The Trade Unions (1966)

From the October 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Webbs’ wrote their History of Trade Unionism in 1894 they defined a Trade Union as “. . . a continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining and improving their conditions of employment”.

A modern historian could be excused for amending that definition to read, “A continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of seeking plausible arguments why they should refrain from making wage demands”.

We have been browsing through Trade Union Congress reports of the past 20 years to try to find a year when there was no debate on wage restraint. We had no success.

During the years immediately following the last World War we find the TUC urging support for the Attlee government’s policy of a 10 per cent increase in productivity with austerity in wage demands. A few years later, with the 10 per cent allegedly achieved, there come demands for greater increases in productivity coupled with wage restraint to reduce export prices and undersell competitors in foreign markets.

At the 1951 TUC the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hugh Gaitskell, told the delegates that, although world prices were stable, they must avoid making substantial wage demands during 1952.

Yearly, after that, the same tune is played with a slight change in the lyrics. For “wage restraint” we read “pay pause”, “deferment of wage claims” or “restricting wage demands”. These are argued as necessary because of the dollar gap, the adverse trade balance, the Suez Crisis or whatever threat was prominent during a particular year.

When the Labour Party is out of office the tune at the TUC is in a different key. The bulldozing bass of Arthur Deakin, the Transport and General Workers’ Union’s arch priest of wage restraint, gives place to the applauded baritone of Mr. Campbell of the National Union of Railwaymen and Frank Cousins of the Transport Workers. In 1956 these two took the limelight by opposing wage restraint under a Tory government and advocating a return to policies of the previous Labour government.

So, year after year, we find one government or another demanding that wages be held in check in the interest of national economy and the trade unions agreeing with the need for the economy but differing with the measures to be taken.

No previous government has gone to the limits of the present Labour government in attempting to force a wage freeze on the workers. Pleas for restraint are now giving place to legal measures to pare wages down. During recent weeks many Unions have announced their intention to support the government’s policy and the 1966 TUC has endorsed that policy, “reluctantly”.

The opposition, with a few exceptions, did not condemn the sacrifice of workers’ wages at the altar of capitalist crisis. The objection was to the government’s proposal to legislate to enforce a wage standstill because the law could be used by a future Tory government. How quaint! Prison punishment must be more pleasant under a Labour regime. Perhaps the cells will be padded.

The need to stabilise the £ was accepted. A lovely phrase that, “stabilising the £”. We wonder how many workers know what it means. Mr. Carron does. He knows it means that there is a need to show foreign financiers that the interest on their loans to this country is safe, that the wage slaves are frugal, docile and hard working and if they should get a bit rebellious, Mr. Wilson’s government is going to govern.

Trade Unions do not oppose capitalism and at their TUC forum they have never done more than debate the weight and size of the shackles that bind the working class. To them there is no alternative to capitalism with its production for profit and competition for world markets. They see no class struggle, only a struggle between nations. They create a picture of a good old trade ship “Great Britain” worked by an amicable crew of workers and employers with the Labour Party at the helm, steering towards the horizon of prosperity. There may be injustices in the share-out of the ship’s rations but, when the waters are troubled or the winds adverse, the whole ship’s complement must pull together to keep it on its course. It’s a pretty picture, a lovely illusion, a mirage.

This is not a new trade union outlook. They have, at times, been rebellious but, fundamentally, their thinking has not changed since their birth. In its early days delegates submitted and read papers to the Trade Union Congress. A few illustrations taken at random will demonstrate the continuity of ideas and policies.

The secretary of the Bookbinder’s Society in 1860 wrote:

. . . that the true state of employer and employed is amity, and that they are the truest friends.

A paper to the 1887 TUC:

It is the boast of most Trade Union secretaries that they have prevented more strikes than they have originated.

J. Kane, secretary of the Amalgamated Ironworkers in 1869:

I am determined to give no encouragement to men who refuse to obey and to abide by the written laws of our association . . . encourage me to labour on in the cause of justice and truth.

Through the years TUC debates have centred around class collaboration, suppression of strikes and the disciplining of unruly members.

There is a story of an old trade union leader who used to poke his head round the employer’s office door and ask, “Owt?” When he received the reply, “Nowt”, he would turn to his members and say, “Out”.

The story is, of course, an exaggeration but it is indicative of an attitude in days before trade unions gained their much sought after recognition. Recognition once achieved the old style leader was doomed, ridiculed and elbowed out by men more skilled in the rhetoric of negotiation.

The new men sat round the negotiating table with the employers and argued, often skilfully, not on the basis of class interest but of “justice” and “fair play”. They made agreements on behalf of their members and, when signed, the agreements were deemed to be binding on the employers and the trade union members alike. If conditions changed and agreements became unsatisfactory causing workers to rebel, the union officials had the job of bringing the rebels to heel.

When labour power was plentiful and when all industry was in the hands of private enterprise the employers could restrain wage demands without recourse to government help. But with the state extending its control over industry and labour power finding a sellers’ market, governments find themselves forced to take a more interfering hand.

Within capitalism much of the argument advanced by trade unionists is sound. Some years ago a newspaper columnist illustrated this with a tale of a benevolent employer who paid his workers a high wage for short hours. When he went out into the market to sell his goods he found himself outpriced by his competitors. He returned to his workers and told them that either he must reduce production costs, including their wages, or he would go out of business. To keep their jobs they accepted lower wages and longer hours.

What this story omits to tell is that in every country of the world the same state exists. Workers everywhere are urged or forced to moderate their wage demands in the interest of their own nation’s economy and to keep their jobs.

That is why Socialists say that there is no solution to the workers’ problems within capitalism. While there is capital and labour they will be perpetually antagonistic. While wealth is produced for a competitive market the capitalists will strive to keep the workers’ portion at a minimum. While profit is the stimulant to production the workers will be a subject class. While there is a wages system wages will be under continuous pressure. While workers continue to elect governments to run capitalism they will be urged, cajoled, commanded and compelled to moderate their wage demands.

While trade union policy is hidebound by capitalist notions the unions will 'be feeble instruments—“for the purpose of maintaining and improving their conditions of employment”.

W. Waters

Co-partnership: Fact or Fantasy? (1962)

From the March 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

To be a partner, or not to be! Well might Mr. John Spedan Lewis have soliloquised if he had thought at any great length upon the economic and legal implications of the term. Especially, when it is associated with ownership of a Capitalist undertaking, in particular the business known as the John Lewis Partnership which was founded in 1914.

JLP (John Lewis Partnership) employees arc all referred to as "Partners" so it might be as well if we take a look at what exactly a partner is. There are, of course, all sorts of partners. Marriage partners, partners in crime, whist partners, dancing partners. There are partners too such as those defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary: “person(s) associated with others in business of which he shares risks and profits; . . ." That is, people who have definite tangible—legal ownership in Capitalist enterprises and in the surplus value extracted from their employees.

It is fairly obvious that most of the JLP employees do not fit into this last category. If they did, then this would apply to all Capitalist ventures and therefore, all workers would be partners!

Mr. Lewis and the present Chairman, Mr. O. B. E. Miller, would no doubt reply that the employees of the JLP are partners because they share the profits and the risks and have a variety of amenities which they would not get elsewhere. This, however, is so much nonsense; most of the amenities that the JLP has to offer are also offered—and sometimes bettered—by their competitors, who do not call their employees partners. Likewise with profit sharing. The workers in the JLP no more share the profits than do the employees of any of the various concerns who have in recent years taken up the idea known as profit sharing. Workers do not receive profits, unless they have money invested, which generally they haven't. In the few instances where they have, the amounts are so small as to be negligible and certainly would not be large enough to change them into “partners." The point is that workers sell the only thing they have to sell, their ability to work, and the wage or salary they receive is generally speaking roughly what is necessary to maintain them as the particular grade of workers they are; to maintain a family and to produce further potential wage slaves to take their place when they arc too old to work any more.

