A call to bolster capitalism: Cripps appeals to the workers (1945)

From the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The problem that affects the working-class is one of poverty. It is not one of trade, good or bad. Poverty presses upon them almost as relentlessly in times of good trade as in times of trade depression. Times of prosperity are never enjoyed by workers although they read of them. What is the cause of poverty ? The private ownership of the means of wealth production. Those who own can compel workers to accept wages so low that they are barely able to restore their energies and rear families. The surplus produced by the workers above their wages is the source of the vast incomes of the capitalist class; this surplus is unpaid labour. The total product of society is divided between the workers who produce it and the capitalists who own it. There is no other participant in the division of wealth. Nothing stands between the workers and the abundance they produce but capitalist ownership. Poverty can be ended when wealth is produced solely for use and freely distributed. That 'means that we have to end production for sale and profit; in short we have to end capitalism.

There are some who give other reasons for working-class poverty and offer other plans for dealing with it. Either they have no understanding of capitalism or they have an interest in maintaining it. Sir Stafford Cripps falls into one of these two camps Before the election he 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.

It is interesting to see how we are to reach this paradise; "there will be an obligation upon the workers to give of their best,” and should some agitating socialist murmur, "oh—big profits,”—that scalawag is already answered, "not for the sake of the owner's profits but for the sake of our national economic survival and prosperity." The thinking worker will realise by now that as he has to go short in the national interest and we have already shown that there are only two classes in the nation, that "national survival or prosperity” is synonymous with capitalist prosperity.

In fact, it is quite easy to see this if we examine another part of this great cali. Cripps says that the Trade Union movement "must also take in the question of markets and consumer interests.” Who is this consumer whose interest is of equal or perhaps of more importance, than the workers' wages and conditions? In the first part of this article we showed that wealth is shared by two classes only. The consumers in society are the working class and the capitalist class. If workers forego their own interests in favour of someone else, that someone else is the capitalist class, however high-sounding the words that mask their sordid interest.

Let us look more closely at the matter. We know from experience that high or low prices matter little to workers in the long run; but what of the capitalist? They are not only private consumers., but as industrialists they buy the means of production. They have to build factories, buy plant, tools and the raw materials necessary to the production of other commodities. The value of the plant and the raw materials is transferred piecemeal into the new products. The only additional value is the new labour that has been put into production. But they cannot obtain this additional value—the source of their profits—until the goods are sold. They are forced therefore to cheapen their products in order to compete in the market. This they achieve by making workers work harder, by using labour-saving machinery and by obtaining cheaper raw materials. We will give an example. Behind the agitation for more efficient coal production lies the hard economic fact that its cost as a raw material is embodied in the cost of the new or finished products. Mr. R. Summers, Chairman of J. Summers, Ltd., stated at their annual general meeting that critics of the steel industry did not fully appreciate that as the price of coal was more than double that of 1939 it had a serious adverse effect on the price of steel. —Economist, June' 9th, 1945. He was aware of the need for lower prices, “to compete in the export markets of the world,” but he emphasised,, “that everything possible must be done to lower the cost of vital raw materials.” The capitalist aim behind the struggle for lower prices is quite clear; it enables a quicker sale of products and a quicker realisation of profits.

But does Cripps' aim differ in any way from this? His aim also is to obtain lower prices and capture markets. He calls upon workers to. “give of their best.” To whom? To those who exploit them. Where will the working-class come in during the process of labour-saving? Some will clock in at the factory gates to work harder than ever before while the displaced and unnecessary workers will show their cards at the Labour Exchange. All will remain in poverty.

Cripps made one or two statements that should be noted. He warned the trade unions that; “the whole reputation of the Trade Union movement will be at stake.” and that the Government will be advised by the three party group (Triple Alliance) as to what, “ compulsions are required to see that the minimum plan is implemented.” The compulsion will be required for, “a few recalcitrant and non-co-operative members.” What does he mean by this? This is funny language from a leader of the party that only seven weeks before (July 26th) was hailing the “dawn of a new day.” This is the language of capitalism in extremity. Does Cripps intend to resemble Dr. Ley? Certainly this plan bears no resemblance to Socialism. Incidentally, it is an indication of the childish imbecility of the I.L.P. that their comment on the plan was “The Stafford Cripps plan to establish committees representing Government, employers and the workmen .... must be judged on how far the Government is really putting through a socialist plan.”—New Leader, September 15th, 1945.

