50 Years Ago: A call to bolster capitalism (1995)

The 50 Years Ago column from the November 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Before the election Sir Stafford Cripps stated, for the Labour Party, "the comfort of the people is the A.1 priority." Now he intends to set up a triple alliance — Trade Unions Employers and Government. — who will plan to bring "British competitive industries to the highest pitch of efficiency."—Daily Herald, September 10th, 1945. For "comfort”? No, the priority is the export trade. In his speech outlining the plan Cripps suggested that it will be difficult for people to realise that by going short now "they are in fact making sure of better and far more stable standards for the future.” What a stale feeble doctrine.' We will paraphrase it, "Put up with your poverty a little longer and shortly. —The Kingdom of Heaven." Really, Sir Stafford ought to be ashamed of himself. Isn’t he able to do better than this? Of course, this ruse has been used very successfully for decades. In 1931 the National Government used it and they obtained 14,000,000 votes. A slight variation in Germany was known as “guns before butter.' How amazing that a famous Labour leader should formulate "markets before butter,” or, what amounts to the same thing.

[From the front page article, 'A call to bolster capitalism: Cripps appeals to the workers ', Socialist Standard, November 1945.]

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.

Answers to Correspondents: The Trade Union Political Levy (1938)

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

The Trade Union Political Levy

A correspondent (R. J., Spalding), who is a trade union branch secretary, says that he “strongly criticises the Labour Party from the Socialist point of view,” and is in doubt whether or not he ought to go on paying the political levy to his union. The money, he says, “ is at present utilised mainly to support such of our colleagues as have entered Parliament as Labour Members, in general parliamentary action and to provide loans to local parties in accordance with the decisions of local branch members; again almost exclusively the Labour Party benefits.”

He goes on to suggest two alternative courses of action, either not to pay the levy, or, alternatively, pay it but oppose its use to support the Labour Party.

The S.P.G.B.’s view is that the levy should not be paid, because only in that way can the Socialist’s opposition to reformist political parties be made clear and unambiguous. 

Ed. Comm.

The Labour Party Conference (1936)

From the November 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party held its thirty-sixth Annual Conference at Edinburgh in October, under a woman Chairman, Mrs. Adamson. The usual complacency which characterises Labour conferences was there, though somewhat shaken by internal criticism. The debate on supporting the National Government's policy of non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War provided one example among many of deep differences inside the Labour Party. A resolution before the Conference asked for endorsement of the Executive's policy of non-intervention. Leaders supported the resolution and leaders opposed it; even members of the Executive, who were responsible for framing it, were unenthusiastic about it. All who spoke expressed their sympathy for the Spanish Government, but non-intervention was regarded as a stern duty. To supply the Spanish Government with arms, it was argued, would divide the nations of Europe into two camps, those supporting the Government and those supporting the rebels. Such a position would be dangerous and likely to lead to a European war. No speaker expressed any doubt that intervention had taken place, and that Italy and Germany had broken the neutrality agreement entered into with the governments of Great Britain, France and Russia, and had sent arms to the rebels. So the fear of war was responsible for the Executive’s decision. “It is no good talking about intervention unless you mean that you are ready to fight, and it may mean having to fight,” said Mr. Grenfell, M.P., who seconded the resolution on behalf of the Executive.

About the help given to the rebels there was no doubt in the minds of the delegates. The Chairman, in her opening address, said: “Unquestionably, the rebel forces have been assisted by the supplies they have received from and through the Fascist powers.” However, non-intervention was the order of the day, and a card vote resulted in the resolution being carried by 1,836,000 to 519,000. (Daily Herald, October 6th.)

Conference Supports, then Opposes, Non-Intervention

Having made the decision that non-intervention was preferable to the risk of war, Conference, in a few days, completely changed its mind. On Thursday, October 8th, two envoys of the Spanish Government appeared on the platform, Senor de Asua, Deputy Speaker of the Spanish Parliament, and Senora de Palencia, Madrid correspondent of the Daily Herald. They received a tumultuous welcome.  

Addressing the delegates, Senor de Asua said : "We have proof and facts that the rebels are getting arms from Germany and Italy —and that is since the non-intervention pact was made.” He further declared that the Balearic Islands were virtually in the hands of Italy, that Italians commanded rebel troops in Majorca, and that rebel warships had Germans among the crews.

Senora de Palencia gave a harrowing account of Government militiamen in the firing-line, armed only with sticks. Of the Moors, who are fighting with the rebels, she also said: “If they take a town or a village, not a woman is respected, not a church is respected." Conference was swept off its feet. Mr. Attlee and Mr. Greenwood were sent to London to interview Mr. Chamberlain, the Deputy Prime Minister, to acquaint him with the “evidence" that the non-intervention pact had been broken by Italy and Germany. The result of the interview was reported to the Conference on the last day of its sitting. Mr. Attlee submitted a long statement, which declared that: —

“The National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, having heard the report of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, together with further documented information that has been placed before it, emphatically declares its conviction that the Fascist powers have broken their pledges of non-intervention, and endorses the demand made by our leaders, that the investigation of the alleged breaches of the Spanish non-intervention agreement should be pressed forward with the utmost speed . . . and in the event of its being found that the agreement has been ineffective . . . the French and British Governments . . . should take steps forthwith to restore to the Spanish Government its right to purchase the arms necessary to maintain the authority of the constitutional Government in Spain. . . ." (Daily Herald, October 11th, 1936.)

Mr. Chamberlain had promised the investigation demanded, so Conference accepted the statement of the National Executive unanimously. The change of mind was amazing. A few days earlier the policy of non-intervention had been endorsed because of the fear that war would result from intervention. Logically the change of mind could only be justified if this fear had proved to be groundless. The opposite was the case; Conference was warned by the leaders of the “risks involved" in the change of policy.

What exactly the Labour Party expected to get by asking for investigation, it is difficult to discover. The British Government is doubtless quite well aware what has been going on, and if there have been violations of the non-intervention agreement, then, as Lord Strabolgi pointed out, the Government’s advisers will know all about it without being told by the Labour Party. Moreover, as the British Government has decided that non-intervention is in line with capitalist interests, then they will doubtless postpone investigations until such time as the facts, being disclosed officially, will no longer embarrass them. The newspapers generally reported that the second decision, to support intervention if investigations showed the allegations against Italy and Germany to be true, put delegates in a much happier mood than the earlier decision. That cannot be doubted. It is not the first time that the odd mixture of political adventurers, sentimentalists, lawyers, and happy but ignorant trade union officials, which make up the Labour Party, has salved its conscience by such a gesture. The foreign policy of the Labour Party has usually been tied to the tail of the Government which happened to be in power, and its Spanish policy has been in line with that tradition. The decision to adopt a “dangerous" policy when there is no longer any danger in it, and when it is useless to the Madrid Government it pretends to help, is typical of political hypocrisy, as rife in the Labour Party as anywhere. Russia has fallen into line with same policy of proposing to help when the time for help has passed.