The so-called profits that the JLP workers receive are no more than part of their wage—a bonus as an incentive for harder work. From an employers view “profit-sharing" is a good gimmick. For if you can convince workers that they are getting a share of the profits, they are more likely to identify their interests with yours.. The worker who thinks in terms of “my business" is less likely to come to work late and go home early; to take a long lunch hour or stretch his coffee and tea breaks; to slack on the job; to scamp his work or to pilfer. He is the sort who is going to switch off unnecessary electric lights or machinery; make sure that stationery and other materials are not wasted; and report to the management the people who do those things. With a bunch of workers like this, any management is likely to see an increase' in its profits. This type of worker would, o! course, never dream of striking, for he would conceive it as being against his interests.

Profit is unearned income—part of surplus value—something for nothing. It is the wealth produced by workers which is unpaid and only goes to those who have money invested in stocks and shares. This hardly applies to the JLP workers. They are taken on in the same manner as other workers. They are hired and fired according to the dictates of Capitalism. If a particular branch of the JLP proves to be unprofitable, it may be sold and the employees fired, with the possible exception of a few higher executives who can be usefully transferred elsewhere. If any of the workers employed by the JLP fail to make the grade as surplus value producers, they get their cards, or as they say “their membership is terminated." When this happens, it is no good pleading that you are a partner, for the JLP is only concerned with economic facts, not fantasies.

If any of the so-called partners are caught taking some of the wealth they are supposed to own, or even suspected of doing so, they are sacked—just as they would be by any other Capitalist employer. The truth of this was recently rammed home to a few misguided employees of the JLP who apparently took the “partnership" gospel a little too literally, for according to the Guardian (11/9/61): “ During the past six months the John Lewis Partnership prosecuted eight partners for dishonesty, and all of them were convicted . . . In addition, 15 partners lost their membership for similar reasons."

Another aspect that is supposed to set the JLP apart from other Capitalist concerns is its committees and councils. These are supposed to be democratic bodies, but in fact have a large percentage of members nominated by the management, and in any case are nearly always biassed in favour of the management. This is particularly true of the General Council of the firm. However, even if they were democratically based and the JLP workers tried to use them to further their interests, it would not make a lot of difference, for none of these bodies has any real power. This is vested—as in all Capitalist concerns in the people who have the legal ownership; in this case in the Board of Directors and the Chairman. This is the body that makes the real decisions, the financial decisions, and decides whether a business shall be bought or sold, and so on.

It can thus be seen that JLP workers are, if anything, worse off than workers employed elsewhere, for in addition to the economic hazards of Capitalism, they are continually confronted with that diabolical device, the dossier.

However, the workers of the JLP are not “burdened” (if that is the expression) with the risks of the business, any more than any other employees are. If JLP went bust, the workers would obviously seek re-employment elsewhere. The risks of the business belong to the people who invest their money in the JLP as a going Capitalist concern, and who receive interest in return for such investment. This interest does not come out of thin air; it is wrung from the labour of the workers in JLP.

Although it is highly unlikely that such a successful profit-making concern as the JLP will wind up its affairs in the foreseeable future, one can be sure that if this did happen, the ex-workers would really be able to see who actually owned the company. It would be those people who had the necessary legal documents proving their ownership, not workers who happen to be called partners. Imagine applying to the Official Receiver for a share of whatever was realised when the assets were liquidated, on the strength of having been called a partner during the period of your employment!

It would do the workers in the JLP and other co-partnerships a lot of good if they were to think deeply and to ask themselves why their employers refer to them as partners and not employees. It is rather like the fox telling the chickens that they are foxes. The main reason for co-partnership is, of course, to help keep Capitalism running as smoothly as possible. The aim is to reconcile some of the system's class antagonism. For while workers accept Capitalism they will not be looking for an alternative.

JONQUIL.

Blogger's Note:

This article received a critical letter of reply from the Public Relations Department of John Lewis in the July 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Co-partnership in gas works. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the annual meeting of the Labour Co-partnership Association, held at Westminster in March and reported in the columns of the “Gas World” (April 1st.), the president, Mr. Corbett Woodall, said there was evidence of “a revolt against the attempted classification of human flesh and blood with raw material, or fuel, as a contributory to the supposed need of capital in the way of profitable employment.” The “attempt,” we are told, was an error, even from an economic point of view, as riper experience had abundantly demonstrated. Meanwhile labour organised for its own deliverance.”

It may be noted in passing, that such elastic logic on the part of Mr. Woodall permits him to declare first, that the attempted classification is economically unsound, and then to show trade union and labour organisation as a desire on the part of the workers for deliverance. This tempts one to ask, what do they wish to be delivered from?—especially as the platform of the Co-partnership Association has resounded to the tread of such considerate friends of the workers as Alexander Henderson, Arthur J. Balfour, and others.

Since the workers’ very existence is determined by the economic basis of present society, it is fatuous for Mr. Woodall to say no one can possibly object to “defensive” action on the part of the wage-earner. If the workers’ premisses are unsound, then the defensive, action falls and constitutes the objection in itself.

Corbett Woodall mouths effusions as to a fair minimum wage. He might just as reasonably talk of an honest burglary. He says the workers must not be aggressive, because co-partnership spells salvation to them. They must not pin their official faith to Socialism.

The speaker knew, and had great respect for, many labour leaders, and it surprised him that “so many of them should profess themselves Socialists." Mr. Woodhall must realise that when labour men are Socialists they will not seek his society or respect, or pat him on the back on Co-partnership platforms. They will, instead, be educating the trustful and misguided “co-partners” in the science of revolt, and not in leading them to the shambles.

“What is wanted,” Mr. Woodall went on to declare, “is an appeal to the soul of man, who has never been satisfied with bread alone.” We require inducement to the improvement of man and of the fruits of his toil. The hope of mankind lies in his power of self-sacrifice.

But what self sacrifice has Mr. Woodall and his like, unblushing mouthers of “altruism” as they are, ever subjected themselves to? The various agreements drawn up for “co-partners” to sign certainly show nothing on the masters’ part of self-sacrifice, no tendency except to perpetuate the wages system. Their actions are as materialistic even as Mr. Woodall declares Socialism to be, and conceived on class lines narrower than that of the trade union policy he girds at—narrower if only because the capitalist class is smaller. They recognise to-day that it is cheaper to bribe the worker than to fight him, more so as the wages have gradually decreased since the introduction of profit-sharing by gas companies, not to mention the speeding-up, the introduction of wage saving machinery, and the miserable system of espionage, inseparable from the profit-sharing, as apparently, an appeal to the soul of man.

The present writer, at all events, cannot disagree with Mr. Woodall’s claim that the world is ripe for another step upward and onward in social progress. It its not only capitalism, however, that is “growing weary of wages settlements that do not settle anything, and of bargains that bear no more strain than wet paper.” But the way does not lie through co-partnership, and it is hopeless to think of agreements to obtain finality when a growing number of the working class absolutely deny the right of existence to a master class, and declare that nothing short of the overthrow of the existing social form can eradicate the hostility which exists between employers and employed.

A table was submitted showing that in all 28 companies with 19,613 co-partner employers have paid £726,126 in a period of 21 years. The highest percentage was paid by the South Metropolitan Gas Co.—8¼ per cent. This, on a wage of 25s. a week would be less than 2s. On the other hand, where wages were 35s., they are now 25s., so that to reduce wages 10s. at a cost of 2s. in the guise of divided profit, certainly warrants all the enthusiasm for co-partnership which the masters lavish upon it.

Further confirmation of this point was contained in the statement that the late Sir George Livesey “would relate how he once inquired of another large employer of labour, whether a workman with a real interest in saving time and materials and stopping waste, might not be worth an extra 5 per cent. on his wages. ‘Say 20 per cent.’ was the answer.”

Although this was a “co”-partnership meeting, only the “profit” payable to the workers was dealt with. The very fact that masters show such animated interest in forcing a share of their profits (?) upon those from whom, in other times and places, they just as enthusiastically wring that profit, is a sufficiently illuminating circumstance to put co-partnery in its proper place, among the many swindles the capitalists and their henchmen, the labour “leaders,” have together devised for the benefit of their credulous dupes.

"Southerner."

