Full Employment? Another Labour Party Fallacy (1946)

From the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is full employment for the working class possible? What exactly does it mean? By whom is it desirable? Or is it a stunt to inspire the workers with hope and trust in our so-called Socialist Government?

 

These are not some of the questions asked in Parliament, or other public places. On the contrary, there seems to be general agreement, especially in the press, to keep up the fiction that full employment is possible, not merely for the repair of war damage, but indefinitely.

According to a leading article in the Daily Telegraph for November 16th, the Government's plan for full employment is much the same as that of the Coalition Government's in 1944. They say :—

“It differs little but in omissions and change of emphasis from the policy for maintaining 'a high and stable level of employment' which the Coalition Government set forth in 1944. That policy commanded general support as a well devised means of smoothing out booms and slumps, the main obstacles to full employment." 

Neither the Coalition Government, nor the present Labour Government, have so far explained how, by smoothing out the booms and slumps, fuller employment is obtained. Neither do they, or the Daily Telegraph, show how, when one dead level of employment has been reached, it is possible to achieve a condition of full employment. The plan is to spend on public works during the slump, leaving the booms to keep the workers busy during the few years—or months—they last. The Daily Telegraph, while hopeful of the results, is dubious of the ability of the Government and its experts to forecast the slumps, and adjust, their spending on public works accordingly.

Having once made the assertion that ''booms and slumps are the main obstacles to full employment," which is false, any deductions they make on that premise will undoubtedly be wrong. If, instead of eating all my cake to-day, I save a portion for to-morrow, obviously, nothing is added to the total.

In the same way, if a capitalist Government postpones its public works schemes to provide work during a slump, it creates no new employment. All it does is to arrange a levelling out, with little or no fluctuations.

If the unemployment figures during a boom are one million, and during a slump three million, cut out spending on public works during the boom and spread it over the slump and you get approximately two millions throughout both periods. The new arrangement is of no benefit to the workers. On the contrary, the advantage is on the side of Big Business, which has a well stocked labour market on which to draw at the very time world markets are expanding.

The Labour Government, in taking over the Capitalist bag of tricks, have taken with it its superstitions. Ever since the "South Sea bubble" there has been profound dread among capitalists of trade crises. "There's a slump on the way," or "a boom is just round the corner" were common expressions, generally spoken with superstitious awe, as though it were some great convulsion of nature. This dread impotence before the economic blizzard is still prevalent. According to the Daily Sketch (Nov. 23rd, 194.')), Mr. Dalton had said:—

"We must also arm ourselves with anti-slump powers, so that never again, as in past years, shall prices and productivity and employment all fall away through the failure of private enterprise."

The Daily Sketch leader commented as follows : —

"Even Mr. Dalton's Fabian audience must have caught their breath at the sheer ineptitude of that pronouncement, for there is no means within the capacity of man which would leave us an exception to the general experience in the event of a world slump. That will prove to be true Whether this country is run under state control or private enterprise."

For the last 30 years the workers have been unable to see much difference in the amount of unemployment during booms and slumps. They certainly do not become more prosperous during the booms. Big business, even when it gets really busy, cannot absorb more than part of the unemployed millions left over from the previous slump, Booms and slumps are no longer a mystery to all capitalists. This fact is made clear in a book by Roy Glenday, "Economic adviser to the Federation of British Industries," and entitled, "The Future of Economic Society" (Macmillan & Co., 1944).

Mr. Glenday gives facts and figures that shed much light on the subject of trade, both internal and international. In the production and marketing of motor cars, for instance, he says: The huge and complex plant necessary for standardisation and cheapness would be uneconomic without assurance of an ever expanding market. When saturation level has been reached with the ready money section, hire purchase methods are resorted to; which only puts off the evil day of partial, or even total collapse. When it is remembered that this is the normal process of big business in the production and sale of such things as radio sets, cycles and electric appliances of many kinds we can readily understand how this mad race for profits leads to crises.