The Labour Party and Armaments

Conference turned its attention to armaments. The following is part of a resolution moved by Mr. Hugh Dalton on behalf of the Executive: —

That in view of the threatening attitude of dictatorships, which are increasing their armaments at an unprecedented rate, flouting international law, and refusing to co-operate in the work of organising peace, this Conference declares that the armed strength of the countries loyal to the League of Nations must be conditioned by the armed strength of the potential aggressors.

The Conference therefore reaffirms the policy of the Labour Party to maintain such defence forces as are consistent with our country’s responsibility as a member of the League of Nations, the preservation of the people’s rights and liberties, the continuance of democratic institutions, and the observance of international law.—(Daily Herald, October 7th, 1936.) 

Lord Arnold, who was opposed to the resolution, described it as a "masterpiece of inconsistencies, ambiguities and contradictions. . . . France did not care twopence about the League, except insofar as her own interests were concerned. . . . France had been breaking pledges year after year . . . but . . . continued to pay lip service to the League." He claimed that “the resolution meant rearmament, to which Conference was asked to agree in the name of Collective Security, and because of the menace of Fascism, but after the next war there would only be another ‘ism,' new horrors and new dictatorships. . . . Another war would never settle anything."

Mr. Lansbury opposed the resolution because he did not know what it meant. The mover, he argued, had inferred that it meant that the Labour Party would support the Government’s policy of rearmament in Parliament, whilst the seconder had implied the opposite. Mr. Dalton, who moved the resolution, had said : —

“I judge that a Labour Government, if it came to power to-morrow, would have to face the world situation, and I contend it would be compelled to increase British armaments." (Daily Herald, October 7th, 1936.)

Mr. A. Henderson, who seconded, said he was a “confirmed believer in the collective peace system . . .  the past failures of the League of Nations were not due to the failure of the peace systems but to failure to apply it." He mentioned nothing about rearmament. Moreover, he omitted to explain why the failure to apply the peace system was not due to the failure of the League of Nations. Mr. Morrison, supporting the resolution, stated a viewpoint the direct opposite of Mr. Dalton’s. He said ”it did not mean the support of the Government’s national competitive rearmament programme,” and that “it was in no way a departure from the policy which this Party had approved for years past." If that were true it would be difficult to explain why delegates had spent all day airing their disagreements about it. Moreover, Mr. Morrison’s further statement of opinion, that "the totality of armaments of all the peace States, joined together for the positive organisation of peace, must bear relationship to the totality of the arms of the potential aggressors,” is about as clear as the resolution he was supporting. Mr. Morrison is known for his forthright and expressive language, but that statement compares unfavourably with many made by that genius in vacuous phrases, the late and derided leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. Who are the peace States? Who the potential aggressors? Who is going to decide? What capitalist dictatorship or democracy is there that does not proclaim its peaceful intentions? Perhaps Mr. Morrison will deal with the question some time. Brought down to reality and penetrating the vagueness (perhaps intentional), the statement points to pacts in preparation for a future war.

Mr. Attlee, in winding up the. discussion on the resolution, was almost insulting to the intelligence of the delegates. He said there was “nothing in the resolution which bound the Parliamentary Labour Party.” Thus, after a day’s discussion on a resolution which was carried by 1,738,000 votes to 657,000, the resolution was interpreted by the leaders of the Party as meaning (1) support for rearmament, (2) support for the League and Collective Security (Mr. Henderson), (3) the Status Quo (Mr. Morrison), (4) nothing (Mr. Lansbury), and (5) that it was non-committal and gave a free hand to the Parliamentary Labour Party to do what they liked about it (Mr. Attlee). Three cheers for leadership would have completed the irony of that resolution. What is astounding is that a Party which accepts “the risk of War” should be evasive about supporting a policy which provides arms to fight war.

The debate was enlivened by some acrimonious exchanges between the leaders. Mr. Bevin accused Mr. Morrison of the ”worst piece of tightrope walking” he had ever seen at a conference, and Lord Arnold expressed the hope that, in the event of war, “Mr. Noel Baker and the trade union leaders would make for the front line trenches.”

Communist Affiliation Turned Down

The resolution supporting Communist Party affiliation to the Labour Party was defeated by 1,728,000 votes to 592,000. (Daily Herald, October 9th, 1936.) Another, which asked for a “united front of all political bodies which are engaged in working-class propaganda, was defeated by 1,805,000 votes to 435,000. (Daily Herald, October 10th, 1936.)

Reference back of that part of the Executive’s report to Conference, which had declined to put a ban on the acceptance of honours, was carried by 185 votes to 174. This result was received with acclamation. A minor victory for the rank and file, but it is doubtful whether Labour M.P.s and trade union officials will be absent from the honours lists in the future.

Strangely, or perhaps significantly, there was an absence this year of resolutions recommending the nationalisation of this or that industry. What reformist proposals were dealt with were of a minor kind and limited to such proposals as the utilisation of the surplus in the unemployment insurance funds to increase benefits, the abolition of the six-day waiting period for unemployed men and women, the ”rejuvenation” of depressed areas ”by schemes of land reclamation and prevention of coast erosion.” The absence of important issues, apart from those on foreign affairs, was reflected in a petty row on a small matter between Mrs. Gould and Miss Ellen Wilkinson. The latter wanted the Executive to lead the Communist-inspired unemployed march from the depressed areas around Newcastle to London. Mrs. Gould suggested that Miss Wilkinson’s oratory, plus propaganda films, would be more suitable to draw public attention to the misery in the depressed area. Charges of lack of feeling for the unemployed were made by Miss Wilkinson, because Mrs. Gould did not agree with her.

Labour League of Youth in Trouble

The Executive’s recommendations regarding the Labour League of Youth were adopted unanimously. The main recommendations were: —

(a) Disband the National Advisory Committee of the League;

(b) Not convene the Conference of the League next Easter;

(c) Suspend the publication of the New Nation, the journal of the League; and

(d) Age limit to be 21 instead of 25.

The League had made things awkward in wanting to take part in discussing and shaping Party policy. That has been stopped. If the League appears again it will be more in the nature of a Boy Scouts organisation.