Kaiser and the German 'Socialists' (1915)

From the December 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

In an article in the “Daily Express” (28.9.15) entitled “Kaiser and the Socialists,” reference is is made to the Kaisers’ conquest of the Socialist (so-called) leader of Karlsruhe, one Fendrich, who has been serving with the Kaiser’s legions. It seems Fendrich has written his war experiences for the Imperial benefit. An interview resulted and the royal personage shook Fendrich by the hand and thanked him. The scribe says regarding Wilhelm’s persuasive way :

“He has already convinced men like Scheidemann, Haase, Franck, and all other governmental Socialists. Fendrich is only one more. He will get the Iron Cross. Dr. Sudekum, the Socialist leader, got it.”

Yes ! And when the International working class cease letting their brains out on hire, all the ruddy lot will get it—where the chopper hit the chicken. Meanwhile we hourly expect some similar royal greatness to be thrust upon us.

B. B. B.

Blogger's Note:

The Workers' Liberty website carries a 1915 article on Anton Fendrich, which was originally published in the San Francisco Call, and which was reprinted in James Connolly's Workers' Republic on the 4th December 1915.

Literary Curiosities No. 4—Dan Irving’s Election Address. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

It should be recorded that this document was sent out with Irving’s compliments as a directly personal communication and appeal.

_______________

MUNICIPAL ELECTION—GANNOW WARD

Thursday, Nov. 1st, 1906.

TO THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ELECTORS IN THE WARD.

Committee Room, 47, Hargher Street,

Burnley, Oct. 29th, 1906.

Dear Sir or Madam,

For obvious reasons business and professional people do not care to disclose their intentions as to voting at elections. We, therefore, do not propose that our canvassers shall call upon you in the ordinary manner to solicit your vote on behalf of our Candidate.

We do, however, ask for your favourable consideration of our Candidate’s address, believing you will find that the proposals contained therein are such as would be beneficial to the whole community. The public record of our Candidate, Mr. Dan Irving, is one, we contend, of good service done in the public interest, and such as has indeed won admiration and respect from many of his political opponents, and proves his capacity and fitness to serve the Ward as its representative on the Town Council.

Our efforts to bring about better conditions for the wage-earning classes are not at all inconsistent with the best interests of the class to which you belong. Higher wages, better education and increased leisure tends to a higher standard of living, increases the needs, and supplies the means whereby the working-classes purchase more from the Tradespeople and utilize to an ever-increasing degree the services of the Professional Classes.

It is to your interest that the working-classes should be well-to-do. As ratepayers, too, our interests coincide with your own. In our judgment, any expenditure tending to promote the health and general well-being of the community, is expenditure from which all alike reap benefit. Extravagant and unnecessary expenditure is not to our advantage any more than to your own, and our representatives have always shown by their votes that they are opposed to the expenditure of public money for which we get an inadequate return in public good.

We know that, in the main, your class have hitherto opposed the aspirations of the organised Labour movement. We are of opinion that this is largely owing either to misconceptions, or that you have not really thought out what the effect of our proposals would be. A careful and kindly consideration of these would, we are convinced, bring you to see that your own best interests are bound up in the general well-being of all.

We, therefore, ask for your vote and influence on behalf of our Candidate, Mr. Dan Irving, on Thursday, November 1st, and trust our appeal to your human rather than your class interests will not be in vain.

Yours truly,

THE L.R.C. COMMITTEE FOR GANNOW WARD

50 Years Ago: Profit sharing (1963)

The 50 Years Ago column from the June 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

Co-partnership is the curative syrup for all capitalist ills just now. Fabians recommend it, Liberal and Tory newspapers have given it their blessing, and business men who have tried it are loud in their praises. It has a double effect in its application—it increases profits and stifles labour “unrest.”

Some sociological and political experts, indeed, regard it as the solution, par excellence, for the labour troubles. The hard-headed, unscientific capitalist, who has “no soul above immediate profits,” is, however, somewhat sceptical, and not without reason. For profit-sharing in at least one case was productive of labour trouble.

The instance in question was recounted at a fashionable gathering of co-partnership apostles, at Lord and Lady Brassey’s, in Park Lane—a meeting arranged for the purpose of devising ways and means of sharing profits with the workers—something eminently desirable from the Park Lane point of view. One speaker said that he offered shares to his employees, one of whom took up a hundred. Next day in the workshop he remonstrated with a fellow workman for wasting the gas. The reply was: “Oh, there are too many blooming policemen about this business!” (just what we say) and the following day the whole of the employees struck work.

[From the Socialist Standard, June 1913.]

The Class Struggle (1950)

From the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is likely that more nonsense has been talked and written about the class-struggle than about any other part of the Socialist case. Propagandists of the parties which support the capitalist system always refer to the class-struggle as if it were something which Marx invented and which Socialists are in favour of, just as, for example, the Liberal Party is in favour of Proportional Representation. Tories accuse the Labour Party of fostering antagonism between classes. Is it possible, asks Captain Gammans, Conservative M.P. for Hornsey, for the Labour Party “ to maintain itself solely on a policy of class hatred?” (Everybody's, 25-3-50). The Labour Party indignantly rebuts the charge that it believes in the class-struggle, and claims itself to be a party of the nation as a whole, devoted to furthering the interests of every section of the population. The Liberal and Conservative Parties say that they, too, want harmony among classes. Everybody's (leading article, 11-3-50) thinks that if Britain were “rid of extremists, all classes could work together in tolerance.” One of the most explicit of articles putting this view which have appeared recently is “ How to Lick Class Struggle ’ by W. W. Cenerazzo, in the Reader's Digest for October, 1949. Here is a quotation.

“ I like to call the American system ‘ Co-operative Capitalism.’ To me this means investor, management and labour working together for these objectives: to make the company as prosperous as possible so that the investor can obtain a fair return on his money, management can obtain adequate payment for supplying direction, and labour can obtain a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work with the accompanying job security and pension plan that a prosperous company can guarantee.”

The idea that the Socialists are the originators and sole supporters of the class-struggle is of course entirely wrong. Marx did not invent it; he diagnosed it. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” The various classes in society, they said, have carried on “an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open, fight; a fight that each time ended in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.” They did not say that history ought to have been the record of class struggles; they said that it was the record of class struggles. Socialists do not support the class-struggle any more than they support war; but they realise that both are inevitable so long as the economic basis of society remains unchanged.

The present productive system is based upon the exploitation of the people who work by the people who own the land, the factories, the mines, and all the other instruments of production. It is worth reiterating this fact, because it is the reason for the existence of the class struggle. Goods are made by workers, operating machines constructed by workers, in factories built by workers. Other workers—managers and technicians— organise production and plan ahead. If at any time an owner takes part in the process of production (for example, the owner of a factory who manages it himself) he does it as a worker, not as an owner. Owners as such contribute nothing to the processes of production. Why then can they live, if they do not work? They can live, and live well, because they are able to hold the rest of the community to ransom if they do not receive a sufficient amount of rent, interest and profit. If a factory owner is not making enough profit, he closes his factory; and however much the workers want to operate the machines in the factory and produce the goods they need, they cannot force him to open it. In the long run, no goods are made or transported unless someone makes a profit out of it. This is true of every industry, whether the board of directors is appointed privately or by the state. Owners live, then, by exploiting (“robbing” is a more familiar term, and just as accurate) the workers. Only Socialists realise this; the Labour, Liberal, and Conservative parties think that “a fair profit” is justifiable. They remind one of the French lawyer who wanted crime to be reduced, but not abolished entirely. The Stalinists also think that dividends are not fundamentally wrong, provided that they can control the system which produces the dividends, as they do in Soviet Russia.

In this way capitalism divides society into two classes, one of which is made up of workers and the other of exploiters. Each class has its own interests, which are at variance with those of the other. By strikes and by lockouts, by the setting up or overthrow of political superstructures, the struggle among the classes proceeds. While the workers are being exploited, they have to fight against their exploiters as best they can, by forming unions on the industrial front, and by forming parties on the political front. Socialists join the fight on the industrial front, but they realise, and try to get their fellow-workers to realise, that the working-class can only permanently improve its position by the creation of a Socialist society.

