"St Moritz and Miners" (1947)

From the March 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Observer of Sunday, Dec. 29th, 1946, describes the absence from work of Miners and Railway men, etc., on Friday and Saturday of Christmas week as “Shockingly anti-social.”

On the front page of the paper, and also in the Sunday Times, there was a photograph of the winter sports at St. Moritz (Switzerland), and many British holidaymakers are thus seen enjoying themselves there.

The Sunday Times (same date) tells us that between 13,000 and 14,000 holidaymakers travelled to the Continent during Christmas week. Considering that the workers in the main get two days’ holiday at Christmas, we are certain that a Continental trip for them is quite out of the question, apart from the expense. If that is so, then the lucky 13,000 must have both the time and the money.

The Observer, as a Capitalist organ, runs true to form in condemning the workers for absenteeism while wealthy idlers enjoy themselves in Swiss luxury hotels with the wealth created for them by their sweating wage-slaves.

J. D.

50 Years Ago: The coal crisis (1993)

The 50 Years Ago column from the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Between 1920 and 1939 a serious situation existed for the miners; poverty, unemployment, ill-health and fatalities were constant and recurring features of their lives. They marched to London, their leaders addressed meetings of protest demanding that something be done. Nothing was done by the Government except in 1931 when the meagre dole was cut on the grounds of “economy” and “equality of sacrifice” (with the sanction of the majority of the Labour Government) : a marked difference from the feverish activity now shown by the Government and its spokesmen, when faced with a serious coal shortage. There were no newspaper appeals then nor any broadcasts calling men to volunteer for this “honourable and vital work.” There existed no need to entreat or flatter workers—in fact, when miners sought to improve their working conditions or prevent a lowering of these conditions, abuse was the weapon used against them by the mineowners or their apologists. The miners’ leaders have been referred to as “Arrogant, bellicose, stubborn to the verge of stupidity” (page 96. “The Coal Problem,” 1936, by J, Dickie, formerly Liberal National M.P. for Consett).

[From an article by L. J., in the Socialist Standard, November 1943.]

Notes by the Way: For Heaven’s Sake Don’t Shoot! (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

For Heaven’s Sake Don’t Shoot!

In a speech in London on 24th September, Mr. Herbert Morrison elaborated a familiar Labour Party theme, which is that the workers have now got what they wanted and must be very careful not to do anything to endanger their triumph:—

“Mr. Herbert Morrison, Lord President of the Council, declaring that the ball was now at the feet of the worker, said in London to-night that if he exploited his advantage against the needs of the community as selfishly as the old employer did when he was on top, the great victories of trade unionism would melt away, and would deserve to melt.” (Manchester Guardian, 25/9/48.)

Which prompts the natural question, if the workers really have got the ball at their feet and just when they are about to score a goal, their captain bawls out, “For heaven’s sake don’t shoot,” what was the use of starting the game at all?

* * *

Mr. Horner’s Bluff

In the row between Mr. Arthur Horner, Communist and secretary of the Miners’ Union, and the other officials of the union who are Labour Government supporters, his opponents argued that it was his duty to keep to the declared policy of the Union which is in favour of the Marshall Plan. Instead he supported the strike of the French coal miners which his Labour opponents maintain was a Russian inspired move to prevent European recovery, though ostensibly a strike for higher wages.

Mr. Horner defended his action on the ground of international working-class solidarity. He said that the French miners’ wages are lower than the wages of British miners, and that “if French miners are allowed to stay at their present level it will threaten the standards of existence of British miners.” (Observer, 17/10/48.) He told a Daily Express correspondent (16/10/48) that he would have supported the strike on its merits even if it had not been backed by the Communists—”I would on principle support the workers if they thought they were justified in refusing their wages.”

So far so good, but let us test the claim by Mr. Horner’s actions in other directions. Only 12 months ago members of Mr. Horner’s union were on strike at Grimethorpe colliery. Did Mr. Horner support them? Not at all. He opposed the strike, told them they were wrong, and accused them of wrecking union policy. This, of course, was before the Communists had switched over to their campaign against the Labour Government.

And what about the miners and other workers in Czechoslovakia who were honoured by a visit from Mr. Horner just before he went to France? On his return he admitted that “wage standards were lower than in Britain and the tempo of work harder ” (Daily Worker, 4/10/48), and that the Czechs work “six eight-hour days a week. (Manchester Guardian, 4/10/48.)

Since the Czech workers work longer hours than British miners and are lower paid, why doesn’t Mr. Horner offer his support to a strike of Czech miners and other workers to improve their position?

The reason is obvious. In Czechoslovakia the Government that enforces these low wages and long hours is a Communist Government, so Mr. Horner is against the workers and for the Government. In France the Communists are not in power, so it suits Russia to back the strike.

During the row Mr. Horner confirmed that he had been offered, and refused, a job on the Coal Board at £5,000 a year (five times his present salary). He also told the Sunday Express (17/10/48), “I would sooner go back to the pit than have another year of this torture.”

The tragedy of the whole business is that the trade union movement is being divided over the issue whether to line up with American private capitalism or Russian State capitalism. Mr. Thurtle, Labour M.P., forecasting Mr. Horner’s defeat, actually put it in the terms, “British patriotism will triumph over alien ideology.” (Sunday Express, 17/10/48.) Is it too much to hope that the miners themselves will remind all their officials that the union is supposed to exist to look after the interests of the members, and that at one time there was at least some conception of international solidarity, not with governments but with the workers everywhere against all their exploiters?

* * *

The United Nations—Promise and Reality

In his speech on world affairs at the Tory Conference at Llandudno, Mr. Winston Churchill opened up with a description of the purpose served by the United Nations Organisation.