Mr. Glenday has a convincing array of facts and evidence, from which he argues that Capitalism cannot survive its present crisis without some kind of adjustment in its environment. But contrary to what we should expect from an adviser to the Federation of British Industries, he envisages some form of “communism" the next step in human progress being what he calls the service state. Where, in return for security and a retiring pension, the individual will have to give up the right to choose his job, and must be prepared, not only to move from one locality to another, but also to change his job; undergoing a period of training, if necessary, to fit him for his new job. According to the Conservative press, something like this “service state” is contemplated for this country by the present Government, and already exists in Russia. They (the Conservatives) call it the servile state. But capitalism, whether British, Russian or American, means servility for the working-class always and everywhere. The right to choose his own job is of little value to the individual worker, the majority of whom consider themselves fortunate when they can find any sort of job and hold it down. Booms and slumps mean little to them.

Much depends on the point of view. From the capitalist viewpoint, it is eminently desirable that the workers should be kept busy; though not too busy in case they get independent. And not only because they are a source of profit; but also because many unemployed workers are a menace to a smoothly running system, and they have to be fed anyway.

The worker's point of view is different. He knows that the overstocked condition of the world's markets is the result of working-class energy. Of working-class efficiency combined with modern methods and machinery. The machinery itself being the result of working-class effort. In short, all the ingredients that go to make up overstocked markets are included in the phrase "human energy and the nature-given material," capitalists being excluded.

Under a rational system of society the machines would not belong to the capitalist, but to the people, and the people, while participating in the work of production and distribution, would arrange the conditions for themselves. They would do so through a real democracy worked out by themselves. The idea of finding or making work would be illogical and absurd. Under Socialism only the work necessary for the satisfaction of human needs according to an agreed standard of life and culture, would be performed. Booms and slumps would disappear along with the poverty and unemployment that spring from the wild scramble for profits.

F. E.

The trouble in dockland By a Dock Worker (1946)

From the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

A state of "armed truce" exists between the dockers and their employers with the Government concerned only with the smooth running of the system.

Waging a struggle against their masters, and faced with the undisguised hostility of the Labour Government, the misrepresentation and distortion of the press, and the general apathetic misunderstanding of the bulk of the working class, the dockers of Britain have exhibited a high measure of solidarity and determination.

From the first few days in October to the end of the dispute in the first week-end in November, with all the hardships and suffering necessarily involved in a prolonged strike, and without any official backing, guidance or organisation, a developed sense of discipline and organisation was shown by this section of the working class that bodes ill for the master class and their interests when reinforced by political understanding.

All strikes have their basis in the class struggle, and this dispute was the culmination of years of overwork under war conditions, working and living in bombed areas and the inevitable inadequacy of working class diet aggravated by the exigencies of war.

The normal nominal wages of dockers have increased from 14s. per day in October, 1940, to 16s. at the present time. And the cost of living has increased disproportionately, which reveals a reduction in real wages. In order to meet with this the men had to work long hours of overtime under the most harassing conditions imaginable, particularly in the "target" ports. Their efforts in this direction met with the applause of Government and Press. Coupled with this, on the insidious plea of assisting the war effort "to end Fascism," most of their hard-won trade union practices and restrictions were surrendered, and large scale mechanisation and speed-ups introduced. Now, on the equally anti-working class plea of "building up Britain's export trade," the Government and the employers are seeing to it that these speed-ups and mechanisations shall remain.

In the period 1939-1945, the dockers’ real wages having been reduced, what happened to their relative wages, i.e., what they received considered in relation to the profits of their employers?

All the large shipping companies increased their profits handsomely. Even in the worst years for shipping losses, the Cunard Line's profits improved on the previous year's.

In short, the wages of the dockers, considered as real, decreased; as relative, decreased.

For years, especially during the War, the official organisations of the Transport and General Workers' Union were out of touch with the rank and file of dockland, due primarily to the neglect of the members in looking after their Union affairs, rendered worse by overtime and Sunday work, precluding attendance at Union meetings.

Other factors have been the fusion of the Union organisation with the "war effort," and the acceptance by Union officials of administrative jobs in the large dock labour "schemes," and subsequent collision with the men; also the general structure of the official Unions which failed to expedite the claims of the men and to control the full-time officials.

