Answers to Correspondents: Trade Union Action and Political Action (1938)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Trade Union Action and Political Action

A correspondent (R. J., Spalding) asks the following question: —

When the Trade Unions approach employers with demands for, say, increased pay, longer holidays, shorter hours, improved pension arrangements, you support their efforts. When, to supplement that approach, they take parliamentary action, either by trying to influence M.P.s of all parties, or through their representatives (invariably in the Labour Party) I gather that it is your policy to oppose them.

Please define the point at which your support for working-class efforts at improved conditions under capitalism ceases, and say how I, as a Trade Union secretary, can justify this attitude to my own members if I accept your point of view.

The Railway Clerks’ Association has done quite a lot for its members at one time or another by parliamentary means. For instance, only during February this year action was taken through Labour members . . . . .  who, by threatening to block the L.N E. Railway’s General Powers Bill, to draw attention to the lack of a proper Superannuation Fund on the L.N.E., were successful in forcing the Company to begin negotiations, that have every appearance of being satisfactory. Again, through action in Parliament, a schedule was included in the Railway Grouping Bill, which had the effect of preventing wholesale dismissals. This action was definitely of benefit to the workers, including myself, concerned.

Reply.

In order to clear the way for our reply it is necessary to correct one statement in our correspondent’s question. He says that when trade unions support the candidature of Members of Parliament they are “invariably in the Labour Party.” Though generally true of Great Britain, it is not invariably so. The National Union of Teachers, for example, has candidates in the other parties also. Going outside this country we see the American unions openly bargaining to support candidates, irrespective of their party.

The next point to notice is, that until Socialists become a majority of the electorates, a man can only become a Member of Parliament by standing for capitalism; while promising at the same time to press for certain reforms. If, therefore, a miners’ union or railwaymen’s union finances a successful Parliamentary candidature, it means helping to delude the workers into the belief that it is in their interest to reform capitalism instead of abolishing it. Similarly, what our correspondent calls “trying to influence M.P.s of all parties” means, in fact, striking a bargain with them. M.P.s want votes, and that is the only kind of “influence” they are interested in. The union, therefore, goes to the M.P. and offers—even if it is not put so bluntly as this, both parties know what is meant—to provide votes in the constituency in exchange for support in the House of Commons. In America the bargaining is quite openly admitted and defended by the unions.

What is the attitude of the Socialist to these practices? What attitude can it be except opposition? The Socialist holds, and preaches to the workers, that capitalism must be abolished, not reformed, and that the abolition can only be achieved by the conscious action of the workers organised together on a Socialist basis. How could a Socialist at one and the same time teach these elementary Socialist truths and make nonsense of them by helping to return to Parliament men whose mandate is to retain capitalism and reform it? ;

There are other aspects also to be considered, The achievement of Socialism requires that the workers should organise together on the basis of recognising that they have a common class interest against the capitalists. On no account can Socialists foster sectional rivalries among the workers. But when the Railwaymen try to get the support of M.P.s of all parties in the House of Commons, it frequently means, in fact, helping the Railway Companies to resist the encroachment of the road transport industry, and hoping, in return, to get some concessions from the M.P.s who represent Railway Company interests. Thus it divides the working class instead of uniting them. In the long run the class interest of the workers is more important, even to the sections which hope to gain small concessions by taking action on their own.

Also it should be remembered that when the capitalists feel that something vital to them as a class is at stake, all the Parliamentary lobbying and Labour candidatures count for nothing at all. A case in point was the 1927 Trade Union Act. The Baldwin Government wanted the Act and got it without paying the slightest attention to the opposition demands. In other words, if the united trade union movement cannot get something out of the employing class it is an illusion to think that political "influence” in the House of Commons will make any difference.

Lastly, it should not be forgotten that the final aim of the Labour Party is to get into office. When it does, that is when it takes on the administration of capitalism, the trade unions find themselves face to face with a Government of the people it had been supporting, only to discover, as did the miners in 1924, that the Labour Government tells them not to make “embarrassing” demands. Or it finds, as did the railwaymen, that the Labour Government is prepared to use Emergency Powers against strikers.

Workers should not forget, too, that after giving their support to the Labour Party in order to get petty concessions they found that Party in 1914 urging them into the trenches in capitalism’s war.

The outcome of it all is that many workers in their disappointment jump to the conclusion that a Labour Government is even worse than a Tory Government, and this enables Tories or Fascists, or some other supporters of capitalism, to gain adherents.

The time to avoid these evils is right at the start, and the way is to stick to Socialist political action, even if it appears to involve occasionally some loss of a minor advantage to some section of the workers.

Ed. Comm.

How much do strikes achieve? (1972)

From the November 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

The view is held by some trade unionists and by so-called militant organisations that militancy is the key that opens all doors for the working class. The argument is deceptively simple: as strikes can gain wage increases more and larger strikes will gain more increases, seemingly without limit. How far is this true? There is plenty of past and current evidence though, as will be seen, some of it is open to misinterpretation. When Marx wrote about this more than a century ago he did not share the “militant” view about the extent to which trade-union pressure could raise wages. In his Value, Price and Profit for example (Chapters IV and XIV) and in Wage-Labour and Capital (p. 35 in the Whitehead edition) he took a somewhat pessimistic line based on his understanding of how capitalism works. While urging resistance to the efforts of employers to depress wages he thought it was largely a defensive struggle, with only occasional opportunities for the workers to secure “temporary improvement”. His view was that the times when the workers can hope to gain an improvement were when the capitalists were doing well, expanding production and accumulating capital. In the reverse phase of the “trade cycle”, with sales and profits falling and unemployment rising, he thought the workers could do little.

“The relations between the supply and demand of labour-power undergo perpetual change, and with them the market price of labour-power. If the supply overshoots the demand wages sink, although it might in such circumstances be necessary to test the real state of demand and supply by a strike, for example, or any other method.”

(To bring this into harmony with the present period of fast-rising prices it has to be remembered that though money wages do not now sink, a pay increase which does not keep up with the cost of living represents a fall of “real” wages, i.e. purchasing power.)