“The Assembly of the United Nations, which we fondly hoped would be the majestic centre of world security and, later on, of world co-operation, and, finally, of world government, has been reduced to a mere cockpit in which the representatives of mighty nations and ancient States hurl reproaches, taunts and insults at one another to marshal public opinion and inflame the passions of their peoples, in order to arouse and prepare them for what seems to be a remorselessly approaching third world war.” (Evening Standard, 9th October, 1948.)

* * *

The Juicy Orange

The following is from the News Chronicle (4/10/48) :

“Millions of oranges are being buried every week in the Murrumbidgee area of New South Wales.

“Bulldozers turn them into trenches 100ft. long, 20ft. wide and 7ft. deep.

“Growers say the oranges are second grade and are dumped because only the best are saleable, yet they would be labelled ‘choice in fruit shops here and sell at 3d. and 4d. each.

“The growers blame the local marketing system and say they would like to give the oranges to schools, but packing and railway costs are too high.”

* * *

“Daily Worker” Reporting

The Communists complain, with good reason, that reports in the capitalist press are often biassed and distorted. The careful reader of the Daily Worker will find that the Communists do pretty well themselves. One of the things the Worker is reluctant to let its readers know is the enormous amount spent by Russia in the armaments race, though it keeps them well posted about the expenditure of the other Imperialist powers.

On 8th October the Worker published what purported to be a report of speeches made on that subject by Mr. Vyshinsky and Mr. Hector McNeil at the Paris meeting of the United Nations Committee on disarmament.

According to The Times (8/10/48) Mr. McNeil made the following statement: —

“Could anyone say—even, perhaps, countries in the closest relationship with Soviet Russia—that they knew the forces the Soviets deployed to-day, or what was spent on them last year?

“Soviet military estimates to-day amounted to 66.1 milliard roubles, against 17.5 milliard roubles in 1937, to say nothing of an estimated surplus of 41 milliards, the destination of which was unknown.”

Mr. McNeil’s statement may be right or wrong (the critically minded would ask for much more information before accepting the apparent conclusion that the Russian Government is spending four times as much as in 1937; and probably the value of the rouble is less), but his intended point is clear enough, that the admitted expenditure of 66.1 milliards might have been added to out of the 41 milliard budget surplus.

Now observe how the Worker suppressed the figures entirely and reduced these passages in the speech to the following mangled version: —

“After quoting figures of Soviet military expenditure, which he admitted he was not himself sure of, Mr. McNeil declared…..”

What have Professor Haldane and Mr. L. C. White and the other members of the Editorial Board to say about this?

* * *

‘Twill be a Glorious Victory

Some time not far off, the political Olympic teams will run their general election race. They are at present training and preparing, inspecting the track in the constituencies, and watching the political weather reports from the by-elections, all in anticipation of the great day. It will be a glorious victory for Labour over Tory or for Tory over Labour, unless, of course, the international situation produces another coalition. In that event it will prove to be what Lewis Carroll’s Dodo defined as a “Caucus-race,” one in which all parties win and all get prizes.

At the 1945 election nationalisation was a big issue, but just now, though nearly all preparations for the elections are made, there is one thing missing—something substantial to fight about. Liberals, Labour and the Tories fall over each other in their anxiety to agree about foreign policy and Western Union, about opposition to Russia, about detestation of Communists and Fascists and love of democracy. At home they all claim to have fathered the National Insurance scheme and to be in favour of social reform, more houses, more production, more exports and more wages—but not now. It used long ago to be said of the Labour M.P.s that they were hardly distinguishable from Liberals. Now it seems that the epithet Lib-Lab has to be broadened to Con-Lib-Lab so that it covers all three parties. Early in October the Tories held their annual conference at Llandudno. This is the summing-up made by the Political Correspondent of the Observer (10/10/.18) : —

“No one can read this programme without being struck by one singular fact: the wide agreement that exists between the Tory and Labour Parties. The Iron and Steel Bill may change all that, but at the moment the Tories have no real quarrel with either Sir Stafford Cripps or Mr. Ernest Bevin. There would be few fundamental changes if they were returned to power. They have accepted the Nationalisation of coal, gas, electricity, transport and the Bank of England, either implicitly or explicitly. They may try to unscramble … air transport, but that is not very important. They would keep up the export targets and reluctantly continue austerity. There would be changes in emphasis, private enterprise would be encouraged and not bullied, and there would, of course, be a change in leadership. But the fundamentals would remain because the present economic situation puts any Government in a strait-jacket.”

So much for the Tory and Labour Parties. Within a week of that assessment the Liberal Party published its “Programme for Britain,” and this is what the Liberals say in it about Nationalisation: —

“The profit motive is not wrong. On the other hand, unrestricted private enterprise does not give the best results, from the community’s point of view, in every industry. Liberals believe that postal services, railways, gas, electricity, and coal should be publicly owned. Competitive private enterprise should, however, be encouraged in many fields, and Liberals are utterly opposed to the Nationalisation of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” (Manchester Guardian, 15/10/48.)

In default of any other issue to bemuse the electors perhaps the three parties will agree to re-inflate the old bogey, the House of Lords, and stage a smashing exhibition of shadow-boxing about that.

* * *

Nationalisation and Wage-slavery

In a speech very briefly reported in the Evening News (24/8/48) Sir Geoffrey Vickers, V.C., who is Coal Board member for Manpower and Welfare, is said to have claimed that the Coal Board “were trying to abolish ‘wage slavery’ just as human slavery had been abolished.”

Sir Geoffrey is an optimist to say the least of it. Perhaps the kindest explanation is that he uses the term without knowing what it means. In the meantime the Coal Board (was it the Manpower and Welfare Department?) prosecuted 96 miners at Chorley, Lancashire, on 13th August for taking part in an unofficial strike. Fines of £10 were imposed on 87 of them. (Daily Mail, 14/8/48.)