The Daily Herald, described this speech of Cripps as a “great call” to the Unions. True, a cull to bolster capitalism. Three years ago Cripps visited India with proposals which were rejected. Nehru’s comment was biting; “ From our side there are going to be no approaches to the British Government, for we know that whoever comes from there speaks the same accent as of old: and treats us the same way”—Reuter, April 15th, 1942. Quoted in Forward May 2nd, 1942 (our italics).

Consider the truth of those last few words: "treats us. the same way.” . The ideas of Sir Stafford Cripps, by virtue of his position in the Labour Party,, command respect among many workers. They should examine him as critically as Nehru did. It may be claimed that he is sincere, but that is of no avail. In his pose as a Socialist he is hindering the Socialist movement by cluttering up the path of Socialist propaganda with his misconceptions and delusions.

We have always known that he is not a Socialist and now we will give him this advice. Drop your pose as a defender of working-class interests. Your job is to patch up capitalism; stick to your last.

L. J.

A new social revolution (1945)

From the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Faulty reasoning and as a result faulty conclusions are very often due to the lack of consideration of vital factors involved. Proposals, for instance, are often made by various would-be-reformers to improve the lot of the workers whilst retaining the present economic set-up, that is the capitalist system. Bearing upon this it is worth while considering an article written by a reformer of longstanding, Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree which appeared in the "Evening Standard,” (February 20th, 1945), headed, “A New Industrial Revolution.”

We are told that if the aim of the Government as regards “the maintenance of a high and stable level of employment after the War is achieved it will revolutionise the status of the workers.” May we quickly add that if the aforesaid does occur it will also revolutionise the ideas that Socialists hold on capitalism, but since we are aware of the fact that the only time our masters seem to be able to keep all of us busy is in the preparation or in the actual waging of war we are quite confident that Socialists will need to make no changes of their ideas now that the slaughter has abated. The fact of the matter is that the only way the status of the workers can be revolutionised is by the abolition of capitalism. No such proposition is made by Mr. Rowntree.

The proposals that are elaborated are based on the contingency that “if a state of full-employment is stabilised, authority, based on the ability to dismiss employees will largely disappear.” Mr. Rowntree need not have gone to the trouble of racking his brain as to how to deal with this question. The Socialist assures him that this ticklish problem will not arise in peacetime, and that our masters’ authority to employ or dismiss us at his beck and call will remain unaffected. On the contrary, all the things point to the strengthening of his hand. However, let us pause for a moment to consider how the above assertion of the employer's freedom to employ or dismiss is contradicted, in almost the next breath. Apparently, it seems, that now the owner is not the authority any more. “As a matter of fact all those employed in industry are SERVANTS OF THE CONSUMERS. It is the consumers who give the orders, and the greatest industrial magnates must obey them if he wants to stay in business. So the master and servant relationship within an industrial enterprise is unrealistic.” Following from this one is inclined to suggest that employers should now unite to resist the encroachments of their common enemy, the consumer! This childish argument is based on the fallacy of ignoring the fact that the producers, that is the working-class, are at the same time the vast majority of the consumers and secondly, that they have by no means that independence of choice which Mr. Rowntree is too hasty in crediting them with. How many of us for instance would consume our daily “sausage and mash” at the factory canteen or local cafe if we could but take a stroll down to Claridges or the Dorchester and there exercise a freer and far more welcome independence of choice? Further, has Mr. Rowntree forgotten the extent to which our own tastes are artificially formed for us, and therefore restricted, by constant plugging and advertisement. For the vast majority of consumers, i.e., the workers, the ability to pick and choose between one product and another is largely nonexistent. They have to buy what the big monopolies have decided to produce and have to like it, for the simple reason that they cannot afford to do anything else. Freedom of choice is restricted to the rich consumers and that invariably means luxuries which workers never can enjoy so long as capitalism lasts.

As a result of his fallacious idea that the consumers are the real masters in society, Mr. Rowntree comes to the conclusion that “employers should regard themselves and all their employees as being fellow-servants.” That says he, “is their true relationship.” We are told that some employers would resent this suggestion. May we inform Mr. Rowntree that there are quite a lot of workers who would resent this equally as much. The cold fact of reality is that the production and distribution services under capitalism are incidental to the making of profits. And since the making of profits involves the exploitation of the workers we should like to know how the receivers of profit, i.e., the employers can be the “fellow-servants” of those who produce it for them.

