On Leadership (1938)

From the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is often argued that the traitorous conduct of leaders in the working-class movement makes the ultimate achievement of Socialism difficult, and, some almost say, impossible.

To many sincere workers this question presents itself as one of great and vital importance. They argue that leaders will betray their followers once the leader, by virtue of his leadership, is lifted out of his class. And it must be admitted that a superficial glance at modern political history would appear to lend colour to the view. Let us consider, for example, certain relatively-recent events in the Labour and Trade Union movements.

For many years past, organised workers have aspired to solve their economic and social problems by giving their support to the Labour Party. Until the first Labour Government in 1924, few of them seriously believed that the experience of that Government would have resulted in disappointment and disillusionment.

Thousands of workers believed that a Labour Government would at once have taken effective steps to remove any working-class burdens: that a Labour Government was the first real move forward to the establishment of Socialism. What happened ? During the first Labour Government, members of the Cabinet openly condemned and aided the defeat of the locomotive men on strike for higher wages. A demand by the miners for higher wages was met with the plea: ‘‘Do not embarrass the Government.” The dockers’ strike was met with naval ratings unloading mails and mobilised ready to unload foodstuffs, etc., had the strike continued. The unemployed were told by MacDonald that industrial capital was not going to be touched to provide relief, the Government wanted the confidence of financial groups. Well-known opponents of the working class were appointed to the Admiralty and Air Ministry.

It was this Labour Government that was fully prepared to use the Emergency Powers Act in the event of the tramway strike spreading to the ‘‘Underground” workers. In the outposts of “our” Empire, it bombed tribesmen in Mesopotamia and murdered strikers in India.

In brief, once taking on the rôle of the administrators of capitalism, the Labour Government was compelled to run the system in the interests of those who own the means of production : the only way it can be run. The threats (via strikes) to ‘‘public order,” “embarrassing” demands of starving unemployed, at home and within the Empire, were met with evasions, excuses and, where necessary, bloody suppression.

However, to put the question into correct perspective, did the Labour Government of 1924 (or, for that matter, of 1929) betray Socialism? The answer, quite simply, is that it did not. It did not for the very reason that that Government was not Socialist. That is to say, that it was not a Government supported and elected by class-conscious Socialist votes for the purpose of establishing Socialism. It was a Government devoid of any understanding of Socialism, elected by workers lacking Socialist knowledge. But this does not answer the contention of many workers who would describe themselves as Socialist and who argue that, even if Socialists were elected to Parliament and were supported by class-conscious workers, the question of the traitorous leader would in no way be altered: in short, that Socialists will go the way of the Labour leader. As one worker put it to the present writer : ‘‘There are traitors in every party.” This, of course, within limits, is quite true; or, should we say, could quite easily be true. But the admission of this possibility does not affect the logic of the Socialist Party’s case.

The question should be asked: What is it that a working-class political leader betrays—and why? Would Socialist delegates in Parliament, elected by class-conscious workers, act in a similar way?

Ramsay MacDonald (and others) were accused of betraying the Labour Government when they deserted it for the National Government in 1931. Let us, for the sake of argument, accept the accusation of “betrayal” as being a description of the facts.

How did it come about that the renegade leaders were able to betray their Party and sell millions of Labour votes to the National Government? The answer again is quite simple, though it may be unpalatable to Labour Party supporters. The fact is that workers who transferred their allegiance to the National Government in 1931 did so because they were not in a position to understand the issues involved. They were led to believe that the continuance of a Labour Government meant the loss of their paltry savings, etc. (It is reasonably possible that Ramsay MacDonald and his colleagues understood the issues even less than the voters who followed them like sheep.) The real position was that Ramsay MacDonald and Company were able to transfer working-class votes to an openly capitalist party because they were the votes of the politically uninformed. Those votes were the votes of people who had placed their faith in leaders to solve their problems. The leaders failed, as was inevitable, and the conditions were favourable for stampeding millions of workers behind the banners of new leaders—the National Government. The inability to decide for themselves the merits of the issues then involved, plus MacDonald’s prestige among large numbers of confused Labourites, resulted in millions of additional votes for the National Government. Those votes measured MacDonald’s value to the Government.

The lesson does not need great powers of observation to appreciate. The value to the capitalist of a traitorous working-class leader depends upon the extent of his uninformed flock. The greater following a leader has, the more value that leader has to the capitalist; the more ignorant that following, greater are the chances of its betrayal. In short, when a leader “sells out” he is able to do so because of his influence over them.

But what would be the position in the event of Socialist workers returning Socialist delegates to Parliament ? The position would be entirely reversed. Socialist workers would not be betrayed, not because Socialists are immune to temptation or are to be trusted the more for being Socialists, but because the Socialist members would never be in a position of leadership. They would not be able to transfer the allegiance of Socialist voters to a capitalist political party. The reason being that Socialist workers know what they want and how to get it. A Socialist electorate would understand as clearly as the delegates in Parliament the essentials of the mandate the delegates were sent there to represent. A Socialist delegate in Parliament would not be able to sell his influence over his electorate for the simple reason that that influence would be of no value to the capitalist political parties. The position of the Socialist delegate in Parliament, therefore, would be quite different to that of a Labour leader. The first would have no influence over his electorate, and this would make him not worth tuppence to the enemies of Socialism. He would merely be in the position of fulfilling the wishes and instructions of class-conscious Socialists. The second is always in the position of trying to carry out promises made to workers who have not reached the point where they understand that only the abolition of private ownership in the means and instruments of production provides the solution of their problems. Hence their dependence on leaders.

The difference between leaders and delegates is the difference between political ignorance and enlightenment.

A. G.

Confusion at the T.U.C. (1951)

From the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

When we were very young the gramophone was in its early stages. It was called the phonograph, it had tubular records instead of discs and each record, when played, ended with the spoken words, “Edison Bell Record.” We were reminded of this when we read the reports of the speeches at this year’s Trade Union Congress. For a number of years, since the end of the last war, in fact, the speeches of the “ big shots” at the T.U.C. have followed the same theme. So marked is the repetition that, as we concluded the report of each speech we felt like saying, “ Edison Bell Record.” Again, this year, as in previous years, unofficial strikes were denounced, support for the Government’s armament programme was urged, the Communists were castigated, increased production was demanded, continued austerity was forecast, and workers were warned to be moderate with their demands for wage increases.