Propagandists of the capitalist parties avoid admitting the existence of the class-struggle in one of two ways. Some of them deny that the workers are exploited, and thus argue, like Mr. Cenerazzo, that there is no great division of interest between owners and workers. Mr. T. Wilson, judging from his article in the Manchester Guardian (13-2-50) is one of these. It would be as well, he thinks, “to abandon all talk of 'class war,”’ since large incomes derived from the ownership of property form “too small a part of the total to matter much.” Only 20 per cent. of the owning classes have incomes of more than £2,000 a year, he reports; four-fifths of them have to make do with a gross income of £40 a week or less. He adds vaguely that of these incomes “ part will usually be earned ” without condescending to give facts and figures as to the amount and manner of the “ earning.” One seems to smell directors’ fees. But this evidence of poverty among the class who live on the fruits of other people’s labour, interesting though it is, will not convert Socialists.

Other propagandists ignore entirely the fact that some people live on rent, interest and profit. To quote Everybody's leader-writer again (11/3/50): “Planners may argue and the London School of Economics produce figures to prove topsy-turvydom, but when all is said, the only solution to our problems is hard work. Hard work never killed anyone. . ; . Longer hours and efficiency should have their just reward. Fair shares, when one man works harder than another, is ridiculous." The best comment on this is what Mr. Churchill once said. “Men sometimes stumble on the truth, but most of them get up and hurry away as if nothing had happened." It is not clear whether Mr. Churchill regards himself as one of those who hurried away, or just as one of those who never stumbled; but it is obvious that the leader-writer has here hit upon something which is profoundly true. Fair shares, when one man works harder than another, is certainly ridiculous according to the ideals which capitalist apologists proclaim, the ideals of a “fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work." More ridiculous still is fair shares when one man works hard, and another doesn’t work at all. Most ridiculous of all is the system we have now, when the man who does no work, provided he owns enough property, gets a lot more for it than the man who works hard. But the leader-writer is not concerned with getting shareholders and landlords to take jobs in a factory or in a coalmine; he is merely exhorting those who already work to work harder. In this way he takes sides in the class-struggle without admitting its existence.

To say that classes fight for their own interests is not, however, the same thing as saying that classes always recognise exactly where their own interests lie. At the present time, an atom-war, which would probably destroy civilisation or a large part of it, seems to be approaching. This alone would surely provide sufficient reason for the working class to overthrow the system which makes war inevitable. But when Socialists try to spread Socialist ideas, they are brought up against the fact that the great instruments of mass-propaganda, the press, the cinema, the radio, are controlled by people who have done very well out of this system, and who therefore are favourable to it. Very few workers are yet convinced of the necessity for a radical change in our way of living. The mass of workers still vote for the party which holds out the longest list of promises.

At present, the three big parties each derive their chief support from certain clearly-defined sections. In the elections of 1945 and 1950, the lower-paid sections of the working class generally voted Labour, especially those in the heavy industries such as coal-mining, shipbuilding, iron and steel. The exploiting class, the landlords, shareholders and entrepreneurs, voted Conservative; so did farmers and shopkeepers, part of whose income comes from the exploitation of the workers they employ. The professional and salaried workers observed how poor, ignorant and ill-housed were the lower ranks of the working class, and sought to put a barrier between themselves and the poorer workers, and to emphasise their own superior standard of living, by voting Conservative; in any case, they had benefited from the low price of goods and services under Tory rule between the wars. There were also Conservatives lower down the social scale. Wage-workers who attend to the wants of the wealthy—hotel-workers, for example, in fashionable towns like Leamington Spa, Bath and Bournemouth—often feel that their livings depend on the continued patronage of people who have large incomes to spend and leisure to spend them in. “ In Bournemouth it seems that over 50 per cent. of the voting population work for a weekly wage" (Picture Post, 11/2/50); yet in the last election, both Bournemouth constituencies returned Conservative M.P.s with majorities of some 15,000 votes. It is more difficult to distinguish which groups voted Liberal; but the strength of the party in North Wales and North Scotland, which are roughly also the areas where peasant farmers exist in relatively the strongest numbers, would indicate that they are the staunchest bulwark of Liberalism.

The “white-collar workers’’ who live in the suburbs and work in the offices of the big cities, especially London, ‘broke away from the Conservatives in 1945. Under the influence of the propaganda of the Common Wealth Party and the Gollancz yellow booklets, they voted Labour. The big question of the 1950 election was whether or not Labour could hold this group, since although it might not be in a majority in any one constituency, its vote could determine the allegiance of much of suburbia. In the list of seats that the Labour Party won in 1945, but lost in 1950, the names that stand out are those like Croydon, Romford, Harrow, Hendon, Ilford, Mitcham, Wembley. These results show that the Conservatives were successful this time in securing the support of the white-collar workers.

The Tories now want to win over the upper sections of the manual workmen themselves. Captain Gammans, in the article already quoted, says: “It is from the skilled craftsmen that the Conservative Party may strengthen its ranks if it plays its cards properly." In other words, the big political parties, while in theory denying the existence of the class-struggle, in practice recognise it and make their plans with it in mind.

The Socialist Party believes that the interests of everyone who works, white-collar or no-collar, manual or professional, are directly opposed to the interests of everyone who lives by owning property, and that the workers must combine and put an end to the system which rests upon their exploitation.

Alwyn Edgar

T.U.C & the budget (1961)

From the April 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

As happens every year the T.U.C's pre-budget recommendations have been placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as in past recommendations platitudes abound. It would appear that this year's remedy is economic expansion with an export drive, which the T.U.C. say is based on a need for long term planning. One would have thought that economic expansion was a job for the capitalist class and that the defence of workers' interests should be the main occupation of the T.U.C.

The T.U.C. added that for the export drive to succeed not only physical controls limiting less essential industries may be necessary, but that if these measures affect Britain's balance of payments the Government should take a “calculated risk” by controlling non-essential imports. The T.U.C.’s further warning was that although the measures suggested may be unpopular the alternatives could be worse. It would appear from all this that the workers have very little choice either way.

We must point out that the T.U.C.'s suggested measures have all been tried many times before. Since however the nature of capitalist production compels all other capitalist nations to introduce the same measures the contradictions of the system with all its disastrous consequences is made more obvious. The spectacle of the T.U.C. leaders ably assisting British Capitalism in its world rat race is an object lesson.

W. G. C.

Work, You Workers, Work (1948)

From the April 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bonus systems, payment by results, co-partnerships, piece work, profit sharing, all these and other schemes we have known. Each and every one has the same objective—to get a little more effort out of the workers, to encourage them to expend their utmost on the job.

Of the co-partnership and profit sharing schemes we hear little these days. Some years ago they were quite popular propositions. Probably one of the largest and most widely publicised of these schemes was the one introduced by Lever Bros, at Port Sunlight. The idea was to share a portion of the profits produced in the industry amongst the workers. This should give them an interest in the business and encourage them to serve it more zealously.

The American journal “Fortune,” which, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be considered a working class magazine, in its December, 1947, issue, deals with this Lever profit sharing scheme and its failure. On page 204:

“But he (W. H. Lever) seemed obsessed with sharing profits. He concluded that profit sharing was fine provided it resulted in better production . . .” 

and on page 207:

“The idea of direct profit sharing continued to obsess him even after Port Sunlight was built, and he decided to make qualified employees 'co-partners' with whom he shared some of the amount available for ordinary (common) dividends. For a while his scheme worked. The dividends, however, amounted to so little per capita that their effect on production and efficiency over a long time was debatable, and the practice was discontinued after Lever died.”

For the employer it was a matter of an additional investment. The workers were induced to consider that they had an identity of interest with him. The greater the increase in profits resulting from their better production and increased efficiency, the greater would be their dividend—and the dividend of the employers. Unless the amount of increased profit to the employer was greater than the amount he paid out in dividends to his employees, then it was a bad investment for him. Also to be taken into account, of course, was the fact that the “identity of interest” idea is a fine deterrent to strikes and is a means of persuading workers to soft pedal their wage demands. Labour disputes and high wages would tend to affect profits and the co-partner would fear that he might not get a good ”divi.” In practise, the amount received by the worker was so infinitesimal, that the scheme failed in its object At least, the Lever one did.

As we have said, not much is heard of these profit sharing schemes these days and in the collapse of the Lever scheme we see the reason. But a new method has arisen to encourage the workers to foster this idea of an identity of interest with their exploiters. A cheaper method, too. It does not even require that the employer shall disgorge the small amount of wealth that the profit sharing proposition necessitated.