Further we discover that Mr. Rowntree wishes to introduce a greater degree of democracy into industry. He proposes that (a) arbitration boards be set up to deal with breaches of factory rule and (b) to establish Works Councils “on which members of the administrative staff and representatives elected by the workers should serve.” His reasons for desiring these proposals to be put into effect are not hard to discover. According to Mr. Rowntree it “would remove the chance of a strike occurring where the workers consider that a worker has been wrongfully punished.” Workers, so we are led to believe, would “feel that they are part of the show.” Employers could confidently expect a good and a growing response front the workers and of course it would mean “Prosperity for industry.” As regards the latter slogan let it be once again emphasized that prosperity for industry means the OWNERS of industry. We note too, that the workers will only be allowed to “feel” part of the show; they will only be “treated” as co-partners. This vague language is not a strange one to our apologists for capitalism. Even if the proposal mentioned were put into effect the enslaved position of the working class would not be altered in the slightest. It is extremely doubtful even that they could possibly serve the interests of the workers in their daily struggle against their profit-hunting masters, if we are to judge by the biased behaviour of the war time arbitration boards. Most likely they would prove a very effective instrument in the hands of the capitalist class to perpetuate their system of exploitation. Remember well that in the war despite “full-employment,” arbitration boards and factory committees, strikes and industrial unrest have been very prevalent and peace and harmony have not been produced in industry. This must necessarily be so because the conflict of interests between master and slave, in this case capitalist and wage-slave, is irreconcilable, in war or out of war. Since Mr Rowntree seems to be very concerned with actualities let the Socialist Party inform him that as long as industry is monopolised by a small section of the population who use it as a source for their profit and power so long will peace and harmony of effort be an unrealisable fantasy. May we further suggest that there was no need of him to dwell upon the desirability of a “new industrial revolution.” This revolution has already been accomplished in the course of the last 150 years. What is urgently required, however, is a new social revolution, the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. This would place into the hands of the whole community the ownership and control of the instruments of production and distribution. The degradation and humiliation of wage-slavery would then be a thing of the past.

Max Judd

Letter: The simple life under Socialism (1945)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The simple life under Socialism

A Letter from a Correspondent.

Paignton, Devon.

Sept. 7, 1945.

The Editor, Socialist Standard.

Sir,

COMMON OWNERSHIP.

A man of simple tastes—and there are many such— might not desire theatres, cinemas, wine, beer, spirits, tobacco, or even books.

Why should he work, say, four hours a day labour time in a society which provides these, together with chewing gum, lipstick, powder, scent, nail varnish and much of the finery and fiddle-dee-dee of women, when a society of persons working on average, each, one hour per day can produce his comparatively simple needs?

What, then, does common ownership mean in this regard?

Yours faithfully,

Chas. E. Berry.

Reply.

Our correspondent's question arises partly from carrying over to Socialism a standard of judgment that is only appropriate to capitalism. Under capitalism the workers have good reason to dislike the conditions under which they work, because they are working for the benefit of the capitalist and under the harsh discipline the latter’s agents impose, and because hours are excessive and working places often drab, dangerous, uncomfortable and insanitary. From this many workers draw the erroneous conclusion the expenditure of energy on the production of articles useful to society is in its nature unavoidably unpleasant, and that the only pleasant expenditure of energy is on some activity not connected with production. This is absurd, as a little reflection will show. Every Socialist who uses his leisure time deriving pleasure from doing work connected with propaganda and organisation for Socialism is well aware that these same activities may be distasteful when performed for an employer. Under Socialism, when the conditions surrounding work have been freed from all capitalist features, labour will be, as Marx pointed out, “no longer the means to live, but . . . in itself the first of vital needs.” (Criticism of the Gotha Programme.)