The 83rd Trade Union Congress was held in Blackpool early in September this year and was attended by 917 delegates. The president, Mr. Alfred Roberts, in his opening speech, said nothing original. One has the impression that he read the speeches of his recent predecessors in the presidency and rehashed them with a slight variation of emphasis.

There was a minor revolt on the first day of the Congress when delegates voted for a reduction in the time allowed for speeches from members of the General Council and from fraternal delegates, thus allowing more time for general discussion. But, on the second day, following a bombardment from the General Secretary, Sir Vincent Tewson, the delegates rescinded the decision and gave back to the General Council the privilege of longer speeches. Sir Vincent said that the Council members needed the time to acquaint the delegates with all the facts before they made decisions. He did not give many facts in his speech on that occasion but hinted mysteriously of “certain people who cause the trouble” and “arrangements that took place outside the conference.”

The debate on foreign affairs developed into a battle between groups of delegates and the General Council,—”the floor against the platform,” as Sir Vincent had previously expressed it There were a number of resolutions, including one of over 250 words, but the General Council ruled the roost and its critics were defeated. The resolutions were a series of protests and appeals. A protest against the resumption of diplomatic relations with Spain, an appeal to abolish the atom bomb, a protest against the re-arming of Germany and Japan, an appeal for trade with Russia, and so on.

Of course, Sir Arthur Deakin—sorry, Mr. Arthur Deakin was there. We apologise for that slip of the pen. We are so used to having our Trade Union chiefs “honoured” by the representatives of the capitalist class that we were a little premature and lumped Mr. Deakin with his peers, Lord Citrine, Sir William Lawther and Sir Vincent Tewson. As Mr. Deakin has been elected president of the T.U.C. for the ensuing year he becomes an odds-on favourite for the next honours list. He treated Congress to his usual tirade against “reds” and Communists to the delight of some of the delegates who baited him. His anti-red mania has become a joke amongst Trade Unionists.

A new gang of critics of the General Council were present at the T.U.C. this year—the supporters of Mr. Bevan. These Bevan-ites were greatly discomforted by the support they received from Communists and by the insistence of some of the speakers on confusing them with the Communists. The confusion is easily understandable. The criticisms of both groups were so trivial 'and so far removed from the fundamental problems of the working class that neither of them is deserving of even the doubtful compliment of being termed rebellious.

The visiting high-light to this years Congress was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gaitskell. Prior to Mr. Gaitskell’s visit, some members of the General Council had reluctantly admitted the need for wage increases. But the Chancellor gave a warning. He said:—

“The cost of living here will go on rising in 1952, even with stable world prices, if we go on pushing up our costs through further substantial rises in wages and salaries. That is what we must avoid." (Manchester Guardian, 5.9.1951.)

He was full of warnings. He warned of the need to cut home production in favour of exports, he warned of the impact of rising prices on “our” balance of payments and he warned that fear and inertia was making our lives “thinner, poorer, harder and more burdensome than need be.” There you are, fellow workers, do not be frightened, work harder, cast off inertia and life will be fatter, richer, softer and oh, so cosy. Or will it?

The Chancellor talked of profits and dividends. He said that the total profit income of companies and public corporations had risen just over two and a half times between 1938 and 1950. He continued by claiming that the profits were taxed so that dividends had not risen so much and he concluded that part of his address by saying that he could not state that high profits had been an important cause of the rise in the cost of living. Naturally, Mr. Gaitskell, naturally! Such a statement would destroy the time-worn argument. that it is wage increases that cause rises in the cost of living.

The real plum in Mr. Gaitskell’s address, the real juicy tit-bit, came when he referred to the need for a more even distribution of property. To achieve this even distribution he suggested, ,

“. . .  some form of partnership by the workers in individual firms or industry through the distribution of bonus shares reflecting the rise in undistributed profits." (The Times. 6.9.1951.)

This is magnificent. It is novel. It is unique. Such acumen, such wisdom. A Daniel come to judgment. Yea, a Daniel. The Conservative Party has been talking about a “property owning democracy” for years; the Liberal Party has made co-partnership in industry its main plank for the past three years. Now comes Mr. Gaitskell to join hands with them in proclaiming this panacea for working class ills.

Co-partnership in industry has been tried in a number of fields at various times. The most noteworthy were the schemes of the gas companies and Lever Brothers at Port Sunlight. The object of such schemes is not to re-distribute property, but to encourage the workers to take a keener interest in the firm or undertaking whch employs them. They are expected to work harder to produce greater profits so that their share is larger. They are expected to do away with all restrictive practices, not to strike, to accept a minimum wage, in fact to tolerate all sorts of things in the interest of the undertaking in which they are co-partners. The share that the worker gets is so infinitesimal that it does not, or has not up to now, had the desired effect. The gas companies were probably the most generous in their co-partnership scheme. It is claimed that they devoted half the invested capital to profit sharing. When one considers the number of employees amongst whom this part of the profit had to be shared, and the much smaller number of investors who shared the other part, it gives a picture of the worth of such schemes to the workers. The benefit is to the employer who can use the idea of the co-partner to discipline his employees.

The Trade Unions in this country have never shown an interest in co-partnership schemes and Mr. Gaitskell had a cheek to make such a suggestion at the T.U.C. But there, fools step in where angels fear to tread. Trade Unionists who can swallow die rubbish that is handed out them by the Labour Party supporters may also fall for this idea. All it amounts to is an incentive bonus for greater production and a means to check wage increase demands.

Another screwy batch of proposals came from the General Secretary when he put forward a six point plan for peace.

His plan was that Russia should adopt the following six points,

1. Put the last touches to the Austrian treaty.
2. Let up on the people of Berlin.
3. Return the prisoners of war still held six years after the end of hostilities.
4. Wind up the Cominform.
5. Co-operate actively within the United Nations and cease making a fetish of the veto.
6. Co-operate in many specialised agencies of the United Nations—on economic, health and education issues and the I.L.O. (Daily Herald, 6.9.1951.)

All of which the Russian Government could agree to do and still declare war the following day, or have war declared against it the same day. Such tickling of the war problem is pitiful. There are numbers of workers who have not achieved Sir Vincent’s exalted position, who could tell him that the cause of war is deeper than these trimmings, that the conditions that his six points seek to remedy are the result of war, not the cause, and that to eradicate war from society the cause must be dug out by the roots.

