Bill in the Chair. (1912)

From the October 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Trade Union Congress has met, passed resolutions on things that do not matter, listened to innumerable speeches, attended many functions, “seen the sights” of Newport, assisted in prayer at .the Labour sermon, and having run its respectable course, over much the same ground that other congresses have before it, has respectably passed away.

Labour is none the wiser for their deliberations ; none the more free for all their wordy resolutions ; none the fatter or happier for all the merry feasting and expensive junketting of their “Parliament.”

As usual, the Congress was larger than ever before, and its president, blushing Bill, showed an “example of straight speaking and clear thinking which might well be copied by some of our brilliant speakers and debaters at Westminster.” (“Daily Herald.”)

After a few preliminary remarks anent “the largest and most important congress yet held” (omitting to state that the increased membership was due in the main to a blind rush to join “approved societies” in conformity with the National Insurance Act) Bill proceeds to show his ignorance.

He tells us that “the outcome of the coal strike would take them one step nearer to the nationalisation of the mines . . . which, will be of a lasting benefit to the nation.” (“Daily Herald.”)

This is distinctly good for Bill, who time and time again has stated that the Government workers are worse off than those employed outside. Further on in this illuminating address he tells us that “9,000 employees of the late National Telephone Co. now enjoy the same conditions as the Post Office workers, which, brought them under the eight hours system.”

The result of the eight hours system and Government control has been “an increase of £175,000 per year in wages, increased holidays, a larger staff, and pensions amounting to an expenditure of £201,000 per annum,” according to our worthy president.

Which is all bosh, as has been shown by many of Bill’s pals who have the misfortune to” enjoy” the jobs he refers to. Among others, one “in the engineering branch of the service” who states in the “Daily Herald” (6.9.12) that “a 50½ hour week” is worked, goes on : “I shall be pleased for Mr. Thorne to understand that the increase in wages is only in theory, as no employee is receiving any increase ; also that a large number of the men have not had an increase of pay for the last two or three years and in consequence of the transfer will not receive any now, Where the late Company’s employees’ hours have been reduced they have suffered a corresponding reduction in wages, but where working hours have been extended no recompence has been given.”

At the Annual Meeting of the Government Workers’ Federation at Enfield on June 4, 1912, Bill’s benevolent boss was described as “the greatest enemy we have got,” and a delegate said : “They [the Government] are the worst set of employers I have come into contact with in my life. They are wicked ; they rob the maimed, the blind, the widow and the labourer. In fact, they take everything we let them take.” (“Daily News,” 4.6.12.)

At the same meeting a resolution was passed condemning the Government for refusing to put the “fair wages” agreement, in operation, and calling upon them to grant a miniinutn wage of 25s. 6d. to workers engaged in War Office and Admiralty departments.

Mr. W. Cheeseman, secretary of the Fawcett Association, said that the Government were forcing them to strike, and delegates from the Royal Parks stated that “for a wage of 23s. many of the man put in a seven day weak.”

This eulogy of the Government on the part of our “honest” chairman, who has “graduated with high honours in the school of Labour,” denoted a sudden change of front. In the House of Commons, March 4, 1912, Mr. William Thorne (South West Ham) :

“moved as an amendment to leave out from the word “That” to the end of the Question in order to add instead thereof the words :

‘in the opinion of this House the conditions of service of Government employees should be in every respect at least equal to those observed by the best private employer or by local public authorities doing similar work.’ (‘Parliamentary Debates’ Vol. 35, No. 14, p. 83.)

This amendment was defeated by the Labour men who abstained from voting for their own amendment in order to save the Government from possible defeat.

In support of his amendment Thorne and others give some very interesting facts. Bill said: —

“There are a number of leading storehouse men at Pimlico receiving 20s. per week, while in the factories adjacent to Pimlico it is found that the average for a similar class of employment worked out at 25s. 6d. Crane men start at 27s. per week and go up to 32s., while a similar class of men working outside for ordinary contractors can command 35s. and 40s. per week.” Barge loaders and van men working for the Government “get 24s. per week without any chance of promotion, These men are doing a similar class of work to that for which in the docks and on the wharves of the river 8d. per hour is paid, with 1s. per hour for overtime.”

“At the Army Ordnance Department at Woolwich,” said Mr. Tyson Wilson, “the men presented a petition asking for a minimum of 28s. per week. Some of these men are ‘promoted’ to foremen without having their wages increased. At Waltham Abbey things have improved, and the minimum is now 24s. per week. But the work is very injurious. The materials get into the system, affecting the heart, particularly the nitro-glycerine, and that is not work at which men live long. At Weedon,” went on Mr. Wilson, “the skilled labourers get 19s. per week and 2d. per day extra duty pay. At Enfield . . the minimum is 23s. 6d. The local employers of labour pay 6½d. and 7d. per hour.

Some very glaring cases of sweating were given with regard to firms contracting for the Government. At Stepney at Clark’s biscuit factory men are working 60 hours per week for 19s. 6d., while at MacNeill’s Patent Felt works 14s. is paid for 56½ hours work.

According to Mr. Wilson there are “cases of hosiery firms who are supplying the War Department for the wear of soldiers and other servants, and some of these firms have said themselves that they do not intend to pay the standard wages.”

So much for the pet scheme of nationalisation. Bill should know (and probably does know) that nationalisation means greater poverty and insecurity for the worker, and that the Government as an employer is better only in so much that it can grind the hardest and sweat the most.

Bill also seemed to believe that the miners during the year had won a victory, for he is reported by the “Daily Herald” as saying :—

“The main reason for the miners leaving work was to establish a minimum wage. . . . The Government made every effort to bring about a settlement without legislation but failed, and the Minimum Wage Bill was passed. In many districts a substantial increase has been brought about.”

Anent this we print the following from the “South Wales Daily News” (9.9.12) : —

“Mr. Hubert Jenkins, miners’ agent, has just issued a circular to the workmen at the Llanbradach Collieries stating that the relations between the men and the management have become very strained, and that it requires some courage under the circumstances for men to dare to assert their right to the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage award. He alleges that when the man fail to get clearance and claim to be paid, they are being stopped and kept idle or sent to work by night, which means the revival of the system of sponging.

“This treatment (he proceeds) is being meted out to a few at a time with the result that no man is safe ; this must cone to an end. The committee are blamed, the miners’ agent also, because of the delay in getting grievances dealt with. The time has come when the whole of the men employed at the Llanbradach collieries must voice their protest in a determined manner, or be prepared to to sacrifice their freedom and liberty completely.

“Men, he further alleges, have been going home with starvation wages since the resumption of work at the end of the national strike.”

Our brilliant Gas-worker next shone upon the question of the eight hours day. After pointing out that the Congress had been passing the resolution since 1890 without effect, he asked them to pass it again. “If time had permitted” he “could speak at length on the benefits an eight hours day would bring to the wage-earners in increasing leisure and decreasing unemployment.” Which again shows how little knowledge this paragon of presidents possesses.

A reprint from the “Daily News” (27.8.09), reporting the speech of Professor Chapman in his address to the Economic Science and Statistical Section, of the British Association, Winnipeg, may interest and instruct.

“The character of much of the world’s work, said Professor Chapman, has changed, and with that change has come a difference in the demands made upon leisure. These changes all tended to specialisation and concentration, both in working and in leisure, and to constant demands for the curtailment of the working hours of the day. In the course of long investigations he had found no instance in which an abbreviation of hours had resulted in a proportionate curtailment of output. There was, indeed, every reason to suppose that the production in the shorter seldom fell short of the longer hours, and in some cases the output or its value had been augmented.”

As the miners and others have discovered, an eight hours day means greater speeding up rendered possible by the greater amount of leisure, and, as has beea shown, in many cases a greater output with the same or a smaller number of employees. The introduction of the eight hours day, like the adoption of nationalisation, means more unemployment and more poverty for the workers, and no amount of claptrap from the President of the Trade Union Congress will prove the contrary.

After a sly lift to the Home Rule Bill and other Liberal measures the President passed to the Insurance Act and endeavoured to draw attention from the fraudulent nature of that measure by attacking the Prudential. The “Pru,” it seems, have been business-like, and have captured all the ninepences, at which the Unions are wrath. In their desire to get members the latter care little whether or not such members are trade unionists, and clearly show that what we have said all along is true, namely, that the sick and benefit side of the unions has long since absorbed all trace of the fighting organisations they may once have been.