We notice that the workers’ discovery that nationalisation or State Capitalism is much the same as private capitalism, has even reached Mr. Ernest Thurtle, Labour M.P., who writes every Sunday in the Sunday Express. “It is a plain fact that there is much disappointment among the workers in these industries at the way in which the changeover from private ownership has worked out.” (Sunday Express, 29/8/48.)

The former coal owners are being looked after. In its report on the three months April to June, 1948, the Coal Board states that it paid £3,900,000 to the Government as interest on loans and on “interim income” (pending settlement of compensation) to former coal owners.

* * *

Workers who worked too hard

The following was published in the Manchester Guardian (3/9/48) :

“Sixty workers at a Merthyr factory making agricultural machinery have had to be dismissed through ‘ redundancy’ although the works this year has produced more combine harvesters a day than ever before. This is due, said the manager (Mr. C. R. Light), yesterday, to a stiffening in the home market and currency regulations which prevent the delivery of foreign orders, some of which have been completed.

“More than 2,200 people are unemployed in the borough.”

* * *

Civilisation comes to Ethiopia

In an article on the Administration of the law in Abyssinia, published in the New Statesman (29/8/48), Mr. Elwyn Jones, M.P., has this:

“There are still public hangings in the capital for the more serious crimes. In the Addis Ababa jail an electric chair has been installed. I was assured that this was a gift from U.N.R.R.A.— which, if it is true, must surely be the grisliest manifestation of ‘relief and rehabilitation’ of all time.”

Edgar Hardcastle

“A Whiff of Grape.” (1915)

From the August 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

If the face of such a predicament as faces our lords and masters at the present moment the so-called labour problem assumes a visage that to the Socialist is both significant and humorous. The “patriotic” masters, in spite of the great need of the State for the good-will of their slaves, at least in the workshops, mines, factories and other and suchlike places where the slaves assume any importance at all, adhere with the tenacity of limpets to their old and natural policy of grinding the faces of those they have on the economic grindstone. However dire the need of the country that really, in substance and in fact, is theirs may be, their leech-like proclivities are only unleech-like in that they cannot gorge themselves to satiety.

The Welsh coal owners provide a typical example. In spite of the fact that, as Mr. Lloyd George says, “coal is everything for ‘us,’ and we want more of it to win victory.” “It bends, it moulds, it fills the weapons of war” ; in spite of the fact that their war fleet depends for its very life upon Welsh coal, the owners of the Welsh mines would not release in the smallest degree their clutch upon the throats of their wage-slaves. They could not realise, it seemed, that the whip which had driven the miners into the pits under the pre-war terms and conditions no longer had the power that it had in those days. The needs of the master class were too great and too urgent to permit of a resort to the old dodge of trying to starve the miners into submission. But the mine owners either were blind to this, or they counted upon the “patriotism” of the men to take the place of the whip of starvation. Anyhow, they drove the miners beyond the limits of patience before they abdicated, only showing their patriotism by placing themselves in the hands of the Government when they had lost the move.

This sort of thing has been going on all over the place. Everywhere the workers, faced with an increase of some fifty per cent. in the cost of living, have had to struggle bitterly to gain an advance of wages equal to but a fraction of the increased cost of living. And when they have been compelled to resort to the final step—the strike, what a howl of astonishment, indignation, and righteous (!) wrath has gone up from our masters’ Press !

Who does not remember what an “indelible stain” besmirched the “patriotism” of the Clyde shipyard men when they were guilty of refusing to let their masters have their labour-power on their own terms ? Who forgets what scoundrels the L.C.C. tramwaymen were for daring to put forward demands and taking the only action that counts for much in the way of supporting those demands ? And now it is the turn of the miners to be upheld as men who broke pledges—pledges which they had not given ; who had disobeyed their leaders—leaders whom the men pay to obey them ; who were murdering their comrades in the trenches—as if it were miners and not the masters who had sent them there.

Of course it could not be expected that the prostitute scribblers of the prostitute Press should remember that there are two sides to a disagreement as well as to an agreement. That the masters had deliberately chosen to sacrifice the efficiency of their own fleet and imperil their own forces in Flanders rather than relax a little the hard terms upon which their slaves could go down into the pits and tussel with Death for coal, was a facet of the position that the capitalist penmen would not be expected to have eyes for. Holders of any other commodity—any of the multitudinous products of labour—were to be permitted to push up the prices of their goods to the highest limit the unique situation gave them the opportunity to, and, no matter how necessary those commodities were, or how much misery their dearness brought upon immense numbers—of the people who don’t count, the working people—no word of stricture fell upon them. In the early days of the war, when it was claimed that only State control of the drink traffic could solve the problem of the shirker, the Government attempted to secure such control, but the brewers and distillers and other gentlemen of The Trade kicked up such a rumpus that the Asquithian courage oozed out and the project fell through—yet of all those newspapers who had shouted from the housetops that drink was lessening the output of munitions and killing the men in the trenches, not one ever applied to the brewers and distillers who refused to permit the drink to be placed beyond the reach of the “drinkers and shirkers” (and not, be it said, out of any love of the liberty of these latter) even the least of the filthy epithets they showered upon the men who had dared to claim a larger share of the wealth which they and they alone produced.

It was the sycophant claim of our masters’ Press that the miners should have continued to work while still negotiating ; but those who best know the master class in general and the mine-owners in particular, know very well that had they adopted this course they might have followed it to the end of the war—when the dispute would probably have been settled with the aid of policemen’s truncheons, as in the pre­-war days. But as a matter of fact the men had tried this plan of negotiating while continuing to work, like men who were afraid to fight for what they were demanding. They had had a bellyful. Their leaders had played into the masters’ hands and were treacherously advising the men to accept their exploiters’ terms. In any case where procrastination means that the the masters are escaping, even if only for the moment the heart-rending necessity of having to part with a share of their plunder, negotiation is the slowest coach upon the road ; but when the masters have get the men’s leaders on their side, then, indeed, the coach properly breaks down.

