This year’s T.U.C. (1962)

From the October 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is normal at trade union conferences for numbers of resolutions to be carried that have no practical outcome and serve no purpose except to indicate the feelings of delegates on all sorts of issues about which they protest loudly because they cannot think of anything else to do. Delegates have only to look back at the resolutions they carried last year and the years before to realise that nobody takes any notice of most of them, least of all the Government to whom many are conveyed.

This year, however, there were one or two decisions of the T.U.C. that may, for better or for worse, have some consequences that may be worth considering.

The Delegates at the Blackpool Conference were almost unanimous in supporting a resolution calling on the General Council to examine the possibility of reorganising the structure of both the T.U.C. and the trade union movement “with a view to making it better fitted to meet modern industrial conditions.” Nothing will happen immediately as a result of this resolution. The intention is that the General Council should complete its examination in time for next year’s conference, but Mr. Woodcock warned that it would take at least two years. The movers took care not to indicate the kind of alterations of structure that may be found desirable, this reticence being the only way to get the delegates to agree wholeheartedly to the resolution. As Mr. Woodcock remarked, each union is inclined to regard its own way of doing things the right one and the other fellow’s wrong. Though no particular changes were foreshadowed, one union, the Locomotive drivers, voted against the enquiry; they think it will probably recommend a merger with the National Union of Railwayman and they have no intention of merging.

Many times in its history the T.U.C. has seen delegates at its conferences pass resolutions calling for re-organisation of the unions. Not much has come of such resolutions because most trade unionists nowadays have the feeling that none of the changes likely to occur will make much difference. There was a time when trade unionists could get into excited argument about the respective merits of craft unions and industrial unions, about the benefits of amalgamation, and about giving the General Council of the T.U.C. authority to control the wage claims and strikes of affiliated unions. These causes still have their advocates, but it is all in a less heated atmosphere than once it was. Experience and disappointment have had a sobering effect. The collapse of the Triple Alliance of Miners, Railwaymen and Transport workers and the “General Strike” of 1926 have left their mark.

One of the periods of lively discussion about the trade unions was just after the first World War. In that atmosphere a resolution was carried at the 1919 T.U.C. instructing the General Council to examine the constitution of every affiliated union and on the information so obtained “to report upon what, in its opinion, is the most desirable and up-to-date method of organisation that will enable the workers by hand and brain to reap the full results of their toil.”

It was moved, seconded and carried without more than a hundred words of supporting speech by the mover, and no opposition. This could have been due to the unanimity on the part of the delegates, or to a general feeling that it was a pious resolution and nothing would come of it.

Whatever the explanation, nothing much did come of it.

The idea of giving the General Council power to control the unions has often been put forward, but has had little support in this country, most trade unionists obviously preferring to keep the power to decide on wage claims and any supporting action within their own organisation. A characteristic attitude was that of a Miners Federation delegate at the 1915 T.U.C. when opposing a resolution which had called on the T.U.C. to try to obtain an all-round 5s.. increase of wages:

“This is work for the Trade Unions themselves to tackle. So far as the Miners Federation is concerned, we should object to the Parliamentary Committee coming to us and trying to get us 5s. a week extra.”

After that speech the delegates would not even discuss the resolution any more and went on to next business.

And in 1919, when it was moved that the T.U.C. should undertake the amalgamation of all unions into one body, under control of the T.U.C., only one short opposition speech was made, but it was sufficient to kill the resolution: only seven delegates voted for it out of 851.

The opposer said: “I want to say that there is not a single Trade Union in the country that would submit to the control of the Parliamentary Committee. It is ridiculous to suppose that this Congress would ever submit to anything of the kind.”

This persistent opposition to formal proposals of a changed structure does not mean that the unions in Britain have not changed. By process of amalgamation of local unions into National bodies and of more or less associated unions into larger ones the number of unions has been nearly halved since 1913 (from 1,269 to 690), while membership has more than doubled, from 4.135,000 to 9,803,000. In 1913 about two-thirds of all trade unionists were in the small number of unions with over 50,000 members. Now membership is largely concentrated in seventeen unions above the 100,000 level. But 1913 has nothing like those mammoth unions, the Transport & General Workers with over 1,300,000 members and the A.E.U. with 982,000. Apart from the Miners who had 600,000 members in 1913 (and that was a more or less loose federation, not a concentrated body) the largest union in 1913 appears to have been the N.U.R. with 273,000 members.