A curious exception to this touting may be noted in a union which shouts about the “tactics” of the Prudential and at the same time have refused to accept into their “approved society” members of their own union. Thus the London Society of Compositors are forcing their own members into the insurance societies, while their delegates condemn the Prudential for taking them !

The Congress settled down to business and passed a resolution “that the question of secular education be eliminated from the questions for discussion at any future Congress.”

They have been discussing and passing resolutions about secular education for some forty years and made no progress, and so have decided not to waste time in passing any more. How much better would it have been if they had done the same with the rest of the motions ! None of them are of importance and nobody takes any notice of them.

There was much to do on the question of compulsory arbitration, and Mr. Ben Tillett, its champion, exchanged some complimentary remarks with Messrs. Brace and Havelock Wilson, but nothing important was said. The anti-political gentleman rightly said that the other side wore “political Mathuselahs who are capable of passing resolutions and nothing else,” while those in support of the motion favouring political action truly said that “the opponents of the motion were ex-members of Parliament; those who had tried to get into Parliament, and those who had abandoned all hope of getting there.” (“Daily Herald.”)

It is interesting to note that the Executive of the B.S.P., of which Tillett is a member, unanimously passed a resolution at its meeting on July 8th. condemning compulsory arbitration “as destructive of the independence (!) of the workers,” and recorded its “strong and convinced protest against the principle of compulsory arbitration in industrial disputes.” (“Socialist Record,” July, 1912.)

Evidently the rejection of his pet proposal annoyed Tillett, for, writing in the “Daily Herald” (9.9.12) he tells us that “there is little chance for most of the men attending Congress to even debate new theories, however common-sense they may appear to be. … the real powers and potentialities of Congress are stultified by the atrophy of customary narrowness in. thinking.”

The above sentiment is endorsed by Mr. Price, a member of the West Australian Parliament, who, to a representative of the “South Wales Argus” said : “I was struck with the lack of knowledge displayed, not only by the delegates, but by the Members of Parliament (did he mean Bill ?) . . . The difference between the Labour Party in the Antipodes and in Great Britain is that the former has a definite policy dealing with every phase of political economy, while in Great Britain the Labour Party has no definite policy or platform so far as I have been able to discover.”

The Congress got excited because of a certain circular issued by the Government re the transfer of members of an “approved society,” decided to call a special meeting, and generally spat forth fire at the action of the Government. But the Government need have no fear. The bribe given to the unions has caught them effectually, and though they may threaten to withdraw they will remain safely within the net in consideration of extra membership and extra dues, coupled with the influence brought to bear by one-time trade unionists who have been bought by Government jobs. To quote Ben Tillett: .

“All the expressions of opinion asking for action to be taken, either for amalgamation or joint trade union action, were sat upon, and the fighters of twenty years ago are the ruling politicians of to-day.”

Ah, yes ! the trade union movement has been sold time after time, and will remain as clay in the hands of those who are moulding it to suit their own purposes, just so long as the membership of those trade unions fail to understand their class position and the politics dictated by that position. Any action taken by any section of the trade unions will be side-tracked and outvoted by the bosses who are pulling the strings, and they in turn are led by those who have already been bought by the Government.

Twel.

Jottings. (1909)

The Jottings Column from the October 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Harry Bradford, writing in the August issue of the Pioneer (Burnley) informs his readers that “The S.D.P. is a poor parent and cannot yet give its children the toys and allurements that the capitalists use to entice them to their fold.” And further “The old age toffy-stick is too long withheld and too melting to satisfy.”

* * *

Then if the capitalist class use reforms as toys, i.e., in order to keep the workers quiet and prevent them becoming unruly, what are we to think of an organisation, claiming to be a working-class, revolutionary body, that advocates capitalist “toffy sticks” and toys ? The S.D.P. had the following capitalist allurements on their programme for a number of years : “Free and adequate State pensions or provision for aged and disabled workers. Public assistance not to entail any forfeiture of political rights.” One can only conclude, first, that the S.D.P.—as an organisation—has been playing the capitalist game, and secondly that Mr. Bradford is either not aware of the methods which the S.D.P. propose taking in order to “carry on the class war,” or that he wilfully misrepresents its objects.

* * *

Knowing that the S.P.G.B. have sent speakers to Nottingham lately, I wondered at first whether the “new, vigorous policy of complete independence” of the Notts I.L.P. was a consequence of these visits, but upon reading the article in the Labour Leader a little further I found they were “marching steadily ahead along the traditional lines of the I.L.P.,” and then I knew why “many social attractions to keep the members together” were necessary. The lack of unanimity as to the objective of the Party for the time being makes necessary the social functions which figure so largely in the I.L.P.

* * *

The debate on the Eight Hours Bill in the House of Commons last year (March 18) brought forth admissions from “Labour” members that with a decreased working day the existing output could be maintained without increased expenditure to the employer.

In his address to the Economic Science and Statistics section of the British Association, Professor Chapman said :

“These changes” (i.e., in the character of the world’s work) “all tended to specialisation, to concentration, both in working and in leisure, and to constant demands for the curtailment of the working hours of the day.

“In the course of long investigations he had found no instance in which an abbreviation of hours had resulted in a proportionate curtailment of output. There was, indeed, every reason to suppose that the production in the shorter hours seldom fell short of the production in the longer hours, and in some cases the product or its value had actually been augmented after a short interval. He (Prof. Chapman) sought also to show that the value of leisure would inevitably rise with progress and that the working day would become less in the future.” Daily News, 27.8.09.

* * *

Thus the “Labour” members, unconsciously, and Professor Chapman, consciously, arrive at the same conclusion, viz., that shortening the working day under capitalist rule means a similar or greater output than results from the longer working day. This is exactly the position laid down by Karl Marx in “Capital,” Chap. XV. p. 417.

* * *

Coincident with the statement of Professor Chapman just alluded to, we have the Board of Education issuing a revised syllabus of physical education. The reason is that the high pressure rate of existence calls for a physically better equipped worker. Education (!) being under capitalist control, it becomes necessary to prepare the future worker for the stress he has to undergo by the introduction of games, etc. We have already partial measures of feeding school children in order that the physical exercises shall not be wasted. In fact, the two schemes hang together, one being the complement of the other.

* * *

“This country, and other countries, have become dominated by a system of commercialism by which wealth and power are so unevenly distributed that for thousands of persons permission to live, even on the borders of starvation, is only granted upon conditions of labour compared to which the lot of the old Negro slave was princely. The greatness of a nation now it judged by the amount of its exports and imports, rather than the happiness of its people. And so we have little children working in the factories, and women, to get back to their work, neglecting their duties of motherhood, for which alone they were created. The inevitable result is the production of a large proportion of the candidates for the asylums.”— Manchester Guardian, 8.31.09.

* * *

No, the above is not the “ravings of a harebrained Socialist,” but a fragment of truth as told by Dr. Frank Perceval, Medical Superintendent Lancashire Asylums Board, in his Annual Report to that body.

* * *

Shackleton, as president of the Trades Unions Congress, desired Richard Bell to express regret to the Railway Clerks Association for having sided with the masters in a dispute between the N.E. Ry. Co. and the R.C.A. But when Ben Tillett got up and stated that “Mr. Asquith is a liar,” who was the first to rise in defense of the master class, and to fret and fume over this smirching of their representative’s “good name”? Shackleton promptly demanded the withdrawal of the remark. Bell sided with the masters in their efforts to prevent the Railway Clerks combining against them, but the whole Labour Party stand solid behind that arsenal of shot and shell for working-class butchery—the Budget.

JAYBEE

Editorial: “De Massa ob de Shepfold”. (1909)

Editorial from the October 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The annual meeting of trades union “shepherds” and fleecers has taken place. Ipswich was the venue chosen on this occasion. The old Essex town has been the scene of many a sale of fatted beasts and meek-eyed bleaters in years gone by, but a new kind of cattle was bought and sold there a few days since, a new breed of sheep—more meek of eye, more trustful of their shepherd, more timidly plaintive in their complaining bleat, than any which have proceeded them to the local market place—passed under the hammer and on to their unsuspected fate.