The Congress went through its week arguing about industrial illnesses, children employed on the stage, bulk purchasing by the Government, National Health Insurance spectacles, the film industry, education of trade unionists, equal pay for women, and concluded its business with the usual votes of thanks and the singing of “Auld Lang Syne.” No. Not “The International” nor “The Red Flag,” just “Auld Lang Syne.”

Having appealed, urged and protested for a week the delegates went their several ways. The General Council? We hope they will not be bothered by ghosts from the 1926 or other bygone General Councils. What a set-up in the Trade Union world. If the workers continue to support Labour Government, the sting is taken out of their trade union struggles; if they use their unions as fighting machines they have to fight Labour Government. The solution to this queer contradiction is not to be found in Mr. Gaitskell’s proposal to re-distribute property but in the Socialist proposition to abolish private ownership in the means of production, and to make land, mines, factories, workshops, ships, road transport, air transport, warehouses, docks, garages—all the means of production—free of ownership, either by individuals, companies, public undertakings or the state.

W. Waters

Letter: Ourselves and the CP (1974)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ourselves and the CP

I am writing to protest at your waste of good Socialist space in the S.S. I refer to your continual obsessive carping on the misguided thinking of the CP in comparison to yours. Surely, with all the futile waste, almost criminal of the capitalist system, this includes state capitalism masquerading as communism, you could leave the CP to its usual smearers in the Labour and Conservative parties. After all there must be something wrong with the CP to warrant this continuous smearing — apart from yours.

A member of the CP can never expect honours from the establishment while still an active member. In order to attain these he must leave and get control of a Union if possible, and duckshove his way to the top, to manipulate its business in capitalism’s favour. A case in point is the ETU where three communists with the help of the present Lord Feather secured controlling positions in that key Union. One became Sir Leslie Cannon — if that was any consolation to him. The establishment know how to reward working-class treachery in their favour.

J. Maryon

Hornchurch.

Reply

We have never gone in for the “smearing” of other political parties. Our criticisms are always based on verifiable fact and never on smear, guilt by association or any of the other tactics employed by capitalist parties.

Our criticism of the so called “Communist" Party is quite different to those used by the Labour and Conservative Parties. We are unique in attacking the CP on the grounds that they are, whatever their proclamations may be, an anti-working class party. The CP advocates not Communism or Socialism (the terms are the same thing although the CP confuse the issue by differentiating them) but State Capitalism.

Nothing that the CP advocates can change the economic position of the working class. When they contest elections they do so on a reform platform talking nonsense such as “The British Road to Socialism” or more nationalization. The suggestion that they want a fundamental change in the basis of society can easily be refuted. For example John Mathews writing in their fortnightly review was full of “criticism” for Labour chancellor Denis Healey’s recent mini-budget because it failed to deal adequately with the problems facing British capitalism. Mathews suggested that Britain should go in for selective import controls, planned investment and that self contradiction in terms “planned trade”. And what did he have to say about capitalism?

  There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the size of the [trade] deficit, and the interest charges to be paid on loans, but no solution — only appeals to make a "national effort”, etc. It needs to be said that the British economy is running down not because of shoddy workmanship, or absenteeism, or any of the pseudo-explanations advanced but because of the economic sabotage of the owners of capital. It is the management of the economy which is at fault, not the economy itself. (Comment August 10, 1974 — emphasis in the original.)

Our unmasking of these political frauds masquerading as revolutionaries is fully justified. The fact that some ex-CPers seek places of privilege and power in the capitalist establishment is not surprising but does not alter the case. Once in power Communists pursue anti-working-class policies. Ken Gill, newly elected to the TUC general council brags that “. . . this mighty Congress has committed itself to wage restraint . . . we hated restraint under Heath but we welcome it under Wilson” (Daily Telegraph 5 September 1974.) 

Need we say more?

Editors.

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.

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

Editorial: The True Meaning of the "Labour Unrest." (1910)

Editorial from the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Across the deadly dull controversey dragging through the columns of the capitalist Press, as to whether “Free Trade” or “Tariff Reform” is best for the workers to starve under, have flashed two intense rays of light exposing the bed-rock position of the working class in modern society.

In two different places, under different external conditions, but in essentials remarkably alike, we have seen two sections of the working class facing the same alternatives of either accepting conditions imposed by the masters—their employers—or trying how long their slender resources and desperate fortitude can stand against the masters’ piled-up wealth.

At Cradley Heath the chainmakers described by a Liberal newspaper as forming “the classic sweated industry,” have been locked out because they declined to accept the conditions their employers put forward, i.e., to work for another three months at the old rate of wages. In other words the chainmakers are deliberately deprived of the means of living unless they accept the master’s terms.

It is sometimes urged that if the chainmakers were organised into a trade union they could effectively resist the employers’ attempt to starve them. But leaving out of consideration for the moment the fact that they are unable to pay any subscription, however small, to an ordinary trade union, the statement is fully refuted by the experience of the boilermakers.

Here is one of the strongest unions, containing a large proportion of the men working at the trade, yet faced with the same position as the chainmakers—starvation or submission to the masters’ terms.

When to these cases are added the signs of trouble in the Welsh coalfields and the Lancashire cotton towns, the fact continually insisted upon by the Socialist—that the means of life are owned by the master class—is brought into clear light.

Whether the workers are organised on the economic field or not ; whether belonging to the (so-called) skilled or unskilled division of labour ; whether the employer calls himself Liberal or Tory ; whether it is under Free Trade or Protection, in every case and in every circumstance the worker is the slave of the employer, and must remain so while capitalism exists. And it is just this slave position that it is all important for the worker to study, while it is, on the other hand, just the one the employers and their agents seek to hide.

The Daily Express shrieks about the sacredness of the employers’ “contracts” when the men go on strike against a lowering of wages, though this “sacredness” has a curious knack of disappearing when the masters tear the contracts to shreds, from one end of the country to the other, by locking the men out.

The Daily News wails for a “public” arbitrator, as though the “public” were something apart from employers and employed, and in nonchalant evasion of the fact that the chainmakers’ trouble flows out of a Board of Trade arbitration.