While these trade union developments of half a century have been going on, and indeed inducing them, British capitalism has been organising into larger units, with employers federations acquiring more experience of handling “labour problems” and productivity techniques, and making more use of arbitration and conciliation machinery.

It is arguable whether the unions are a little more effective or a little less effective in dealing with the changed conditions. Certainly their members are dissatisfied with the results, but so they always were. Basically it is because the trade unions have never dealt with anything except the effects of capitalism, and capitalism has not changed in essentials.

The workers, including the “white collar” workers who are now increasingly entering the fold of trade union organisation, are still a class that lives by selling its labour power, its mental and physical energies, to the employers. Nothing has changed about that.

Contrasted with this country with its 650 unions, of which 183 are affiliated to the T.U.C., there are other countries in which the trade union movement has been reconstructed and streamlined or where the central trade union body has powers unknown and hitherto unacceptable here. But has it made any material difference? Are the workers of Austria, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, in any better situation?

The answer is, of course, that against the universal background of the capitalist wages system structural alterations can have only relatively small affect.

What is needed, as the Socialist has to go on repeating, is that the outlook and purpose of the working class have to be changed: not the grouping of non-Socialist trade unions into organisations of different size and shape, but the adoption of a different outlook and purpose. This aim is not the one for which trade unions exist or that they can achieve. It calls for Socialist understanding and political organisation and action, not on a craft or industrial or National basis but internationally, on the basis of the common interest of all workers in abolishing capitalism and establishing Socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Review Column: Collapse in South Arabia (1967)

The Review Column from the October 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

Collapse in South Arabia

The news of the collapse of the Federal government in South Arabia, and of the British acceptance that they must now deal with one or other of the outlawed nationalist movements there, induced a weird if well-known feeling that we have been here before.

The British presence in the South Arabian Federation, and their propping up of the government, revolved around the importance of the Aden base in protecting British interests in the oilfields of the Arabian Gulf.

It was for this that British soldiers were killed in the area—and themselves did a fair bit of killing. The battle between the occupying troops and the Nationalists had all the usual nastiness, including the atrocities committed by both sides.

It might have been possible for the British “experts” who were running the show to consider the history of similar situations in many other parts of the world—Ireland, Algeria, Cyprus to name only three.

The lesson they might have drawn from all these conflicts is that it is impossible to suppress a nationalist movement for ever and that, after a lot of blood has been shed, a lot of damage done, a lot of hatred provoked on both sides, the occupying government comes to recognise the inevitable and does business with the people it has been calling cowardly terrorists.

Then the “terrorists” became respectable. They attend conferences in sleek limousines, they smile at, and shake hands with, the men who so recently placed a price on their head. They often go on to apply their own suppression to former comrades who rebel against what they consider a sell-out, or who disagree on some other issue.

All this now seems likely to happen in South Arabia. Which not only goes to show how blind are the “experts”, but also how persistent, tangled and poisonous are the conflicts of capitalism, and to what murderous lengths men are driven in their efforts to resolve them.

Half a million unemployed

As the Ministry of Labour’s doleful figures come out, let it not be forgotten that it is a Labour government which says that it has created half a million unemployed.

The Labour Party hold the theory that a government can produce, or abolish, unemployment at will. Whether this is true or not is beside the point, which is that Labour are saying they are responsible for the rise in unemployment, that it has come about as a result of their deliberate policy.

It is not convenient, now, for them to remember some of their promises. Like this one, by James Callaghan at their 1965 conference:

… he had not joined the Labour Party to create unemployment. He was certain that the measures being taken, through regional planning, were the right ones to maintain full employment. (The Guardian, 1/10/65.)

It is not convenient, now, for Labour to remember that the wage freeze was always supposed to be the alternative to unemployment. This was Callaghan, again at the 1965 conference:

This problem of getting increased productivity would be solved either by unemployment and substantial deflation, or by a prices and incomes policy: there is no other way.” (The Guardian, 1/10/65.)

As it turned out, the working class have got it all; a wage freeze, unemployment and what is called “deflation”.

Presumably, if they were pressed on the matter, the Labour Party would still say that this is Socialism. For one thing, their policies seem to be holding the support of a majority of trade union leaders, although what these same leaders would say about the same policies if they came from a Conservative government hardly bears thinking about.

To some extent, then, Labour have had things their way. What it amounts to is that in 1964 there was a dirty job to be done for the British capitalist class and Labour have done it.

The TUC, does it matter?