Those people who talk so glibly about negotiation seem to base their contention upon the pretention that all the employers want in order to induce them to meet the men’s demands is to have their ears tickled with sweet reasonable­ness. They know, however, that this is entirely false. They know that the only argument that ever touches the masters as such is the argument of force. There is no other effective appeal either to their reason or to their feeling. So long as they thought that the patriotic fervour of the men or the cajolery of the leaders would avert a strike negotiations brought the men no nearer the satisfaction of their demands. But look at the effect that was produced by the positive action of ceasing to work !

At once the Government, who showed a very mild interest in the terms and conditions under which coal came out of the mines so long as it did come out, was galvanised into the most acute interest and vigorous action ; at once the masters, finding themselves, in the absence of an army of blacklegs to fall back upon, utterly licked, retired from the contest, left the matter in tie hands of the Government, and expressed a very patriotic willingness to do whatever the Government told them. In a week the men were back at work again, in the enjoyment of the substance of pretty well all they demanded, if not the shadow, instead of the usual reward of negotiation, the capture of the shadow with the merest integument of the substance, or none.

This result was the fullest justification of the action the miners bad taken. This fact, however, did not save them from almost universal abuse, amongst which not the least venomous was that of their (so-called) leaders. These men, of course, who had struggled so hard to make them submit to the terms of the mine-owners, found that the victory, gained without their help, against their advice, in opposition, even, to their endeavours, placed them in a peculiar and unenviable position. That they fully appreciated this is amply shown by the utterances of one of their number, Mr. Vernon Hartshorn, as reported in “Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper” for July 25th. According to this report Mr. Hartshorn said :

“I am guilty of no exaggeration when I say that last week-end the very existence of the federation as a trade union organisation hung in the balance. Public opinion was against it because of the refusal to give the Government a little more time. It stood abandoned by the whole of the labour movement of the country. The occasion was a unique opportunity for a bold, bloodthirsty reaction.

“Public opinion, rendered nervous, savage, and ruthless by the present national dangers, would have approved the course taken, and, apart from sentimental resentment, the organised labour movement in the country would, perhaps, have acquiesced. I say emphatically that no leader has a moral right to lead his organisation into such a perilous impasse, and no leader with a proper conception of industrial strategy or of the tremendous powers which can be arrayed against labour when it makes a tactical slip would dream of doing.

“A few more days of restraint would have given the Government the chance to rectify its undoubted errors, and would have immensely strengthened the position of the federation with the public. But the opportunity was not given, and last week-end the sword of destruction, though the men as a body did not knew it, was banging over the federation.

“During those critical days the Government were tempted—there is no doubt about it—to deal with this isolated and sectional problem by the savage and crude old method of a whiff of grape shot, which has in many of the troubled periods of history destroyed the rising hopes of democracy and heralded a long reign of reaction and repression.

“What saved us and the country from such a disaster ? It is only fair to acknowledge, without reservation, that we were saved from that disaster not by any strength of our own but by the wisdom, generosity, and restraint, with which the ultimate crisis was dealt with, the Coalition Government.”

These, it is quite easy to see by anyone who has a fair knowledge of the facts of the case, are the words of a man who is under the necessity of rehabilitating himself in the eyes of those with whom it is important that he should stand well. The implication, however, that the fools who rushed in where such angels as Mr. Vernon Hartshorn dared to tread brought the miners so near to such dire perils as indicated is quite without foundation. A whiff of grapeshot, indeed ! The sword of destruction, by gosh ! It would be interesting to have Mr. Hartshorn’s authority for these statements.

The fact is that the whiff of grapeshot and the sword of destruction were quite “outside the range of practical politics,” as the capitalist critics so fondly say of Socialism. The mere fact that the mine owners recognised that the game was up and retired behind the Government shows this. If it is ever true that Governments take the line of least resistance, it is true at the moment when they have got more than enough trouble on hand in other directions. The line of least resistance was certainly not the line that might be cleared by whiffs of grapeshot. Mr. Hartshorn, even, had not the courage to state that the organised labour movement in the country “would have acquiesced” in the grapeshot treatment without that saving “perhaps.”

When Mr. Lloyd George took his “silver tongue” to Wales it was to talk a good face on the matter from the Government point of view. A certain prestige had to be maintained if possible. The “organised labour movement in the country” was not to get the idea that it had only to cease working in order to be granted anything that it wanted. The face of labour leaders, who had promised that, in return for being left out of the Munitions Act there should be lamb-like submission in the Welsh minefields, had to be saved as far as possible. So the miners were penalised by being brought under the Act which is absurdly useless as against two or three hundred thousand miners, though, it may suffice to deal with a couple of score of coppersmiths. The “silver tongue” had only the task of persuading the men to swallow this “bitter” pill, of disguising the completeness of the men’s victory, and throwing over the affair just that appearance of “wisdom, generosity and restraint” which their hack, Mr, Hartshorn, attributes to the Coalition Government. But as for whiffs of grape and swords of destruction, they are the mere invention of a discredited labour leader, of a would-be trade union boss who aspires to ambitious heights under the patronage of the workers’ enemies by assuming the role of dictator, and who is mortified in spirit by being flouted by those he would control, and jeopardised in fortune by the success of a course taken in defiance of leaders.

Let the workers understand their own affairs, shake off their “leaders,” and victory is theirs.