Explanations of the “unrest,” as it is termed, abound on all sides, each differing from the others, but all having the one common quality of revealing nothing beyond their writers’ ignorance of the facts, or their feverish anxiety to conceal them. The significant vote of the boilermakers points clearly to the proximate cause of the trouble in that trade. The Edinburgh agreement, that “triumph of arbitration,” has been found to act completely in the masters’ interests and against the men. The clause stating that under no conditions shall the men go on strike has been taken full advantage of by the masters, who have reduced actual wages, increased the “speeding up,” and generally worsened conditions all round. When the men have protested long-drawn-out conferences have enabled the masters, as the Daily News puts it, to “turn an awkward corner.”

A series of such arbitrations has at last convinced large numbers of the men that it is hopeless to expect any settlement of disputed points in their favour under such a scheme. Hence the taking of matters into their own hands, and the “sectional” strikes in the various works and yards.

More important still is the fact that, at present at any rate, the men are refusing to place the power of extending such an agreement in the hands of their officials and leaders, who are so ready to once again act on the employers’ behalf and against the men. The unity of the capitalist Press—Liberal and Tory alike—with the officials in condemning this action of the men is sufficient evidence of how well those officials consider the interests of the masters, and of the masters alone.

But, as if this were not sufficient, those leaders have gone out of their way, in another place, to give further proof of their duplicity in these matters. At the Trades Union Congress held in Sheffield a stranger to their little ways would have imagined that this fundamental question of the slavery of the working class would have formed the chief topic of discussion. So far, however, from this being the case, we find that the greatest attention was given to the question “How shall we save our salaries ?” Nay, more than this, one of the first questions discussed was whether the Congress should have its opening ceremony presided over by a large employer whose workpeople were at that very moment on strike against his conditions of employment. Certainly a protest was raised by a few delegates, but the fact that an employer was asked to preside at all shows how completely these “representatives” are the agents of the masters.

The surprising vote of the boilermakers however, warned them not to play the game too openly. So a little farce was arranged and Earl Fitzwilliam, the employer referred to, while not abating one jot from his position, agreed to the matter being placed before an arbitrator. After this “victory” the delegates sit down to listen meekly to the platitudes of this “representative” employer.

It fell to Mr. Shackleton to give the premier illustration of “how to do ’em down.” A delegate had asked the awkward question how it was that the Parliamentary Committee were opposed to the premium bonus system, while a member of the Committee took the chair at a meeting in favour of the system at which Mr. Balfour and Sir Christopher Furness spoke. The member referred to was Mr. Shackleton. The chairman, asked when this happened, but the delegate was unable to tell him, and then Mr. Shackleton brazenly denied having taken the chair in such circumstances.

Had the delegate who raised the point been able to carry his memory back to Dec. 1908 he might have refuted the lie with the following from the Daily Telegraph (2.12.1908).

“In the chair was Mr. Shackleton, M.P., one of the most conspicuous Labour members in the present House of Commons; the chief address was delivered by Mr. A. J. Balfour, in his capacity as president ; and the vote of thanks was presented by three gentlemen representative of widely apart walks of life, namely, Sir Christopher Furness, one of the great captains of industry . . Professor A. C. Pigou . . and Mr. Amos Mann.”

The occasion was a gathering of the so-called “Labour” Co-partnership Movement, whose fraudulent character was clearly shown in the Socialist Standard of Feb. 1909.

As if to add further evidence to our case against the “Labour” M.P.s, Mr. Shackleton also stated that “they had done as much as was possible to keep in the front the fact that the payment of members and of returning officers’ expenses would not meet the case.” (Reynolds’ Newspaper, 18.9.10.)

But the cloven hoof was fully exposed when discussing the question of “bringing pressure to bear on the Government.” Shackleton’s hysterical defence of the Liberal Government could not have been surpassed by Lloyd George. And it is just at this point that the Socialist statement applies.

The master class are able to dictate life and death to the workers because, through their control of political power, they have control of the armed forces that are used to preserve the property of the master class against the workers. Hence the supreme importance to the master class of keeping the latter ignorant upon this matter. This accounts for the treachery of those who, posing as “leaders” of the working class, use all their influence to keep that political power in the masters’ hands, and fight against the Socialist propaganda, that shows to the workers the reasons they must capture that power.

The vote of the boilermakers, even if only a temporary phase with them, is a good sign as showing the decline of the “leaders’ “power to mislead. Let every working man and woman study Socialism and the way to their emancipation will be clear.

Editorial: “De Massa ob de Shepfold”. (1909)

Editorial from the October 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The annual meeting of trades union “shepherds” and fleecers has taken place. Ipswich was the venue chosen on this occasion. The old Essex town has been the scene of many a sale of fatted beasts and meek-eyed bleaters in years gone by, but a new kind of cattle was bought and sold there a few days since, a new breed of sheep—more meek of eye, more trustful of their shepherd, more timidly plaintive in their complaining bleat, than any which have proceeded them to the local market place—passed under the hammer and on to their unsuspected fate.

Of course the gathering was graced by the presence of the Mayor of the town and the two sitting M.P.’s for the locality, presumably as the direct representatives of the butchers (M. P. —meat purveyor, you see). Equally of course the former opened his mouth and spake, saying, “These are our faithful shepherds, who do look well after our mut’n ‘n our wool, who do cry ‘wolf’ when the Socialist appeareth, and who do—Gordnozowtheydoit—contrive to get our sheep into the market in the pink of condition as to fleece, and all prime and rosy as to meat, and warranted quite to ride and drive as temper. It ain’t often I drop into poetry (I’ll have pleasure in dropping into somewhere else with Pete when I’ve finished with this job), but I am reminded, forcibly reminded, when I picture the sheep they have brought us to-day, of Shelley’s well-known lines:

“Their wool is wrapped about their ears,

Their wool is wrapped about their eyes,”

and as long as we leave it to these chaps the wool will continue to be where it is. The good shepherd is worthy of his hire, in other words these chaps deserve well of us.”

The Mayor having “breathed” as a certain “labour” paper puts it, “political neutrality” intermixed with the utmost friendliness, it was the turn of the chief shepherd, Shackl’em, no, Shackleton. “The young lambs ran a pretty race,” he began, dropping into poetry at once in emulation of his predecessor, but someone said the question of child labour wasn’t on the agenda, and the president changed the subject. He began with great adroitness to pull the wool over the eyes and ears of his patient bleaters, and we may congratulate him on his quite remarkable resource in the operation. Of course he had the advantage afforded by the fact that it was long ago ruled that discussion on the chairman’s speech was out of order. But this wise ordination did not make the man ; it only gave him his opportunity. Where all are so admirable it is impossible to select any particular distortion, misrepresentation, or dowright (ought we say upright?), honest lie and say “this is his best.” But we may give two instances which prove the man to be possessed of no ordinary accomplishment, even if they do not bear the stamp of genius. Read, mark, learn and digest, all ye who aspire to some little eminence in the gentle art of telling lies, and go home and be modest.