Nothing Gained

It will be noticed that Marx talked of “testing” the situation when trade is bad. The militants reject this. They think that if enough workers strike they can make big gains in spite of adverse conditions. As regards past experience the evidence is all against the militants’ case. Apart from 1921 and 1926, the record number of days lost through strikes in any year was in 1893, when the total was over 30 million. This included Lancashire cotton workers who were out for five months, and 400,000 miners. Both strikes failed and wages generally did not rise.

Another outstanding example was the ten years 1921-1930. Unemployment was high, trade was bad and prices were falling—in all by 30 per cent. In those years, which included the General Strike of 1926, the number of days lost by strikes and lockouts averaged 31 million a year, but the strikes completely failed to prevent wages also falling by about 30 per cent.

Discontent & Resistance

The question arises to what extent recent experience differs from the past. Various changes have taken place. There are many more trade unionists, though still only a minority of the workers, and workers on strike instead of depending entirely on their own resources and trade-union and benefit-society funds can now get Social Security payments for their families. British capitalism in the past six years has been in depression with unemployment at one point topping the million mark. And strikes have been building up, from 2,400,000 days lost in 1966 to 13,600,000 days in 1971 and a likely total of 20 or 21 million in 1972. The fact that strikes have become more numerous and last longer is not simply a reflection of workers’ discontent but is also a reflection of stronger and better-organised resistance by employers. It is a truism that the most successful strike is the one that never happens because when trade is brisk employers may yield to the mere threat of a strike interrupting production.

In recent years, with sales falling off, employers have taken a tougher line because they stand to lose less when trade is slack than when they have full order-books and are hard pressed to meet delivery dates. Also, as in engineering and the building industry where the recent strikes were not general, employers with strikes on their hands received financial help from the other employers.

Keeping Pace

What then has been the outcome of the big increase in strikes? On the basis of the rise of the cost of living and the estimated increase of wage rates (not including overtime and bonuses etc.) and of average earnings (including overtime and bonuses) it would seem that real wages have been rising at about 2 per cent a year since 1966; but some complications have to be taken into account. The first is that what matters is not gross pay but “take-home pay” after deduction of tax, and owing to the way this operates take-home pay increases by a smaller percentage than gross pay. If for example a single man on pay of about £25 obtained an increase of £5 a week (20 per cent) his increase of take-home pay would be just under 19 per cent (£4.10).

And owing to the rules governing family income supplements and free school meals it can happen that some workers can be worse off through a pay increase. For a married man with two children a pay increase of £2 from £28 to £30 a week would leave him 95p. a week worse off. (The Times, 8 September 1972).

It is obvious that the past six years, in spite of more strikes, has left the mass of workers in Britain doing little more than keep pace with prices.

Some Do Not

An enquiry by the Economic Research Council (Financial Times, 18 August 1972) indicated that between 1962 and 1970 average take-home pay did not even keep up with the cost of living, though some improvement may have been made since 1970. Another factor that should be borne in mind is that the past few years have seen a widespread tightening-up of jobs through labour-displacing productivity schemes linked with pay increases. Take-home pay in terms of purchasing power has certainly not fully reflected increased output.

Some confirmation of Marx’s general argument is given by a comparison of Germany and some other continental countries with Britain. While British capitalism has been in depression, production has been expanding fast in Germany—the condition in which Marx expected the workers to be able to increase wages. Though strikes in Germany have been much fewer than in Britain, in recent years real wages have risen much more in Germany. Indeed, according to a document submitted to the TUC (The Times, 5 October 1972): “In recent years Britain’s wage increases have been the lowest in Europe.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: Laying down the law to the unions (1987)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Laying down the law to the unions

Dear Sirs.

In the Socialist Standard. July 1987, in an article on trade unions, the following paragraph appeared:

Those who predict the permanent decline of the trade unions also have a lot to say about the anti-union legislation of the Thatcher government. They overlook the fact that, with one exception, the same and worse has happened before and the unions have known how to survive. The one exception is the Act which requires unions to have ballots for the election of officers and ballots for taking strike action. Along with the need for ballots before any strike settlement is agreed to. these are measures which the unions, ought, in the interests of their members, to have adopted anyway.

In your September issue, in another article on trade unions, the following appears:

Since the Conservatives were returned to office in 1979 they have introduced legislation to restrict the ability of trade unionists to take action to defend and improve their living standards.

The article goes on to cite restrictive legislation in the 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts and continues in the same vein: "The 1984 Trade Union Act made it compulsory to hold secret ballots for union elections, strike decisions and political funds. The new Conservative Administration is committed to further repressive legislation". The article points to Green Paper proposals for legislation enabling "members . . . to be able to prevent unions calling for industrial action unless they have won majority support in a ballot. Union ballots will have to be fully postal, independently supervised and to apply to the election of union presidents and general secretaries".

As you claim in a reply to a letter in the same issue, the Socialist Standard provides a forum for discussion of ideas about life in capitalist society, I look forward to reading the discussion you will no doubt wish to publish on whether this proposed legislation is "repressive", or "something which the unions ought, in the interests of their members, to have adopted anyway".

(Name and address supplied)

Reply:

In considering the trade union legislation enacted by the Thatcher government it is important to distinguish between the government's intentions and the consequences of the new laws. Looked at in this way it becomes quite clear that what the government has consistently tried to achieve is restrictions on the power of trade unions. This is quite obvious in relation to some of the new laws (ie restrictions on secondary picketing, powers to sequestrate union funds) but perhaps less obvious in relation to the laws regarding the holding of ballots. Despite all the rhetoric about democracy, the government's intention in compelling unions to ballot their members was. once again, to reduce union power by making it less likely that strikes would take place. It is the government's belief that trade union members are less militant than their leaders and that this more conservative view would prevail if there was greater internal union democracy. The same kind of thinking is evident in the latest proposals contained in the government's Green Paper which, if enacted, will strengthen the position of individual strike breakers against their union thus undermining the most important source of trade union strength solidarity.