Listen-in at Trade Union branch meetings, Trades Council meetings and other places where workers gather to talk about their wages and conditions. You will hear some one get on his feet and trot out this kind of thing: “ Now that it is 'OUR' industry, we must moderate our demands. We must work to get it on its feet. We must increase our production and efficiency. We are all share-holders now, we must work to make the industry pay. We must not ask for too much . . .” And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

That is how it is put over today. Old man Lever allotted a portion of his dividends to get the utmost out of his workers. Today we find working class supporters and defenders of the Labour Party (they are all on the defensive now) falling over themselves to give of their damnedest without even the meagre dividend that Port Sunlight workers collected as an inducement.

If nationalised industry were engaged in producing goods or services for use, this point of view would be understandable. Then, better production and increased efficiency would result in more goods and better services for the workers themselves. But nationalised industry, as with all forms of capitalist industry, is engaged in the production of goods and services for sale with a view to a profit being made in the process. This fact is not disguised, not even by the advocates of nationalisation. The workers produce a quantity of wealth in excess of the amount they receive in the form of wages, salaries, etc. This surplus goes into State coffers and forms the fund out of which is shared the dividends to the investors in Government bonds.

True, an increase in production and efficiency in State industries does not mean an increase in the amount paid out as interests to bondholders. Neither does it mean an increase in wages. It may possibly result in an increase in the salary of the chairman of the “Board” or the “Executive," or in a fine, fat, five-figure pension to these "high” officials when they retire. It may also, by increasing the amount flowing into the State coffers, be a means of defraying national expenditure, and so help to alleviate the burden of taxation borne by the exploiting class. We know that finally it will result in an excess of commodities over and above the amount that the markets can absorb. Then we shall get from the Labour Party the same nauseating idea trotted out in slightly different words. “Sorry, fellows—an economic blizzard—tighten your belts and pull 'YOUR’ industry through.” Probably the blame will be put on to the Russians or maybe, the “Yanks,” It will be difficult for them to apportion the blame to the bankers as has been done in the past. It would sound rather puerile to tell us that it was “OUR” nationalised Bank of England that is holding up credit, or doing something or other to cause a financial and economic crisis. Anyway, it will be the workers who will be cajoled to make sacrifices to help "THEIR" industry through the difficult times. The rate of interest to the investor is guaranteed. He will not be worried. It is no longer his headache. He is the holder of “gilt edged.”

There are all sorts of things in store for the working class whilst Capitalism remains. There are no end to the reasons why they should work harder, more efficiently and be patient. Another war will make it necessary for the workers to make sacrifices to pull "THEIR” country through. After a war or after a trade depression there will be the need to produce more to recapture the foreign markets. It will always be possible to concoct some excuse for cracking the whip.

It is interesting to watch how this increased efficiency idea works out. For example, London’s nationalised transport. An agreement has recently been signed by the London Transport Executive and the Transport and General Workers Union adjusting the rates of pay of drivers and conductors of buses, coaches and trolley buses. At the same time, these contracting parties have agreed upon a letter to the effect that they will jointly recommend to the Minister of Transport that the existing rule shall be relaxed to enable eight standing passengers to be carried, instead of five as at present. This, so the letter says, is with the object of increasing the efficiency of the service to the public.

London Transport’s new 70-seat, eight feet wide trolley bus is now in operation in areas on the west Side of London. The Surrey Comet, reporting on the inaugural run of the first of these new vehicles, says (21/2/48):

"The extra width of six inches on the new buses is taken up by having the gangways four inches wider with an additional inch on each seat This should give greater comfort to the standing passenger . . .”

So better production and increased efficiency in this nationalised industry will mean that, (1) Drivers will drive bigger buses; (2) Conductors will pack in a few more passengers; (3) Passenger will be able to enjoy the increased standing comfort, or should we say more passengers will be able to enjoy the decreased discomfort, and (4) last, but by no means least, all passengers will pay their fares, thus increasing the takings per bus when the additional standing passengers are carried.

There is no advantage here that would make it advisable for the workers to moderate their demands for increased wages or better working conditions. We suggest to all workers that they should regard the State in the same way as they should regard any other employer, as an opponent who is out to get as much energy from his employees for the price that he pays, as is possible. The workers, in turn, should endeavour to get the highest price (wage) and best conditions of sale for the energy that they sell, as they possibly can. All increased efficiency should be directed to this end, and to the struggle to abolish the system of Capitalist exploitation.

To paraphrase Prime Minister Attlee :

"This year, let us all put into our struggle that spirit that will make our class free.”

W. Waters

Editorial: Trade Union Congress re-affirms its Belief in Capitalism (1944)

Editorial from the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

While re-iterating trade union demands for a higher standard of living and for changes in the structure and control of industry, the T.U.C. at Blackpool accepted the continuance of capitalist industry and trade and the exploitation of the workers through the wages system. Always the formula is the same, that of condemning particular abuses and coining vague phrases asking for sweeping changes, while at the same time voting for detailed schemes which accept the fundamentals of capitalism.

One resolution called on the Governments of the United Nations to insert in the peace settlement a statement of social principles and objectives as recommended by the International Labour Conference at Philadelphia (Daily Herald, October 20th, 1944). We only need to concern ourselves with two points in the “Declaration of Philadelphia” to see what a fraudulent document it is from the standpoint of working-class emancipation. The first clause is the short affirmation “Labour is not a commodity.” Technically, of course, this is true since the commodity the worker sells is not “labour” itself but “labour-power”; but no doubt those who drafted the clause were only being slipshod in using the wrong word. What they thought they were doing was giving an answer to the Socialist charge that under the wages system the worker is merely the seller of a commodity, his own mental and physical energies. They thought that if in some formal document signed by the capitalist governments it is affirmed that labour-power is not a commodity, then it ceases to be a commodity. Yet every observer who looks at things as they are, including the Labour representatives who endorsed it at the I.L.O. and the T.U.C., knows that labour-power is and remains what it has always been under capitalism a commodity bought in the market, just like the other commodities the capitalist buys. In effect, the I.L.O.’s reply to the question, “Will you abolish the wages system?” is the assurance that there is no wages system. Just as if a fireman, asked if he would or would not put out a fire that is consuming a house, replies “There is no fire.”

A later point in the precious Philadelphia Charter betrays the truth. Having declared that labour-power is not a commodity, the Charter goes on to define the conditions under which this allegedly non-existent commodity is to be sold, by demanding—

“Policies in regard to wages and earnings, hours and other conditions of work calculated to ensure a just share of the fruits of progress to all, and a minimum living wage to all employed and in need of such protection.”

Another T.U.C. resolution endorsed the General Council’s Report on Post-War Reconstruction. Although the Report attacks the existing organisation and control of industry it has nothing to offer but well-worn phrases about public ownership as a description of its proposed schemes of a slightly changed private ownership. Some industries are to be “publicly owned,” by which the Report means “taken over by a public corporation” (Daily Herald, October 3rd, 1944). The present owners will give up their shareholdings in the existing concerns and receive in return Government bonds. “Basis for buying out the present owners, it is suggested, should be ‘reasonable net maintainable revenue’— that is, on the actual earnings over a period of years and on the probability of their continuance” (Daily Herald, October 3rd, 1944).

Industries not ripe for the public corporation form of State capitalism are to be regulated by Industrial Boards set up by the Government. Workers and employers are to have equal representation on the Boards, but the chairman and a small number of other independent members are to be appointed by the Government. The chairman and his “independent” colleagues will be able to decide all issues on which employers and workers are equally divided, but in what way they will be independent the T.U.C. does not explain. They will, of course, be entirely dependent on the capitalist state, committed to trying to keep capitalist industry running smoothly.

This, by the way, is a familiar device by the Fascist countries. In the name of democracy, the workers, who outnumber the capitalists by, say, ten to one, are to have “equal” representation with them.

Congress decided by a 4 to 1 majority that the German people share the guilt of their Nazi rulers. Sir Walter Citrine, saying there has been too much mushy sentimentality about this business, told Congress that when the Allies march into Berlin “we shall find so many anti-Nazis full of assurances that they have always been against the Nazis that it will be difficult to know who has been carrying on the war in Germany” (News-Chronicle, October 19th, 1944).