With these facts as a domestic background, when shipping requirements slackened off after May, 1945, and the corresponding diminution in overtime was reflected in smaller pay packets, the dockers were faced with the problem now before the industrial workers of Britain and the other victors of the recent war, that of forcing their wages up to subsistence level.

The dock strike started in the last week of September on a local issue at Birkenhead involving some sixty men, and grew in proportion and changed in quality so that by the middle of October a large proportion of dockers in the country were involved on a national issue of a claim for 25s. a day and a forty-hour week. The full-time officials of the Dockers' Unions attacked the whole movement from the outset. Mr. Deakin, Mr. Donovan, of the Transport Union, and Mr. Barrett, of the Stevedores' Union, made themselves notable in this respect.

At monster meetings, sometimes of 17,000 men, unanimous votes of "no confidence" were passed in the officials of the Unions.

The reply to this, given by the officials, by the employers and the Government, was the gibe "unconstitutional" and a refusal to recognise the democratically elected strike committee.

A fierce barrage of spiteful, and in some cases, stupid propaganda was directed against the strikers. The Minister of Education brought even the derision of the Beaverbrook Press upon her head with her rash and unfounded speculations concerning bread rationing.

The Minister of Labour, forgetting years of Labour propaganda about the need for a "more equitable distribution of wealth," threw his weight in against the striking dockers.

The more sober capitalist press such as the Manchester Guardian, Observer, etc., while decrying the "unconstitutional" nature of the effort, nevertheless admitted on occasion the possibility of the reality of the men's grievances.

Mr. Emrys Hughes, of the Forward, indicated quite clearly his views during the dispute by the time-worn device of treating it as non-existent. One can only conclude that he didn't wish to embarrass the Labour Government. The Daily Worker was strangely reticent about the whole affair The Communist Party printed a small leaflet consisting of excerpts from a speech made by Harry Pollitt on October 13th entitled: "Danger if the Government does not make wage policy clear," in which Pollitt "stressed that economic conflict was not in workers' interests and they must use to the full the T.U. negotiating machinery." In short, don't strike. And to "carry forward the gains made during the war!" The working class should be informed at the earliest of .the nature of these gains, The dockers, at least, have another word for the changes in their position as a result of the war. The "New Leader,” the journal of the I.L.P., rallied to the defence of the strikers with the singularly inept slogans of “Sack the Dock Bosses" and "Nationalise the dock industry with Workers' Control."

The R.C.P. "Socialist Appeal" somewhat softly rebutted the silly stories of the Daily Mail regarding "Trotskyist agitation fomenting the strike.'' With their typically futile and romantic conceptions of "revolutionary upsurges," they urged the dockers to elect a "really revolutionary and militant leadership.”

On the whole, the dockers suffered as much from the attentions of their "friends” as they did from their open enemies.

The strike committees' spokesmen in Liverpool and London expressed finely on occasion the resolution of the men. and with a dignity that put their opponents to shame; but at other times indicated quite clearly their lack of knowledge of the forces arrayed in opposition.

They were, too, possessed of a naive confidence in the present Government.

It is a matter of little doubt, however, that the decision taken latterly by the Unofficial Committees to recommend a general resumption of work was prompted by the strategically sound desire to keep the men together with an unbroken organisation, and to indicate to all concerned that they retained the democratic support of the men.

Had the strike lasted any longer, there might have been the danger of a section of the strike movement weakening and resultant confusion. It is a truism that the working class learn as much from their defeats as from their victories. What, then, are the lessons to be gained from this strike, the first national dispute since the end of the war?

The first, that the dockers as a hitherto relatively backward section of the working class, are "growing up,'' and can display discipline and solidarity of a high order. Their unofficial organisation thrown up by the strike did in some respects match all that is best in working class industrial history. The second, that the employing class with their united hostility and the impudent counter proposal of an actual wage reduction in some ports, combined with the demand for a continuation of the war-time restrictions of Trade Union conditions, are determined to fight bitterly any attempted inroads into their profits. Well they know that a wage increase can only be granted at the expense of their profits.