The Socialist Party's position is that there should be maximum democracy within trade unions but that the government has no place in imposing it on trade unions. The moves towards greater union democracy would be far more welcome if they had been demanded by union members themselves rather than being legislated for by a government committed to reducing the power of trade unions. Finally it is perhaps worth mentioning the hollowness of Tory rhetoric about democracy by pointing out that trade unions are, in fact, fairly democratic organisations. Indeed they are models of democracy when compared to the companies. corporations and public institutions they oppose in their battle to maintain workers’ pay and conditions.

The Editors.

Letter: Are strikes and reforms alike? (1957)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are strikes and reforms alike?

Dear Editors,

I accept the S.P.G.B. point of view on all declarations except one in their position on “Reformism." The

S.P.G.B. seem to suffer from a inconsistency on this problem.

The Party members, so it seems, can support the T.U. movement’s struggle on the industrial field for' increase in wages and better conditions. But what would be the position of the Party if their members supported the Old Age Pensions Association’s demand for increased pensions?

In any case, what really is the difference between struggle for the day to day struggles for improvements through the Parliamentary system and the same kind of demands through the T.U. movement?

To be consistent the Party should either abandon their acceptance of struggle on the industrial field or alternatively accept such a policy on both the political and industrial fields.

The Party sneer at what is called die Welfare State, yet I am prepared to wager that more workers are given to support Capitalism and its economic system arising from gains made in their wages than through any benefits from the Social Insurance system. They talk almost with affection of die money they receive. I believe it is called Lolly! 

.

However, I agree with you that the establishment of a system of World Socialism is the only real solution of the Social Problem.

Meanwhile I support “reform” on both the Parliamentary and Industrial Fields, and meanwhile the SP.G.B. will continue to do so on the latter field.

Should you return or the S.P.GE. supporters return a minority number of M.P.s, what will be their methods' during the "Third Reading” of Bills before the House? Will they either "move” or vote on amendments during this state? I know you will understand the Parliamentary constitution.

It seems such a great pity Socialists are so divided and because they cannot agree on all points,

Am not a professional writer, but have done my best to state a case.

Yours fraternally,

Sidney Warr,

Romford, Essex. 

Reply:

The gist of our correspondent’s letter is that trade union action and campaigns for reforms are really the same kind of thing and, therefore, it is illogical for the Socialist Party to support strike action but oppose reformism.

This is quite fallacious. Strike action and campaigns for reforms are alike in one thing—they can neither of them achieve Socialism. Where, then, is the difference?

By strikes workers can, according to the varying economic situation, resist wage reductions or gain wage increases and influence hours of work and other working conditions. They, therefore, have a value for the workers within capitalism.

Campaigns for legislative reforms can operate broadly in only one way, through political action. Apart from mere demonstrations of protest, a body seeking a reform must either seek election for its nominees or help other political parties to secure election. In neither event is it or can it be a question of seeking election only on a Socialist policy for the establishment of Socialism—that being the S.P.G.B.'s position that our correspondent rejects. On the contrary, such reformist action can only secure the return of M.P.s committed to the perpetuation of capitalism; they have not and could not have a mandate to abolish it and institute Socialism.

This is the difference in principle between strike action and political reformism, and if our correspondent wants practical proof of our contention that the two are essentially different, he has only to look at the behaviour of reformist organisations when in power. They (Tories, Labour, Communist, etc.) all introduce reforms, but they all with one accord oppose strike action by the workers to get higher wages. They can very well see the difference between the reforms thy enact and the wage increases they try their best to prevent.

Which brings us to our correspondent’s plea that we should cease to be divided from the "Socialists” who are reformists. He omits to name them. Whom has he in mind? Is it the Communist reformists who ordered the slaughter of Hungarian workers and are now using troops to break a strike in Poland? Is it Nehru’s government which uses emergency legislation to smash a Post Office workers’ strike? Or is it the British Labour Party, whose spokesmen claim that they prevented the workers from getting the wage increases they could have got by striking?

Our correspondent also asks what a Socialist minority, if there were one, would do with regard to a measure in Parliament. If a measure, for example, a vote against armaments or war, were before Parliament Socialist M.P.s would, of course, take instruction from the Socialists, whose delegates they were, and vote accordingly.

One last point Our correspondent shows in his letter that he holds the view (which we do not) that the workers are deterred from turning to Socialism by their wages and by the reforms imposed on them. But if our correspondent really believes this, and if he really wants Socialism, then his clear policy should be to support a party that would oppose reforms as well as wage increases, because, according to his view, this would hasten Socialism.

Ed. Comm.

Passing trade union laws (1982)

From the September 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Trade unions are at their weakest in a recession. When unemployment is high and profits fall the ability of the workers to improve their wages and conditions is seriously curtailed, and governments take advantage of this situation to introduce legislation restricting their activities. The Tebbit proposals as outlined in the 1982 Employment Bill are the latest and follow the 1980 Employment Act.

In April a conference of trade union executives met to consider a report by the TUC General Council on Industrial Relations legislation. The TUC’s recommendations to its members included refusal to participate in secret ballots under conditions laid down in the new legislation; refusal to accept government finance for union ballots; financial assistance for unions that suffer legal actions; withdrawal of trade unionists from participation in Employment Appeals Tribunals; and a 10p levy on members to cover the cost of a TUC campaign.

Response to these proposals has been mixed, with many predicting little active support among the majority of workers. But there is another question; the choice faced by those who oppose the legislation is between breaking the law or supporting the return of a Labour government that will repeal the Act. Both of these responses show a failure to understand the really important points at issue.

Present society is based on a division between the owners of the means of production and distribution and the majority of people who have to find an employer in order to live. Workers can organise together to try and improve wages and conditions but this necessarily means eating into the profits of the owners. In a recession, when markets contract, profits are liable to fall and consequently the ability of workers to gain increased wages is reduced. With declining markets many firms go bankrupt, which means increased unemployment and more competition for jobs. This also reduces the ability of workers to gain better conditions of employment.

Where then does legislation fit into this? Governments are likely to take advantage of weakened trade unions in a recession in order to place restrictions on their activities. In the decade or so since the Labour government's White Paper In Place of Strife there has been a wave of trade union law, with different governments adopting different approaches; some seemingly favourable to trade unions and some obviously hostile. But it must always be remembered that all governments exist to maintain a society based on the class ownership of the means of producing wealth. Irrespective of the prevailing industrial climate, the purpose of trade union law is to strengthen the capitalist class, whatsoever form the legislation may take. To see this more clearly it is necessary to look at some examples of trade union law.