Of course the gathering was graced by the presence of the Mayor of the town and the two sitting M.P.’s for the locality, presumably as the direct representatives of the butchers (M. P. —meat purveyor, you see). Equally of course the former opened his mouth and spake, saying, “These are our faithful shepherds, who do look well after our mut’n ‘n our wool, who do cry ‘wolf’ when the Socialist appeareth, and who do—Gordnozowtheydoit—contrive to get our sheep into the market in the pink of condition as to fleece, and all prime and rosy as to meat, and warranted quite to ride and drive as temper. It ain’t often I drop into poetry (I’ll have pleasure in dropping into somewhere else with Pete when I’ve finished with this job), but I am reminded, forcibly reminded, when I picture the sheep they have brought us to-day, of Shelley’s well-known lines:

“Their wool is wrapped about their ears,

Their wool is wrapped about their eyes,”

and as long as we leave it to these chaps the wool will continue to be where it is. The good shepherd is worthy of his hire, in other words these chaps deserve well of us.”

The Mayor having “breathed” as a certain “labour” paper puts it, “political neutrality” intermixed with the utmost friendliness, it was the turn of the chief shepherd, Shackl’em, no, Shackleton. “The young lambs ran a pretty race,” he began, dropping into poetry at once in emulation of his predecessor, but someone said the question of child labour wasn’t on the agenda, and the president changed the subject. He began with great adroitness to pull the wool over the eyes and ears of his patient bleaters, and we may congratulate him on his quite remarkable resource in the operation. Of course he had the advantage afforded by the fact that it was long ago ruled that discussion on the chairman’s speech was out of order. But this wise ordination did not make the man ; it only gave him his opportunity. Where all are so admirable it is impossible to select any particular distortion, misrepresentation, or dowright (ought we say upright?), honest lie and say “this is his best.” But we may give two instances which prove the man to be possessed of no ordinary accomplishment, even if they do not bear the stamp of genius. Read, mark, learn and digest, all ye who aspire to some little eminence in the gentle art of telling lies, and go home and be modest.

Firstly he enlarged with much effect upon the number of delegates present and trade unionists represented as compared with the Congress held in the Eastern counties in 1891. A man of less calibre might have spoilt this by letting it slip out that, however the present numbers compared with those of 1894, there had been a steady decrease in those, figures for some years now, but not so Shackleton. Again he said with convincing blandness (a point to be noted, for it is often not so much the lie you tell as the way you tell it) “Trade unionism no longer waits upon the orthodox parties to carry out its wishes.” How can they keep such a man down ? He is bound to rise like scum in a pot. And talking of pots, did the “revolutionary” Thorne cackle under the pot ? Perhaps he dared not for fear the pot should boil over and the scum souse him out.

Better a little spark beneath the pot

Than in a boiling-over lost outright.

—O. Ma.

In another part of his speech Shackleton sang the praises of the “generous and kindly disposed Liberal Party,” and from his “exalted” position beseeched his brothers in “arms” to arouse their “apathetic” constituents to a sense of implicit trust in their “generous benefactors,” the Liberal Party. “We see in this Budget great possibilities. The care of the aged, the feeding of the necessitous school-children and the more humane treatment of the unemployed workers will make ever increasing demands on the public purse, and we see for the first time the opportunity of raising the money without unduly taxing the poor to keep the poor.” Count it to his honour that he spoke with deep emotion. Dilly, Dilly, murmured the butchers, and the sheep said Ba ! and wept. So copiously did the tears flow that Shackleton might be said to have cast his bread upon the waters. And was it returned unto him manyfold ? Yes. Mr. Shackleton. later announced that the Board of Trade had sent him word that they had graciously consented, to have all the appointments of officials of Labour Exchanges made by a committee consisting of three persons—an employer, an official of the Board of Trade, and—Mr. Shackleton himself. What a day for Labour ! How the delegates did cheer ! Virtue rewarded ! ability recognised ! Striking confirmation of his eulogism of their “generous benefactors,” the Liberal Party. Could the Board of Trade have been listening at the keyhole ? or was it inspiration ? At any rate it is another bond of union between the “generous, kindly disposed” Liberal Party and the very unorthodox Labour Party. And now perhaps Shackleton will be able to do something for unemployed children who have got over their “teething.” He can certainly do something for his fellow-shepherds, and we hear that the “revolutionaries” have already hidden the red flag, while the Thorne is quiet beneath the pot.

Of course other things transpired at the Congress, though of less importance. There was the indictment of Richard Bell for defending, in the Parliamentary debate in July on the North Eastern Railways Bill, the action of the company’s manager to prevent the combination of the railway clerks. The delegates, being trade union delegates (and perhaps afraid of the law of lie-Bell), forgave him—the wool is wrapped about their eyes. The Government Unemployed Insurance scheme was hailed with great joy. The Salvation Army, so near the heart of J. R. MacDonald, who once declared that he had “many irons in the fire,” but he hadn’t one iron that they “did not hold one end of” (the hot end, it is to be presumed, or he would not have been so cheerful—was put “through the hoop.” Ben Tillett placed it on record that all Cabinet Ministers are liars, greatly to the horror of Shackleton. Thorne pictured the unemployed luxuriously lounging in the Labour Exchanges waiting for the masters to call and ask them to go to work. Tillett moved that Congress call upon the Government to appoint a Labour Minister with Cabinet rank. Since he aspires so high, and “trade unionism no longer waits upon the orthodox parties to carry out its wishes,” Tillett may consider himself appointed to the select circle of “liars.”

The dominant note of Congress was love toward the Liberal Party, a sure sign of the near approach of a General Election. The “labour” papers all reported “some progress,” as must we also—backwards.

Blogger's Note:

“De Massa ob de Shepfold” is from a poem by Sarah Pratt McLean Greene, who was an American author and poet. The wording is rather dubious for modern eyes because it follows a fashion from this period where poems and songs were adapted into supposed African American spiritual style verse and, I quote, "written in African American "dialect" ". 

". . . and perhaps afraid of the law of lie-Bell . . . " might be a jokey reference to fact that Richard Bell had previously sued the Socialist Standard for libel. See the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard for more details.

The Trade Union Congress. (1911)

From the October 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the recent Trade Union Congress, held at Newcastle-on-Tyne during the week beginning September 4th., Mr. William Mullin, in his presidential address, made an appeal which is certainly worthy of note. In speaking of the railway strike he expressed admiration for the men, saying that “they accomplished a great deed, and the fruits will speedily come to them.” The present writer has been puzzling his brains to think what great deed, such as would call forth the admiration of Mr. Mullin, was accomplished by the railwaymen in their strike, and has come to the conclusion that it can only be the sheep-like readiness they evinced to return to work at the bidding of their leaders.

Surely that must be it. Such action would undoubtedly commend itself to Mr. Mullin, for he continued his address by urging upon the railway workers to “place implicit trust in their leaders.” Presumably in the same child-like fashion as they did in 1907, when Richard Bell and the other A.S.R.S. officials delivered them over, bound hand and foot in the meshes of the “conciliation” scheme.

But this appeal to the workers to put “implicit trust” in their leaders becomes really almost too funny for words when we consider—upon a perusal of the report of the Congress proceedings on the following Friday—the spirit in which such trust has been accepted by the trustees. A resolution was moved on the Friday severely condemning the Bill introduced into Parliament by Mr. Will Crooks to end industrial disputes. The Bill is a curiosity. No one who has any knowledge of Mr. Crooks would accredit him with any excessive degree of subtlety. He often speaks of himself as being nothing more than a “plain, honest man.” But one would have thought that even Mr. Crooks could have managed to frame a bill that was not so obviously all in favour of the employers. Why did he not obtain the Machiavelian help of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald or Mr. Snowden ?

A delegate remarked, during the discussion, that he could understand such a bill coming from an employers’ association, or from those interested in keeping the workers down, but he could not understand its being the proposal of a trade unionist. We, however, of course, can quite understand the bill—apart from its lack of the confusing elements usually to be found in Labour bills—being the work of a “Labour leader.” All that has happened is that “plain” Mr. Crooks has, in this particular instance, been rather too plain in his support of capitalism.