Firstly he enlarged with much effect upon the number of delegates present and trade unionists represented as compared with the Congress held in the Eastern counties in 1891. A man of less calibre might have spoilt this by letting it slip out that, however the present numbers compared with those of 1894, there had been a steady decrease in those, figures for some years now, but not so Shackleton. Again he said with convincing blandness (a point to be noted, for it is often not so much the lie you tell as the way you tell it) “Trade unionism no longer waits upon the orthodox parties to carry out its wishes.” How can they keep such a man down ? He is bound to rise like scum in a pot. And talking of pots, did the “revolutionary” Thorne cackle under the pot ? Perhaps he dared not for fear the pot should boil over and the scum souse him out.

Better a little spark beneath the pot

Than in a boiling-over lost outright.

—O. Ma.

In another part of his speech Shackleton sang the praises of the “generous and kindly disposed Liberal Party,” and from his “exalted” position beseeched his brothers in “arms” to arouse their “apathetic” constituents to a sense of implicit trust in their “generous benefactors,” the Liberal Party. “We see in this Budget great possibilities. The care of the aged, the feeding of the necessitous school-children and the more humane treatment of the unemployed workers will make ever increasing demands on the public purse, and we see for the first time the opportunity of raising the money without unduly taxing the poor to keep the poor.” Count it to his honour that he spoke with deep emotion. Dilly, Dilly, murmured the butchers, and the sheep said Ba ! and wept. So copiously did the tears flow that Shackleton might be said to have cast his bread upon the waters. And was it returned unto him manyfold ? Yes. Mr. Shackleton. later announced that the Board of Trade had sent him word that they had graciously consented, to have all the appointments of officials of Labour Exchanges made by a committee consisting of three persons—an employer, an official of the Board of Trade, and—Mr. Shackleton himself. What a day for Labour ! How the delegates did cheer ! Virtue rewarded ! ability recognised ! Striking confirmation of his eulogism of their “generous benefactors,” the Liberal Party. Could the Board of Trade have been listening at the keyhole ? or was it inspiration ? At any rate it is another bond of union between the “generous, kindly disposed” Liberal Party and the very unorthodox Labour Party. And now perhaps Shackleton will be able to do something for unemployed children who have got over their “teething.” He can certainly do something for his fellow-shepherds, and we hear that the “revolutionaries” have already hidden the red flag, while the Thorne is quiet beneath the pot.

Of course other things transpired at the Congress, though of less importance. There was the indictment of Richard Bell for defending, in the Parliamentary debate in July on the North Eastern Railways Bill, the action of the company’s manager to prevent the combination of the railway clerks. The delegates, being trade union delegates (and perhaps afraid of the law of lie-Bell), forgave him—the wool is wrapped about their eyes. The Government Unemployed Insurance scheme was hailed with great joy. The Salvation Army, so near the heart of J. R. MacDonald, who once declared that he had “many irons in the fire,” but he hadn’t one iron that they “did not hold one end of” (the hot end, it is to be presumed, or he would not have been so cheerful—was put “through the hoop.” Ben Tillett placed it on record that all Cabinet Ministers are liars, greatly to the horror of Shackleton. Thorne pictured the unemployed luxuriously lounging in the Labour Exchanges waiting for the masters to call and ask them to go to work. Tillett moved that Congress call upon the Government to appoint a Labour Minister with Cabinet rank. Since he aspires so high, and “trade unionism no longer waits upon the orthodox parties to carry out its wishes,” Tillett may consider himself appointed to the select circle of “liars.”

The dominant note of Congress was love toward the Liberal Party, a sure sign of the near approach of a General Election. The “labour” papers all reported “some progress,” as must we also—backwards.

Blogger's Note:

“De Massa ob de Shepfold” is from a poem by Sarah Pratt McLean Greene, who was an American author and poet. The wording is rather dubious for modern eyes because it follows a fashion from this period where poems and songs were adapted into supposed African American spiritual style verse and, I quote, "written in African American "dialect" ". 

". . . and perhaps afraid of the law of lie-Bell . . . " might be a jokey reference to fact that Richard Bell had previously sued the Socialist Standard for libel. See the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard for more details.

Society and Morals. Part VIII. The Outlook of the Proletariat (Continued). (1918)

From the June 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part VIII.

Re-Birth of Unrest

The revival of trade union militancy which has taken place in recent years has its causes in those developments of capitalism we have previously outlined. The intense competition in the world markets which has supplanted the old-time “monopoly of Britain” made the employing class of all countries increasingly reluctant to concede even the least advances in wages. On the contrary, it stimulated the more general adoption of speeding-up methods and the wider use of the most perfect machinery. By depreciating the need for skill and increasing unemployment these factors led to a sharper competition for employment and tended to depress wages. The growth of trusts and of employers’ federations has enabled the capitalists to offer a more effective resistance to the unions, while on the other hand a progressive increase in the coat of living has proved a spur to working class unrest and organised activity, in spite of which real wages have continuously fallen.

In the last thirty years or so the strike policy has come again into favour, first among the newer and so-called unskilled unious, but later generally. Especially has this been so in the years immediately proceeding the outbreak of the war, during which period a continually growing unrest manifested itself among the workers in every part of the world. And it is probable also, that after the war militarism and capitalist “efficiency” will prove a further stimulant to working-class revolt, although, of course, the master class will make strenuous efforts to avoid industrial strife and suppress revolutionary propaganda.

To a certain extent a somewhat new outlook has been realised. The obvious dislike of the old-type officials and leaders to a militant policy and their love for the practice of “conferring” with the employers ; their compromising attitude and frequently proven treachery, have also led to much unfavourable criticism and to a decided weakening of their prestige. As a result many strikes have taken place in opposition to the desires of a compromising executive.