In the 1870s there was a wave of legislation concerning trade unions, on the face of it introduced under direct pressure from organised labour. Among other things, these laws provided a measure of protection for trade union funds and allowed some picketing. But this legislation was not simply a result of growing trade union organisation. In 1867 an electoral reform law had been introduced which extended the vote to skilled workers in the towns. For some time there had been agitation for this extension of the franchise by a number of movements, one of which was led by the industrial capitalist John Bright, who had been prominent in gaining working class support against the Corn Laws in the 1840s.

Bright realised that it was necessary to gain working class support in order to transfer political power from the landowning capitalists, who still dominated parliament, to industrial capitalists like himself. The extension of the vote to skilled workers, many of whom were prominent in the trade unions, facilitated this transfer of political power. The Tory leader Disraeli also supported the 1867 Act. He saw it as necessary because, as an associate said, he 

'would rather drag the working man within the pale of the constitution by force than suffer them to organise themselves into a separate community outside it’. [1]

Once the vote was given it was necessary to try to keep this working class support and the trade union legislation of the 1870s was a means to this end.

The years of recession that followed this legislation necessarily weakened labour organisations; in fact, many trade unions disintegrated or reverted to being purely friendly societies. Trade union law served the purpose of strengthening the political power of the capitalist class but did nothing to protect the organisations of workers.

In the years leading up to the First World War. more legislation concerning trade unions was introduced. The Trades Disputes Act of 1906 protected trade unions against employers seeking recompense for losses arising from strike action. This Act was a response to the famous Taff Vale decision, which followed the suing of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants by the Railway Company. The Taff Vale case certainly stimulated the trade unions to create the Labour Party, but what is not often made clear is that a new political party was not needed in order to reverse the decision. This was accepted both at the time [2] and by later writers of labour history [3].

The Liberals accepted that the Taff Vale decision was an anomaly and that the original trade union laws of the 1870s, which gave the Liberals working class support, had covered the protection of trade union funds. The anomaly had arisen because, since the 1870s, the expansion of capitalist production had led to a large number of unincorporated companies being formed; all that was needed was an updating of the law. But of course the Labour Party has had to present the Taff Vale case as their unique concern in order to provide some justification for its own formation. In fact the Liberals were just as concerned about working class votes in 1870 as they were. Neither party differed on economic policy and both accepted the need to introduce various reforms.

The other piece of trade union law in this period was very different. The Osborne Judgement of 1908 prevented trade unions from using their funds for financing parliamentary representatives. Now here was an issue of some concern to the working class. The Osborne Judgement meant that workers who wished to give financial support to a parliamentary candidate had to do it from a voluntary fund; trade unions could not make it compulsory for their members to contribute. The Osborne Judgement was therefore in workers’ interests but the real tussle over whether it should be maintained had nothing to do with workers’ interests. It was purely a struggle between the three political parties. Liberal, Tory and Labour, over who should be the party to take power and run capitalism. Labour MPs were largely dependent on finance from the trade unions, whereas the other two parties were in fierce competition to maintain their own positions in parliament which Labour Party candidates threatened.

It was therefore in the interest of both Liberals and Tories to maintain the Osborne Judgement. Yet in 1913 the Liberal government passed a new Trade Union Act enabling trade unions to keep a political fund for the purpose of financing MPs, while allowing those who did not want to pay to contract out. The explanation for this move by the Liberal government is to be found in the political, social and economic environment between 1908, the year of the Osborne Judgement, and 1913. Firstly, the Liberal government was partly dependent on the votes of Labour MPs; they did not have an absolute majority in parliament and needed support from either the Irish Nationalists or Labour.

The Liberal government tried to get over the Osborne Judgement by introducing the payment of MPs. But that was not enough for the Labour politicians who had “fastened their hungry jaws on the vitals of the labour movement” [4] and in the end the Liberals conceded. There was, however, also another reason why the Osborne Judgment was not maintained: 1911 was a year of widespread strikes and riots with troops being used on a number of occasions to fire at workers. It was a period when, especially after the two General Elections of 1910, workers lost interest in the abilities of government to solve their problems. As one witness put it:

Nothing was more noticeable about the last two General Elections than the rapidity with which the mass of the electorate has become disillusioned as to the worth of the vote. [5]

All manner of actions, consultations and legislation was tried by the government to solve the unrest and restore their authority. The strikes continued and in the following year the stoppage by the miners led to the government intervening directly to try to solve the dispute. This was in fact an abandonment of traditional Liberal policy of laissez faire. In desperation the government introduced a Minimum Wage Bill to try to placate the miners. This, like so much similar legislation, guaranteed nothing in the long term; it was purely a crisis measure. Speaking on the Bill in parliament, Asquith the Prime Minister said: “We have exhausted all powers of persuasion and argument and negotiation". [6]

In the end the Liberals backed the legislation changing the Osborne Judgement, partly because they believed that Labour MPs would be of use to the government in reconciling the workers to their class position within capitalism. Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour Party leader, had already helped to end a major rail strike. This was perhaps a foresight by the Liberals into the role the Labour Party would play in the future, as a government and as an opposition.

More recent trade union law, including the Labour government’s proposals In Place of Strife and the Tory Industrial Relations Act of 1971, has the same purpose as earlier legislation. Government proposals may arise from actions taken by the working class, whether because of restrictions placed on trade unions or because of strikes and disputes. But the law will always ultimately serve the interests of the capitalist class. Yet laws, whether they are supposed to assist trade union organisation or place restrictions on it, can do nothing to change the actual power that unions have. The laws of the 1870s did nothing to prevent the fragmentation of trade unions in the years of recession that followed, but they did increase the political power of the industrial capitalists. Similarly, the legislation of the 1974-79 Labour government, which included the Employment Protection Act, did nothing to prevent unemployment rising from million to 1½ million during that period. Nor has it protected workers from massive redundancies and unemployment since.