Briefly, it is a bill that seeks to abolish strikes altogether. It lays it down that employers and employees should give at least thirty days notice of an intended change affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages and hours ; that it shall be unlawful for any employer to declare or cause a lock-out, or for any employee to go on strike on account of any dispute before or during a reference of such a dispute to a board of conciliation and investigation, any employer declaring or causing a lock-out being liable to a fine of not less than £20 nor more than £200 for each day or part of a day that such lock-out exists, and any employee going on strike being liable to a fine of not less than £2 nor more than £10 per day. (Why didn’t Mr. Crooks make the employees’ fine £100 or £1,000 per day while he was about it ? The modesty of the bill in only claiming £10 per day from a man who is probably striking for a living wage is distinctly rich.)

A further clause in the bill declares that any person who incites, encourages, or aids in any manner any employer to declare and continue a lockout, or any employee to go or continue on strike, shall be liable to a fine of not less than £10 nor more than £200.

Apart, however, from its contents, the Bill is noteworthy by reason of the position and action of one of its backers as showing how he regards the “implicit trust” that has been placed in him by his followers. The bill was backed by Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. George Barnes, Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Enoch Edwards. The last-named gentleman, upon the bill being attacked and severely criticised as being in every sense derogatory to the interests of trade unionism, gave a remarkable explanation and repudiation of his backing. He said, firstly, that “the Bill contained propositions which he, after 40 years study of these questions, could not support.” He then went on to explain that “when I gave my name to Mr. Crooks, I had no idea I was being asked to put my name to a bill of this sort . . . my name is there purely by inadvertence, and I shall take every means possible to assure everybody that the sentiments in that bill are not in harmony with my own views. To tell you the honest truth, I had not seen the bill.” (Vide “Daily Chronicle,” 9.9.11.)

A delegate hereupon very pertinently remarked that “Only fools put their names to things without looking at them.” But this expression is not strong enough to be used in condemnation of the criminal negligence and vacuity of an avowed leader and paid representative of Labour, who assents to a Parliamentary measure which, if passed and carried into effect, would take from the workers the only weapon they possess while capitalism lasts, to combat the encroachments of their masters on the economic field. These be your gods, O Israel; these are the men in whom the workers are asked to place “implicit trust.” The impertinence, the cynicism, of such an appeal !

It might have been expected—that is, except by anyone who had some general knowledge of trade union officialdom—that one of the most important points to be considered at the Congress, and one that would raise the most animated discussion, would have been the question of the late Labour upheavals and their so-called settlements.

But, as a matter of fact, only a very lukewarm interest was shown in the resolution passed condemning the use of the military by the Government, and in the congratulations extended to the transport workers upon the result of their previous strike. Neither the prominent leaders, nor the Standing Orders Committee, nor the assembled delegates, appeared desirous of raising any great discussion on the matter. Doubtless there were efficient reasons for this inanition. But when Mr. Will Thorne brought forward his “hardy annual” on Secular Education, then were the delegates in their glory. In spite of the fact that at the last general election he had, according to the “Daily Chronicle,” 2.12.10, the support of ministers of religion, and that he had S.W. Ham placarded with posters announcing that he had answered the questions of the Free Church Council satisfactorily, Mr. Thorne moved his absurd resolution re the trade union education policy, and incidentally gave an opportunity (which was immediately seized) to the assembled Christians to give proof of their Christian meekness and charity by addressing one another as “cowardly hounds,” and by raising what one report calls “a perfect pandemonium” for about ten minutes.

Mr. Thorne had previously in the week distinguished himself by seconding, and speaking in favour of, a resolution advocating the establishment of a citizen army. His view appeared to be that, in some way or other, if organised Labour were armed and trained for defensive purposes—it was not quite clear whether voluntary or compulsory—the need of conscription would be obviated.

In speeches opposing the resolution it was pointed out that “Lord Roberts, General Hutchinson, and all the Service Press advocate Thome’s bill,” and that Lord Roberts had said in the hearing of a dozen or more of those present : “I don’t care whether you call the army a citizen army. Call it what you like so long as you give me authority to bring the men in and train them. I will see what they do.”

Undoubtedly a citizen army would be a very good thing—from a capitalist standpoint. It would probably make the workers stronger and more efficient wage-slaves; it would implant into them a sense of discipline and obedience to their “superiors,” which would be found very useful by their employers in the event of any industrial dispute; it would, by concentrating their minds on military training and exercises, tend to stultify at a very vital and important period of their lives, any desire they might have towards understanding and solving the various problems that affect their economic position.

It will thus be seen that in supporting a measure such as this Mr. Will Thorne is only doing what might have been expected of him—that is, furthering the continuance of the present social system.

There were other incidents and interludes during the week, notably one interlude wherein Mr. Ben Tillett and another “fraternal delegate” came to blows over a “black-leg” trade union which had, apparently, been formed in opposition to one in which Mr. Tillett happened to be interested.

Sufficient evidence has, however, been given and sufficient conclusions drawn, to show how trade unionism, as exemplified by the proceedings at the Trade Union Congress, actually stands. The reports of the meeting show, with what dignity and mastery the various subjects were tackled by the chosen delegates of the trade unionists.

Mr. David Shackleton and the other advisers to the Home Office and Board of Trade will be able to carry to their Departments gratifying reports of the proceedings. And, one thinks, the Liberal Ministers, on hearing or reading these reports, will wonder how they could ever have thought it necessary to bring military coercion to bear upon the workers during the recent strikes, when there were, all the time, such serviceable exponents of confusion and puerilities as the trade union leaders and officials, who could surely have been depended upon to keep in hand such of their followers as dared to evince a tendency to disturb the even tenour of Liberal reform legislation.

F. J. Webb

Labour Leaders and Their Prey At the Portsmouth Conference. (1909)

From the March 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Riddle Answered.

“Why does Russell Smart ?” asks our contributor, WILFRED, in the February issue of this journal. We may answer “because he is not smart enough to obtain a place with the “smart set” who are so successfully running the rank and file of the Labour Party into the Morass of Liberalism. And at no period of their career have they been so successful as at the last conference of their Party, held at Portsmouth.

The first smart move was to hold a “preliminary” conference on Unemployment and the Incidence of Taxation. This was so thin a swindle that one is surprised that some of the opposition office-hunters did not protest against it. But perhaps they thought the precedent might be useful—to themselves—in the future. By having a preliminary, and academic, discussion on the principle of unemployment, the “smart set” were able to completely closure any discussion of their policy on the matter when it arose at the conference proper. This was certainly a score for them. Moreover, while throwing a sop to certain sections of their Party by declaring that “Free Trade does not solve the unemployed problem,” they were so assiduous in backing up their Liberal political masters that the Daily News (30.1.09) could say that the conference “gave a good deal of its time to a defence of Free Trade and an assault upon Tariff Reform.” Mr. Fred Knee wanted the reference to Free Trade deleted and was supported by Mr. W. Thorne, M.P., who, however, said that “a Free Trade country was better for Labour than a Protectionist country!” The obvious and crushing retort to this “facing both ways” statement came from a fellow Gas-worker, Mr. Clynes, who asked “Why take the words out, then?” Even Mr. Thorne might have noticed the beautiful “possibilist” position he was occupying, but running with the hare and hunting with the hounds requires smart men, and Thorne is hardly among the smartest.

This Abode of Purity.

Mr. Keir Hardie made the brilliant statement that “we have mischief enough to contend with already, without introducing that element of corruption into our political system which Protection never fails to bring.”

Oh ! shades of Warren Hastings and the South African War, hide your ugly heads ! In this time of purity and innocence there is no place for you. What if the apostle of Free Trade, John Bright, did say “adulteration is a legitimate form of competition”? are we not as white as the driven snow compared with those foul countries where Protection—and corruption—reign supreme ?

For instance, the following resolution was passed by the conference :

“That there shall be created a National Department of Labour, presided over by a Minister of State, who shall have a seat in the Cabinet.”

For what purpose? Even the promoters of this resolution do not pretend that the creation of such an office can increase the amount of work or employment at present existing. Of itself it can do nothing for the workless toiler vainly seeking employment. Then why such an office? The answer is plain—to provide one of the “smart set” with a well-paid job. And note, not only well paid, but with Cabinet rank, so as to provide, almost with certainty, a pension when retiring from the toils of office.