Millions of German workers (but by no means all) have indeed supported the interests of their capitalist exploiters in the Nazi Party, but Sir W. Citrine and the majority of T.U.C. delegates are surely the least fitted to protest against people who support what they profess to oppose, for has not the T.U.C. for decades re-iterated its denunciations of capitalism while continually supporting capitalism, and on occasion (as at present) giving its backing to avowedly capitalist politicians and governments? Since capitalism is the cause of war, none who support capitalism can disclaim responsibility for war.

According to the Daily Mail (October 20th), one proposal accepted by Congress was that utility goods should be continued after the war. This very humble request just about typifies present relationship of the T.U.C. with the capitalist class “We are only poor workers,” the proposal says in effect “we don’t ask for the good things we make for the rich, but please see we have a regular supply of the second-rate, the substitute the cheap and nasty.”

With equal humility Congress passed about its 15th protest resolution against the 1927 Trades Dispute Act though at present it is only protesting because the Prime Minister has continued, like his predecessor in office the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, to withhold even the token concession asked for. The T.U.C. missed the bus by not getting something done four years ago. As it is they have waited until the capitalists— free from preoccupation with Germany—can give them undivided attention. They will no doubt get what they deserve.

It is sometimes instructive to take notice of what your opponents say about you. The T.U.C. is allegedly anti-capitalist, while Lord Beaverbrook’s Evening Standard is openly in favour of capitalism. What the T.U.C. does ought on this assumption to meet with the disapproval and apprehension of the capitalist press.. Instead, the Evening Standard assures its readers that the T.U.C. (despite its attack on non-union journalists sent as reporters) is quite harmless. Any who think the T.U.C. has moved “to the left,” says the Standard can be comforted. Congress accepted policies that are satisfactory to many people on the right. Congress for example, agreed that labour should continue to be directed— in other words conscripted— after the war. Congress steered steadily towards that Trade Union-Big Business collaboration which is anathema to the left.” (Evening Standard, October 20th, 1944).

The millionaire Press may be comforted, but present T.U.C. policy will bring no comfort to men and women trade unionists in the hard years before them.

The Profit-Sharing Snare. Co-partnership Schemes Exposed. (1930)

From the October 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The economics of cheapness.

Great Britain is losing her hold over the world market. That means producing firms are finding it harder to compete successfully against producers abroad. Every scheme is being tried to regain lost trade and to increase the quantity of goods sold. Industry to-day is carried on for the profit of the owners, and more trade, therefore, means more profit.

The most effective way to capture markets is to sell cheaper than your rivals. How can goods be sold at a lower price? Modern industry answers—”Reduce the time taken to produce them.” That is how the modern cry of Rationalisation pays tribute to the economics of Karl Marx.

Marx showed that the average amount of time taken under prevailing conditions to produce an article determined its value. So in order to sell cheaper, the manufacturers to-day use every possible method to lessen the time necessary to produce their wares.

Piece-work rates, bonus systems and other profit-sharing-schemes are adopted to arouse the worker to greater effort; to produce quicker; and to save waste. This enables the employer to produce more cheaply, whilst the workers are told they will share in the increased profits.

The “Pace-maker” and his function.

The cotton trade to-day is in decline, and these speeding-up methods are being pushed in Lancashire to enable the employers to ensure their profits. The Manchester Guardian recently had an article suggesting piece-work and bonus systems as a remedy. The fixing of piece-work rates, however, we are told by the writer, is difficult, as it means getting “pace-makers,” or sloggers who can lead the rest by turning out more goods. The standards of price per piece can be fixed more profitably for the employers if really rapid workers are employed as “time setters” to cut down the time required to turn out each job. Thus the Taylor system in all its variations of efficiency is offered as a cure for “Lancashire ills.” Its adoption will certainly raise the employers’ profits, but will simply mean in practice that fewer workers are required to do the same amount of work. Any apparent increase in wages by sharing in the profits is only in actual practice a reduction of wages in relation to the increased amount of work performed. The employer’s share is that his profits are increased vastly. The worker is paid a fraction more than before for turning out a much larger product. The sole result is that the increased efforts of the workers reduce the “share” of the total product given back to the workers as wages. That is why prominent employers are so much in favour of these piece-work and profit sharing systems.

One feature of all these piece price and premium bonus ideas was noted by the Manchester Guardian writer; that is the policy of firms cutting down the piece rate once they find efficiency going up and adding to the workers’ wage. So almost as fast as the workers’ output is increased by slogging, the unit price comes down and the workers are back again to subsistence wages. Once the workers raise output it becomes the average standard for all to comply with in order to get the basic wage.

The Co-partnership fraud. 

Many leading employers have recently boomed another artful dodge to ensnare the workers into working in harmony with the employers. Co-partnership or shareholding by employees is the stale device which is being revived. The Economic League—that body of employers’ friends—issue many leaflets praising co-partnership as the way to social peace and workers’ prosperity.

One of the great examples of this scheme is the South Metropolitan Gas Works, who smashed their employees’ strike on the profit-sharing issue, and afterwards raised hours from 8 to 12 per day. This firm boasts that since “allowing” employees to own shares the efficiency has increased, the price of gas has fallen, and better still— profits have risen considerably. In this firm the profit-sharing scheme was made compulsory, so that all workers would take a “greater interest in their work.” It worked out in practice that fewer men were required to do the same amount of work and the tiny “share” of the workers in dividend at the end of the year proved that the owners had really shared in the added wages due to the workers for their increased efforts and output.

The workers get the "leavings."

Lord Leverhulme, of the Soap Trust, was a great believer in co-partnership. But on his death we found from the published will that he owned the entire two millions of ordinary shares himself. Not much co-partnership there ! And by “allowing” some workers to have special “employees’ shares,” receiving interest after the ordinary shareholders, Lord Leverhulme was able to pile up millions in profit. In his book on the “Six Hour Day,” he points out that he always insisted that the co-partner workers must share in the losses as well as profits. This policy was calculated to teach the workers the importance of helping the firm to make profits.

All co-partnership and similar schemes are put forward to kill any organised efforts by the workers to increase their share of the wealth produced. Under the spell of the “divi.” or bonus, the worker is to be enticed away from the struggle to push up his wages or in any way reduce the employers’ surplus.

The Co-partners get the sack.

Cadbury’s and Rowntree’s are examples of “good” firms with profit-sharing policies. Recent efforts on the part of these companies to hold or increase their trade led them to use more machinery to reduce the labour costs. A reduction of workers employed resulted, and Rowntree appealed through the press for employers to give his superseded men a job. After all the work and efforts of the employees in these firms working hard to produce profits they were replaced by machines ! The co-partners were out of work ! Do you need more evidence of the function of bonus systems and co-partnership ?

The fruits of profit sharing.

In the Ministry of Labour Gazette (July, 1930) appears a complete survey of all profit-sharing and co-partnership schemes operating during 1929. These schemes numbered 495, and were participated in by 260,000 employees out of 531,000 employed in these firms. The report tells us that “in all industries taken together nearly one half of the schemes started have come to an end.” We are also informed that “a considerable number of the schemes admit employees to participation in the profits only to the extent that they are able and willing to deposit savings with the firm or purchase shares.”

A famous firm practising co-partnership is the Eastman Kodak Co. Listen to Mr. George Eastman’s testimony of the profit­ able results to the firm :—

“In 1919 several thousand pounds’ worth of shares were distributed to our employees. One result was that after handing over to the workers one-third of my shares, the value of the remaining holdings soon climbed a third higher than the previous total. That was not the purpose in distributing the shares, but the result shows the business value of the act. Since the shares were distributed the market value has gone up over 150 per cent. Part of this increase in value unquestionably has been due to the wide distribution among workers and officials.”—(Co-partnership, Dec., 1927.)

The Chemical combine.