There is no substitute for the workers consciously organising to defend their interests. They should not look to leaders, whether in trade unions, the Labour Party or in government. Legislation, whether for or against unions, does nothing to change the fact that governments exist to serve the interests of the capitalist class, to maintain the system in which the majority of people are exploited. Workers need to organise to defend their living standards whenever possible; but they should also organise consciously and politically for the purpose of abolishing the system of society that can only operate in the interests of the owning minority.

MD

References:

[1] Quoted in Victorian People, Asa Briggs. Penguin 1970. p203.

[2] See Lloyd George speech at National Reform Union meeting Bacup. 5 November 1904.

[3] See G.D.H. Cole: A Short History of the British Working Class Movement. Allen and Unwin 1947, p293.

[4] Socialist Standard November 1910.

[5] Stephen Reynolds: Seems So! A Working Class View of Politics. Macmillan 1911, p!30.

[6] Parliamentarv Debates, 5th Series. V36, p234.

Letter: Fetish for a moneyless society? (1996)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fetish for a moneyless society?

Dear Editors,

I have read a number of Socialist Standards over the last couple of years, and whilst I agree in very general terms with your espousal of socialism, it seems to me that your outlook tends to be naive in the extreme.

Your journal suffers the common affliction of preaching to the converted. For instance, a recent article on Trade Unions and the Labour Party was somewhat simplistic and presumptuous of the reader's left-wing sympathies. After the "Winter of Discontent" debacle we have had to endure a certain legacy of "the unions were running the country". Now whilst you and I might dispute this line, the general public remain cynical of organised labour. The strikes of the late 70s and the miners’ great strike of '84-'85 raised concerns (whether justified or not) about trade union democracy, so some attempts could have been made to tackle the “overmighty unions” thesis.

It might be an altogether better idea to encourage something of a radical forum, and solicit letters and essays from right-wingers so that some of these issues can actually be open to debate.

As for your criticisms of New Labour, this is surely superfluous. I am intrigued by critique of the old clause IV. part IV which differed from your own formulation of common ownership in respect of the socialisation of the “means of exchange”. Well, this really is splitting hairs, isn’t it? This particular fetish of yours for the moneyless society is analogous to the number of angels dancing on a pinhead, a largely esoteric and pedantic concern. You would have been on better ground lambasting Labour for its failure in socialist political economy than arguing about these semantic totems. Money, alas, isn't the problem, the profit motive is! Besides a socialist economy would surely have to ration scarce resources, or at least avoid the “double coincidence of wants". Free access ignores the physical constraints of scarcity.

Your constitution sounds very libertarian, you make a point of saying there are no leaders or followers with the SPGB. This cannot be so, you have an editorial team, presumably an NEC/executive committee. You make decisions and decide a party line, as your journal testifies to. This is leadership of a kind, even if collectively administered and democratically accountable. Presumably you also expel people from time to time.

Perhaps the most damning tenet of the SPGB is that your members have to be avowed atheists to join. I can understand a socialist party advocating the privatisation of religion, but to demand a doctrinaire atheism, is, dare I say it, very Stalinist of you. Of course from a purely scientific viewpoint agnosticism makes sense, but to officially control a person’s private metaphysical leanings is dangerous. Fair enough, I may be personally inclined to atheism, but science cannot resolve this philosophical question, and probably never will. Whilst I may think a person’s metaphysical beliefs irrational, s/he is still entitled to them (in so far as they harm no others), especially as this is pure speculation.

I dislike scientific socialism because it then becomes a caricature, a scientism, a crude 19th century positivism. Socialism should be humanistic and conjectural rather than a Marxist teleology of self-confirming dogma. As such it should concede its limitations and move towards some kind of genuine enlightenment.

A. M. Wallace, 

Rochdale

Reply:

We have our own criticism of the unions. They tend to be bureaucratic not democratic organisations. Many of them support the Labour Party. All of them seek “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work" instead of the "abolition of the wages system". All we say in their favour is that they do by and large succeed in acting as a brake against the ever-present downward pressures of employers and governments on wages and working conditions. That’s why our members join them and why other workers should join them too.

2. You are quite right. It isn’t money in itself that is the problem. It is what the existence of money represents that is the problem. Money means that goods and services are produced to be bought and sold; which in turn means that private ownership exists. Socialists stand for common ownership, for all land and industry becoming the common heritage of the whole community instead of being the exclusive property of individuals, companies and governments. With common ownership, goods are not produced to be sold (how can you sell what you already own?) but to be distributed, or rather to be made available for people to take according to their needs. So you don’t need money, and if you don't need money you don’t need banks, insurance companies, pension funds and other financial institutions which Labour's old Clause IV wanted to nationalise as “means of exchange”. This is not being pedantic: if someone speaks in terms of nationalising “the means of exchange" this shows that they are still thinking in terms of capitalism and so stand for state capitalism not socialism.

3. Yes. we have no leaders. There is an executive committee. elected each year in a vote of the whole membership. The editorial committee of this journal is appointed by the executive committee, but both committees are purely administrative and technical bodies. Policies are decided by a vote at our annual conference of mandated branch delegates and, occasionally, by a referendum of the whole membership. The executive committee, the editorial committee and all other committees are there to carry out those policies. People elected to carry out specific functions on behalf of an organisation and who remain responsible to those who elected them are not leaders, they are delegates. How else could an organisation function democratically?

4. We are not saying that people are not entitled to hold religious and other irrational beliefs if they want to. Of course they are. We are merely say that people with such views are ineligible to join our organisation, as are racists, nationalists. Tories. Labourites and other people whose views we regard as mistaken (including atheists who support capitalism). What’s "Stalinist" about a voluntary organisation laying down conditions of membership? All organisations do this.

5. Socialism is "humanistic" in the sense of wanting a society where humans can relate to each other as human beings and not as commodities and where human welfare is the overriding priority. There’s no contradiction between this and taking a scientific approach to nature and society. In fact it’s the best approach to take if you want to find out the best way to establish such a society.

Editors.