This is not corruption. Oh no! it is the purest of purity, and all for the benefit of the workers. It is almost marvellous that, with so many ardent persons striving might and main for the workers’ benefit, not only is their position unimproved, but is even worse, as Mr. Keir Hardie himself showed when giving the figures of wealth and wages. He said, “Compared with 1901 wages in 1908 were down £26,000 a week or £1,300,000 a year. While working-class wages had fallen to this extent, the earnings (!) of those who paid income tax had, during the same period, increased by £147,000,000.” Yet Mr. Keir Hardie is never tired of denouncing the “dogmatic Marxists” when they state facts exactly paralleled by his statement quoted above. Certainly people of a particular character require good memories such as this may be tabulated against them.

Little Steps in Treachery.

The support of Liberalism was carried a step further in the discussion on the Incidence of Taxation. As Frederick Engels said, this is a matter of absorbing interest to the bourgeoisie, but of little moment to the proletariat. Therefore the “Labour Leaders” discussed it at length. Mr. Snowden said “Four-fifths of the duties raised from Customs and Excise were paid by the wage-earning classes.” The wage-earning “classes” were quite ignorant of. ever being in possession of such vast wealth, or they would have gone yachting in the Mediterranean or otherwise have “seen a bit of life,” instead of squandering their substance in taxes. Then the good Liberal stalking-horse, “Taxation of Land Values” was trotted out, giving Mr G. Barnes an opportunity to air his profound knowledge and statesmanship. “We get to the bottom of all monopolies by taxing the land,” he said. This hoary old chestnut has so alluring an appearance to most working men that a detailed treatment of the point may well form the subject of a future article. All we need say here is that no shifting of the incidence of taxation, has the slightest material effect against the fact that the workers are wage-slaves, and while deprived of every means of living, except by the sale of their energies and abilities on the labour market, are completely at the mercy and control of the capitalist class. But the value of such agitation by the leaders of the Labour Party is shown by the articles in the Daily News referred to above, where it is stated that “the opinions of the conference differ little, if at all, upon practical politics from those of the vast mass of progressives in these islands.” Exactly what we have always stated in reference to these proposals.

The Tyranny of “Seats.”

Then the “regular” business of the conference began. The chairman’s speech is not of sufficient importance for specific treatment, so we may take up the other points.

One of the first troubles to arise was on the action of the Executive Committee at the Dundee bye-election, where the said Executive had refused to support Mr. Stuart, of the Postmen’s Federation, against Mr. Winston Churchill. Even the most “thick and thin” of the Labour Party’s supporters would never dream of calling Mr. Stuart “extreme,” or “dangerous.” On the contrary, he is one of the “sanest” and “safest” men in their ranks. Then why this refusal of support ? Let the prophets speak. Mr. Stuart said “The Executive were accused of selling the Party to the Liberals. He would prefer to say that the Executive had not sense enough to sell them: it gave them away.”

To say that the Executive “had not sense enough to sell” the Party was more than any self-respecting Executive could stand. Mr. J. R. MacDonald and Mr. Alex Wilkie stepped into the deadly breach and proved that the Executive had sense enough to sell the Party. “The Executive,” said the former, “had never decided that the second seats in double-membered constituencies should not be fought, but they recognised that to try for both seats might result in losing the one held ” (italics ours). And why ? For the simple reason that the single seat is held by the support and permission of the Liberals, who would not allow the second seat to be contested by a “Labour” candidate. What better example than Leicester—Mr. MacDonald’s own constituency—need be given ?

Mr Wilkie Indulges in Prophecy.

Mr. Wilkie declared that “nothing short of an earthquake could win both these seats for Labour.” Of course, he meant the political earthquake that will occur just as soon as the rank and file grasp the main principles of Socialism and apply that knowledge to their actions. Then indeed Mr. Wilkie and his clique will be thrown off their political pins, and be buried beneath the debris of fallen capitalism. But for the present they are safe in their bargain, for to confirm the free hand they have always given themselves in this matter, the Executive had resolved that “it would be no violation of our Constitution if our members were to take part in Free Trade League meetings,” and this was approved by the conference. The rule of not identifying themselves with Tory or Liberal party is therefore thrown overboard in favour of Liberal Free Traders, and the “smart set” are triumphant.

Then interest centred around the resolution moved by Ben Tillett that “no member or candidate run under the auspices of the Labour Party shall appear or support any measure upon the same platform as members of the capitalist political parties.” This had reference to the Licensing Bill, and to the canting, snuffling hypocrisies of the slimy nonconformist Labour M.P.s of the Henderson type. To anyone acquainted with Tillett’s career it was easy to see that he laid himself open to a crushing rejoinder. His own dirty work in advocating emigration to Australia as a cure for unemployment, on behalf and in the pay of the New South Wales capitalists, should be sufficient to expose his double-dealing. Instead, however, of attacking him from this stand-point—no doubt because it was a case of pot and kettle—they preferred to fall back upon the old dodge of personalities. Quoting from Tillett’s pamphlet Mr. Henderson said “Is it helping the Party when Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Snowden and myself are described as ‘ toadies,’ ‘ sheer hypocrites,’ ‘ cruel hoaxers,’ ‘ Press flunkeys to Asquith,’ ‘ blackleg priests’, and so on ? . . . We will respect our manhood rather than be dictated to by men like Mr. Tillett.”

Evidently the sting of Tillett’s remarks lay in their truth, or surely, in respect for their manhood they would have demanded the substantiation or withdrawal of the statements. They did neither—knowing substantiation was easy. Mr. Shackleton said “No member of the Party to his knowledge had ever appeared on a Tory or Liberal platform except Mr. Tillett himself.” The exception is badly taken. Numerous instances are given in past issues of the SOCIALIST STANDARD, and on p. 13, 3rd edition of our Party Manifesto is given proof of Mr. Shackleton—along with Crooks arid Henderson —appearing on the Liberal platform in support of Mr. Benn at Devonport. Some people should have long memories, but no doubt Mr. Shackleton felt just as capable of bluffing his way out of this difficulty as he had done over the question of his opposition to the abolition of the half-time system for children in the mills and factories.

Some mild amusement furnished by G. B. Shaw completed the performance given once more by these capitalist agents, which may well be entitled “Leading the Workers into the Liberal Trap.” Never was our opposition to and exposure of these unblushing frauds more fully justified than by the shameless effrontery of the old gang of axe-grinders and Labour exploiting politicians at the Portsmouth conference. Only by the propaganda of Socialism among the rank and file of the trade unions will they be made capable of understanding their position as wage slaves, and the consequent necessity for the abolition of capitalism, and not of patching it up, as advocated with monotonous persistence by the misleaders we have been dealing with. Having arrived at this understanding, the workers will recognise that their political power must be put to an infinitely better use than that of providing fat jobs for nimble-tongued tricksters, shepherds put over them by their wily masters—the achievement of their own emancipation, to wit. Then the workers will at once wrench themselves free from the strangle-hold of these Labour garroters, and hurl them to perdition together with that system of labour-exploitation of which they are part and parcel.

Jack Fitzgerald

Jottings. (1909)

The Jottings Column from the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Liverpool Education Committee have completed arrangements for establishing technical evening classes for the female employes of the Ogden Branch of the Imperial Tobacco Company. The classes have been arranged at the request of the Company, who are providing rooms, lighting, heating, and cleaning free of charge to the Education Committee.” Manchester Guardian, 24.11.08.

The public spirit of the Imperial Tobacco Company is, of course, quite disinterested.

* * *

A conference was recently held at Bradford with regard to the system of employing children half-time in mills. Mr. Jonathan Peate reported on the conference to the Council of the Leeds Chamber of Commerce. In the course of his report are the following items. “Some firms employed a large number of half-timers, and if the abolition of this class of labour took place, or if the age limit was increased, it would be a great hardship to those firms.” Again: “In many cases, also, half-timers were earning an income which, if the system was abolished, would make a serious difference to, and cause great hardship to, the families to which they belonged.” And further : “These children were receiving training in the practical work of a mill which must be of the utmost value to them in later years, when they had to earn their own livelihood.”

* * *

Funny, isn’t it ? Thus are the interests of capital and labour identical. The half-timers are charitably employed because of the hardship to their families if deprived of their small wages ; the employer will also suffer hardship if he cannot employ them, and has to employ some adult (perhaps the half-timer’s father) to do the same work at higher wages.