Sir Alfred Mond (now Lord Melchett) is one of the chief apostles of the co-partnership device. He boasted at the annual meeting of the Imperial Chemical Industries, 1929, that 53,000 employees held shares, totalling about 850,000 shares. (This is about 17 shares each.) They are allowed to buy ordinary shares at market prices less 2/6 per share, and preference shares at the fixed price of 21/6 each. He “trusts” his employees not to sell their shares. Why so many employees put their savings into “their firm’s” shares is easily understood, as it is thought to be a means of being kept on or possibly useful in promotion. How little the workers own in the mighty Imperial Chemical Industries can be seen when it is found that the capital of this combine is over 76 millions. The co-partners have no control over “their” jobs nor any control over the business. What are a few shares owned by each worker against the huge amount owned by such Directors of the firm as Lord Melchett, Lord Birkenhead, Lord Colwyn, Sir Max Muspratt, Henry Mond, Marquess of Reading, Lord Weir, etc. ?

Longer hours for co-partners.

How little Lord Melchett is interested in workers’ conditions can be seen by his efforts in Parliament to get a longer working day for miners. The Amalgamated Anthracite Collieries (owned by Imperial Chemicals) controls 12 coal concerns, and has paid huge dividends in recent years.

Who really owns most of the capital can be seen by its share-list, where dozens of shareholders own 10,000 shares and upwards each, and prominent holders like Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds own £395,000 in shares. Lady Buckland, the well-known miner, owns £395,000 in shares in company with two other aristocrats.

Is this an example of the widespread diffusion of capital that the Economic League and Mond refer to ?

How co-partnership rivets the employees to the firm which holds their “savings” can be seen from Mond’s speech at a co­ partnership luncheon :—

“What is the effect of making them shareholders? We saw some of it in the last General Strike. Not one workman in Brunner, Mond’s left his job ! while many were heard to observe that they did not intend to jeopardise their dividends at the dictates of any outside person. In the business with which I am connected we have been free from Labour disputes for fifty years.”

Lord Melchett is very reticent about the wages paid by his alkali works, mines and every other of the 50 concerns amalgamated into his trust. But the Chemical Workers’ Union are continually protesting’ against the “low” wages paid in that industry practically controlled by the combine.

The workmen co-partners have no control of the share market. Should they want to sell their shares just now what will they get? £1 ordinary shares have fallen from 45/- last year to 19/- to-day. And the 10/- deferred shares have fallen to 5/- each. (Observer, August 3rd, 1930).

The right "spirit" for slaves.

Perhaps there is no better indication of Lord Melchett’s policy than the following- :

“After all, there is no more competitive spirit than that displayed by the British people. If you put them into a football match they will kill themselves every Saturday afternoon for nothing. Why not introduce the same spirit into industry?”—(Co-partnership, Dec., 1927.)

This is from his speech at the same co-partnership luncheon. How tragically true ! that is the spirit of industry—killing themselves for nothing !

Some of the conditions of the Imperial Chemical’s co-partners’ scheme are interesting :

“The scheme is an investment one, and while no absolute restriction is placed upon the workers, they will not be expected to speculate with their shares. The directors reserve the right to refuse to allot further shares to a worker who does not enter into the right spirit of the scheme.

The maximum individual allotment will be such number of shares as can he purchased by an expenditure of a sum not exceeding 20 per cent. of the annual wages or salary of the employee. To this 20 per cent. an additional 1 per cent, for each year of service above five may be added.”—(Co-partnership, Dec., 1927.)

The conditions are, of course, laid down by the firm ! The worker must enter into “the right spirit,” and he must not buy (even if he could afford it) too many shares. Perhaps he might then give up working and, like the real “partners,” live upon profits !

The purpose behind Imperial Chemicals “profit sharing” can be gleaned from the following paragraph : —

“This departure from the normal method of dealing with manual workers is described in the current issue of the Imperial Chemical Industries Magazine as an “experiment,” the continuance of which must depend on its economic result. The creation of the Staff Grade will involve a heavy initial cost which must be balanced by compensating increase of efficiency.—(Co-partnership, Sept., 1928.)

Lion and lamb shall unite!

Another well-known “Co-partnership” firm is the Brush Electrical Engineering Co. The Chairman of that concern, speaking of the results of co-partnership in his firm, says : —

“The scheme also gives us confidence of being able to maintain a fairly satisfactory dividend on the share capital, and it enables us to satisfy our customers that good service deserves a fair and adequate, though not excessive, reward for the shareholders and the staff of workers, both mental and manual.”—(Co-partnership, Sep., 1928.)

The same employer, speaking at the annual meeting of his firm this year, explained some of his principles thus : —

1. Greater economy by elimination of waste.
2. Higher efficiency by elimination of inefficient machinery and methods.
3. Larger output to neutralise low prices by removal of Trade Union restrictions.”—(Co-partnership, June, 1930.)

The last principle is striking, in view of the fact that the supporters of the movement, as the above magazine shows, are prominent Labour leaders, like Citrine, Ben Turner, E. F. Wise, E. L. Poulton (General Secretary of Boot and Shoe Workers). This last leader spoke at the Co-partnership Conference, May 10th, this year, and he served up this slop :—

“If the co-partnership principles are properly adopted, we shall soon get out of the slough in which we find ourselves at the present time.”

The financial steam roller.

One prominent co-partner advocate is Angus Watson, of the Newcastle firm selling Skipper Sardines. His firm was recently bought out by the monster international trust, Unilever, Ltd. Angus Watson resigned as Director, and commented very bitterly on the effects of combination of firms and rationalisation. The worker who had played his part building up the firm’s assets was ruthlessly pushed out by machinery and the power of capital. What can copartnership do in face of the modern International Trust?

Edward Cadbury, the cocoa manufacturer, admits our indictment. Speaking at the Quaker Employers’ Conference :—

“He said they would all agree that the workman ought to have some voice in the management, but at present there was no way in which he could be given any effective control in large scale industry; stressing the words ‘effective control’.”—(Co-partnership, Sept., 1928.)

Reviewing the Life of Lord Leverhulme, by his son, the same paper says :—

“Lord Leverhulme’s ideas did not extend to giving any share of the control to the workers. In his particular case he did not see the reason, and perhaps there was not the demand.”

All the evidence we have produced shows that copartnership and profit-sharing schemes are merely another method of inducing the workers to continue a system in which the real control and ownership is in the hands of the employers and in which all the work must be carried on by the workers.

C.

Our View Of The Recent Municipal "Entente". (1905)

Party News from the November 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the Quarterly Meeting of Delegates held on Saturday last at the Communist Club it was unanimously resolved to send the following telegram and letter to the National Congress of the French Socialist Party in Chalon :

TELEGRAM.

London, Oct. 28th, 1905.

To the President of National Socialist Congress, Chalon, France.

Fraternal greetings but we protest against action of Paul Brousse and other Municipal Councillors, members of your Party, last week in London.

(signed) CARTER. 

Secretary of The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

LETTER.

1a, Caledonian Road, London, W.C.

October 29th, 1905

To the President of National Socialist Congress, Chalon, France.

Dear Comrade,

We have the pleasure of confirming our telegram of yesterday which read: “Fraternal greetings, but we protest against action of Paul Brousse and other Municipal Councillors, members of your Party, last week in London.”

While we note that your Party is based upon the class-struggle, we desire to point out that the recognition of the class-struggle alone is, however, not sufficient guarantee for uncompromising Socialist action in open hostility to all capitalist parties or alleged labour organisations supporting the capitalist class. We hold that Socialist principles must at all times be honestly translated into politics. Hence any alliance or co-operation with the enemies of Socialism can only tend to confuse the minds of the working-class and thus retard the achievement of their emancipation from wage slavery. If the Socialist Party of each country are to seize the political machinery, national and municipal, they can do so only by carrying the class-struggle to its logical conclusion, that is, by acting throughout in antagonism to the class which, under the present system, control the political machinery, and by doing so are enabled to retain possession and control of the means of production and distribution.

We therefore protest strongly against representatives of your Party feasting and receiving or being feasted or received by the political representatives of the capitalist class. The fact of Paul Brousse and other members of your Party having been feasted and received by the municipalist representatives of the capitalist class in this country has been a severe blow to the Socialist Cause, not only in Britain, but to the whole International Socialist movement. It appears to us that this municipal “Entente” between the capitalist administration of London and the so-called Socialist municipal administration of Paris is but a municipal endorsement of the “Entente” of two capitalist governments already established. And it further appears to us that the fact of Parisian Socialist Councillors having taken part in the interchange of capitalist municipal courtesies will be utilised by the Liberal Party (which controls the London County Council) to obtain the votes of the British working class at the approaching General Election.