Moreover, the strong co-operation manifested among the masters in their determined efforts to resist and to break strikes, and particularly also the growing frequency with which they used their class weapon—the armed forces—to brutally coerce strikers into submission, brought about a decided tendency toward closer solidarity among the workers themselves. This is evidenced in the consolidation of various unions in the same field of production, in the spread of “sympathetic” strikes, and in the voluntary raising of funds by organised workers in support of disputes in which they themselves were not directly concerned.

Furthermore, the gradual decline of the industrial value of personal skill on the part of the employees, together with the need for “fighting” efficiency, has compelled the older “aristocratic” craft unions to recognise that their old-time method of conserving the strength of the unions by insisting upon special qualifications, including the prior serving of long apprenticeships, is both obsolete and futile. They have been forced more and more to adopt the method of the later “unskilled” unions who aim at including all those of a particular trade or industry within the organisation Consequently, “non-unionism” has become almost as great a crime in the eyes of the unionist as “blacklegging”—the worst delinquency in his moral code.

The same causes which fermented this revival in industrial strife also stimulated among the workers a livelier interest in politics which led to the formation of the Labour Party. The trade unions supported the project, and their leaders saw the possibility of political influence and office. The capitalist parties were cute enough to meet this new interest in political affairs by formulating delusive schemes of social reform to pacify and mislead the workers.

Moreover, having found the Labour Party leaders willing to play the same game, the bourgeoisie, especially the petty capitalist element, have given it no little amount of support. The Labour Party, dominated as it is by the reactionary leaders of trades unionism and men of the same stamp, to all of whom the notion of a class struggle is obnoxious, has consistently upheld capitalist principles, and is in reality only a bourgeois party with a “labour” label. Having achieved nothing of value for the workers it has become the butt of adverse criticism from the same elements as have shown independence and militancy on the industrial field.

                                                                       * * *

Thus far none of the movements mentioned above show any indication of being promoted by a full consciousness of proletarian interests. They register but the first stages of such a conception. The general mass of those who built up the strength both of the Chartist and of the trade union movement, saw and felt only their immediate sufferings and disabilities. The deep social causes from which these arose were mostly quite unrecognised. Consequently, no definite principles in opposition to capitalism were adopted by these movements, and no general code of proletarian ethics grew out of or with them.

Much the same applies to-day. The majority of the workers still accept the main dogmas of bourgeois orthodoxy. No doubt the trade unionist regards black-legging and non-unionism as bad and criminal whereas to the capitalist they are good and justifiable. Likewise extreme exploitation or “sweating” is abhorrent to the workers. Yet with regard to the existence of the wages system and of a profit-reaping class, the need for “national solidarity” in defence of “national interests,” and the like, the working-class mind is a faithful reflection of that bourgeois outlook which we considered in a previous section. Even where the workers do show a divergence of opinion upon Free Trade or Protection, Pacifism or Imperialism, these are manifestly but the effect of similar differences among the employing class and its retainers. That these contentions are correct is abundantly proven by the attitude the workers of every belligerent nation adopted upon the outbreak of the European War.

Nevertheless there does exist a school of thought and action which accurately reflects proletarian needs and interests, and therefore presents a true working-class system of morality, and this is the Socialist movement. Originating in, but toward the climax and close of the first period of working-class revolt, Socialism persisted and grew up, as it had to, independently of the several reformist and palliating movements, receiving a fresh impetus with the coming of the second period of activity now growing surely year by year among the workers of the world.

Our next and final consideration, therefore, will be Socialism in its relation to morality.

R. W. Housley

                                                                  (To be Continued.)

The T.U.C. 1950 (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

The 82nd Trade Union Congress met this year in September at Brighton; 917 delegates from 186 Trade Unions represented just over 7,883,000 in combined membership, i.e. 53,000 less than in 1949.

For some years past, especially since the election of the Labour Party to run British Capitalism, the main debates at Congress have been centred on Government Policy with the 33 elected members of the General Council of the T.U.C. and the majority of the Union delegates defending and excusing the Government. In order to add weight to the defence, prominent Labour Party members are invited to address the delegates and, as in 1949, the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, again called upon the delegates to support the Labour government. The cultivation of the T.U.C. by the Labour Party is, of course, no mere polite gesture for, of the over 5,700,000 members of the Labour Party more than 4,900,000 are provided by trade union affiliation.

The Chairman, Mr. Deakin, Sir William Lawther and Mr. Attlee all went out of their way to warn delegates that, owing to the attitude of Russia, progress and recovery were in danger. Mr. Attlee warned of the new sacrifices the Labour Party expected from the unions consequent on large-scale re-armament programmes, called for a continued support for “wage restraint” and finally urged trade unionists to encourage the young to join the Regular and Auxiliary Armed Forces. Adding the fatuous suggestion that such regulars should be allowed to retain their Trade Union membership.

The following day the statement by the General Council supporting the Government’s policy on Korea was endorsed.

Having supported the Labour Government’s intentions regarding War, the delegates then proceeded to two items more directly concerned with Trade Union activity, i.e. “Wage Restraint” and the implementation by the Government of its policy of “Equal Pay for Equal Work,” rejecting the former and supporting the latter and thus overturning their previous policies on these matters.

Equilibrium was somewhat restored by the defeat of a resolution urging the Government to discontinue the “Conditions of Employment Arbitration Order No. 1305.” This order not only makes almost all strikes illegal, but prevents the payment from Union Funds of “strike-pay” to strikers and also leaves strikers open to claims for damages by the employers. (Eleven miners at St. Helens, Lancs., were recently arrested for failing to pay £10 each for damages awarded to the National Coal Board because the men took part in an "unofficial” strike. They were only released after the money for the fines had been found by their Branch of the National Union of Mineworkers. Manchester Guardian, 18-9-50).

Useless Nationalisation

Congress dealt with the question of Nationalisation. The General Council presented its Report on “The Public Control of Industry” which admitted that Nationalisation of coal and transport had, as yet, increased the cost of coal, but pleaded that it was early days yet to see the full effect. It ended by stating that public ownership need not "always take the form of the nationalisation of whole industries and there is important scope for selective or competitive public enterprise and for the encouragement of Co-operation.” In other words, the administration of capitalism is showing these reformers that, despite their early claims that Nationalisation would resolve all of our difficulties, it simply does not work. Mr. Lincoln Evans (General Secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation) who presented this report on behalf of the General Council, confessed "that experience of public ownership in the first five years had revealed problems that were not anticipated ” and that "anyone naive enough to believe that change of ownership in itself was an answer was finding out that that was not so.” (Daily Telegraph 6-9-50). Of course, it is Mr. Evans himself who is appearing to be naive in believing that nationalisation is the ending of capitalist ownership. Evidently he was warning the supporters of Nationalisation that the problem was more prickly than he and his friends anticipated. We can assure Mr. Evans that no socialist would be naive enough to swallow the Nationalisation myth.