* * *

And when the little beggars cease to eat in idleness the bread of charity, and are compelled to take life seriously and begin “to earn their own livelihood,” such training really might be of “the utmost value to them,” if they are not unemployed owing to a new generation of half-timers having supplanted them. In this case it would seem that their only hope lies in the direction of begetting baby breadwinners (did anyone say “Socialism” ?) as soon as possible.

* * *

The cry of the parents driven by economic pressure to send their children to work in order that subsistence level may be reached by the aid of their wages, is on a par with the cry of the “We cannot see them starve” sufferer from sentimental diarrhoea, who wants to do something for the unemployed under capitalism. He does something for them by blinding them to the only solution, in urging them to look for help to the class whose existence depends on a continuance of a reserve of unemployed labour.

* * *

A delegate to a deputation of teachers who visited Mr. McKenna on November 5th, 1907, showed how reforms may be made of no avail towards combatting the evils they are, ostensibly, directed against. Mr. Sykes (N.U.T.), speaking of half-timers, said that in 24 years experience he ”had never known a child rejected as physically unfit, although some of them were not robust enough to be allowed in the playground.”

* * *

The Manchester Guardian (6.11.07), dealing with this matter, said in effect, the half-timer keeps down the wages of adults by the competition of his cheaper labour, and is in turn forced, by entering unskilled employment, to a lifetime of low wages, and is flung into the industrial system whilst he should be playing.

* * *

“There has never been a Socialist speech delivered in the House; no Conference (of the Labour Party) has ever accepted Socialism except as a pious opinion. In some form the House of Commons would accept a Socialist resolution, provided there were no committal, but even that step has never been ventured.”

Ben Tillett in Justice, 5.12.08.

* * *

This is hard on our S.D.P. M.P., Will Thorne; but so far as one can see, if Ben Tillett is elected for the Eccles Division he will be on the same basis as Thorne. He will be elected as the “labour” candidate for Eccles, and not as an avowed Social-Democrat, vide S.D.P. rule 41, and rule 42 cannot be enforced by the E.C. of the S.D.P. any more than in the case of Mr. Thorne. We are not likely to hear a Socialist speech from Mr. Tillett, however, because on July 20th, 1907, he “was adopted by the Eccles Division Labour Party as Labour candidate, with the distinct understanding from the Dockers’ Union that his title should be ‘Labour Candidate.'” So wrote the General Secretary of the Eccles Division Labour Party, on October 8th, 1908, to the Manchester Evening News, correcting a statement that Mr. Tillett was “the adopted Social-Democratic candidate for Eccles.” I have seen no repudiation of this statement so far. Mr. J. R. MacDonald, also, in a published letter to Mr. Tillett, tells him he is “one of our candidates.”

* * *

“Referring to the unemployed, Mr. Grayson said that Mr. Blatchford was at present organising a scheme for feeding the hungry. If they ran short of funds they would appeal to Rothschild, the Duke of Portland, and the like, to put down a bit of their surplus cash, and if that appeal failed, all they could then say to the unemployed was ‘use your own savage discretion.’ If they could not get work and could not get food, then, without inciting, they would gently indicate that it was their indefeasible right to have bread.”—Manchester Guardian, 9.11.08. Report of speech at Greenfield, 7.11.08.

* * *

Poverty is rife under capitalist society to-day, so we will beg of the capitalist class to relieve our needs, not by disbursing all their surplus wealth, but just a bit of it. If we were to ask too much “that appeal” might fail. And when it comes to standing the hungry up “all in a row” before the rifles of the military, you won’t catch us inciting. Oh, no ! That’s risky. They might not accept our humble apologies so readily as they did Bill Thorne’s. And the “stone jug !”—they say you have to be quiet there !

* * *

If the workers cannot afford enough to keep the unemployed fed, we will ask the Rothschilds and others to be charitable. We will leave it to their generosity—we want no semblance of compelling them to disgorge by the strength of our class-conscious organisation. Not at all ! We’ll ask them “to put down a bit of their surplus cash,” and only when that appeal fails will we tell the workers that theirs is the indefeasible right to have, not only bread, but all else they require.

* * *

Even as a vote-catching dodge, this is pitiable, for the other axe-grinders can out-bribe them every time. If the Blatchford brigade give soup, the Liberal party will offer soup and pudding, and the Tory party will come along with soup, pudding, blanket, a suit of clothes and an overcoat to wrap them up in, and will scoop the lot. The race is to the rich, votes to the highest bidder, until the workers are taught what Socialism is; then they will no longer be bought and sold for a mess of pottage or a drink at the bar, will no longer be exploited in “charity,” either for the benefit of Liberal or Tory politician, noisy mumper on the “labour” movement, or the circulation of the “smart” journal of a “smart” set—much too smart for anything deeper than flirtation with Socialism.

Blogger's Note:

This was an unsigned Jottings column, but during this period of the Standard the regular writer of the column was Jim Brough of Manchester Branch, and as the unsigned author quotes from the Manchester Evening News in relation to Ben Tillett being selected as the Labour Party candidate in Eccles, I can't help but think that Brough penned this month's Jottings column.

P.S. Tillett did contest Eccles as the Labour Representative Committee candidate at the 1906 General Election but, by the time that the January 1910 election came around, he'd been replaced by G. H. Stuart-Bunning as the Labour Party candidate.

Syndicalism, its cause and cure. (1912)

Book Review from the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Syndicalism and the General Strike – by Arthur D. Lewis. (London; T. Fisher Unwin. Price 7s 6d)

As the only party in Great Britain that has taken up a definite and consistent attitude towards Anarchism in all its forms, it is meet that we should have something to say on the latest work on Syndicalism that has been published.

We have adopted a frankly hostile policy to this latest importation for the simple reason that we are a Socialist party. The sorry plight of those so-called Socialist bodies like the B. S. P. and the I. L. P. is a natural result of their lack of principles based on a correct knowledge of the position of our class. Inside the former body there is a heated controversy, both among the “leaders” and the rank and file, as to whether Syndicalism is the road for the workers to travel. The curious position of the I. L. P. is shown by their advocacy of the General Strike at the International Labour Congress as a weapon against war!

The cause of Syndicalism lies in the history of these and similar parties. In the Blatchford section they have literally bred Syndicalism by their disgusting election tricks, so often exposed in these pages. Their former members, now Syndicalists, point to the vote-hunting, compromising campaigns of Bethnal Green and Northampton, along with others, as showing the failure and danger of political action. The Independent Labour Party, too, has so treacherously played the part of advance agents of the Liberal party that from political opportunism their supporters right-about-turn to denounce political action altogether  — not that they understand Syndicalism any more than its leading votaries, but believing it to be anti-political, they seek shelter beneath its slogans and formulas.

Our statement of the cause of Syndicalism is supporter by the Syndicalist author of the book under review, who states (p. 187) that: –

“There are practically only one or two Syndicalists in England, but discontent with the degree of success obtained through the Parliamentary Labour Party has led to a general return to trade unionism and strikes as a means of fighting the employers . . . The belief that at least one member of the party bargains with the Liberal Government with a view to his personal advantage; the moderation of its words in Parliament compared with its words on the platform; the incapacity of many members of it, who are only dolls in the hands of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald; the acceptance by certain of its members of paid posts given by the Liberals; and its love of Puritanism, have all helped to cause a feeling of disappointment and disillusionment in many who once trusted and believed in it.”

That, then, is the cause of the spread of Syndicalism. It is clearly shown by this that Syndicalism thrives on ignorance. Only mis-educated, non Socialist workers would ever trust the Labour Party, would ever expect them to look after the toilers’ interests; and when the failure of their political inaction is realised, it is not the political method itself that has been found wanting, but it is the lack of sound knowledge on the workers’ part that is demonstrated. Because the political machine has been used in a capitalist direction the Syndicalist and his dupes proclaim the failure of politics!

The present book consists chiefly of quotations from the works of the Syndicalist leaders of to-day throughout Europe, and the author ventures his opinions very little. When he does so, he shows not only that he does not understand Syndicalism, but that he understands Socialism still less. In the preface he declares Socialism to mean that “huge State monopolies are to be formed in all industries, and that these will be controlled by a few very powerful officials at Westminster”.