The third, that the Labour Government does not, in fact can not, encourage workers to improve their status at the expense of their masters. And that the smooth running of the wages system comes first, as it must, in their calculations.

The fourth, the dockers must realise that a change in leadership is not the solution to their industrial and union problems. Given the same degree of apathy and rank and file inattention to their industrial problems, given the same naive confidence in a reformist Government attempting to run capitalism more efficiently than their masters, then the new officials will become like the old.

The fifth, the dockers must, like all other workers throughout the world, recognise and understand the class structure of society and the commodity character of their labour-power. That their wages are based, in the long run, on the cost of living and that the operation of the economic laws of Capitalism will defeat all their efforts to materially improve their lot.

And that the solution lies in an intelligent political movement to replace the private ownership of the means of life by common ownership and democratic control, and that in the Socialist Party there is to hand a fitting instrument for the task.

Tony Mulheron

[This article, received too late for our December issue, was written before the offer of an increase to 19/- a day. Ed. Comm.]

The "Transition Period" (1946)

From the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are many people who cannot shake themselves clear of the Labour Party because they believe that Socialism cannot be established as a complete and revolutionary revolution change. They believe that between Capitalism and Socialism lies a period of State ownership which, they contend, will be neither Capitalism nor Socialism. Consequently they pin their faith to the Labour Party as the party which will inaugurate this “transition period”.

The idea of a transition period, during which some fundamental features of capitalism would still remain, is old, and was taken for granted by the reform parties that sprang up during the second half of the last century and the idea has persisted until to-day.

The Utopian Socialists of the early part of last century proposed a complete break with capitalism by building a new society upon an entirely different basis. But this society, instead of growing out of the old, was to be built within present society but without having any connection with it at all. They were to be communistic oases in the desert of capitalism that would serve as an example and an inspiration to the world at large. This was Robert Owen’s early idea. When, later, it was found impossible to build these groups inside highly developed Western civilisation, attempts were made to set them up upon the relatively virgin soil of America and Australia. But even there they were failures; capitalism was too strong for them. Co-operative societies still remain a pale and stunted reflections of those grand old fantasies.

When the Utopian approach to the abolition of capitalism gave place to the scientific, and it became generally accepted that Socialism was a system that must grow out of capitalism and not be imposed upon it, the new attitude took three different forms, for which the low standard of education of the workers was partly responsible. One form was that capitalism must be subjected to repeated reforms until finally it was reformed out of existence and Socialism introduced without the mass of the people being aware of what was happening. The second form consisted of building up small, vigorous groups which would lead the workers into Socialism by a frontal attack upon capitalism. This was later the basis of the Russian Bolshevik movement and its early popularity as the Blanquist movement in France. The third and final form was one propagated by Marx and Engels in which the Socialist revolution was to be accomplished by a working class that realised the source and nature of the antagonisms within capitalism, and also the nature of the new social order they intended to build out of the ruins of the old.

From the beginning the two earlier methods were afflicted with the same old disease; an acceptance of the idea that the mass of the people are incapable of properly understanding the meaning of Socialism and therefore, in its early days, Socialism would be fraught with difficulties to solve which some forms of organisation similar to what we have to-day would persist for some time after the accomplishment of the revolution. The principal, and almost overwhelming, difficulty anticipated was how to get people to produce and distribute the needful things when private ownership of the means of production, and therefore wages, no longer existed. How would an equal share of work be performed and a fair share of needful things be provided without some principle analogous to what exists under capitalism? It was agreed that when Socialism had been firmly established and a new generation had grown up under free social conditions then no such arbitrary principle would be necessary, but until that time this hangover from capitalism must  remain.

This period between the overthrow of capitalism and the final establishment of a fully developed Socialist society has been called “the transition period”. Limited space will only permit us to discuss one aspect of the question here.

The troubles of the early Bolsheviks, who were endeavouring to build Socialism out of an undeveloped capitalist base, led them to exaggerate the nature and the importance of this transition period and their followers have given to State capitalism the unwarranted distinction of being the transition period. In defending their claims the early Bolsheviks—Lenin, Trotzky and their associates—appealed to the writings of Marx and Engels, and particularly to Marx’s criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875.

