total national income ... it could only be done by work, thought, drive and initiative."(Daily Telegraph, September 6th, 1945).

In the same speech Mr. Morrison justified himself by the plea that "there was a limit to what could be achieved merely by transferring money from one person's pocket to another’s,” and went on to explain why, in the interests of efficiency, the Labour Government holds it necessary to reduce taxation on the profits of the capitalists.

A few days later the Communist, Mr. Arthur Horner, National Production Officer of the National Union of Miners and President of the South Wales Miner’s Federation added his piece to the campaign. He told a Press Conference in London that he was asking the miners to increase output by 10 per cent. On the ground that The Mines are to be nationalised he

“asked the workers in the pits to adopt a new attitude . . . Hitherto the policy of the Union had been to get what they could out of the owners. Now they had taken on the responsibility of assisting in running the industry they must accept new methods. They must take a more active part in assisting greater technical efficiency and increasing output.”—(Daily Telegraph, September 7th, 1945).

This new emphasis on the capitalist doctrine that the workers can only get more by producing more, contrasts glaringly with what the Labour Party and the Communists were saying just before the war. Compare Mr. Morrison's statement now with the Labour Party pamphlet “The Nation's Wealth at the Nations Service.”—(Douglas Jay. Labour Party, 1938).

Mr. Jay wrote :—

“Labour's ultimate objective in economic policy is the removal of unjustifiable inequalities of wealth and opportunity by the transfer of private unearned income and capital into public hands. There exists something like £1,200,000,000 of annual unearned income in Britain to-day; and probably two-thirds of this is inherited income which the recipients have done nothing to earn or deserve.

Fortunes totalling nearly £600 million are left every year by private persons mainly to their own friend, and relatives, many of whom are already wealthy. Here is the available reserve and capital on which Labour must draw to supply the minimum human needs of the poorest . . . .”

He went on to say that “a far greater transfer of wealth can be achieved than any yet attempted, without any dislocation of the community's economic life.”

Another indication of the Labour Party's change of front is their present complete silence about, the “capital levy.” After the last war this device, which was offered as a means of transferring wealth from capitalists to workers, occupied first place in the Labour Party programme.

So much for the Labour Party since it has progressed from the pre-war political wilderness to the milk and honey of office.

Let us now consider what Socialists have to say about the whole problem of producing and distributing the articles needed by the community. Let it be emphasised once again that the Socialist case is poles apart from that of the Labour and Communist parties.

At present the means of production (land, factories, railways, etc.), are the private property of a small minority of the population, the capitalists. By virtue of their ownership they draw a large unearned income in the form of rent, interest and profit from the wealth produced by the working-class. The Labour Party's remedy for the poverty problem is (while leaving the greater part of capitalist, industry unchanged), to introduce a purely nominal change of ownership in certain industries that are to be “nationalised." Instead of receiving incomes in the form of dividend on shares in mining or railway companies the present owners will relinquish direct ownership and receive instead approximately the same capital and income in the form of Government stocks and the interest thereon, and the existing gross inequality of property and income will not be affected.

But there is a snag in this from the point of view of trying to run with the hare while hunting with the hounds. The Labour government have promised “fair compensation" to the owners in nationalised industries and are committed to enabling the capitalists in private industries to obtain a “reasonable return on the capital employed" (Sir Stafford Cripps, Daily Herald, August 13th); but they are in the dilemma of also having promised higher incomes to the workers which, under the conditions laid down, can only come from an increase in the workers' output.

The only real remedy is one the Labour Government cannot employ because they did not seek at the election a mandate to abolish capitalism. If capitalism were abolished and socialism introduced there would immediately be two big developments through which the poverty, problem of the working class could be solved by increasing the number of men and women actually engaged in production. One is that the members of the capitalist class, no longer able to live in leisure and luxury at the expense of the workers, would become useful members of the community helping to produce the articles needed by the community. The second is that all kinds of activities necessary to capitalism but unnecessary under Socialism would cease, and this would free millions of workers for production who are now engaged in banks, insurance companies, and advertising, or in the taxation and rating departments of the Central and Local Government; as well as those now required by the capitalists to serve in the armed forces for the competitive struggle with foreign capitalist groups. As is explained in our pamphlet "Socialism" the output of wealth could be at least doubled by these means.

This is the only way in which the poverty problem can be solved and the Labour Government, trying to run the capitalist system, cannot solve it. What they are doing is to act as Caretakers for the capitalist class, calling on the workers to increase output (just as a Conservative Government would have done), but using seductive arguments about “service to the community" which would only be justified if in fact the means of production had been transformed or were going to be transformed into the property of the whole community. While maintaining (with merely superficial changes), the system under which the capitalists exploit the working class, the Labour Government are pretending that exploitation has ended.

It is clever propaganda, but the realities of the class struggle between those who own, but do net produce and those who produce but do not own, will not for long be smoothed over by even the most plausible Labour-Communist orator. The working class faced with the same old ruthlessness of capitalist employers, of Government Departments and of the Boards of the Mining and Transport undertakings when “nationalisation" takes place, will find that they have no defence except the limited defence provided by their own trade unions. In strikes and lockouts the web of half-truths spun by the Labour leaders will be rent asunder, and the workers will have made an advance towards the necessary understanding of the fact that Socialism has nothing in common with Labourism.