Opposition to Trade Union Dominance 

According to reports from Labour quarters, this year’s Conference was the worst in years. There was much dissatisfaction among delegates, particularly those representing the local constituency Labour Parties. One matter in particular, according to Forward (October 7th), caused critical comment: that was the way in which the trade unions, by means of the block vote, can obtain an overwhelming decision even when the majority of delegates from the constituency Labour Parties are opposed to the decision. The block vote means that trades unions affiliated to the Labour Party can vote to the full strength of their members who pay the political levy to the Labour Party. An enormous number of these are not otherwise members of the Party. The Labour League of Youth question was a typical example of the way in which the block vote operated. This was purely a domestic question concerning the Labour Party, and yet, despite the fact that a majority of the constituency party delegates were in favour of a resolution to retain the age for membership of the League of Youth at 25, it was defeated by 1,731,000 votes to 542,000. A meeting of 250 angry constituency delegates was held under the chairmanship of Sir Stafford Cripps after the Conference had closed. The result was that a committee was set up to go into the question of the relationship of the trades unions and the Labour Party. As a result, the Executive Committee will be presented with demands for a number of reforms. The chief demands will be: —

(1) That the election of the constituency party representatives be made only by delegates of the constituency parties.

(2) An alteration in the present basis of representation which would give constituency parties a greater voice in party matters at annual conferences.

(3) That there should be a variation of the present method of card voting.— Forward, October 17th, 1936.)

'Strange that the demand for democracy should be heard in the Labour Party in the 36th year of its existence!

It may be that the Labour Party has passed the peak of its strength, that it will never again be the Government except in coalition with the Liberals or some other capitalist group. The uncertainty and lack of confidence among the leaders at Edinburgh certainly seemed to indicate that they were conscious of this. That arrogant self-assurance in themselves as the saviours of mankind, which characterised conferences in the days before there was the least chance of them becoming the Government, is now completely absent. Each succeeding annual conference exposes more clearly the non-Socialist character of the Labour Party. The result is discontent among numbers of its members, who, because of their lack of understanding, had expected something quite different from the Labour Party when it grew to strength and influence.

The harm the Labour Party has done to the cause of Socialism can only be cleared up by Socialist understanding. That is the task of the Socialist Party.

Harry Waite

Party conferences: rhetoric and reality (1987)

From the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The differing moods at this year's various party conferences are a reflection of the result of the recent general election. For the Conservatives in Blackpool it is a time for self-congratulation. For the third time in a row they were able to convince a large number of people that they were best suited to running a system based on the exploitation of the many by the few. This is very similar to being able to trick the inmates of an extermination camp into believing that it can be run in their interests. This was achieved by promoting the illusory concept of "people's capitalism". An increase in home ownership and the fact that more people own a few shares in what were formerly state owned enterprises is supposed to support the view that we live in a “property owning democracy". The reality is somewhat different, home ownership for the vast majority means that they have a financial burden called a mortgage tied round their necks. As for state ownership, should any of those who happen to own a few shares in British Gas. British Telecom or any other of the formerly nationalised industries attempt to pack up work and live off unearned income it will soon become apparent which class they belong to.

At the Labour Party conference in Brighton there was a more solemn atmosphere for once again they failed to convince enough people that they are a party fit to manage capitalism. It seems that still not enough time has passed for people to forget what a shambles things were under the Labour administration of 1974-9. The dispute over how to select and re-select parliamentary candidates was resolved by a compromise suitable to Kinnock and the trade union leadership in the form of an electoral college. Forget all the arguments about the need to find a more democratic system; the truth is that a change was needed so that the successful candidates fit the new image of moderation and responsibility that the party is attempting to present. This leads on to the other vital debate for the party this year, that of reviewing policy. This means adopting a combination of caring capitalism — presenting a caring attitude for the less well off whilst making sure they remain in that position — whilst incorporating aspects of "people's capitalism". On the latter policy opportunists like Bryan Gould want the party to incorporate aspects of Thatcher's policies such as share ownership by giving workers the right to buy shares in the company which exploits them. Such a policy will be attacked by the left as a betrayal of "socialism". By this they mean a betrayal of the party's commitment to state capitalism. In response the right will argue that a radical extension of share ownership is equal to a new type of "socialism". The truth is that under the policies advocated by the right and left a system based on a relationship between robbers and robbed and production for profit will remain. But then the Labour Party has never had a clear understanding of capitalism.

Meanwhile the SDP and Liberal Party conferences were dominated by the debate, to merge or not to merge. Those in favour of merger see this as the best way of replacing the Labour Party as the main opposition. Thus principle and policy disagreements must be quietly forgotten. There are of course a few, mostly in the SDP, whose political ambitions would not be furthered by merger. Principal amongst these is David Owen. In a merged party, dominated by the Liberals in terms of numbers of members and MPs, Owen is unlikely to gain a dominant position let alone become the leader. So for him it is better to wait and see how things develop.

Democratic Principles vs Actual Practice

All the above parties claim that they are based on democratic principles and are organised on democratic lines. By taking a closer look at each of them we can see how far this claim is matched by actual practice.

The Conservative Party has always talked a great deal about democracy but a brief look at its organisation shows a gap between rhetoric and reality.

The National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations was formed in 1867 with the aim of popularising Conservative principles. The National Union convenes an annual conference of constituency associations which acts as a sounding board for Conservative opinion in the country. Proceedings at conference are usually non-controversial and resolutions are often passed without a formal vote. The party leader, elected by the MPs only, is normally responsible for appointing the central body including the chairperson and in consultation with her/his top colleagues decides on party policy and strategy. Year after year at Conservative Party conference we hear people protected from the harsh realities of capitalism making long winded speeches about the need to bring back capital punishment — never mind the cause, just deal with effects. Others will preach about moral standards and the sanctity of the family whist supporting a system in which millions starve while food rots and whilst even in their own back yards thousands of people live in slums, building materials are stockpiled and building workers on the dole queue. After the leadership speech a standing ovation is guaranteed no matter what garbage flows from Thatcher's mouth. At Blackpool the concept of democracy was confined to rhetoric whilst from every corner support for the dictatorship of the boardroom was absolute. All good entertainment if you like hypocrisy.

Meanwhile events at Brighton showed once again that the Labour Party is dominated both in its administration and in its policy making functions by the leadership of the large trade unions. They provide the party with around two-thirds of its income and five sixths of its membership. Votes are allocated to unions in proportion to the annual sum which they pay as an affiliation fee. At conference these votes are cast as block votes. Whilst the delegates from the constituency parties outnumber union delegates, the combined votes of a few large unions is generally enough to secure a majority. Many Labour supporters including those on the left whose policies are generally defeated at the hands of the block vote, claim that this structure shows that the party is the political wing of the trade unions. There are several reasons why this claim is false. Firstly the block votes are being cast not on behalf of conscious Labour Party members but on behalf of union members who in many cases are affiliated to the party because they have failed to opt out of paying the political levy. Indeed it is certainly the case that many of these same people voted for parties other than Labour last June. Secondly, not only does the block vote system fail to take into account any difference of opinion amongst those eligible to be consulted, but in most cases little or no consultation actually takes place. Even with consultation there is often confusion. Take for example, the case of the TGWU on the occasion of the contest for the deputy leadership of the party between Healey and Benn in 1981. The union consulted its members through its regional organisation who in turn adopted a variety of methods. A majority of regions voted for Healey. However the executive committee decided to recommend its delegation to vote for Benn as a majority of the largest regions had done so. At that conference the union's block vote was. in the first ballot cast in favour of the third candidate. John Silkin, after another consultation amongst themselves the vote was transferred to Benn in the second ballot.