Our correspondent may nevertheless maintain that the individual whose requirements are less than the average requirements of the members of Socialist society has a right to refuse to work as much as other people, even if the work is not distasteful. Suppose for the sake of argument, we concede our correspondent's claim. May we now ask him on what possible ground he can restrict this solely to the “man of simple tastes”? Why, on his contention, should not every individual object to working part of his time to produce articles that are going to be consumed either by non-producers or by those who, for one reason or another, cannot produce as much as the average? If the man of simple tastes can reasonably claim that he should work two hours against other people’s four hours, why should not every able bodied man and women who works object to the necessity of providing food, clothing and shelter for the non-workers, the babies, the aged, the sick, the disabled? If these “passengers” were allowed to starve, the able-bodied working population could produce their own requirements with much less expenditure of energy!

The whole proposition overlooks the fact that we have, as human beings, an interest in the well-being and happiness of the rest of human society, and under Socialism normal people will not desire to segregate themselves from the generally agreed arrangements for producing the requirements of all.

If, however, some individuals really think it important to discourage a high standard of living, they will have the obvious democratic remedy. They can try to convince the majority. Clad in a simple loincloth (though not in the English climate), eating only the simplest foods, living in plain, easily erected dwellings, or a hole in the ground, eschewing alcohol, tobacco, books, theatres, cinemas, etc., etc., they can set out to persuade the unregenerate majority that there is within their grasp a peace and pleasure yet unknown to them if only they will go and do likewise and cut the working day to one hour instead of four.

Alternatively, why should not the men and women of simple tastes, who are not interested in the ways of the rest of humanity, be left alone to enjoy their simple life, segregated like the insane, surrounded by a band of silence, to live and die in splendid isolation?

Ed. Comm.

Democracy in the Russian army (1945)

From the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

In “Soviet Democracy” (published by Gollancz in 1937), Mr. Pat Sloan contrasted the democracy of the Red Army with the relationship between officers and soldiers in the old armies. He declared (p. 157) that “the old relationship between soldier and officer was completely abandoned, and all ranks mixed together as equals when off duty. . . .” 

The following report from the Moscow correspondent of the Daily Mail (September 3rd, 1945), shows the latest development:—

“The Russian Army Newspaper Red Star to-day announced the formation of Officers’ clubs for the exclusive use of officers. Army clubs have up to now been open to all ranks. The newspaper says 'under present conditions of cultural enlightenment work, it is necessary to have sharp differentiation and separation.' ”

By The Way: The Labour Government’s Communist Friends (1945)

The By The Way Column from the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Government’s Communist Friends

The Communist Party helped Labour M.P.s everywhere at the July elections, rejoiced in their success and is backing the Labour Government. Now read what choice epithets they applied to the last Labour Government.

“It shoots down the workers and peasants in India; it imprisons such gallant workers as the Meerut prisoners, who have fought for the economic and political freedom of the Indian workers and peasants; it sends warships to intimidate the Egyptians; warships and soldiers to China. The Labour Government is the most open and blatant tool of imperialism, both in its attacks on the workers at home and in its policy of bloodshed and violence abroad.”—(Mr. Harry Pollitt in “The Workers' Charter,” published in 1930, by the National Minority Movement).

#    #    #    #

Communists Denounced Nationalisation and Now Support it

The Communists now approve of the Labour Government's nationalisation schemes, but read what the Communists said about the schemes when they were drawn op.

“The Labour Party and the trade union leaders try to hide their policy of surrendering the workers’ daily interests to the capitalists, by using socialist phrases, so called Socialist schemes, such as were adopted at the Leicester and Newcastle Conferences.

“All their schemes for the 'control of banking system,’ 'public control of industry land trade,’ 'transport boards’ are schemes of capitalist reorganisation, designed to strengthen capitalist monopoly at the expense of the working class.” 

(From “Resolutions adopted by the 12th Congress of the Communist Party of Great Britain.”—Published by the C.P.G.B., 1932. Pago 6)

#    #    #    #

“A Third Labour Government Will be Even Worse than the Second ”

After the collapse of the second Labour Government, when MacDonald had joined the National Government and the 1931 Election was in progress the Communist Party published “The Workers’ Answer to the Crisis,” by R. P. Dutt.

Here are some extracts: —

“But the policy of the Labour Party was and remains the policy of maintaining capitalism, of attempting reforms within the framework of capitalism, of taking over the capitalist state, of administering capitalism, of denial of the class struggle, of unity with capitalism. . . . The outcome for the workers who trust the Labour Party is disaster. The talk of socialism and reforms becomes only deceiving the workers, because the practice is capitalism.