A. E. Jacomb

The Bye Elections. (1909)

From the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the assistance of ”Labour” the seats at Cleveland and Mid-Derby were “saved” for the capitalist Government, and it would be interesting to know just how that assistance was obtained. While it has often been said that Labour supported the Liberal in one place in exchange for Liberal support in another, on this occasion it would rather seem as if Labour had supported Liberalism in Cleveland in order that Labour might support Liberalism in Mid-Derby—a sort of political heads I win, tails you lose process, and certainly the Liberals have every reason to be pleased with the results. In both instances an independent Labour candidate was threatened, but in neither case was he allowed to come forward while in each place the Liberal nominee was supported. And could the whole history be written of the means employed to secure this end, a further and splendid vindication of our attitude of hostility to the so-called Labour parties would be obtained.

In Cleveland Mr. J. B. Stubbs, who had consented to be the “Labour” candidate for the constituency, was not run (according to the Manchester Guardian, 3.7.09) because “the Election is to be fought on Free Trade and the Budget, two issues upon which the Government and the Labour Party are united” (sic). The way was thus so far cleared for the workers being led to support Mr. Samuel, the Liberal. This gentleman officiated as the chief speaker at the annual demonstration of the Cleveland Miners, and it would appear said nothing to offend either master or man, for says the Morning Leader (6.7.09) “An interesting feature of Mr. Samuel’s nomination paper is the fact that the proposer is Sir Hugh Bell, Lord Lieutenant of the county and chairman of the Mine-Owners Federation, while the seconder is Mr. Joseph Toyn, agent of the Cleveland Miners Association.” (Italics ours.) Thus was Labour insulted and the seal set upon its degradation.

In Mid-Derby, however, instead of a superior, aristocratic intellectual of the Samuel type a “Liberal-Labourer” was returned. Nevertheless from the Socialist working-class point of view, the result is the same : the enemy of the working class has been strengthened by an addition to the ranks of those “doing odd jobs in the Liberal workshop.” The fact that some 4,000 members of the Nottingham Miners Association were on the Parliamentary register for the district was not lost upon the Liberal wire-pullers, and finding in Mr. Hancock (Miners’ Agent) a Liberal after their own heart, they readily adopted him. He appeared before the Liberal Association by invitation and explicitly assured them that “he stood before them as a Liberal, although because the Miners’ Association were affiliated to the Labour Representation Committee he was obliged to stand as a Labour candidate also. That would not, however, alter his principles.” (!) He was a Free Trader, a Temperance advocate, a local preacher, and would love to have the bible read in the schools. (Manchester Guardian, 1.7.09.) He next signed the constitution of the Labour Party, and appearing before the I.L.P. assured them he was a Labour man, after which they decided with unanimity to support him. (Manchester Guardian, 9.7.09.)

As in Cleveland, however, the election was fought on capitalist Free Trade and the capitalist Budget, and although working-class funds and votes were exploited on behalf of Mr. Hancock, the appearance of such a motley crew of supporters, including Asquith, Lloyd George down to “Mr. J. Keir Hardie, who wore the yellow favour of Liberalism,” (Daily News,13.7.09.) amply proves it was but another victory for confusion. .

A.

It’s a lock-out (1979)

From the November 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Suddenly, the cry “All out, brothers” threatens to take on a new meaning, becoming not the command of the shop steward but the frustrated wail of the locked out worker, pressing round the unyielding factory gate.

For over a year now, workers in The Times newspapers have been locked out —and there are reports that, rather than face another twelve months of negotiations, the Thompson Organisation will close the papers down permanently. In case anyone has forgotten, this dispute began over the workers’ resistance to new methods of compositing, with likely redundancies. During the recent two day strikes in the engineering industry, the companies who are members of the Engineering Employers’ Federation retaliated by laying off workers and locking out others—notably at Rolls Royce. An article in the Observer (23.9.79) by Robert Taylor gave the substance of some guide lines issued by the EEF:

“Industrial action, such as go-slows, refusal to work normally and blacking of employees, products or machines should not he tolerated for more than a few days. After warning, with a sufficient period allowed for reflection, suspension without pay should be the normal response.”

This attempt at the sort of solidarity more usually expected from trade unionists —which employers, because of the essentially competitive nature of capitalism, will find rather more difficult—was illuminating. When factories stop because of a strike, we are subjected to a barrage of clap-trap from the press about, disruptive workers preventing the production of essential goods needed by pensioners, sick children . . But when the employers, also in the act of protecting their interests in the class struggle, bring production to a halt there is not a word of protest; withers in Fleet Street remain unwrung over jeopardised export markets, frustrated customers, deprived consumers and so on.

Agriculture

Perhaps the press will need a little time to catch on. The relative prosperity of British capitalism for some twenty years after the war outmoded lock-out; it was usually better to pay up on a wage claim than to shut the firm down. But it was not always so.

In the earlier days of British capitalism, before the unions were strong enough to offer effective resistance, the lock-out was often wielded to beat down living standards. In the 1830s it was used against the attempts to form an Operative Builders’ Union: the employers won, as the lock-out forced the OBU into deep financial trouble. In 1897 the Amalgamated Society of Engineers struck for an eight hour day, after a prolonged wrangle over the introduction of new machinery. The employers retaliated, with the first national lock-out ever. After six months the ASE was crushed and the employers, proclaiming themselves “masters in our own shops”, dictated the terms of the surrender.

There was a similar’ bitter story in agriculture, where workers were trying to live on appallingly low wages. In 1872, in Warwickshire, 200 farm labourers struck for a rise to 16s (80p) a week for their eleven hour day. Their case was such as to attract some support from the press (although not, presumably, in Church Times; the Bishop of Gloucester advocated throwing the strikers into the village pond). It was a bitter fight, which spread as the farmers imposed a general lock-out. At Chipping Norton, two magistrates who were also clergymen did their duty by both god and Mammon by sentencing sixteen women, some still suckling their babies, to hard labour for “intimidating” blacklegs. The strikers were defeated, partly by the effects of the agricultural depression of the 1870s, which helped to cripple their union.