The unions also have substantial influence on the party's ruling body, the National Executive Committee (NEC). Twelve of its twenty-seven members are elected in the trade union section. The NEC plays a vital role in managing the affairs of the party between conferences, recommends acceptance or rejection of motions put to conference and will in the next year play a vital role in reviewing the party's policies. This year Kinnock gained a tighter grip over this body thanks mainly to the unions' block vote. As the Financial Times (30 September) put it:

The centre right now dominates the sections of the executive which are determined by the votes of the unions. This produced a defeat of the two hard left candidates in the women's section.

Changes in the method of selecting parliamentary candidates and a commitment to review policy were, the FT reported, "the result of the exercise of the trade union block vote".

The Labour Party, then, is controlled not by its members or by trade union members who are affiliated to it but by a small number of trade union leaders who can usually be relied upon to support the party leadership.

Democracy is also sadly lacking in both the SDP and Liberal parties. The leadership of both constantly talk about one member one vote but once again rhetoric is not supported by practice. At two Liberal conferences in recent years majority votes have been cast in favour of a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament and on both occasions that arch democrat, David Steel, indicated that the assembly could vote for what it liked but he had the final say over policy. Only recently, with regard to the ballot in the SDP on merger with the Liberals. David Owen was at the centre of a dispute regarding the question posed on that ballot paper. The Electoral Reform Society had described it as being unfairly loaded. Owen was in fact always unprepared to accept any vote which went in favour of merger. The SDP, far from being a party with no vested interests, as it claimed to be, was, from its early stages, a party which attracted support from several leading big business figures. Articles in the Observer and the Sunday Times as long ago as 1981 revealed that the SDP's finance committee was to be chaired by David Sainsbury, the finance director of the grocery chain and Clive Lindley, millionaire owner of the LCI group, was one of its trustees. Amongst its other supporters were Lord Sainsbury, Sir Claus Moser of Rothschilds and Cob Stenham, the financial director of Unilever.

Of course it is of little surprise that parties which exist to administer capitalism, as all these parties do, have little to do with democracy, for this system has as much to do with that concept as Dallas or Dynasty has to do with providing intellectual stimulus. How can a system where the most vital function in society, the production and distribution of the means of life. food, clothing and shelter included, are owned and controlled by and in the interests of a small minority have anything to do with democracy? There is little point in members of any political party which exists to run capitalism trying to exercise control over their leaders so a certain set of desired policies can be carried out. Experience should have taught such people that even those who hold positions of power, be they politicians, or even members of the capitalist class, have no control over the system. Certain economic laws have to be obeyed. Production is governed by the need to make a profit. Its primary function is not to satisfy needs.

All capitalist political parties are based on a relationship between leaders and followers. This leadership role should not be confused with administration for that function is normally carried out by others. What we are talking about here is a political leadership whose function it is to impose on their members what is possible within the confines of the present organisation of society. Leadership is not something which is inevitable but is confined to societies where a minority rule in their own interests over the majority. This situation can only exist when that majority are not conscious of where their real interests lie.

The socialist view

In contrast to the above parties the socialist movement does not exist to run capitalism and it recognises that workers cannot be led to socialism. It exists to propagate socialist ideas and to create an organisation which can be used by workers conscious of the need for socialism. Socialists reject the concept of leadership because the nature of the society we wish to bring about cannot be established by an organisation based on a relationship between leaders and followers. Socialism means a society where the resources of the earth are owned and consciously controlled by its inhabitants. All will stand in equal relation to the means of production. meaning that each member of society will have the opportunity to use them, to have access to all goods and services on the basis of self determined need, and be involved in administering and making decisions about short and long term collective goals. Private or state capitalist minority control over the productive process and the concept of any form of exchange will be redundant in a society based on common ownership as will be states or governments which are incompatible with a classless society. With this definition of socialism it becomes clear why workers cannot be led to it. A society based on conscious democratic control by the majority can only be brought about by a majority who understand the need for it and organise themselves consciously, politically and democratically to bring it about.

Experience should have shown us all that the parties which have been in conference in the last few weeks have no answers to the worldwide problems we face. They have no answers because they stand for an outdated social system. Are you content to let that system continue on its destructive path or will you join us to bring about a sane world?

Ray Carr

Reflections on images (1961)

From the November 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Gaitskell has been saying it again. This time, it was at a meeting at Blackpool, organised by Socialist Commentary during the last Labour Party Conference. Perhaps the Labour leader was joking. Perhaps he was trying to cheer everybody up. Or perhaps he was serious. Anyway, he said it. He denied that the Tories have the predominant appeal to the electorate and added: “I think the Labour Party at the moment has a tremendous opportunity which I hope it will grasp.”

Now what must have struck the audience was that this is the sort of optimistic statement which political leaders are always putting out and which mean exactly nothing. The Labour Party reckoned that they were full of hopeful expectation just before Eden trounced them in 1955, and again when Macmillan came out on top two years ago. It is, in fact, curious that on one occasion when they did win, and with a thumping majority, there is evidence that they were not particularly optimistic. Mr. Shinwell once said that, although he expected the landslide victory in 1945, most of the other Labour leaders took a gloomier view of their chances. Naturally, nobody expects Mr. Gaitskell to say that he is looking forward to losing the next election and that there isn’t really much point in all this arguing about election programmes because the Conservatives already have it in the bag. When he muses upon the Labour Party’s great opportunities and the success which he says is in their grasp we know that, whether he is right or wrong, he is saying what he is compelled to by the necessities of his situation.

For Mr. Gaitskell must project an image of his party to the electorate Labour are out for power over the affairs of British capitalism and to get this they do not have to educate or enlighten people. They only have to persuade enough voters that they are the cleverest, most responsible, most humane bunch of would be ministers in the land. And, of course, the most successful. Most politicians must be attached to the slogan “Nothing, succeeds like success.” Like the salesman who tells you that his product must be good because it sells so well, the political leader must always strive to give the impression that their fortunes are set fair. It is all part of the business of projecting an image.

It does not end there, as we saw at the last Labour Party Conference. This year’s conference rejected once again the idea that they are a party of wholesale nationalisation. Let us say right away that nationalisation is not, and never was, anything more than an alternative method of organising capitalism. But the Labour pioneers used to cling to it as the cure-all for capitalism’s ailments. We may depend on it that they would have castigated Mr. Gaitskell for his milk and water version of their favourite potion. Yet in doing so they would be ignoring the reasons for the Labour Party going back upon itself. Nationalisation, which might have had a brief fling as a vote-getter just after the war, is now an electoral liability. The theme of Mr. Gaitskell’s great battle over Clause Four was his realisation that the surest way to lose votes was to declare for outright nationalisation. True, Gaitskell lost his battle over the clause. But his party’s attitude to State control has changed and to that extent so has their public image.

We also saw at Blackpool—as we expected to see—the Labour Party break off its short flirtation with the unilateralists. Now that was a vote loser if you like. The nuclear disarmers are a small minority in the population—so small that there is no point, in them testing their policy in a parliamentary election. It seems certain that if the Labour Party were to tie themselves permanently to C.N.D., it would not be long before they were counting their members in thousands instead of the hundreds of, thousands of today. That may not worry a party of rigid principle, but for those who are bothered about getting power before anything else, it is a different matter.

Then there is the little business of strikes and this, sadly for Mr. Gaitskell, is something which cannot be shaken off by a conference resolution. There are a lot of political correspondents who think that the London bus strike in 1958 did more damage to the Labour Party in the 1959 election than anything else. We all know why they are associated in the popular mind with strikers. The Labour Party built itself on a foundation of working class sympathy. At one time their members were proud to be at the head of the Jarrow marchers, to wear cloth caps to the Commons, to be militant trade unionists. Inevitably, strikers looked to the Labour Party for support and strikes became part of the party’s image.

That was all very well in the old days, when Labour were climbing to power; it’s very different now. Firstly, if they get into power over British capitalism, strikes are going to be a nuisance which they will have to deal with, just like 1945/50 all over again. Secondly, large numbers of workers regard strikes as stupid, or anti-social, or the work of layabouts, and so suspect a political party which they connect with them. This notion seems to be stubbornly held. If it were not, surely it would have been squashed by the stern anti-strike measures of the 1945 Labour government? Whatever the evidence, however much Mr. Gaitskell may soothe and reassure, no matter what his party may write in their manifestos, the idea will stay in working class heads. Strikes equal Labour. Labour equals strikes. This is the sort of thing which is so bad for the image which Mr. Gaitskell is trying to project.

For the Labour Party now wants to appear a moderate, adaptable party, ready to manage British capitalism without any complications like political theories. There is only one theory of management that is worth anything to capitalism, and that is that the system is administered in the interests of the capitalist class. Unless the Labour Party can convince enough workers that they conform to that theory they are out, and will stay out.

The Tories have fewer worries on this score. True, they have their wild men— the people described by one Labour Party delegate as “hangers, floggers and let’s-ban-the-woggers.” But there is little political kudos for the Labour Party in this. For many workers, among all their other false ideas, support-capital and corporal punishment and, although they may not practice a colour bar, in fact regard Negroes as inferior beings and would agree to some control on immigration. Here is one of the Conservative’s trump cards. Whatever mistakes they may make, however black their record, they always seem to have enough of what it takes to ride their storms and to touch the responses of the working class. This is ironical, in a party which so openly stands for the privileges and inequalities of capitalism. Perhaps it is the Tories’ empirical attitude which does the trick. Perhaps it is political flair. It could be that they are very clever, or that the working class are excessively stupid and forgetful. Whatever the reason for it, the fact is that the Tory image is a successful one.

The two great parties are not alone in worrying about their public image. Every day, everywhere, we are meeting the same thing. We see it in the advertisements which, since the days of fuller employment came to this country, have adopted an especially irritating image type. Now the earnest, well groomed, rising young executive is the chap who buys the right car, uses the right sort of after-shave and knows which wine will not upset his boss. We meet the image on radio and television, with everybody striving to convince themselves that capitalism’s all right and that what really matters is that, as the girl once said to Wilfred Pickles: “. . . people—are nice—to—people.” This is the theme, too, of the newspapers with their unctuous human interest stories telling us about rock ‘n’ roll stars who still love their deaf grandmothers, or rich greengrocers who would swap it all for the pitter-patter of tiny feet.

Irritating and shameful as this may be, it should lead us to the bigger question of why it should happen at all. The answer is that the image men always project an impression of general satisfaction with capitalism. The people who are depicted as wholesome and confident are, after all, supporters of a social system which has produced the terror and insecurity of the modern world. And if we accept their standards the one thing we shall never do is to question the whys and wherefores of capitalism.

That leads us to an even bigger question. Are we satisfied with the terror and insecurity? Are we satisfied with being treated like mental infants who will be impressed by any vapid image that the politicians or the ad-men like to squirt at us?

The working class could rise above this. They could develop their social consciousness so that the political and commercial images lose their appeal. They could do this—in fact, they must do it, if there is to be hope of solving the world’s problems. But there is no reason for the capitalist class to help in this. No matter; let us leave them with their images. We should be tackling hard, material reality.  

Ivan

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Daily Herald” Leaves Something Out

Mr. Oliver Stanley (Conservative, Bristol West): ” . . .  I do not know whether hon. Members noticed a very curious omission only the other day. They will remember, I expect, as it is not very long ago, a little incident which took place on 20th July, when Lord Ammon, who had had a little difference with the Government the day before, made a statement in which he said that the Government had gone crazy. That was on the morning of the 20th. I should have thought that was of considerable news value. It is unusual for a Chief Whip to say things like that, whatever he may think. I am sure the Patronage Secretary will agree with me. It was not unimportant. It was important enough to ensure Lord Ammon the sack within 24 hours. Yet, if we look at the issue of the Daily Herald for 21st July, we shall not find any reference whatsoever to the statement by Lord Ammon.” (Royal Commission on the Press, 28/7/49.)

A Labour Minister on Nationalisation

Mr. Gaitskell (Minister of Fuel and Power): “ . . . First of all, the principle is perfectly clear: nationalised boards must be non-party in character and behaviour. We are all agreed about that, on all sides of the House. They must not take sides for or against any political party, whether it is the Government or the Opposition or, indeed, any other party. That has always been recognised by the Government and by the National Coal Board.” (Debate on Fuel and Power, 26/7/49.)

And Another Labourite on Trade Unions

Mr. Awbery (Labour, Bristol Central): ” . . . The trade union movement and its machinery was established 50 or 60 years ago to deal with circumstances and conditions which existed at that time. I feel that it has outgrown these circumstances and conditions, and that it is necessary for the movement to re-design its organisation to provide for the rapid changes that have taken place during the past few years. There is need for the men in the trade union movement to exercise self-discipline; that is one of the things which must be learned. Discipline shown by men themselves is more powerful than when it is imposed from outside. I appeal to the dockers and other members of the trade unions to exercise this self-discipline. (London Dock Strike, 26/7/49.)

A Capitalist’s Viewpoint

Sir A. Gridley (Conservative, Stockport): “ . . .  I and others like me, as I have said, are very much concerned with the amount of unrest which exists in so many industries of this country at the present time. Not only are Ministers gravely concerned, but I believe that leaders in the T.U.C. are as anxious about it, and I am quite sure that many representative employers are equally concerned. What we want in the grave crisis which confronts us is peace in our time, if I may use that old phrase. We do not want a kind of disturbance like that of the London dockers going on, which is such a disaster to the nation, to employees and to managements. Those of us who have had materials lying in ships in London docks in these last few weeks know full well the consequences of that, because we have not been able to send our products to dollar and other countries. It is in the national interest that we should get together if we can.” (London Dock Strike, 26/7/49.)

London—Russian Version

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): ". . . First, I would quote this broadcast by Moscow Radio of an article which appeared in Pravda on 13th July by the well-known commentator, M. Zaslavsky. He commented upon a speech by the Prime Minister in which Fascist and Communist disturbances in London were mentioned. He said:

“In Britain, the Fascist cut-throats, hooligans and bandits, the adherents of Hitler, organised a demonstration against democracy. . . . They were well guarded by the police, but the honest workers who came out into the streets to protest against the instigators of a new war and the revival of Fascism were beaten up, thrown into police torture chambers, tried and imprisoned. Such all-powerful, arbitrary police action is impossible and unthinkable in a true democratic State. The workers were making preparations for the peaceful celebration of international May Day, but the Government said ‘ No ' and the police transformed the town ”

— that is, London— .

“into an armed camp. Armoured cars assembled in front of the workers’ districts. Lines of police waited in full military preparedness. Mothers hid their children so that they should not fall before the merciless bullets of the police of the enemies.” (Jamming of B.B.C. Broadcasts by Russians, 30/7/49.)

[Incidentally, not one word of reference to this Debate appeared in the columns of the Daily Worker.]

Worthy of Record

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): ”. . .  I think I ought first to express the thanks of the community, and those of the Government and the House also, to the troops for the way in which they undertook the duties imposed upon them, not only for their actual service but for the cheerfulness with which they undertook it.” (The Dock Strike, 26/7/49.)

Taunt from a Tory

Earl Winterton (Conservative, Horsham): “In view of the difficulty of training the Army at the present time and of the frequency with which troops have been used in the last year or so in this and similar strikes, will the right hon. Gentleman consider in future adopting the alternative method of calling for civilian volunteers, after a clarion call by the Minister of Labour, singing, for example, ‘ The Red Flag ' ”? (Question Time, 26/7/49.)

Stan Hampson

Answers to a Correspondent: How Should Socialists Vote? (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

How Should Socialists Vote?

Several questions have been put to us by two readers at Brighouse, Yorks. The first concerns the use of the vote.

Must a Socialist refrain from voting at the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections until such times as the S.P.G.B. membership warrants its own candidates’ standing ?

If so (and we gather from your paper that such is the case), do you not thus help establish a permanent Imperialistic Tory rule? In advising your readers and members not to vote, surely this has the effect of strengthening the anti-Labour parties.

Reply.

If the S.P.G.B. case is sound then the Socialist must vote for Socialist candidates only, and if there are no Socialist candidates then not vote for any of the non-Socialists, whether Liberal, Tory, Labour, Fascist or Communist. The only object of the Socialist Party of Great Britain is to achieve Socialism, which necessitates first gaining a majority of convinced Socialists and then gaining control of the machinery of government. To win over the workers to Socialism involves convincing them that capitalism and all the parties which take part in administering capitalism are undeserving of working-class support, and that Socialism is literally the only thing worth fighting for. How could we do this if at the same time we were telling the workers that the difference between Liberal and Tory, or between Tory and Labour, is worth fighting for? Our certainty that in the long run the workers will come over to Socialism is based on the impossibility of any party making capitalism run smoothly and in a way satisfactory to the workers. But if it is in fact an impossibility to make capitalism satisfactory to the workers, then it inevitably follows that any party which associates itself with the administration of capitalism must sooner or later find itself an object of working-class hatred and discontent. In other words, every party which becomes the Government under capitalism is bound to fall into disrepute with the workers. The only possible and logical course for the S.P.G.B. is, therefore, the one it adopts of dissociating itself from the Labour Party and every party which is prepared to administer capitalism. Our strength is bound up with our independence and with the fact that we have never misled the workers by telling them that capitalism can be made to work to their advantage.

Our correspondents draw the unwarranted conclusion that the attitude of the S.P.G.B. helps the Tories. Actually our membership is drawn from men and women who were formerly in all the capitalist parties, or in no party at all. The Socialist Party grows at the expense of Liberals and Tories, Fascists, I.L.P. and Communist, as well as at the expense of the Labour Party and the unorganised. The possibility of Socialists voting for any non-Socialist candidate does not and cannot arise. If those who proclaim themselves Socialists were to vote later on for non-Socialist candidates, it would be because they had ceased to be Socialists—or had never understood Socialism—and in that event, having lost their political bearings, they are just as likely to vote Tory as to vote Labour. Take, for example, those so- called Socialists who voted for the National Government.

Finally, we would remind our correspondents that all over the world there are Governments of the kind they describe as “Imperialistic-Tory.” Who was it made those Governments possible? Obviously not the small minority of Socialists, whose votes are so few that they could not make any difference to the result of elections. No, what made those Governments possible was, among other things, the disgust and disillusionment created among the workers, by the attempts of Labour Governments to administer the capitalist system.

Is the Labour Party the lesser evil? 

Now, agreeing that some economic system must operate until the establishment of Socialism, and that system is capitalism, is not the Labour reformism type (with all its faults) preferable to the shade that extends beyond to the Hitler extreme?

For International policy alone, is it not worth our while to support the Labour Party?

Reply.

This question, like the first one, takes no account of the impossibility of making the workers satisfied with capitalism. Because of that every party which comes into office on a wave of discontent and temporary popularity, is fated to be kicked out of office after a brief term—discredited, disliked, disheartened and disunited; to give way to another party rising on a new wave of discontent. To say that the Labour reformism type of party is preferable to other parties, up to Hitler's party, is to overlook the fact that all of these parties are reformist parties of the same general type. No political party can nowadays gain power unless it appeals successfully with a programme of reforms to the mass of the electors. Hitler is playing this game strictly according to the rules. Indeed, his promises of drastic reforms and Socialism in a few months, and his pretence of bustling energy show that he has beaten the Hendersons and Webbs and Maxtons, and the other reformist leaders at their own game.