“This is the lesson of the two Labour Governments.” And again:—

“Will a Third Labour Government be any better than the second Labour Government? Will a Henderson Labour Government be any better than a MacDonald Labour Government?

No, a third Labour Government will be even worse than the second Labour Government, because of the greater intensity of the crisis of capitalism, will deal even heavier blows against the workers, will lead to worsening of the crisis and end in intensified capitalist dictatorship. . . .

What are the promises of the Labour Party worth ? Nothing, as experience has abundantly shown. The Labour Party speak of ’socialism,’ of ’Nationalisation of the banks/ of ' public ownership and control ’ of the key industries. This is a paper programme of promises to deceive the workers. . . . It is meaningless deception so long as the capitalist exploiters are in fact to be left secure.”

#    #    #    # 

Less Compensation for Coal owners

“After the discovery of atomic energy we are unlikely to want coal as a source of power 20 years hence. If the mines stayed in private ownership, their value would be small. When they are nationalised it would be ridiculous to compensate the shareholders at anything like the present Stock Exchange prices. The railways will probably be obsolete in another 30 years, so the same applies to them.” —Prof. J. B. S. Haldane in Daily Worker, 2.8.45.

Was it not Professor Blackett who said on the wireless in 1935 in discussion on Science with Julian Huxley that “scientists, if in the position of politicians, would act like politicians”? So a man of Haldane’s unquestionable scientific ability—because harnessed to the C.P.-Labour Party policy of compensation for poor capitalists—can see nothing more in the supercession of the old forms of production and transport by atomic energy than a haggling point to pay less compensation.

The Communist Party, which started by “taking the Labour Party by the throat,” now pleads for lest compensation.

#    #    #    #

Too Unreliable

Gangsters for Commandos.

Proposal Was Dropped.

“Among recruiting suggestions considered in the early days of the commandos was whether it would be better to use real toughs or gangsters either from the United States or British cities rather than soldiers. The view taken, it is revealed in 'Soldier,' the British Army magazine, by Brig. Dudley W. Clarke, who recruited the first commandos, was that the gangster was too unreliable. The idea was dropped.

“So, too, was a proposal from a convict who offered to form a commando of convicts And warders.”—Sunday Times, August 12, 1945.

#    #    #    #

Liberation

German charges that Moroccans attacked Girls. 

“Rumours arising out of German allegations that more than 1,000 women were raped by Moroccan troops during the first few days of the French occupation are still growing in the German city of Stuttgart. Hundreds of girls in the city were Poles or Russians brought there by the Germans as slave labour.

“The German police chief in the new administration working under U.S. occupation, Karl Weber, said most of the women were attacked in their own homes by the dark-skinned, turbaned Moroccan troops, who broke down doors in looting forays.

“The official German police report lists 1,198 rape cases involving women whose ages ranged from 14 to 74. Weber claims that each case has been verified and estimates that twice that number of women were attacked but were ashamed to report.—Sunday Express, August 12, 1945.

#    #    #    #

Reluctant “Comrades"

A correspondent of the Manchester Guardian reports the extremely difficult problems which repatriation of Russian “displaced persons” involves. First, he points out that by the Yalta agreement the Soviet authorities do not recognise “ non-repatriables” like the other powers—i.e., they insist on the handing over of all Russian citizens. 

Secondly, and more importantly,

“Apart, however, from certain questions of principle involved, there are practical difficulties about doing this, as some are prepared to fight rather than be arrested. Individuals or groups may well have arms, and there is an obvious reluctance to risk the lives of British or American soldiers for what is essentially a matter of internal Russian policy.”—Manchester Guardian, August 31, 1945.

So what does emerge is that thousands of former Russian citizens, having escaped the “Socialist Fatherland” during the war, are prepared to risk their lives fighting to avoid repatriation to the Soviet Utopia.

We have a splendid solution! Let all those hysterical and vociferous Communists who haunt Socialist Party meetings volunteer to go back to Russia in place of the missing Russian nationals in Germany, who will remain where they prefer. A good time will then be had by all! We wonder!

#    #    #    #

Strikers Shout Down Officials!

The Telegraph for July 30th reports that officials were shouted down at a railway strikers’ meeting. Delegates called for nationalisation of the railways.