 

 

Blogger's Note:

The above photograph of the SPGB Executive Committee is from the original September 1996 issue of the Standard. I'm not sure who the person is with their back to the camera, but those facing on are, from left to right, Richard Headicar, Gwynn Thomas, Les Cox, Dick Donnelly and Mike Browne.

Editorial: The strikes in France (1953)

Editorial from the September 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The strike movement which began on 5th August among Post Office workers and quickly spread to transport, gas, electricity and many other state and private undertakings and involved at its height some three or four million workers was still in progress a fortnight later; though by that time some workers had returned to work because their strikes had been deliberately limited to one or two days, and others had been reported as drifting back. As a movement to demonstrate workers' solidarity and to bring pressure to bear on the government and the employers it was complete and highly efficient. As was remarked by one observer, the Paris correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, “rarely has any strike movement in France, planned and announced in advance, been so successful ” (Manchester Guardian, 8/8/53).

The spark that set off the Post Office strike was a report that the Government’s “emergency” economy measures included reductions of Post Office staff and extending the age of retirement on pension. It was later denied that the Government had ever intended to make the later retirement compulsory but a possible explanation is that they were preparing the way and only the unanimous demonstration of resistance by the strikers made them repudiate it. The reason why the strike was enthusiastically joined by millions of other workers demanding higher wages was that the workers in general were finding their low standard of living being further reduced by rising prices. Mr. Douglas Jay, in the Daily Herald (13/8/53) estimated that “the average wage-earner in France today if he is single, gets a wage not much above two-thirds of what the British wage-earner gets." It is only through the higher rate of family allowances in France that the worker, if he has a wife and three children, has an income about equal to that of workers in Britain. Mr. Jay also pointed out that under French rent acts rents are exceedingly low—he goes so far as to claim that "the British worker’s family on the average spends eight times as much on rent as the French.”

But he went on to say:—

“However, these cheap rents—which the new decrees are to raise—are not much consolation to the French worker. It is partly just because food prices are so high that he has little to spare for anything else." (Italics, Mr. Jay’s).

Although Mr. Jay draws attention to these facts he fails to see how hollow they make the social reforms of the “Welfare State” which he and the French Labour leaders so blindly support. Unless the workers use their only industrial weapon, the strike, to fight for higher wages; low rents and social insurance benefits merely operate to enable employers to pay a low money wage. This is further borne out by Nora Beloff, writing from Paris to the “Observer” (16th August, 1953) on the condition of French workers.

"An official publication has revealed that they enjoy an even smaller proportion of the national revenue today than before the war: the substantial rise in social benefits has been more than offset by the severe drop in real wages. The Civil Service is proportionately worse off than am employees of private business."

So much for the alleged benefits of the “Welfare State” and of being employed by the Government.

The strikes themselves have had some very interesting features. It has been customary in Western Europe, including Great Britain, for Governments and some trade union officials to see in every strike the hand of the Communists; but the French Postal strike was started not by the Communist Union but by the anti-communist French Post Office Workers’ Union belonging to the “Labour Force” trade union federation. They took the initiative first in the Post Office and then in other industries, and the Communist Trade Union Federation (C.G.T.) and the Christian Trade Union Federation later joined in. It happens that the “Labour Force” Union is stronger than the Communist and Christian Unions among Post Office workers, though the C.G.T. claims in all 2,000,000 members as against about 800,000 in the “Labour Force” Federation and the same number in the Christian Federation. As the Times remarked (7/8/53) “ No Communist interference seems to have been needed to start the trouble.”

But though the excuse of Communist “plotting” could not be used this did not prevent the French Government from threatening to use all measures to smash the strikes, including the movement of tanks into Paris (News Chronicle 18/8/53).

The French Prime Minister when he ordered the movement of tanks might have recalled the outcry three months ago when Russian tanks in Eastern Germany were used to overawe German strikers; but the Western Governments' reaction then was very different. They approved the strike and made horrified protests about the tanks, and with their approval the American Government has been distributing millions of food parcels to the hungry East German workers. But this time it is the French tanks not Russian, and there has been no offer by Western Governments of food parcels for the hungry French workers. The Daily Worker (11/8/53) seized on this and denounced British and other unions in the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions for their decision to give money to help the East German workers while not doing the same for the workers of France and Italy. But the Communists are actually taking up a still worse attitude. Some British unions have agreed to give financial help to the French workers, while the Communists, instead of helping the strikers against the Communist Government of Eastern Germany pretend that they were not strikes but “American-inspired riots.”

The real tragedy of the trade union movement in France and in the world generally is that most trade unionists allow themselves to be diverted from single minded concentration on working class unity because of their attachment to nationalism and to support of one or other forms of Government of Capitalism. Except for a brief spell after the first world war and again after the second world war the international trade union movement, which before 1914 was a single organisation paying at least lip-service to international working-class unity, has been divided into bitterly hostile camps, the W.F.T.U. supporting Russian State Capitalism, and the I.C.F.T.U. supporting Western capitalism; not to mention the Christian and Independent groups maintaining isolation.

One hopeful aspect of the strikes in France was the way in which workers in the three rival groups (Labour Force, Communist and Christian) came out on strike together, temporarily forgetting their rivalries. This, and the fact that the strikes in Eastern Germany have demonstrated the workers’ defiance of the Communist dictatorship there may give reason to hope for some future movement towards world working class unity.

In the meantime the divisions in the French trade union movement endangered the strikes. It is of great importance, especially in a more or less general strike, that there should be common action not only to come out on strike but to go back as a united body. It is equally important that such strikes should not be allowed to drag on until, under pressure of starvation, workers begin to drift back one by one. This danger was heightened in France by the efforts of some of the leaders of the three main groups to outmanoeuvre and discredit each other in the conduct of the strike and by the parallel tactics of the Government and the employers to play one off against the other.

Letters: Then and now (1966)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Then and now

Recently I was presented with a bound volume of the Socialist Standard for 1911/1917. Reading of the events of those far-off days gives one a weird feeling of having been here before.

Of particular interest is the leading article of July 1911, which stated the attitude of the SPGB to the strike of the British Seamen's Union. The tangible and known enemies of the seamen were clearly the Shipmasters (the owners), the Liberal government and all their agencies. But their intangible, unknown enemies were their own leaders, officials. Labour M.P.s who were knifing them from behind.