Coal Mines

The Webbs described this type of dispute as the “.. . insurrection of the village and the autocratic spirit which it aroused in the owners of land and tithe. . . ” an attitude which lingered, even in more modern industry, almost as if the employers saw some advantage in behaving like feudal barons.

Before the First World War, there were about 1,500 separate companies owning the coal mines in Britain. In many cases, the company was personified by one rich, influential owner—Lord Londonderry, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Lord Rhondda, Evan Williams. Some of these companies were more “liberal” and “enlightened” than others — and some more efficient and profitable—and the mines were a traditional battlefield over wages and conditions, marked like shell-holes by strikes and lock-outs. The miners were bonny, experienced fighters and among the higher paid workers in Britain.

As part of British capitalism’s war effort, the mines were taken effectively under state control in 1917. After the war, there was a brief, hectic boom for the British coal industry as it filled the gaps left by the devastated French mines and the immobilised German pits. This did not last long and the British export markets in Europe and South America abruptly contracted. Coal had been the basis of the power of Victorian capitalism; now it symbolised that power’s decline. By 1921 the losses of the mines were growing beyond the scope of government subsidies and in April that year, with a wage claim pending, the industry was abruptly passed back to the private owners.

Far from being about to negotiate a rise in wages, the private owners were proposing a reduction of over £2 a week. Flexing their muscles as they took over the pits again, they posted lock-out notices. The miners expected support from the railwaymen and the transport workers and when this did not happen the episode became notorious as “Black Friday”. The struggle went on for three months, until the miners were forced back to work on terms worse than they might have hoped to get originally.

Newspapers

More recent times have seen little use of the lock-out in Britain although, according to Robert Taylor, in France and Germany it is more common than the strike. But now, with the employers struggling from the desperation of a prolonged recession, may be the time for its revival. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph (23.9.79) Peregrine Worsthorne gloated over the engineering workers:

“Last year an engineering strike might have shown the workers to be invincible. So may one next year. But the same could be said about any momentous historical miscalculation — even the Charge of the Light Brigade.”

Of course Worsthorne, like all the conventional observers of capitalism, is seeing things very much in the immediate, superficial sense. Every dispute has its immediate causes and how it is fought out—and who wins—must depend on the conditions prevailing at the time. Strikes have a better chance of succeeding in a boom and by the same token a lock-out is more likely when there is a slump. This was the case with the farm labourers and the engineering workers in the 19th century and with the miners in 1921. And it is so today.

The Times shut down was an episode in a long decline in the newspaper industry, in which many papers perished and the profits of the survivors have been under strong pressure. The malaise is widespread; the September report of the Confederation of British Industry showed how the rest of the employers view their prospects. They expect their profitability for 1979 and 1980 to fall below the previous poor levels of 1974-5.

Behind such immediate prospects, and behind the temporary changes in balances of strength, lies the basic, inescapable fact ‘of the class struggle. This struggle continues without pause — often without its participants realising that they are involved in it.

Firstly, the struggle is about the division of wealth in capitalist society and this is where the unions and the employers’ federations operate. There are still a few strange people who doubt the need for the struggle, who doubt that wealth is divided so that some people have vastly more of it than others.

Poverty

Reality is against them. For a long time a mass of evidence has been accumulated, using different methods—income tax returns, estate duties, social surveys—measuring the extent of this inequality. Sir Joshua Stamp, in 1919, estimated that one per cent of the population owned over 65 per cent of the national wealth. Nearly sixty years later Louie Burghes found that one per cent owned 31 per cent of the wealth and the top 10 per cent owned 70 per cent. An article by Anthony Giddens in New Society (4.10.79) estimated that the top five per cent of “the rich” own 98 per cent of the total of privately held corporate stocks and shares. At the other end of the scale the Low Pay Unit reports that at the end of 1977 one family in eight was living at or below the supplementary benefits line, which itself is little better than starvation. The figures, along with the methods of collecting them, may vary from time to time. But the fact of inequality—and of the existence of riches alongside poverty—remains.

This brings us to the wider, more fundamental, aspect of the class struggle. In this case we are not discussing a struggle participated in by thousands of trade unionists, which gets the big headlines and has union leaders hurrying to and from Downing Street. We are talking about the ultimate, about the struggle over who owns the means of production and about establishing a new society of common ownership and free access to wealth.

For the present this struggle is the work of a minority, of a few who are aware of what capitalism is and of how it operates. This conscious few know that industrial disputes are not moral issues; they know that workers who strike, and employers who lock out, are simply acting in accordance with their interests in the class struggle. They are expressing the fact that capitalism does not produce its wealth for the benefit of its people, that capitalism is a society of disharmony.

And capitalism continues only because the rest— the unconscious majority—want it to. This was the symbolic quality about those pictures of the engineering workers hammering on the factory gates. The limit of their ambition is another style of exploitation. They are, brothers and sisters, on their way to nowhere.

Ivan

The Capitalists’ “Directive Ability”. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some Lessons from recent happenings.

The Need for the Parasite.

One of the stock arguments of the anti-Socialist is that the worker will be unable to control industry under Socialism, as, in order to enable affairs to run smoothly, men are required with some weird, mysterious and miracle-working power called “directive ability.” The “anties” contend that we could not get along without these powerful individuals, and that (grande finale) these men are the ones who to-day possess wealth and position, i.e., the Rockefellers, Liptons, Devonports, and so on.

Let us just test this contention with a few facts and see how the miracle-workers run this system.