“I do not think the . . . motion really means a great deal in this context, one way or the other.” That was George Woodcock at this year’s TUC and there are no prizes for guessing why he has suddenly discovered that some of the decisions of this annual gathering don’t really matter.

A long time ago, the Labour Party leadership made it clear that whenever its Annual Conference passed an inconvenient motion it suddenly lost all power and significance as a conference. Only when its decisions were in line with official policy did the Conference become the democratic mouthpiece of a great movement.

Now, apparently, the same thing applies to the TUC. The motion Woodcock was referring to was one from the Shopworkers’ Union which, among other things, protested about unemployment, rising prices and the wage freeze.

It seemed certain that the motion was going to be passed —as it was, despite the application of “Carron’s Law” to the AEU vote—so of course the only thing left for the politically motivated TUC leaders to do was to give advance notice that it didn’t mean anything.

There is no record that Woodcock was equally clear about the TUC’s irrelevance when they later approved motions which supported the government—one on the Wednesday from the ETU which recorded appreciation of the government’s efforts to reduce overseas spending and one on Friday, moved by Carron, which said that the trade union movement should support the government.

It is fair to ask why the TUC bothers to have a Congress, if it is allowed to pass only those resolutions which are approved by the platform. It is fair to ask whether the TUC leaders think it democratic that any decisions it makes which are inconvenient to a Labour government should be ignored.

Perhaps the solution is to hold the Congress only when there is a Conservative government. Then Woodcock and the other leaders can accept the critical motions without any qualms.

Unless, of course, the union membership become aware of their standing and interests under capitalism—and of the job the unions should be doing.

The Passing Show: The Lady and the Tramp . . . and all that (1966)

The Passing Show Column from the August 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Lady and the Tramp . . . and all that

Ryde on the Isle of Wight on one of the many disappointingly wet and blustery days of an English summer. Holidaymakers sit disconsolately in the numerous Egg and Chip cafes, or gaze gloomily from the seedy seafront shelters at the unfriendly grey sky, bored stiff.

But there is one man who seems quite indifferent to the weather or to the unfriendly stares of some, who no doubt resent the smell that clings about him. He is a tramp, a caricature of a human being, with a mane of iron-grey hair and big blue eyes, whose battered clothes are secured about him with strips of tape and lumps of coarse string. There on a low wall he sits in the open, doggedly reading an old copy of The Times.

In a pub that evening, a brassy haired woman expresses her disgust at the mere existence of such people, and listening to the talk, you learn that this one is always on the island, wandering from place to place throughout the year. Unlike many tramps, though, he is by no means penniless because (or so the story goes) his family pay him enough money to keep him out of their way.

But what the lady in the pub overlooks is that there are a few thousand like him in Great Britain alone (and the number is growing) and she probably never stops to ask herself why this is so. Perhaps she feels that he is an affront to her meagre dignity, or perhaps he is an uncomfortable reminder of the loneliness that is always stalking in the background for all of us under capitalism, so that no one knows just when it will engulf him.

Tramps, it has been said, are what they are because they cannot face the harsh realities of everyday life in the modern world. So they take to the road and go on the run from it all, rarely staying long in one place, alone with their rags and their thoughts, objects of a mixed pity, fear and resentment from the population in general, and condescension from the “do gooders" in particular.

There’s certainly something to be said for such a theory, though of course it does not go far enough, and misses out a very important fact. Our man in Ryde notwithstanding, the mass of tramps are very poor—a lot of them from the very lowest income groups in the working class—and it is one of the big factors which makes them turn and run. For them, loneliness is not new by the time they start their wanderings, and in many cases it is a choice of near-destitutions, static or mobile. To sleep under a hedge with newspapers for bedclothes, or alone in a damp and dingy room with crumbling walls and vermin for company— and the worry of finding next week’s rent. The loneliness of their lives is theirs in ample measure, of course, but as one vagrant said to a survey interviewer, “it’s not so bail when you're out in the open . . . Four walls bring it home to you . . .” 

But don’t go making the mistake that loneliness is for tramps only. It is fast becoming a really big problem of the sixties. Armand Georgés in a little booklet Modern Loneliness has estimated that there are over four million lonely people in Britain and it is a terrible fact that it affects all age groups, from children to “senior citizens”.

This booklet is not a very satisfactory work and barely skims over the problem, but it does at least touch on the causes, such as: —

The uniformity of council house estates . . . the demands of work and economic difficulties produce a feeling of boredom and boredom is the first symptom of the the disease . . . 