A Birkenhead representative declared: “If we continue our present (strike) action the new Government will be able to turn to the companies and tell them they cannot manage their business. It would then be an easy step towards nationalisation. ’'

He got his answer on July 31st, one day later, when “three hundred soldiers swept in through the Surrey Commercial Docks at 1 p.m. to-day in lorries to take over loading and unloading of ships which had been at a standstill because of the dockers 'go slow.’ ”—Evening News, July 31.)

Strike action of itself will never achieve nationalisation of the railways or any other industry—even if nationalisation were in the interests of the workers. Only political power can do that, because it involves the State. The Labour Government will “nationalise” certain industries because it has a mandate (power) from the electorate to do so. It has persuaded working-class electors that it does so in their interests—though it is actually the policy of some of the industrial capitalists. Strike action against the State-brings the Army in to do the job, and breaks the strike.

#    #    #    #

Bombs and Trade

“Post-war trade relations in the Far East are being rewritten by B.29 Super Fortresses and India’s Industrial future—particularly in textiles—looks extremely rosy in the glow of firebombs on Japan, 'Every time the Superforts hit Osaka’ said a leading Indian textile operator, ' I say to myself: There’s another year free of Jap competition in the Indian textile market.’ ”—(New York Herald Tribune, June 13th, 1945. Quoted in Plebs, September, 1945).

#    #    #    #

That Odd Bird the Labour Party

Mr. Laski is reported to have said: “The bright bird of Socialism needs two wings—it can’t fly on a right wing only, or a left wing only.”—(Daily Mail, September 4th).

If Mr. Laski had stopped to consider the kind of progress made by a bird with oddly assorted wings, one pushing forward and the other pulling back, he would have realised that his analogy is very apt though not in the sense he intended.

Horatio.

Trade union dissensions in Eire (1945)

From the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The old maxim of “divide and conquer” has been well illustrated by the turn of events in Irish Labour circles.

For some time certain reactionary elements in the Irish trade union movement have been attempting to disrupt this movement and in the past twelve months or so have succeeded to such an extent that those with a genuine understanding of the position fear that the death- knell of working-class agitation and organized trade unionism has been sounded.

Chief offender and instigator of this retrograde movement is one Mr. William O’Brien, Secretary, Irish Transport and General Workers Union, who has allowed personal ambition and private feuds to over-ride all considerations for the working-class in general and members of his own organisation in particular.

Twelve months ago he administered his “stab in the back” to the Irish Labour Party.

The reason for this secession, he stated, was because the Irish Labour Party was “communistic.”

Even in Ireland where the favourite trick of the enemies of the working class is to label any progressive line of thought, or action, as “anti-God,” “bolshevist,” or “communist,” this declaration of O’Brien’s was taken with the proverbial “grain of salt.”

Indeed it was well known that the real reason for O’Brien’s withdrawal was because of his failure to gain control of the Irish Labour Party.

His act of political sabotage being successful (the number of Labour members returned to the Dail dropped considerably at the next election), O’Brien’s next move was a step towards his dream of “one big union” and his dictatorship of the working class.

Thus at a conference held in Dublin during March the delegates of certain trade unions decided to break away from the Irish Trade Union Congress. The reason for this decision was given in a resolution which said that “the opinions and aspirations of Irish Labour cannot be expressed by the Irish Trade Union Congress, which is controlled by British trade unions, and that the Irish Unions affiliated to Congress occupy an intolerable and humiliating position.”

The lie has already been given to this sweeping statement in sections of the Irish Press, but for the benefit of readers unacquainted with the Irish trade union position I will endeavour to give a clear picture of the situation.

The Irish T.U.C. was the strongest all-Ireland working-class organisation. For it, the border was non-existent, and representatives of the workers of both Northern and Southern Ireland worked in a spirit of harmony and unity.

It had established fraternal contact with the workers of other countries and because of these facts it was able to put a strong challenge to any coercive measures attempted by the Eire Government.