Seeing that at your Congress you are to consider your political action we sincerely trust that you will take such steps as will prevent in future representatives of your Party coquetting with or paying homage to the representatives of capitalism in France or abroad.

In conclusion we wish to point out that by the expression of the aforegoing sentiments we do not presume to interfere with your internal affairs but to convey to you our opinion as to the action pursued by members of your Party which seriously affects the propaganda of Socialism in this country.

With fraternal greetings, I remain, dear Comrade,

Yours in the Cause of International Socialism,

(signed) G. C. H. Carter,

General Secretary,

The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Editorial: The Parliament of Labour. (1905)

Editorial from the October 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Trade Union Congress—the “Parliament of Labour”—has met, passed resolutions, and also passed into the limbo of forgotten things for another twelve months. We presume this annual gathering of junketing labour “Leaders” has been named the “Parliament of Labour,” because the delegates, or such of them as make a point of being present during the sittings, indulge in a “tumult of words,” and listen “listlessly” to the pro and con arguments used ?

457 delegates, representing 1,561,800 workpeople, assembled in Congress and submitted to the clap-trap of the Mayor of Hanley, who, in his address of welcome, declared that “there would be a danger if labour was at the top, but the intelligence represented would guide them how far to go and where to stop.” That no delegate emphasised the first point, that “there would be a danger” (to the capitalist class and its parasites) “if labour was at the top” was, we suppose, due to the aforementioned functionary’s allusion to the “intelligence” represented.

The president’s address was a disappointment even to those professing Socialists who claim to have discovered “How to put New Life into Trade Unionism.” It left the real issue severely alone, as might be expected of one who regards working-class politics as “shop,” and was mainly notable for its unqualified eulogy of the leadership of the Labour Party (whoever they may be) in the House of Commons by John Burns, that traitor to the working-class, that “official Liberal in all but name,” who recently expressed, in a manner more forcible than polite, his opinion of Sexton & Co. as those “who had sold themselves, or were anxious to sell themselves, for 200 dirty pieces of gold” and the sellers and would-be sellers promptly elected their denouncer as their leader, and Sexton carried the whipped-dog attitude a step further.

In one respect, at least, the “Parliament of Labour” is like unto the Parliament of Capital—it likes the junketings and the jollifications.

At the moment when the misguided Liverpool dockers were going back to work upon the employers’ terms, after a strike of eleven weeks duration, their official and “leader,” Sexton, was proposing a vote of thanks to the Duke and Duchess of Sutherland (who took good care to be absent) for the kind consideration which they had shown by allowing the delegates to inspect Trentham Hall, and by the hospitality provided. Would, we ask, a class-conscious working-class accept favours from its plunderers and their parasites. To answer in the only truthful manner is to admit that the workers are as yet class-unconscious, and that their “leaders” are equally so—or humbugs.

The resolutions passed by the Congress consisted in the main of the usual appeals to the capitalists to make a few concessions to their ever humble and obedient servants, the “orgauised” workers of the Kingdom, and their petitioners will ever pray. Of course they will, just as the petitioned will refuse to answer the prayer until they have become convinced that their class interests demand that such concessions, for what little they are worth, shall be, and can safely be, made.

There was the resolution concerning fiscal policy, in which it was declared that “any departure from the principles of Free Trade would be detrimental to the interests of the working-classes …. and injurious to the prosperity of the nation as a whole.” This was ultimately carried by 1,253,000 votes to 26,000, and alleged Socialists, prominent members of organisations claiming to be Socialist, spoke and voted for it, despite manifestoes issued by their organisations in which it has been rightly pointed out that under capitalism the working-class must be plundered by either the Free Trade Crows or Protectionist Kites. For those claiming intimate and first hand acquaintanceship with the condition of the people to talk of the “prosperity of the people” is bad enough, but what can be thought of those claiming to be out for independent and anti-capitalist political action deliberately playing into the hands of the Liberals as they did. If the maintenance of Free Trade is of such vital importance to the working-class, then it is of vital importance that those who are in favour of altering our Fiscal System should be kept out of the House of Commons, and that those who are against “any departure from the principles of Free Trade” should be put in. The Trade Unionists are therefore bound, in honour, to support Free Traders, i.e.,—the Liberals—as against the Tariff Reformers—the Conservatives. No wonder the Liberal press was so jubilant at the voting.

The result of the election for Secretary to the Parliamentary Committee would cause one to laugh heartily—if it were not so sad.

The work of the Committee is to carry out the resolutions of the Congress, which, by the way, it has never done. More particularly its function is to push forward those reforms which Congress thinks can be secured by political action. Congress has already decided that that political action shall be distinct from the capitalist sections, although it has failed to take the necessary steps to secure this. It gave birth to the Labour Representation Committee, whose candidates are pledged “to abstain strictly from identifying themselves with, or promoting the interests of, any section of the Liberal or Conservative Parties.” And having done this, it elects as its Parliamentary Secretary, W. C. Steadman, who has always identified himself with the Liberals, who has even refused to sign the L.R.C. declaration, and is, therefore, not an official L.R.C. candidate, although he is the London Trades Council candidate for Finsbury, which body is affiliated to the L.R.C. Steadman is a Liberal, and makes no pretence of being anything else. As the Daily Chronicle once remarked “he is a simple, honest, working man.” He is, and is, therefore, exceedingly useful to the Liberals, who, and again no wonder, are so jubilant that their decoy-duck has been selected for this position. The loud cheers from the Congress when Steadman, in returning thanks, pointed out that, as an ex-Member of Parliament, he had not only the entry to the inner lobby, but also the right to interview even Cabinet Ministers on behalf of the Congress, conclusively proved that these people have no conception of the real issue, or, if they have that they are deliberately confusing it, and the London Trades Council, through its “Socialist” chairman, who, before he occupied so important a position in the Trade Union Movement declared that the non-Socialist Trade Unionist “is the type of labour representative of whom we had better have none at all,” that they are “flunkeys and sycophants, who ape the airs of their masters, while they contemn and misrepresent the class in whose name they claim to speak,” now voices the appreciation of the London Trades Council that their Treasurer, their Liberal-Labour Candidate, has been honoured by being selected for this “plum” job of the labour movement, and declares in the current issue of A Monthly Socialist Review, that Steadinan, who, throughout the whole of his political career has sided with and supported and acted the decoy-duck and the jackal for the capitalist-class, “has never turned his back upon his class !”

The real fact is, of course, that the “organised” working-class are just as devoid of a real conception of their class interests as are the unorganised. They have not yet grasped the fact that all the working-class are at war with the international capitalist-class, and must line up in battle array to prepare for the final struggle. Leaders of sectional interests such as find expression in Trade Unionism, Unemployed Agitations, Free Labourism, and the like, are all misleaders of the working-class. The organisation of the working-class, to be an effective weapon with which to break down the power of the capitalist-class, must be, industrially and politically, not in sections, but as a class, whether the working-class are skilled or unskilled, permanent or casual labourers, employed or unemployed, their interests all over the world are identical. It does not serve the purpose of their various “leaders” that this should be recognised by the working-class. When this is understood, when the underlying causes of the change of front on the part of certain one time Socialists are made plain, sound Socialists will not only not be discouraged, but all the more determined to carry on the fight. Much spade work has yet to be done, but when once the working-class recognise that their only hope lies in their industrial and political organisation on the basis of the class-war, it will go hard with some of the job hunters, the lick-spittles, and the decoy-ducks.

The resolutions passed at the Trade Union Congress, even if embodied in Acts of Parliament through the good offices of Steadman, grovelling in the inner lobby before a capitalist Cabinet Minister, would in no way alter the relative positions of capital and labour. So long as the capitalist system obtains the workers will be deprived of the results of their labour, and will be poor. Nothing but the ownership by the people of the means of producing and distributing wealth will solve the social problem, and this must be brought about by the workers themselves, organised on the lines laid down by The Socialist Party of Great Britain.