The reference to the international policy of the Labour Party is somewhat staggering. The party which entered the war-time coalition Governments, and shares responsibility for every action of those Governments at home and abroad, is not in a position to boast that it is in any respect more enlightened than the Liberals and Tories. The international scene is not to be changed by fair words and humanitarian sentiments uttered from behind the ramparts of the British armed forces. International discord exists because of capitalism, and the two Labour Governments in Great Britain, with their five new cruisers, their bomb-dropping on native villages in Iraq, and their “continuity" of suppression in India and elsewhere, were quite unable to remove the discord or materially alter international relationships. They were regarded abroad simply as the mouthpiece for British capitalism.

Trade Unions and Politics.

We note the S.P.G.B. agrees with Trade Unionism and such protective activity for the proletariate under the present conditions.

Can you, then, deny the view that those unions, to be most effective, must send representatives (at present Labour) to Parliament?

Reply.

We do most emphatically deny that the trade unions have become more effective through sending Labour M.P.s to Parliament.

The majority of the men and women workers are not supporters of the Labour Party, but are sympathetic to the Liberals, the Tories, or to no party at all. The way to get the workers to come together most effectively in trade unions is to emphasise their common interest as workers. This cannot be done if the unions are affiliated to one party—the Labour Party—and supporters of other parties are made to appear almost unfit for trade union membership. A great deal of harm is done to the trade unions through their support of the Labour Party. (A few unions have tried to get over this difficulty by running candidates as Liberals and Tories, as well as Labour.) The dangers of the position become most obvious when a Labour Government is in office. When that happens the influence of the Labour Party is at once used to prevent the unions from embarrassing “their" Government, that is, to prevent them pressing demands for higher wages.

It is not denied that against these big disadvantages the presence of trade union representatives in Parliament has certain advantages, but the disadvantages are far weightier. From the Socialist point of view one of the most serious is that the trade union M.P. almost invariably comes to regard himself as speaking for the “industry," so that we see so-called non-party groups in Parliament, representing the railways, the mines, agriculture, road transport, etc. Periodically this brings its natural consequence in the shape of trade union M.P.s in one group backing the employers against a similar group in a rival industry. This has happened, for example, in connection with the rivalry of railways and road transport.

Such a position cuts right across the lesson the Socialist is trying to teach, that the interest of the working-class is opposed to that of the capitalist class.

Socialism in one country. 

Can one country, having elected a Socialist Power, and the rest of the world remaining capitalistic, operate Socialism within its own borders? 

If not, what would that Socialist Government do?

Reply.

The possibility of one country having a Socialist majority long before other countries need not be seriously considered, and certainly it is idle to consider it now when the number of Socialists in all the countries together is almost negligible.

The factors which govern the growth of the Socialist movement (the contradictions of capitalism, the more and more glaring evidences of wealth and poverty, the inability to plan production and distribution or to abolish unemployment, and the carrying on of Socialist propaganda) operate everywhere under capitalism. There is no sign that the Socialist movement will grow more quickly in one than in another of the more developed capitalist countries. If it should happen then it will not be a question of a Socialist Government deciding what it will do about the matter, but a question of the whole international Socialist movement deciding what it will do about it. They will have to decide in the light of all the conditions then existing. As we do not know the conditions we cannot prophesy what decision the Socialist movement will arrive at.

Ed. Comm.

TUC: Wages and planning (1963)

From the October 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the delegates at the TUC last month discussed wages and planning they managed to get into quite a deal of confusion.

They voted by a huge majority for a General Council report Economic Development & Planning though it contains references to wage restraint, but also voted (by a small majority) against “any form of wage restraint,” after the mover Mr. Ted Hill had indicated that it did not really mean what it said but only meant under a Tory government.

The confusion of some of the speeches is in fact even greater than the Press reports indicate. There was Mr. Hill who declared that his organisation, having had experience, ”cannot trust any Tory government with our wage packets”. Linked up with his declaration about not accepting any form of wage restraint, it presents the picture of Mr. Hill believing in two absurdities: firstly the absurdity of some non-Tory government which has as its aim supporting the workers against the employers on any wage claim they choose to make, and secondly, the equally absurd belief that provided a union rejects wage restraint it can get what it wants without restraint.

The truth is that all governments everywhere resist general upward ‘pressures for higher real wage levels, and when Mr. Hill makes an exception of a Labour Government he has it quite wrong. It just happens that in the post-war years under Labour Government, wage rates were falling behind the cost of living but since then they have moved ahead, a change in which increased willingness to strike has obviously played some part.

Mr. Richard Crossman, Labour M.P, frankly admitted, after the Labour Government had gone from office, that British workers could probably have got more if they had been as ready to strike as workers in America, and when Mr. Hill talks about no wage restraint what he really means is that trade unions must not give up the strike weapon. To that extent he is of course on sound ground, and it explains his reluctance and that of many other TUC delegates to accept the belief that planning by the National Economic Development Council can be a substitute for the strike weapon. But to put this in terms of being for or against “restraint” is quite beside the point, for if the Council’s plans in fact worked as they hope wage levels would be far less “restrained” than they have ever been.

The Council’s plan for expansion envisaged a rise of real wages of somewhere in the region of 3½ per cent a year. The Prime Minister speaking at Cardiff on April 5th put it in definite terms: “If we combine growth policy with incomes policy, the nation as a whole can have a 3½ per cent. growth in real income per head”.

No union, not Mr. Hill’s or any other, has been able to get a 3½ per cent, rise of real wages. (3½ per cent. a year above whatever is needed to cover increased prices), either under Tory or Labour Government: not 3½ per cent or anything like it. In the period since January 1956 average wage rates have gone up by 33 per cent but the retail price index has risen by 25 per cent, so that the rise in real terms has been about 6 per cent in seven and a half years, less than 1 per cent a year.

What then is really at issue for the workers is not whether the National Economic Development Council, or the Prime Minister, or the leader of the Labour Party holds out prospects of an annual 3½ per cent. rise of real wages they are all prepared to promise this—but whether they or anyone else are in a position to plan such a development into certain existence, and whether working class interest is served in that direction at all.

For, taking the last point first, there should be no doubt or ambiguity about what the TUC is accepting, whether with planning or without. They are accepting the world of capitalism and looking at the problem of the ability of British capitalism to survive and expand in a capitalist world.