That this was the principal reason for the action of the trade union “Quislings ” will be illustrated later on. As for the allegation that British Unions controlled the I.T.U.C. the plain fact of the matter was that the Irish Unions who represent 80,000 members had 115 delegates at the Congress while the British or Amalgamated Unions, with a membership of some 110,000 workers, were represented by 88 delegates. The charge that these unions are British can hardly be considered correct, for though their headquarters may be outside Eire they are affiliated to the I.T.U.C. in respect of their Irish Membership and are governed by councils elected by these members and receive no interference from their executives in Britain. In any case these so-called British Unions have always been to the forefront in the struggle waged by the Irish workers against their bosses.

The part played by the N.U.R. in the munitions strike in 1921 is only one of the numerous points in question.

And so we see that the I.T.U.C. was not controlled by the Amalgamated (or British) Unions but that rather the boot was on the other foot.

Another interesting point is that while these Eire Unions claimed that their quarrel was with the Amalgamated Unions yet it was they themselves, who were responsible for refusing to allow the affiliation to the I.T.U.C. of such prominent Irish Unions as the Workers Union of Ireland, the Grocers’ Assistants and the Irish Engineering and Foundry Workers Union.

The seceding group consists of ten Unions with a total membership of 55,000. The biggest and most powerful of these Unions is, of course, O’Brien’s I.T.G.W.U. with 36,000 members. The decision to break away from the I.T.U.C. was taken by their delegates without informing the rank and file of their unions and without their permission.

Here it will be noted the total disregard for trade union principles and the introduction of totalitarian methods. The “Council of Irish Unions” as this group has styled itself could not .have been formed at a more critical period of Irish Trade Unionism for Mr. O'Brien is nothing if not an opportunist.

What the Trade Union Act of 1941 of the De Valera Government—aimed at crippling the entire trade union organisation—failed to do, the action of this group, at the time when the proposed Vocational System of Legislature for Eire has shown what a struggle trade unionism will have for an existence in the future, has gone far to accomplishing, Mr. O’Brien makes no secret of his intentions.

In a letter inviting those unions to the conference, at which the decision to break away was taken, he referred to the report of the Commission of Vocational Organisation and its recommendation that British Unions should not be allowed to operate in Eire.

Mr. O’Brien was not perturbed at this. He, of course, welcomed it and outlined his proposals for his “One Big Union." To quote Mr. O'Brien :

"The changes likely to be made in the near future present a reason and an opportunity for putting our house in order." 

Every trade unionist must wonder how far this group will progress. Not very far, one would say, were it not for the fact that it is modelled on lines which must be very pleasing to the Eire Government. ’This Government whose each succeeding act of legislation is a step towards totalitarianism has already expressed its welcome to such a body. Indeed it must be a very satisfying thought to them to have the working-class handed to them lock, stock and barrel in one group. All this trade union intrigue must leave the ordinary worker very confused.

One can hardly blame the Irish worker if he forms the opinion that trade unionism is a racket, and being a member of a trade union is just because ho requires a licence to work. In Ireland especially, where the red herring of nationalism has so frequently been drawn across the path of the working class, this latest diversion must be very distracting especially when one remembers that in Ireland industrial development is in its infancy and, consequently, the standard of economic and political education is very low. But to a socialist viewing the situation in retrospect the whole matter is simple.

Society to-day is based upon the ownership of the means of living by the capitalist class and the consequent enslavement of the working class, and, therefore, there is on antagonism of interest—manifesting itself as a class struggle. The trade union movement is one of the ways the class struggle makes itself felt. But trade unionism is an effect and not a cause of the struggle. The Socialist, while recognising the value of trade unions in the day-to-day struggle of the working class for better wages, conditions, etc., realises that no amount of bargaining with the capitalist class can free the working class from the yoke of wage-slavery. This can only be brought about by the complete emancipation of the working-class from the domination of the capitalist class and the establishment of a socialist system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production. But trade unions cannot bring this about.

So members of the working-class, be you from Ireland or elsewhere—for Socialism allows of no distinction of race —put not your trust in trade unions which split and confuse the working-class, but go on striving towards that goal which can only be brought about by your own efforts.

Let nothing deter yon in your fight for the emancipation of your class and the establishment of a society where the need for trade unions is non-existent.

Workers, unite for Socialism.

Mick Cullen, Dublin.

SPGB Meetings (1945)

Party News the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Harry Hynd was the Labour MP for Hackney Central in 1945. There is little or no information about him on the net. I don't even know if he was on the left or right of the Labour Party.

Donations to Party Funds (1945)

From the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard