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

From the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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 But, on the second day, following a bombardment from the General Secretary, Sir Vincent Tewson, the delegates rescinded the decision and gave back to the General Council the privilege of longer speeches.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W. Waters