Now the 1966 strike of the National Union of Seamen was certainly not premature—the last one, 55 years ago, seemed to have dispirited them thoroughly and laid them under a spell which lasted right through two major wars, through two “Brave New Worlds" and through all the intervening years of "good" and bad times.

From Australia it appears the seamen again had the usual open enemies to face as well as the Labour government and the TUC. Yet it must be conceded that this is the very set-up the seamen in particular, and the working class in general, so vigorously support.

Peter Furey, 

Melbourne, Australia.

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.

Bill in the Chair. (1912)

From the October 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Trade Union Congress has met, passed resolutions on things that do not matter, listened to innumerable speeches, attended many functions, “seen the sights” of Newport, assisted in prayer at .the Labour sermon, and having run its respectable course, over much the same ground that other congresses have before it, has respectably passed away.

Labour is none the wiser for their deliberations ; none the more free for all their wordy resolutions ; none the fatter or happier for all the merry feasting and expensive junketting of their “Parliament.”

As usual, the Congress was larger than ever before, and its president, blushing Bill, showed an “example of straight speaking and clear thinking which might well be copied by some of our brilliant speakers and debaters at Westminster.” (“Daily Herald.”)

After a few preliminary remarks anent “the largest and most important congress yet held” (omitting to state that the increased membership was due in the main to a blind rush to join “approved societies” in conformity with the National Insurance Act) Bill proceeds to show his ignorance.

He tells us that “the outcome of the coal strike would take them one step nearer to the nationalisation of the mines . . . which, will be of a lasting benefit to the nation.” (“Daily Herald.”)

This is distinctly good for Bill, who time and time again has stated that the Government workers are worse off than those employed outside. Further on in this illuminating address he tells us that “9,000 employees of the late National Telephone Co. now enjoy the same conditions as the Post Office workers, which, brought them under the eight hours system.”

The result of the eight hours system and Government control has been “an increase of £175,000 per year in wages, increased holidays, a larger staff, and pensions amounting to an expenditure of £201,000 per annum,” according to our worthy president.

Which is all bosh, as has been shown by many of Bill’s pals who have the misfortune to” enjoy” the jobs he refers to. Among others, one “in the engineering branch of the service” who states in the “Daily Herald” (6.9.12) that “a 50½ hour week” is worked, goes on : “I shall be pleased for Mr. Thorne to understand that the increase in wages is only in theory, as no employee is receiving any increase ; also that a large number of the men have not had an increase of pay for the last two or three years and in consequence of the transfer will not receive any now, Where the late Company’s employees’ hours have been reduced they have suffered a corresponding reduction in wages, but where working hours have been extended no recompence has been given.”

At the Annual Meeting of the Government Workers’ Federation at Enfield on June 4, 1912, Bill’s benevolent boss was described as “the greatest enemy we have got,” and a delegate said : “They [the Government] are the worst set of employers I have come into contact with in my life. They are wicked ; they rob the maimed, the blind, the widow and the labourer. In fact, they take everything we let them take.” (“Daily News,” 4.6.12.)

At the same meeting a resolution was passed condemning the Government for refusing to put the “fair wages” agreement, in operation, and calling upon them to grant a miniinutn wage of 25s. 6d. to workers engaged in War Office and Admiralty departments.

Mr. W. Cheeseman, secretary of the Fawcett Association, said that the Government were forcing them to strike, and delegates from the Royal Parks stated that “for a wage of 23s. many of the man put in a seven day weak.”

This eulogy of the Government on the part of our “honest” chairman, who has “graduated with high honours in the school of Labour,” denoted a sudden change of front. In the House of Commons, March 4, 1912, Mr. William Thorne (South West Ham) :

“moved as an amendment to leave out from the word “That” to the end of the Question in order to add instead thereof the words :

‘in the opinion of this House the conditions of service of Government employees should be in every respect at least equal to those observed by the best private employer or by local public authorities doing similar work.’ (‘Parliamentary Debates’ Vol. 35, No. 14, p. 83.)

This amendment was defeated by the Labour men who abstained from voting for their own amendment in order to save the Government from possible defeat.

In support of his amendment Thorne and others give some very interesting facts. Bill said: —

“There are a number of leading storehouse men at Pimlico receiving 20s. per week, while in the factories adjacent to Pimlico it is found that the average for a similar class of employment worked out at 25s. 6d. Crane men start at 27s. per week and go up to 32s., while a similar class of men working outside for ordinary contractors can command 35s. and 40s. per week.” Barge loaders and van men working for the Government “get 24s. per week without any chance of promotion, These men are doing a similar class of work to that for which in the docks and on the wharves of the river 8d. per hour is paid, with 1s. per hour for overtime.”

“At the Army Ordnance Department at Woolwich,” said Mr. Tyson Wilson, “the men presented a petition asking for a minimum of 28s. per week. Some of these men are ‘promoted’ to foremen without having their wages increased. At Waltham Abbey things have improved, and the minimum is now 24s. per week. But the work is very injurious. The materials get into the system, affecting the heart, particularly the nitro-glycerine, and that is not work at which men live long. At Weedon,” went on Mr. Wilson, “the skilled labourers get 19s. per week and 2d. per day extra duty pay. At Enfield . . the minimum is 23s. 6d. The local employers of labour pay 6½d. and 7d. per hour.

Some very glaring cases of sweating were given with regard to firms contracting for the Government. At Stepney at Clark’s biscuit factory men are working 60 hours per week for 19s. 6d., while at MacNeill’s Patent Felt works 14s. is paid for 56½ hours work.

According to Mr. Wilson there are “cases of hosiery firms who are supplying the War Department for the wear of soldiers and other servants, and some of these firms have said themselves that they do not intend to pay the standard wages.”

So much for the pet scheme of nationalisation. Bill should know (and probably does know) that nationalisation means greater poverty and insecurity for the worker, and that the Government as an employer is better only in so much that it can grind the hardest and sweat the most.