Lord Citrine, addressed the Congress in his personal capacity. (He was the Secretary of the T.U.C. before the present secretary. Sir Vincent Tewson). He gave his opinions based on his personal experiences as a member of the National Coal Board and as the present Chairman of the British Electricity Authority. He too was very cautious about Nationalisation and referred to the " ‘gigantic' problems facing the Nationalised Industries, the time that would be needed to overcome them, and the importance of full co-operation on both sides to ensure success." In referring to the change over to government direction of the Coal and Electricity Industries, "he several times returned to the theme of the responsibility of trade unionists for the form of nationalisation legislation and therefore their responsibility for taking a full share in making it work.” (Manchester Guardian, 8-9-50).

When it is all boiled down these people are only trying to show that the present needs of capitalism are tending towards more central government direction and. as this occurs, they require the working-class through the unions to assist in the successful running of industry, i.e. to send up production figures; further, that such adjustments in the administration are of advantage to members of the working-class.

Our suggestion is that those who are interested m the views of Mr. Evans and Lord Citrine should take a close look at the activities of those Trade Unions whose members already work in Nationalised Industries, i.e. the Civil Service, which has seven Unions affiliated to the T.U.C. Their history is one of a continued struggle for improved wages and conditions carried on with every Government in power since the existence of those unions. Joint consultative machinery is of very long standing, yet these Unions are constantly in opposition to Government representatives over questions of pay and conditions. If we are to believe what the advocates of Nationalisation say, such activities should have never arisen, and the Trade Unions in the Civil Service would merely be assistants in the task of increasing output and improving efficiency.

On the last day of Congress, Mr. Jack Tanner (President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union) introduced the General Council’s Report on "Productivity” and “laid the responsibility for increased efficiency on every member of the trade union movement.” (Manchester Guardian, 9-9-50). Mr. Tanner has been harping on this theme for several years on behalf of the General Council. The assertions connected with it are that foreign trade will consequently improve and that goods will be obtainable at a cheaper price and thus benefit the working class. Mr. Tanner seems to have forgotten the lessons of the last twenty- five years.

In April, 1948, The T.U.C. issued a leaflet entitled, "Ten Questions about that Extra Ten Per Cent.” and urged the workers to fall into line with the appeal of Mr. Attlee that, “An all-out effort will increase our total production by the ten per cent, we need to turn the tide.” In November, 1948, a Special Conference of Trade Union Executives was called in London to discuss the General Council’s Report on "Productivity.” The Report, which was accepted, called for increased production, closer consultation between the unions and the employers, the re-examining of "restrictive practices” and support for Training within Industry. At the end of 1948 still another leaflet was issued by the Government’s Central Office of Information entitled, "Productivity Pays . . . And How ” it was circulated among the Trade Union members. It purported to show how productivity could be increased during 1949 and was signed by the President of the F.B.I., Will Lawther (now Sir William Lawther), the then President of the T.U.C. and by the President of the British Employer’s Confederation. These gentlemen said, "We warmly endorse this move to make widely known the efforts now being made in industry to improve Productivity, and the profound importance to management, workers and the whole community of a steady and rapid increase in our rate of output.” (Perhaps it was sheer shyness on the part of the shareholders that reference to them was omitted from this endorsement?).

It is possible now to see what has been the result of the campaign for increased production. In 1948 Mr. Attlee wanted just an extra 10 per cent. Since then according to official figures industrial production has increased by 18 per cent. (“Monthly Digest of Statistics,” August 1950). Is Mr. Attlee satisfied and can the workers now begin to take their reward in higher wages or lower prices? By no means! In line with the normal progress of capitalism still more increases of production are demanded, partly to reduce export prices to undersell rivals abroad but particularly to provide for larger armed forces and war preparations.

Wage increases since 1948 have been insufficient even to keep pace with the rise of the cost of living, the official wage index having risen by only 5 points while the cost of living index has risen by 7 points, from 106 to 113. Wage restraint is still the order of the day.

In the meantime profits have kept up quite comfortably during the past two years and the future looks more rosy still. “It would seem from the latest quarterly figures that industrial profits are again rising ” (“Economist ” 5 August 1950).

The results of the T.U.C. show clearly that the working class is still wedded to the idea that they have a stake in capitalism. They have still to learn that the quicker they cease to bother their heads about the way to run capitalism the more quickly will they begin to appreciate the advantages of Socialism; of a system where there will be no classes; without struggles of trade rivalry and without the threat of war; a society in which men and women will be free and in peace, to use their abilities for the benefit of a classless community.

PEDCA.

The Trade Union Congress. (1911)

From the October 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the recent Trade Union Congress, held at Newcastle-on-Tyne during the week beginning September 4th., Mr. William Mullin, in his presidential address, made an appeal which is certainly worthy of note. In speaking of the railway strike he expressed admiration for the men, saying that “they accomplished a great deed, and the fruits will speedily come to them.” The present writer has been puzzling his brains to think what great deed, such as would call forth the admiration of Mr. Mullin, was accomplished by the railwaymen in their strike, and has come to the conclusion that it can only be the sheep-like readiness they evinced to return to work at the bidding of their leaders.

Surely that must be it. Such action would undoubtedly commend itself to Mr. Mullin, for he continued his address by urging upon the railway workers to “place implicit trust in their leaders.” Presumably in the same child-like fashion as they did in 1907, when Richard Bell and the other A.S.R.S. officials delivered them over, bound hand and foot in the meshes of the “conciliation” scheme.

But this appeal to the workers to put “implicit trust” in their leaders becomes really almost too funny for words when we consider—upon a perusal of the report of the Congress proceedings on the following Friday—the spirit in which such trust has been accepted by the trustees. A resolution was moved on the Friday severely condemning the Bill introduced into Parliament by Mr. Will Crooks to end industrial disputes. The Bill is a curiosity. No one who has any knowledge of Mr. Crooks would accredit him with any excessive degree of subtlety. He often speaks of himself as being nothing more than a “plain, honest man.” But one would have thought that even Mr. Crooks could have managed to frame a bill that was not so obviously all in favour of the employers. Why did he not obtain the Machiavelian help of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald or Mr. Snowden ?