During the last few months a case has been attracting much attention in the courts. In this case certain civilians (past or present employees of Liptons, Ltd.) and some Army officers have been accused under the Bribery and Corruption Acts. In the evidence it transpired that Liptons have been in the habit of giving inducements to Army officers to secure Army canteen contracts. One of the defendants, Col. Whitaker, had received £540 from a firm of brewers, who supplied the beer to Col. Whitaker’s regiment at Malta. The Colonel said that he received the greater part of the money for using his influence to secure a contract from a colonel of a regiment at Crete. It also turned in the evidence that a member of the Government, Lord Saye and Sele, had written advising Col. Whitaker to take a holiday and go to Crete to “smooth a ruffled bird” (Col. Bird) for a consideration !

In summing up the case the judge said : “I am bound to say that the evidence before the Court satisfies me that these defendants, employed by Lipton’s, in so far as they made payments for the bribery of persons capable of influencing contracts in favour of Lipton’s, were acting on a system which was known to the directorate, encouraged by the directorate, and persisted in by the directorate, after there had been consideration given as to whether to stop that system or not.” (“Times,” 28.5.14.)

Now is this the way the capitalists run the show ? Is this the way they pile up their fortunes ? Is this the line “Directive Ability” takes ? When the capitalists themselves are faced with these facts and called to account, what do they answer ? Just what Lipton would have answered : “We do not know anything about it ; we did not attend to the business. You must blame our managers.'”

Tarred with the Same Brush.

Those who have memories a little longer than the usual working-class memory will recollect that when the directors of the company con­cerned in the Putumayo rubber atrocities were brought before the commission, four of them admitted that they did not even know the lan­guage in which the business at board meetings was conducted !

Let us now turn to another recent instance of “Directive Ability.”

The coalfields of Colorado have lately been drenched with the blood of miners who struck against the conditions obtaining in the mines of the Trinidad Coal and Iron Co. A condition of affairs was in operation out there similar to what existed in England before the factory legislation began. The miners were compelled to trade at the company’s store, paying 25 to 50 per cent. more than outside prices, to buy coal off the company, pay the company’s doctor, and live in the company’s shacks.

When the miners struck on September 3rd last wholesale evictions followed, and men, women, and children were turned into the streets with their few belongings, to go where they could in the rain and snow that kept falling through the next two days.

A Heroic (Rocke)feller.

During the strike the mine-owners, following their usual custom, imported as mine guards riff-raff of every description—armed thugs who could be depended upon to commit without hesitation the most cold-blooded of murders. “No authentic account,” says the “New York World” in a candid moment, “of anything that has happened in Mexico compares in cold-blooded brutality with what took place at Ludlow, Colorado. Dr. A. S. Harvey, a physician who testified at the inquest, said that while the “women and children lay in the safety pits which had been dug under the tents, the militiamen applied torches to the canvas and burned the structure over the heads of the terrified refugees. He declared that one ranch-house, in which dozens of women and children had taken refuge, was under fire from the militiamen the whole day.” The militia mounted machine guns and swept the strikers’ quarters with bullets. Over 200 lives were lost in this mine war.

We now come to the “directive ability” side of the matter. As a result of the allegation that the rioting was caused by agents provocateur, and that the troops acted with great brutality in charging and shooting down men, women, and children indiscriminately, a Congressional inquiry into the matter was ordered. When John D. Rockefeller, Jun., who is a director of the Trinidad Coal and Iron Co., was questioned he “blandly professed entire ignorance as to the details of the rioting and causes of the strike. He admitted that his father owned 40 per cent. of the company’s stock, but declared that neither of them interfered with the management of affairs, and they knew very little about the matter. ‘We have so many interests that it is impossible for us to supervise personally everything.'”— (“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

An Obliging Conscience.

How they get out of it when anything is brought up against them ! Capitalists, say our opponents, supervise industry, therefore deserve their profits. Charge Rockefeller with the murder of the Colorado miners, however, and he immediately begins to squirm, and says he knows nothing about the matter. He does not “supervise personally” when the butcheries have to be accounted for, but only when the “swag” is divided.

When one of the committee very pertinently pointed out that Rockefeller found plenty of time for “social uplift” work and vice investigation, and asked him why he did not investigate the conditions in his own business, the canting, hypocritical scoundrel at once replied : “My conscience acquits me of any responsibility in the matter.”—(“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

The Rockefellers, by the way, seem to be rather accomplished hypocrites, and, incidentally, men after God’s own heart. The father of the aforementioned unctuous humbug, John D. Rockefeller, Sen., was referred to last June by Mr. Bustard, the pastor of the Euclid Avenue Baptist Church, Cleveland (of the congregation of which Rockefeller is one of the oldest members) as “one of the rose bushes in God’s garden.” The same reverend soft-soap and chloroform dispenser also paid a tribute to those faithful followers in the church who, like Mr. Rockefeller, “have for years lead religious lives and been steadfast in the Lord’s work.” Comment on this is needless.

Before leaving for his father’s Pocantico Hills Estate young Rockefeller “issued a statement, in which he admitted that his investigations into the riots had disclosed conditions more terrible than have yet occurred in that or any other State.”—(“Reynolds’s,” 3.5.14.) In his concluding statement before the commission, however, he disclosed his true capitalistic soul, and showed himself as the advocate of free and unfettered sweating. “He got rather angry when it was pointed out that the newspapers had given plenty of details as to the working conditions in Trinidad, and that a word from his father would have stopped the bloodshed and ended the strike. He declined to agree to submit to arbitration, and declared that the company would rather sacrifice the whole of its property in Colorado than recognize the miners’ union if it hampered the company’s freedom.”— (“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

The Company’s Freedom.