This is typical of the misrepresentation that the Syndicalists feed their followers on. If Mr. Lewis would consult what he calls an “orthodox” Socialist, say Frederick Engels, he would find that Socialism rises upon the ashes of the State, for when Socialism comes the day of the State has closed for ever.

Though the title of the work is Syndicalism and the General Strike, only one chapter is devoted wholly to the latter question. The chief part deals with the theory of Syndicalism and Syndicalists.

Our author tells us that “the Syndicalist likes poor unions best — riches bring caution: he likes low weekly dues and small benefits”. Rather we would say, the average Syndicalist likes no dues and many benefits. We are promised much melodrama and but little organisation and education by his statement that: “The great weapon of the workers against their masters is disorder”. And one phase is described as “sabôtage or the destruction of property, intimidation of masters, sitting in factories with folded arms so no blacklegs can take your places, leaving work at an hour earlier than the masters want, telling the truth to customers: all these are means by which the masters can be made to yield”.

What they are to be made to yield by these means we are not told. But anyone can realise that while these things may prove aggravating to the isolated employer, and make him more bitter against the music-hall revolutionists, yet if this kind of thing was general, all the employers being on the same footing, they would feel its effects very little.

But to keep this conduct up the workers would need the power, not merely to personate George Washington, but to take control of the entire means of life; not to leave at an earlier hour than the masters desire, but to leave masters altogether. The crude notions of these folk are brought forward in the idea of “sitting with folded arms” while the masters want food, clothing, etc. for their daily needs. Sabotage, like all Syndicalist methods, is born of the want of sound knowledge and strong organisation.

Despite the fact that the author declares that the General Confederation of Labour in France “contains both a reformist and a revolutionary section”, and that the latter is “the minority of a minority of a minority — only some of the members of the C. G. T. being revolutionists and the C. G. T. itself only representing a minority of the unions” — despite that, however, the Anarchists miscalled revolutionists have a governing influence in the organisation, and have made its actions both comedies and tragedies.

They don’t believe in democracy. As the leading French Syndicalist, Émile Pouget, says in the work quoted — “The Syndicalist” — “Syndicalism and democracy are the two opposite poles which exclude and neutralise each other . . . This is because democracy is a social superfluity, a parasitic and external excrescence, while Syndicalism is a logical manifestation of the growth of life”, etc. Another French leader, M. Pierrot, is quoted as saying in “Syndicalism and Revolution” : “It is better to have an active group who know how to carry the masses and turn them in the right direction by their words and actions” . “The Syndicalist”, says our author “has contempt for the vulgar idea of democracy: the inert, unconscious mass is not to be taken into account when the minority wishes to act so as to benefit it”.

That is the key note. The ‘intellectual’ few are to dominate the many. Not democracy but autocracy and dictatorship. The day of  a revolution carried out on these lines would also be the day of counter-revolution, the day of disaster, of drilled, unthinking masses being driven to the New Jerusalem. The day of revolution would but be the prelude to the long, black night of apathy and despair.

 

The Socialist Party, however, clings fast to democracy in organisation and in action. It knows that the real, reliable movement can only be built up with an alert, awakened, interested working class. That alone can bring about emancipation — not a few leaders hypnotising an ignorant rank and file.

Syndicalism means but a change of leaders. As Gaylord Wilshire’s (the wealthy Syndicalist) magazine declares (November 1912): “The new movement calls for new leaders”. And again: “The new conditions must bring forth a new type of leader, powerful, inspiring, and heroic”. Leadership, not a live membership doing their own work in their own way, that is the ideal. Mr. Lewis points out that unions with small funds are wanted, for, says he, “where funds are large the workers are made to vote for or against a strike”, thus showing that the Syndicalist objects to the will of the worker being expressed and acted upon.

“Syndicalism has an immediate programme. It would have the unions look to it that there are meeting places for working men, where there will be lectures, baths, and all that helps them to learn how to take control of production and consumption; also the officials, with professional help, should get for the workers their legal rights and place medical and legal advice at their disposal.”

So anxious are they about reforms that they even worry about legal rights. Fancy hungering after the rights conferred by lawyers and by Parliament! But it is not surprising, for above all else the Syndicalists are reformers. Without economic knowledge or political insight, what else could they be? The English Syndicalist, Mr. Tom Mann declares (“A Twofold Warning”) that poverty can be abolished under capitalism, and he also says: “I contend that reducing the working hours provides a solution for the problem of unemployment, and it matters not what system obtains”. With this rot they make converts among the ignorant, yet any tyro in economics could prove to him that the reserve army of labour is the corner-stone of capitalism, and that the shortening of hours doesn’t mean the lessening of the product of the same number of men. The Chief Inspector of Mines just reports that in spite of the Eight Hours Day Bill, and the strikes last year, over seven million tons more coal were produced than in 1912, and on the average every miner’s output increased three tons. This is typical of the whole industrial world.

Syndicalists claim great things for their strikes and sabotage. Something now! “The use of trade union labels is regarded as an instance of direct action”. The free advertisement of particular employers! Further we are told that by sabotage “bread has been made inedible but not injurious” — a kind of general “hunger strike” forced upon the working class.

But the sad story of Spanish, French and Italian strikes and sabotage has somewhat dimmed the picture. Yvetot, the chief of the C. G. T., in his ABC of Syndicalism, confesses that “the principle obstacle to a revolution is the army . . . When the Government does not use the army to replace strikers, it makes soldiers into massacrers of workmen”. What, then, is the use of the General Strike? What can it do against the army? As Yvetot says, the army massacres the strikers. In Italy, we are told (p. 104): “A general strike of railway workers was attempted in 1905 as a protest against a new attempt to introduce the (strike smashing) law; it failed and the law was passed. Men were shot down by the soldiers in 1907 and there was a renewal of a wide-spread strike. The strikers were defeated, and it was said that 20,000 men, or one third of all the men on the railways, were punished, either by imprisonment, discharge from the service, fines, or degradation of rank.”

Arturo Labriola, the leading Italian Syndicalist, shows the similarity between Syndicalism and capitalism. He says: “You can imagine that a Syndicat for a certain trade could contain all the workers in a single branch of industry, could contract on uniform conditions with all the capitalists on behalf of these workers, and would form a kind of common treasury of all the profits, to be distributed according to a rule of exalted justice to all its members  . . . This process could go further. It can be imagined that at a certain point of its development the workers’ union might hire the capital of the capitalists for a fixed return and then use it co-operatively, either working in one mass or constructing so many separate co-operative bodies each having separate and distinct accounts.”

And he goes on: “Syndicates, as organisms opposed to monopoly, and therefore open to all, would enthusiastically receive the capitalists of yesterday become the companions of to-day, and would make use of their indisputable directive and administrative ability.”

Before leaving the General Strike theory it is useful to note the words of Mr. Ben Tillett, quoted in the book. Speaking after the 1911 Transport strike was over he said (Glasgow, 11.2.12): “A  week before the strike a Cabinet Minister pleaded with me in a tearful voice to stop the strike. Of course, this pleading was unheeded until the men got what they wanted”.

Yet within six months of that speech the transport workers were fighting fir the very demands they had “won” the year before! And what a cruel comment was the suffering of that historic defeat on the “efficacy of the strike” idea!

The general strike of miners and other strikes in England bring home the lessons of the Socialist. Whilst the strike, local or industrial, may effect improvement for the time, slavery remains. Whilst the threat of a general strike may induce concessions, it cannot bring a solution. The best results of economic unity can only be effected by class-conscious toilers who recognise the need for class action, class union, for working class ends; who realise that, as the road to emancipation lies in control of political power, political action is a vital necessity.

The cure for Syndicalism is education in the Socialist principles and policy. There is no substitute for a Socialist working class seeking its salvation through the political struggle. When the toilers understand Socialism they will have no room in their minds for the sophisms and fallacies of Syndicalism.

Adolph Kohn

Tooting elections. (1912)

Party News from the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the recent Borough Council Elections the Tooting Branch ran three candidates for Tooting Ward. The result was gratifying, the figures showing an increase of 80 per cent. over those for our last effort, in 1909.

The branch intended concluding the campaigu with a demonstration at one of the L.C.C. schools, and had made all arrangements for same, hut although we had paid for the use of the school, we were precluded from holding our meeting by being informed at the last moment that the room would be required for polling purposes.