Bill also seemed to believe that the miners during the year had won a victory, for he is reported by the “Daily Herald” as saying :—

“The main reason for the miners leaving work was to establish a minimum wage. . . . The Government made every effort to bring about a settlement without legislation but failed, and the Minimum Wage Bill was passed. In many districts a substantial increase has been brought about.”

Anent this we print the following from the “South Wales Daily News” (9.9.12) : —

“Mr. Hubert Jenkins, miners’ agent, has just issued a circular to the workmen at the Llanbradach Collieries stating that the relations between the men and the management have become very strained, and that it requires some courage under the circumstances for men to dare to assert their right to the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage award. He alleges that when the man fail to get clearance and claim to be paid, they are being stopped and kept idle or sent to work by night, which means the revival of the system of sponging.

“This treatment (he proceeds) is being meted out to a few at a time with the result that no man is safe ; this must cone to an end. The committee are blamed, the miners’ agent also, because of the delay in getting grievances dealt with. The time has come when the whole of the men employed at the Llanbradach collieries must voice their protest in a determined manner, or be prepared to to sacrifice their freedom and liberty completely.

“Men, he further alleges, have been going home with starvation wages since the resumption of work at the end of the national strike.”

Our brilliant Gas-worker next shone upon the question of the eight hours day. After pointing out that the Congress had been passing the resolution since 1890 without effect, he asked them to pass it again. “If time had permitted” he “could speak at length on the benefits an eight hours day would bring to the wage-earners in increasing leisure and decreasing unemployment.” Which again shows how little knowledge this paragon of presidents possesses.

A reprint from the “Daily News” (27.8.09), reporting the speech of Professor Chapman in his address to the Economic Science and Statistical Section, of the British Association, Winnipeg, may interest and instruct.

“The character of much of the world’s work, said Professor Chapman, has changed, and with that change has come a difference in the demands made upon leisure. These changes all tended to specialisation and concentration, both in working and in leisure, and to constant demands for the curtailment of the working hours of the day. In the course of long investigations he had found no instance in which an abbreviation of hours had resulted in a proportionate curtailment of output. There was, indeed, every reason to suppose that the production in the shorter seldom fell short of the longer hours, and in some cases the output or its value had been augmented.”

As the miners and others have discovered, an eight hours day means greater speeding up rendered possible by the greater amount of leisure, and, as has beea shown, in many cases a greater output with the same or a smaller number of employees. The introduction of the eight hours day, like the adoption of nationalisation, means more unemployment and more poverty for the workers, and no amount of claptrap from the President of the Trade Union Congress will prove the contrary.

After a sly lift to the Home Rule Bill and other Liberal measures the President passed to the Insurance Act and endeavoured to draw attention from the fraudulent nature of that measure by attacking the Prudential. The “Pru,” it seems, have been business-like, and have captured all the ninepences, at which the Unions are wrath. In their desire to get members the latter care little whether or not such members are trade unionists, and clearly show that what we have said all along is true, namely, that the sick and benefit side of the unions has long since absorbed all trace of the fighting organisations they may once have been.

A curious exception to this touting may be noted in a union which shouts about the “tactics” of the Prudential and at the same time have refused to accept into their “approved society” members of their own union. Thus the London Society of Compositors are forcing their own members into the insurance societies, while their delegates condemn the Prudential for taking them !

The Congress settled down to business and passed a resolution “that the question of secular education be eliminated from the questions for discussion at any future Congress.”

They have been discussing and passing resolutions about secular education for some forty years and made no progress, and so have decided not to waste time in passing any more. How much better would it have been if they had done the same with the rest of the motions ! None of them are of importance and nobody takes any notice of them.

There was much to do on the question of compulsory arbitration, and Mr. Ben Tillett, its champion, exchanged some complimentary remarks with Messrs. Brace and Havelock Wilson, but nothing important was said. The anti-political gentleman rightly said that the other side wore “political Mathuselahs who are capable of passing resolutions and nothing else,” while those in support of the motion favouring political action truly said that “the opponents of the motion were ex-members of Parliament; those who had tried to get into Parliament, and those who had abandoned all hope of getting there.” (“Daily Herald.”)

It is interesting to note that the Executive of the B.S.P., of which Tillett is a member, unanimously passed a resolution at its meeting on July 8th. condemning compulsory arbitration “as destructive of the independence (!) of the workers,” and recorded its “strong and convinced protest against the principle of compulsory arbitration in industrial disputes.” (“Socialist Record,” July, 1912.)

Evidently the rejection of his pet proposal annoyed Tillett, for, writing in the “Daily Herald” (9.9.12) he tells us that “there is little chance for most of the men attending Congress to even debate new theories, however common-sense they may appear to be. … the real powers and potentialities of Congress are stultified by the atrophy of customary narrowness in. thinking.”

The above sentiment is endorsed by Mr. Price, a member of the West Australian Parliament, who, to a representative of the “South Wales Argus” said : “I was struck with the lack of knowledge displayed, not only by the delegates, but by the Members of Parliament (did he mean Bill ?) . . . The difference between the Labour Party in the Antipodes and in Great Britain is that the former has a definite policy dealing with every phase of political economy, while in Great Britain the Labour Party has no definite policy or platform so far as I have been able to discover.”

The Congress got excited because of a certain circular issued by the Government re the transfer of members of an “approved society,” decided to call a special meeting, and generally spat forth fire at the action of the Government. But the Government need have no fear. The bribe given to the unions has caught them effectually, and though they may threaten to withdraw they will remain safely within the net in consideration of extra membership and extra dues, coupled with the influence brought to bear by one-time trade unionists who have been bought by Government jobs. To quote Ben Tillett: .

“All the expressions of opinion asking for action to be taken, either for amalgamation or joint trade union action, were sat upon, and the fighters of twenty years ago are the ruling politicians of to-day.”

Ah, yes ! the trade union movement has been sold time after time, and will remain as clay in the hands of those who are moulding it to suit their own purposes, just so long as the membership of those trade unions fail to understand their class position and the politics dictated by that position. Any action taken by any section of the trade unions will be side-tracked and outvoted by the bosses who are pulling the strings, and they in turn are led by those who have already been bought by the Government.

Twel.

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