The Trades Union Congress (1936)

From the October 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

The sixty-eighth annual Trades Union Congress was held at Plymouth in September, under the presidency of Mr. A. A. H. Findlay, General Secretary of the United Pattern-Makers' Union.

It is an indication of the trend of trade unionism in this country that, in recent years, the time of Congress has been taken up, to an increasingly larger extent, in debate and discussion on political affairs and international questions. This year’s conference was similarly occupied. The dominant issues were Spain, national defence, dictatorship, and the Communist demand for a united front.

The Spanish Civil War

The President, in his opening speech, referred to the present struggle in Spain, and said: —

“Our hearts,” he continued, “ go out in honour and respect to our comrades in Spain, who are making their magnificent fight in defence of constitutional government.”— (Manchester Guardian, August 9th, 1936.)

A telegram, approved by Congress, and sent to the Spanish Premier, read: —

This congress, representing the organised workers of Great Britain, profoundly moved by the heroic struggle of the Spanish people for the maintenance of freedom and democracy . . . In the confident assurance that they embody the unconquerable will of the Spanish nation to defeat the forces of Fascism and tyranny, we pledge afresh our utmost support to the Spanish people.

Such is the sentiment. But when it came to a showdown, to a question of translating sentimental platitudes into practical assistance, Congress showed its helplessness and complete inability to give any

material help to the Spanish workers. What the Spanish Government needs is arms, in the shape of battleships, aeroplanes and guns, with which to fight the rebel military forces. Congress could not provide these. However, to be consistent with its resolution of “utmost support," it might have adopted a policy of supporting the demand that the British Government supply arms to the Government in Spain. It did not do so, but carried, by 595 votes to 7, a resolution supporting the Government’s policy of neutrality, that is, of withholding the supply of arms. An amendment favouring a policy of intervention was defeated on a card vote by 3,029,000 votes to 51,000. Intervention here meant supplying the Spanish Government with arms.

In the discussion that followed, Sir Walter Citrine said that the great need of the Spanish Government was to be supplied as rapidly as possible with war material to which it was entitled under international law. That it was felt that action should be taken to restrain Italy and Germany from supplying munitions to the Spanish military rebels. This could only be effected by placing a naval blockade round the coast of Spain. He continued : “ . . . I could not say ‘yes' to that.” (Daily Herald, September 11th, 1936.) Nevertheless, Sir Walter did say “yes" to the stupid telegram which pledged “utmost support" to the Spanish people, and which could only be dangerously misleading to the Spanish workers and Government. He also stated that the policy of neutrality was initiated by the Popular Front Government of France, and that the French Government had had a long-standing agreement with the Spanish Government to supply munitions, yet on July 25th (which was only one week after the civil war broke out) it decided it could no longer do so. He expressed the view that the overriding motive was clearly that the French Government was convinced that if it went on supplying Spain in the emergency with the munitions that the Spanish Government needed, there would in all probability be an outbreak of war in Europe.

Certain aspects of the question had apparently escaped Sir Walter Citrine’s notice. Were Congress or the “neutral” powers able to exert sufficient pressure to compel the Fascist powers to observe neutrality, then that pressure could have been exerted to have prevented them from supplying arms to the rebels in the first place. There was, in fact, no essential difference in the policy of neutrality embodied in the resolution which he supported and the policy of intervention in the amendment which he opposed. There would be as much “danger to the peace of Europe" if the policy of neutrality had to be made effective as there would be in the policy of intervention. The neutral powers, Great Britain and France, are not willing to risk war whilst there is “no direct threat to their interests. The enormous cost of war and the possibility of loss in markets and colonies induce an attitude of caution in international affairs and an anxiety to avoid doing anything that would provoke war. Which is quite unlike the swashbuckling sentiment of the British Governments when Empire building was in its heyday. Germany and Italy have less to lose and can afford to take advantage of the weakness, temporary or otherwise, of the other great powers, and with less fear of retaliation. Nobody believes that if Germany and Italy accepted the neutrality agreement that they would keep it. It is doubtful whether Sir Walter Citrine does.

A Recruiting Speech

In the debate Mr. Bevin scored as a jingo. “We are satisfied,” he said, “ that we are not going to meet the Fascist menace by mere resolutions. . . . We are not going to meet it by pure Pacifism . . . the whole of the democratic powers had to say to Hitler and Mussolini * Don’t take us too cheaply.’ ”

And during the discussion on foreign affairs he said: —

“We have been on the retreat as democratic powers.

“We have weakened our prestige. There has been an assumption that we would never defend ourselves.

“ That is not true. 

“ Fascism is not going to saddle itself on the whole earth, either by intrigue or the methods employed in Spain.”—(Daily Herald, 11.9.36.)

The Government has probably noted that speech for use in future recruiting literature.