In his criticism Marx argues that during the transition period between capitalism and Communism a worker will withdraw from the common pool a value in hours of labour equal to the hours of labour he has worked minus the contribution to the reserve for the aged, the sick, future production and repair. Whether this period will be long or short Marx does not say; in fact, it is not even clear that he accepted more than there will be a period of difficulty to be met by temporary expedients, as his statements are arguments against erroneous assumptions in the Gotha Programme, and he is showing that where there is unequal distribution their phrase “just distribution of the proceeds of labour” in that programme is meaningless wind. We may add that taking the most extreme view of what Marx says it certainly could not produce conditions that would give rise to anything approximating to Soviet millionaires!

Let us now consider what are likely to be the conditions existing, as far as the distribution of products is concerned, at the time when the new society is being born out of the present, as far as we can envisage it to-day. We must bear in mind that the change will not come “like a thief in the night”, but in full daylight with the understanding and agreement of nearly the whole of society.

First of all, people will be accustomed to receiving wages with which to buy what they produce.

Secondly, the means of production and distribution will have been converted into Social ownership by an immediate act. This must be so as there cannot be any gradual or partial transformation.

The problem, then, is how will production be arranged when people will not receive any wages for working, and how will distribution be arranged when people will have no money to buy?

Finally, what will be the position of those who work in unnecessary occupations that will be abolished, and also of those who have never worked at all?

Before answering these questions let us first clear some of the ground.

We have absorbed what Marx and his co-workers gave to the world from their painstaking studies and we have added a good deal ourselves from our own studies since Marx, seventy years ago, criticised the Gotha Programme. We have profited from the development that has gone on since his day. One of the most important things we have learned is that the mass of people are essentially reasonable, once they understand a problem. For instance, workers will put up with considerable hardship and privation during strikes if they are convinced that the strike is necessary.

Our appeal is to all types of workers and our ranks include people from all occupations. In our propaganda we make it clear that the abolition of capitalism means the common ownership of the means of production which in turns involves from each according to his capacities, to each according to his needs. We point out that the workers must capture political power for the immediate purpose of introducing Socialism; and we further insist that there must be a majority of people understanding and desiring Socialism before it can be established.

Our propaganda, therefore, solves the problems of the transition period. From the outset the majority of workers will be satisfied with the meeting of their elementary needs; they will not expect everything at once. Furthermore workers inspired with the desire for Socialism will not be worried whether they are doing more work than somebody else. The enthusiasm for the change will spur many to work harder than they have ever done for capitalism. If for a time the tradition of capitalism weighs so heavily upon some that they shirk doing their best, what will it matter? Time itself will soon iron out this problem. At the worst there are very few people thick-skinned enough to be content to remain permanently objects of scorn.

When the movement reaches the point when Socialism is imminent it will contain within itself the organisation and the people capable of assessing the various needs of the population and how and where to organise production to meet those needs. At first the road may be rough, but it will be rapidly smoothed with the powers of production society will have at its disposal.

It is the nature of production, or the productive form, that determines the nature of the distribution. A freely associated productive form will involve a free distribution.

At first some occupations that are unpleasant may have to continue until there is time to remould the whole of production from top to bottom and eliminate what is burdensome and unpleasant. Thus some people may have unpleasant jobs for a while and others pleasant. But our propaganda will have made the necessity of this clear before the change takes place.

Thus the transition period will not be another social form but only the difficult time of reorganising production and distribution on a Socialist basis; settling down to Socialism. There will be no need for labour tickets or anything of that kind, as the workers as a whole are intelligent people.

The progress of Socialist understanding in the advanced countries proceeds at about the same pace. A revolutionary change in one of them will inspire a similar change in the others. Consequently there need be no lack of essential products or break in international supplies.

The Socialist movement is a working class movement, a movement in the interests of the great majority. Workers support each other internationally on the industrial field during strikes. There will be no lack of mutual assistance when the greatest working class movement of all, the movement to free the toilers for ever from the domination of a master class, reaches the point that it can call upon them for international solidarity in striking the final blow.

Gilmac.