Seventy years of age, he lived in digs. When he became ill he went into hospital, but although he recovered he still remains there because his landlady will not take him back. She has let his room . . .

Mr. Georgés admits that loneliness “cannot penetrate useful work and emotional stability" but further than this he doesn’t go, perhaps because he is vaguely aware of the difficulty of attaining these conditions in the world of today. So he contents himself with suggestions of more clubs, meeting places, etc., and a government “ministry for the aged".

So let us say what we think of the problem. Loneliness, boredom and emotional strains are a product of private property society, and modern capitalism has brought them to a terrifying pitch. It has been said that we are all on our own in capitalism and it is not difficult to see why. In such a set-up, we are all thrown into ceaseless competition with each other so that satisfactory contact between human beings is a rarity.

The problem is accentuated in the big towns, of course, where the narrow and unfulfilling lives of workers is so much in evidence, like the couple above. And for those who are lonely, the very bigness of the towns, crammed to capacity with other humans (mainly workers) though they are, restricts their chances of ever belonging anywhere. It is a poverty in human friendship and contact, a direct result of poverty in the means of life from which most or us suffer.

Sing something simple

An old copy of the Gibraltar Chronicle dropped out of a file the other day and promptly found its way into my pocket. It's dated Nov. 9th, 1949 and what do you think appears on the front page? Well, among other things is a bold headline: “T.U.C. leaders will fully support Govt’s policy". There follows a report of the T.U.C.’s decision in London “after seven weeks of anxious discussion” to “give full support to the Labour Government’s policy of greater production at less cost". This, by the way, was after the devaluation of Sterling—with its effect of price increases—yet still the T.U.C. was prepared to recommend an "even greater effort to keep demands for higher wages under restraint . . .”

Well, it's old news now. but it does us no harm to look back a few years and see the similarity between ideas then and now. The T.U.C. seems to have learned precious little in the past seventeen years, if a statement by their general secretary George Woodcock is any guide:

If in the early days you can emphasise increased productivity or prices or social justice as the main objectives, you are just kidding yourself. You can, as we are doing, get some degree of incomes restraint, rough and ready and unscientific though it is. You can expect to do that quickly. The other things will take time.

Did 1 say that little had been learnt? If a minus quantity, of knowledge were possible, Mr. Woodcock and the T.U.C. would certainly have it.

Bigger and better bedbugs

When we were kids my parents waged a long and largely futile battle against bedbugs in our poky terraced house in London. Fumigation, creosote, and even blow-lamps all had a temporary effect only, and there they were as thick as ever in a week or two. Wc got rid of them eventually because for some months during the blitz, we didn't use the bedrooms. I suppose they all died of starvation, or went looking elsewhere.

Now what do you think of a Guardian report of June 6th? The U.S. is planning to use bedbugs against the Vietcong. But these will be specially bred for the purpose and won’t be starved to death so easily. Just look at this revolting account.

". . . Plans are based on the fad that bedbugs scream with excitement at the prospect of feeding on human flesh. So what Mr. McNamara's whizz-kids are up to is trying to produce a sound amplification system which would enable the G.l. . . . to hear the anticipatory squeals of a captive bedbug as it detects the Vietcong lying in ambush ahead . . . A large and hungry bedbug will . . . register the presence of a man some 200 yards to its front or side while ignoring the person carrying it in a special capsule".

When we have pointed to the brutality and degradation of capitalism’s wars, understandably we have tended to stress the bigger horrors like nuclear bombs, but it is perhaps the so-called smaller things like this which illustrate the depths to which men sink their dignity in the cause of the profit motive.

Gaspers

Comrade Mao Tse Tung is the greatest genius of our lime. Rarely has history seen such a revolutionary leader as Mao Tse Tung . . . (Peking People's Daily 15.6.66). '

There is not and never was a man in the world of so varied, so rich, so fruitful and so omnipresent a genius . . . (Tribute to Stalin, by Moscow Radio. May Day 1951),

Mr. Robinson said . . . he would prefer a bigger building programme for the (hospital) service . . . but the amount of money available had to depend on the economic progress of the country. (Guardian 25.6.66).

The very idea of auto sales and auto profits has been built on a pile of corpses. (Ralph Nader, author of Unsafe At Any Speed, Guardian report 15.6.66).

In the foreseeable future, the only alternative future to an incomes policy is higher unemployment. (Guardian editorial 5.7.66).

I have never fell humiliated (T .U.C. General Secretary George Woodcock 5.7.66).

Eddie Critchfield