The Communists and Spain

Other interesting facts which came out were: That the British Communist Party had not raised its voice to demand that Russia should send munitions to Spain. That the fact that the Russian Government had accepted the neutrality agreement and had operated it had never been mentioned by the French Communist Party. That the Russian trade unions had ceased collections for the Spanish workers on the instructions of the Russian Government. That the international fund for relief amounted to £45,000, of which £13,381 came from Britain. This represents a fraction of a penny per head of the trade union membership of Great Britain. (Daily Herald, September 11th, 1936.)

Future Labour Government. Mr. Bevin’s Boast

Resolutions favouring the abolition of the means test, the forty-hour week, the raising of the school-leaving age to sixteen, the abolition of the six-day waiting period for unemployed workers applying for insurance benefit, were approved. Congress knew that the passing of these, resolutions anticipated the policy of a possible future Labour Government. In fact, speaking to the resolution in favour of a forty-hour week, Mr. Bevin said: —

“The resolution did imply that if after the next election they secured the return of a Labour Government they would expect that Government to introduce the 40-hour week.”—(Daily Herald, 10.9.36.) 

And later: —

“ Never again must a Labour Minister be sent into office without all his plans prepared.”

The latter statement is in the nature of an ultimatum or a threat. As Mr. Bevin gave it as his opinion that the Labour Party lacks the virility of the trade unions, perhaps he considered the threat necessary. The statement certainly gives ammunition to the opponents of the Labour Party, who maintain that it was the Trade Union "caucus” who insisted upon the Labour Party not entering the National Government in 1931, against that party’s own wishes.

It is to be hoped that workers will remember Mr. Bevin’s words when the next Labour Government is elected—particularly if he is in the Cabinet. The last Labour Government found its pledges embarrassing, and said so, and asked the workers not to press their claims. The bill to raise the school-leaving age, which was introduced by the last Labour Government, particularly showed that lack of “virility” to which Mr. Bevin referred. It was wrecked because of the dissensions between the rival religious factions within the Parliamentary Labour Party. The waiting period for the unemployed worker and the means test were then in operation and were justified by Labour Government spokesmen. Mr. Lansbury stated that he was not in favour of an unemployed man having assistance unless some kind of means test were applied.

Trade Union Soul-Saving

However, the fear of losing its members, votes, and trade union financial backing, might induce an effort in a future Labour Government to attempt to carry out its pledges. In the opinion of Sir Walter Citrine, the trade union movement “saved the soul of the.Labour movement in 1931,” when the Labour Government fell. However, having said it, it is to be hoped that Sir Walter will be as successful in keeping it unsullied in the future. Incidentally, his statement is a tacit admission that members of the Labour Government were in favour of entering the National Government in 1931, and only refrained from doing so because of pressure from the trade unions.

Trade Union and Co-Operative Societies

Discussion, on the General Council’s report dealing with employment of trade union labour by co-operative societies and firms working on cooperative society contracts was interesting. Some of the discussion, as reported by the Manchester Guardian (September 11th, 1936), is as follows: —

Mr. A. G. Tomkins, of the Furnishing Trades’ Association, said it was not correct to say that with the exception of a few small societies the goods sold were made under fair conditions; it would be more correct to say that the larger the co-operative society the bigger difficulty they nad in preventing “ rat ” furniture from being sold.

Mr. W. Birch, of the Distributive and Allied Workers, Hyde, urged the General Council to take an active part in negotiations for conciliation machinery between the C.W.S. and the unions having members employed by it. It would be a great achievement if they could establish a fifty-shilling minimum for the men concerned. 

“ Rat ” furniture is furniture made under sweated conditions of labour. In this case in workshops which contract for the co-operative societies. The Daily Herald reported Mr. Tomkins as having spoken on the General Council’s report, but completely omitted the statements reproduced from the Manchester Guardian's report above. The Herald also omitted from its report of Mr. Birch’s speech the statement that “it would be a great achievement if they could establish a fifty-shilling minimum for the men concerned.”

Communists and the United Front

When Congress discussed the General Council’s report opposing a united front with the Communists, Sir Walter Citrine made a scathing speech. He said that one of the most amusing spectacles which contemporary political history would reveal was the attempt made by the Communist movement to ingratiate itself with the Trades Union Congress and Labour Party.

“After years of derision of the principles of the Labour movement, after using gallons of ink in denunciation of Labour’s leaders, after abuse of its unions as pillars of capitalism and reformist organisations, after denouncing its puny attempts to capture Parliament—regarded by the Communists as entirely ineffective as a means of emancipation of the people—after all the years that we have experienced since 1925, now we have the curiously incongruous spectacle of the Communist organisations wanting to come into our midst and be part of the movement they have so derided.

“The Communist party in Great Britain, as in every other country in Europe, is the mouthpiece of the Soviet Government. Everything that the Soviet Government decides will be repeated, parrot-like, by the Communists.

" . . . And when they speak here they are expressing the Russian Government’s point of view.”

Membership

The Council’s report showed an increase in trade union membership by approximately 300,000, but London, while it has 2,500,000 industrial workers, has only 350,000 trade unionists.

One last thing about the Congress. No Socialist voice was heard to penetrate the confused ideas and oratory, shedding light with the Socialist explanation of events. 

Harry Waite