A delegate remarked, during the discussion, that he could understand such a bill coming from an employers’ association, or from those interested in keeping the workers down, but he could not understand its being the proposal of a trade unionist. We, however, of course, can quite understand the bill—apart from its lack of the confusing elements usually to be found in Labour bills—being the work of a “Labour leader.” All that has happened is that “plain” Mr. Crooks has, in this particular instance, been rather too plain in his support of capitalism.

Briefly, it is a bill that seeks to abolish strikes altogether. It lays it down that employers and employees should give at least thirty days notice of an intended change affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages and hours ; that it shall be unlawful for any employer to declare or cause a lock-out, or for any employee to go on strike on account of any dispute before or during a reference of such a dispute to a board of conciliation and investigation, any employer declaring or causing a lock-out being liable to a fine of not less than £20 nor more than £200 for each day or part of a day that such lock-out exists, and any employee going on strike being liable to a fine of not less than £2 nor more than £10 per day. (Why didn’t Mr. Crooks make the employees’ fine £100 or £1,000 per day while he was about it ? The modesty of the bill in only claiming £10 per day from a man who is probably striking for a living wage is distinctly rich.)

A further clause in the bill declares that any person who incites, encourages, or aids in any manner any employer to declare and continue a lockout, or any employee to go or continue on strike, shall be liable to a fine of not less than £10 nor more than £200.

Apart, however, from its contents, the Bill is noteworthy by reason of the position and action of one of its backers as showing how he regards the “implicit trust” that has been placed in him by his followers. The bill was backed by Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. George Barnes, Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Enoch Edwards. The last-named gentleman, upon the bill being attacked and severely criticised as being in every sense derogatory to the interests of trade unionism, gave a remarkable explanation and repudiation of his backing. He said, firstly, that “the Bill contained propositions which he, after 40 years study of these questions, could not support.” He then went on to explain that “when I gave my name to Mr. Crooks, I had no idea I was being asked to put my name to a bill of this sort . . . my name is there purely by inadvertence, and I shall take every means possible to assure everybody that the sentiments in that bill are not in harmony with my own views. To tell you the honest truth, I had not seen the bill.” (Vide “Daily Chronicle,” 9.9.11.)

A delegate hereupon very pertinently remarked that “Only fools put their names to things without looking at them.” But this expression is not strong enough to be used in condemnation of the criminal negligence and vacuity of an avowed leader and paid representative of Labour, who assents to a Parliamentary measure which, if passed and carried into effect, would take from the workers the only weapon they possess while capitalism lasts, to combat the encroachments of their masters on the economic field. These be your gods, O Israel; these are the men in whom the workers are asked to place “implicit trust.” The impertinence, the cynicism, of such an appeal !

It might have been expected—that is, except by anyone who had some general knowledge of trade union officialdom—that one of the most important points to be considered at the Congress, and one that would raise the most animated discussion, would have been the question of the late Labour upheavals and their so-called settlements.

But, as a matter of fact, only a very lukewarm interest was shown in the resolution passed condemning the use of the military by the Government, and in the congratulations extended to the transport workers upon the result of their previous strike. Neither the prominent leaders, nor the Standing Orders Committee, nor the assembled delegates, appeared desirous of raising any great discussion on the matter. Doubtless there were efficient reasons for this inanition. But when Mr. Will Thorne brought forward his “hardy annual” on Secular Education, then were the delegates in their glory. In spite of the fact that at the last general election he had, according to the “Daily Chronicle,” 2.12.10, the support of ministers of religion, and that he had S.W. Ham placarded with posters announcing that he had answered the questions of the Free Church Council satisfactorily, Mr. Thorne moved his absurd resolution re the trade union education policy, and incidentally gave an opportunity (which was immediately seized) to the assembled Christians to give proof of their Christian meekness and charity by addressing one another as “cowardly hounds,” and by raising what one report calls “a perfect pandemonium” for about ten minutes.

Mr. Thorne had previously in the week distinguished himself by seconding, and speaking in favour of, a resolution advocating the establishment of a citizen army. His view appeared to be that, in some way or other, if organised Labour were armed and trained for defensive purposes—it was not quite clear whether voluntary or compulsory—the need of conscription would be obviated.

In speeches opposing the resolution it was pointed out that “Lord Roberts, General Hutchinson, and all the Service Press advocate Thome’s bill,” and that Lord Roberts had said in the hearing of a dozen or more of those present : “I don’t care whether you call the army a citizen army. Call it what you like so long as you give me authority to bring the men in and train them. I will see what they do.”

Undoubtedly a citizen army would be a very good thing—from a capitalist standpoint. It would probably make the workers stronger and more efficient wage-slaves; it would implant into them a sense of discipline and obedience to their “superiors,” which would be found very useful by their employers in the event of any industrial dispute; it would, by concentrating their minds on military training and exercises, tend to stultify at a very vital and important period of their lives, any desire they might have towards understanding and solving the various problems that affect their economic position.

It will thus be seen that in supporting a measure such as this Mr. Will Thorne is only doing what might have been expected of him—that is, furthering the continuance of the present social system.

There were other incidents and interludes during the week, notably one interlude wherein Mr. Ben Tillett and another “fraternal delegate” came to blows over a “black-leg” trade union which had, apparently, been formed in opposition to one in which Mr. Tillett happened to be interested.

Sufficient evidence has, however, been given and sufficient conclusions drawn, to show how trade unionism, as exemplified by the proceedings at the Trade Union Congress, actually stands. The reports of the meeting show, with what dignity and mastery the various subjects were tackled by the chosen delegates of the trade unionists.

Mr. David Shackleton and the other advisers to the Home Office and Board of Trade will be able to carry to their Departments gratifying reports of the proceedings. And, one thinks, the Liberal Ministers, on hearing or reading these reports, will wonder how they could ever have thought it necessary to bring military coercion to bear upon the workers during the recent strikes, when there were, all the time, such serviceable exponents of confusion and puerilities as the trade union leaders and officials, who could surely have been depended upon to keep in hand such of their followers as dared to evince a tendency to disturb the even tenour of Liberal reform legislation.

F. J. Webb