The other candidates included three “indepen­dents,” whose independence consisted of claim­ing to be the People’s candidates. They will, no doubt, now they are elected, demonstrate how they represent the people by supporting any and every measure brought forward in the in­terest of capitalism and to the detriment of the working class.

Another candidate was a Municipal Reformer, and the decrease in the number of votes polled for him was doubtless largely due to the active Anti Socialist Union propaganda carried on in this district

The other candidates were Labourites, whose programme consisted of reforms none of which, had they been elected, could they have carried into effect. Reforms will be passed by the capitalist class when they think fit, and not at the dictation of “Labour” candidates. Minorities do not usually rule the roost.

Besides, they had the assistance of that notorious misleader, Ben Tillett (who, by the way, does not believe in political action), and possibly that accounted for the decrease in the “Labour” poll.

It added to the gaiety of things to find that the Tooting Branch of that party of “unity,” the B.S.P., supported the “Labour” candidates, while the Battersea Branch of the same organi­sation were actually in opposition to the “Lab­our” candidates there.

All the foregoing should act as a tonic and give renewed energy to carry on the propaganda for Socialism. We feel confident that the truth will ultimately prevail.

W. T.

Blogger's Note:

'W.T.' would have been the Tooting Branch secretary, W. Thomas. Sad that the neither the names of the SPGB candidates nor the actual voting figures are listed in the article. Maybe those details are buried away in the SPGB EC minutes. Bob Ambridge does mention an earlier Tooting Branch election campaign in the September 1954 anniversary issue of the Socialist Standard:

"About the same time Tooting Branch put forward Comrades Cooper, Joy and Barker for the Tooting Ward, the result being 60, 58 and 56 respectively. The Socialist Standard’s comment was: “We think we found fifty six supporters for the Revolution, and are encouraged in the hope that it is not altogether hopeless to appeal to the Electorate on the straight issue—Socialism."

“Pulling Ben’s leg.” (1915)

From the August 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ben Tillett, the hero of Tower Hill, has been having a truly great time in France. He has actually lunched with Sir John French and conversed with a high authority—a general— regarding the way in which the operations must be carried out. One does not like to tell, without blushing, how the latter “gassed” the idol of Dockland, so perhaps it would be better and in the correct sequence of things to let “old Ben” tell it himself. He says (“Daily Express,” 17.6.1915): ‘”Do you see what I mean?’ this general went on; ‘you must take home this simple picture of what we’ve got to do. We have to go on firing high explosives till there’s nothing living left in front of us. Then the men go forward and fight, and clear up details, and the guns are dragged up and we begin all over again.‘ ”

(Ben loses consciousness, while the General falls on his sword and dies—-a-laughing.)

B. B. B.

Editorial: Dockers Betrayed. (1912)

Editorial from the August 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

For ten weeks the London Transport Workers have been out on strike ; not for fresh demands, but merely to retain what they had “won” last August. Sir Albert K. Rollit, the Lord Chief Justice, and Sir Edward Clarke have “awarded” them various increases, but the employers have simply ignored them.

Last August the Dockers had a splendid opportunity. The Carmen, Railwaymen, and the Provincial, as well as the London, Dockers were out. Yet immediately Sir G. Askwith, Burns, Masterman, and Buxton had signed “terms of settlement” they were ordered back to work.

The leaders babbled of a glorious victory, and gloated over the fact that not a penny of strike pay was distributed ; but not one of the “advances” ever saw the light.

The Transport Workers, like most workers, are ignorant of science. They merely wanted the agreement “honoured” and looked no further afield. Their ignorance is reflected in their choice of “leaders.” Did they understand their real interests the Tilletts, Goslings and Wilsons would long since have been unemployed. The Strike Committee ordered a national strike, but when the unions affiliated to the Federation (who had never been consulted) refused to comply, the worth of the democracy and leadership of the Federation was seen.

During the ten weeks the Government were not idle. They drafted thousands of armed as well as mounted police into the strike area, sent gunboats into the Thames, and mobilised reserve men all over the country. Hundreds of soldiers were sent to places like Grays and Tilbury. Mr. McKenna boasted that they had supplied more police protection for blacklegs than any Government before. The result was that ships were loaded and unloaded despite the strike.

The Shipping Federation raked up blacklegs from all parts. They swore they would never give in. They organised a system of pooling liabilities, and laughed at the men because they had the Government behind them. They knew they could flout the men while the police and soldiers were at their command.

The Dockers hoped great things from the nationalising of the organisation of the Docks. When the Port of London Authority was established they thought casual labour had gone for ever. Instead it has increased. A leading member of the Government went from the Board of Trade to the Chair of the Authority, and has shown himself as callous as any Tory, not even excepting the late tyrant of Penrhyn.

Liberals and Tories alike have engaged in the calculated starvation of the men and their families. Meanwhile Labour Members stood cheek by jowl with Lord Devonport, watching the Fleet from the deck of the “Armadale Castle.” And while starvation grew apace on the banks of the Thames, Asquith and Redmond talked of Home Rule on the banks of the Liffey. They played he game of the masters. Every suggestion, therefore, met with the firm refusal of the employers. They had evolved their scheme and it did not include surrender.

The fearful sufferings of the toilers could not be surpassed in any age or clime. Radical “Reynolds’s” (July 14) says: “Little children of the East End dying like flies. Mothers starving.” It goes on to quote Father Ring, a local clergyman, thus:

“Bad as the conditions were a fortnight ago they are unfortunately worse now. Landlords are fixing eviction orders on the houses, and this is driving the poor people almost mad. Not only is the East End racked with hunger, not only has every stick of furniture been pledged in many instances, but a new horror is at hand. The matron of a local lying-in home told me that seven babies born in the institution during the strike period had died, in her opinion entirely through the pressure of the strike. Having parted with every stick of furniture, mothers have been unable to provide themselves with the nourishment necessary for the preservation of their own health and the lives of their infants.”

The strike leaders played the game in the usual style. They told the men funny stories, prayed to God, boasted, foamed and bounced. Right up to last Saturday afternoon they told the men to stand firm and assured them they were winning. But when the union funds were gone, when the leaders had led their dupes into a cul-de-sac, they scuttled.

The leaders met at the “Royal Hotel,” Mile End, and announced the strike over. They issued a manifesto calling upon the men to return to work. The manifesto reads like the usual betrayal. The men were ordered back to work unconditionally, but they were never consulted about it. The Strike Committee declare that all agreements must be maintained in their entirety. This in spite of the fact that the employers have definitely refused to carry out their side. It means the men are ordered to do all the giving and the masters are to do all the taking. The former are to go back to work at the complete mercy of the Shipping Federation. Being without funds in their union, the masters know they can’t resist. So for a start they have told the men that they must sign on as casual workers, not as permanent men.

No wonder 30,000 strikers in Southwark Park voted unanimously against return. Will Thorne, Ben Tillett, Harry Gosling, and Jack Jones were told to their faces by the strikers that they were traitors and turncoats, and that they had sold the men. The men in their rage tore down the notices declaring the strike at an end, and demanded a ballot; but heedless of the men’s anger the Strike Committee met again and reaffirmed their unanimous decision declaring the strike off and ordering the men back to work.

Though many of the latter may still stand out, the official order to go back will no doubt, have the effect of smashing the strike, so that the leaders who have done the masters the good service of depleting the unions’ treasuries, at the end of the chapter of tragedy have done them another excellent turn in the capacity of strikesmashers.

Slowly but surely, by twos and threes and at odd times, the men will present themselves to be humiliated by the masters.

Yet the leaders have not yet exhausted their effrontery, for with an almost cynical touch they wind up their manifesto with the statement that the Transport Workers’ Federation is “the workers’ only hope.” Could deception be more glaring ?

The men must drive these misleaders from their present position. They must learn the lesson of the class struggle ; they must insist upon democracy. The small power of strikes and the mighty political power of the masters must be realised ere victory can be won. The fight must be waged, not around agreements and recognition, but upon the question of whether slavery shall continue.

The workers then will have no use for Compulsory Arbitration and Emigration advocates like Ben Tillett, and Bottomley’s friend, Liberal candidates like Harry Gosling, and Tory gold candidates like Jack Jones of Camborne will again have to flit by the back door.