The TUC report recognises for example the “frightening prospects of potential overproduction” in world markets, and of “competitive expenditure on armaments in the industrial countries where a quarter of the human race lives, and increasing misery for the other three quarter’s of the world’s population”. The Socialist’s reaction to this is to urge the replacement of world capitalism by world Socialism, ending both capitalism and class society; the TUC’s reaction is to consider how to regulate the trade and aid relationships between the countries of the capitalist world and at the same time secure a working arrangement for planning between the classes at home.

This latter idea is not new: always there have been people urging co-operation for increased production between employers and employed. But always the harsh realities of capitalism keep breaking in: markets getting overstocked and the employers who wanted more production now wanting to stop production; and passivity on the part of the workers being taken advantage of to increase exploitation and profits. No one—and this includes governments as well as employers can regulate world markets so that the normal expansions and contractions of capitalist industry and trade do not take place.

One last point that should be considered is the hope held out of a possible 4 per cent annual increase of production. By past standards this is a big increase, but in relation to the potentialities of Socialism it is insignificant.

Capitalism, irrespective of the political hue of the government, cannot seriously tackle the job of increasing the production of useful things sufficiently to meet all human needs. It cannot escape the consequences of its own class and competitive nature, shewing themselves in armaments, wars, class conflict, strikes and so on.

Yet workers who have tried to weigh up the arguments at the TUC about wages and planning should consider the Socialist proposition. What really stands in the way of a classless, warless world in which production is directly and solely for the use of all, except the reluctance of most workers to think it out? Certainly no-one who looks back over a century and a half of looking for wages policies can argue that Socialism is unnecessary because things are in a very good shape as they are. All the evidence points the other way.

Edgar Hardcastle

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.

Scapegoats for the Labour leaders (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

For five years the Labour voters were very loyal to the government of their choice. Through a series of “crises” they patiently worked and waited for the better times they were told would soon be here. Then just as they were preparing to reap the reward they expected when they had delivered the stipulated production and “closed the dollar gap” they received an icy shock that changed their political outlook more than anything that had gone before. This was the Prime Minister’s curt announcement that a new round of austerity is on the way to provide for re-armament, the Korean war and the other wars that it is feared may follow. The new blow has brought to a head the cumulative effect of past disappointments, showing itself in a wave of wage demands and “unofficial ” strikes in disregard of the appeals of Ministers and Trade Union officials.

Workers are asking themselves whether the Labour Party is any better at keeping its pledges than were the Conservatives. Those who looked on the Labour Party as the enemy of conscription and armaments find themselves heading for a third world war. Those who wanted higher wages and lower prices are asked to be content with wage-restraint, a rising cost of living and demands for more sacrifices. Those workers who thought that nationalisation would solve their problems find that it makes no difference to them. Labourism has been tried and has failed but politicians do not easily reconcile themselves to losing office and power. The leaders are bewildered at the failure of their plans, and frightened as they find themselves caught up in capitalism’s swift descent towards war; but they do not yet despair. Like many a government before them they hope to be able to turn a critical situation to their own advantage. If the workers at home dislike the increase of fares, the rising cost of food, the extension of conscription to two years, the entry into the Korean War, the refusal to grant wage increases, perhaps their resentment can be turned away from its natural targets of capitalism and the Government that administers capitalism, and turned in another direction by a campaign against Russia and Communist agents.

It is all so easy—just as it was when the Tory Government worked it to the full during and after the first world war, and used it again to unseat the Labour Government in 1924.

Of course Russian State capitalism and Russian imperialism are evil things but so is capitalism and capitalist imperialism in Western Europe, Britain and America. And the Western Governments’ real objection to the Russian Government’s actions is only that of rival concerns in the same line of business. As Mr. Sefton Delmer, Daily Express correspondent, said in an interview with the Indian Prime Minister, Nehru;—

“We objected to Communism because the countries where it had established—itself mostly by force of arms or terrorism—had been closed to Western trade. This deprived both them and us of commodities essential to our prosperity and progress." (Daily Express, 19-9-50).

The other side of the picture is given by an article in the journal of the Czeckoslovak Ministry of Foreign Trade. (Quoted by the Manchester Guardian, 16-9-50). The Czeckoslovak Ministry’s article discloses that while they encourage the Russian move to promote strikes of dockers in the countries allied to America, on the ground of alleged sympathy with the dockers, at the same time the Ministry is urging foreign business men to send their cargoes through the strike-free ports of Poland and thus avoid hold-ups and consequent loss of profits. Under the East European capitalist dictatorship the dockers strike at their peril.

The British Labour leaders profess to be very much opposed to governmental regimentation of the workers as practised in these countries. Yet at the same time we have Mr. Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union demanding the suppression of the Communist Party and the Daily Worker (Manchester Guardian 18-9-50), Mr. Isaacs, Minister of Labour threatening legal action and if necessary legislation against the “promoters of illegal strikes” (Daily Herald 16-9-50). Meanwhile Scotland Yard are studying the activities of “Communist agitators”—“Blue print for the arrest of dangerous communists within a few hours, if empowered by legislation, is ready.” (Evening Standard, 18-9-50).

So, in the blessed name of freedom and democracy, the Labour Government prepare to bring British legislation and suppressive measures more closely into line with those of the dictatorship countries.

The position is so fantastic that we have Mr. Deakin, the servant of union members who pay their contributions to support an organisation for the purpose of making wage claims, denouncing Communists on the ground that “they were out to create and encourage wage claims and to use every possible opportunity to cause dislocation.” (At a Press Conference. Daily Telegraph, 19/9/50).

It is true that those who direct Communist policy are not interested in the welfare of the working class being concerned to exploit discontent in order to help Russia, but the discontent exists and will go on expressing itself no matter what the Communists do and even if they are suppressed.

Past experience should warn the Labour leaders of the likely outcome of the policy they contemplate. From 1917 onwards the charge of being pro-German or “Red Agents” was made against all who were critical of the war and all who took part in strikes, and among the results was that more and more workers gave their support to Ramsay MacDonald and Snowden and to trade unionists like Smillie, Williams and Arthur Cook who were thus enabled to gain popularity at the expense of the old leaders. Eventually the workers discontent exploded in the General Strike of 1926. Since the rise of the new men did not mean progress towards the only solution—the replacement of capitalism by Socialism—it only led to further disillusionment and in that respect also a repetition of the process now will be merely another phase of misdirected work and purposeless suffering by the working class.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain will continue to urge the workers of the need to rid themselves of the delusion that Labour Party or Communist Party administered capitalism can solve their problems; also of the need to retain their trade union weapon, the strike, and above all of the need to recognise that only through a world wide movement to establish Socialism can their emancipation be brought about.