Well, what about “directive ability” now ? As a matter of fact, about the only directive ability the masters ever exercise is in employing managers, foremen, etc. to run their concerns for them while they are enjoying themselves, and if it large enough dividend is not regularly forthcoming they want to know the reason why ; if a sufficient reason is not given the official gets the sack. Owing to the contradictory nature of present society the workers are compelled to fight each other for jobs. The overlooker and manager are working men like the rest of us, dependent on their jobs for their livelihood and just as likely to get the sack at any moment. Their particular job consists in using every method they can to get the greatest possible amount of work out of their fellow-workers. Thus on the industrial field workers find themselves compelled to fight, not only their masters, but also each other in order to get a living. When the workers take over production then the “directive ability” of our fellow-workers (the absent bond-holding capitalist does no work in production at all), will be employed for the common good instead of, as to-day, for the misery of their fellows.

G. McClatchie

A Look Round. (1907)

From the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Louis A. Hill, to whose utterances I have previously referred in these columns, continues his advocacy of an Eight Hours Act for bakers and continues to make unprovable statements in connection therewith.

***

In communications to the Dally News and the Daily Express recently, he stated that the passing of the bill would “find work for practically every unemployed baker in London” and “would find employment in London alone for some 4,000 or 5,000 extra hands.” Now in my humble opinion Mr. Hill knows he cannot justify these statements, hence his refusal to debate the matter with a member of the S.P.G.B., when asked to do so at the meeting of bakers held at Canning Town on February 9th.

***

In the February issue of the Journeymen Bakers’ Magazine, Mr. Jenkins, General Secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Operative Bakers, reported that during the Labour Conference at Belfast he visited one of the largest and most up-to-date bakeries in the city, and “had special facilities offered me to examine the newest machinery that had been introduced from a labour-saving point of view, and found, as I had expected, that every development of machinery was throwing men out of work, the result being that 102 men were on the out-of-work list, so that with a 700 membership, one out of every seven were out of work, which represents a very serious state of things ; up to now they have been able to deal with this small army of unemployed, but from all appearances they may be eventually hard pushed to provide for them unless by a serious increase of contributions, notwithstanding they are working under a 48 hour week.”

***

According to the British Baker for April 19 last, Mr. Jenkins attended the Annual Dinner of the Portsmouth Branch of the A.U.O.B. & C. on April 10 and in replying to the toast of “The Amalgamated Union,” laid special stress on the Eight Hours Day Bill for the Baking Trade now before Parliament, which had, he said, been rendered necessary by the excessive labour forced on those who could find employment, the result, in connection with modern improvement, being an ever-increasing army of unemployed bakers, which the proposed Bill would practically eliminate. Where ten or fifteen years since ten or eleven sacks was considered a fair output per man, now double that amount was the output in many of the factories, and it was evident that something to alter the conditions of the workers was an absolute necessity.

***

Once again I ask Mr. Hill, and also Mr. Jenkins, to reconcile their extravagant statements with the actual facts as admitted by, at any rate, the last-named.

***

That “Radical of Radicals,” Mr. Horatio Bottomley, has made Mr. Featherstone Asquith a present of a suggestion, but does not for a moment suppose that Mr. Asquith will adopt it. He says : “An Old Age Pension of 5s. per week for every law-abiding citizen—whether otherwise “deserving” or not—of the age of seventy years and upwards, who cares to claim it. That will exactly fit the case—and Mr. Asquith’s name will go down to posterity as that of the great Chancellor who, out of the country’s wealth, fed and clothed the aged when their powers of contributing to it were exhausted. No man could seek a higher reputation than this.”

***

Oh! that will be joyful. Most members of the working class are “too old at forty.” The great friendly societies, who take care only to enrol “good lives,” show in their statistics the number of middle-aged members who, mainly because of unemployment, lapse. And if they can only manage to “hang on” until they are 70, and never break the law, Horatio would give them five shillings per week !

***

This, in Mr. Bottomley’s opinion, will enable them to feed and clothe themselves. I should like to see Bottomley, Asquith & Co. doing it at the price. And what about rent ?

***

In the following year Mr. Bottomley would extend the pensions to those of 65 years of age, thus bringing himself into line with those other advocates of “justice” for the squeezed-out workers, the Labour Party, who through Mr. G. N. Barnes, urged this proposal in the House of Commons in February, 1906.

***

In sending stamps for twelve months’ subscription to THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, “Wrong Fount” expresses his appreciation of our efforts to produce an interesting and instructive journal, the reading of which has greatly strengthened him. He is a member of the S.D.F., and has been recently a municipal candidate for that body. He does not wish his name and town to be mentioned, as “the time has not yet arrived,” whatever that may mean. He adds:—”You have a good work ahead ; it is good if only for what the ‘S.S.’ has taught me, although I am still ashamed of my ignorance. Go on, Lads!”

***

Well, we cannot expect to dispel ignorance all at once. It took many years for some of us who were in the S.D.F. to arrive at the stage of entirely breaking away from the reform and palliative mongering of that body. But at last “the time arrived,” and we formed the S.P.G.B.

***

One paragraph in “Wrong Fount’s” letter is undoubtedly based upon an insufficient knowledge of the facts, and may also be due to some prejudice on his part against us. He says: “might I suggest that there is a vast difference between criticism and vilification—although I must confess that the latter weapon is not used so much now as it was formerly by you. That is good, too.”

***

Now, I do not think it can be charged against us that we have ever vilified anyone in the columns of this journal. To vilify means to degrade by slander and a slander is a false or malicious report. So far as we know, no “slanders” have ever appeared and every effort will be made to keep them out. Upon reconsideration “Wrong Fount” will no doubt withdraw his remark.

***

On Wednesday, September 6th, 1905 (one year and eight months ago), whilst the Trade Union Congress was sitting at Hanley, over a hundred people were evicted during a heavy downpour of rain from their homes at New Hemsworth, near Barnsley, at the instance of the Colliery Company, with whom they were in dispute. Other evictions followed later. The dispute is not yet settled, and the evicted ones have not yet returned to “their” homes. They are endeavouring to subsist on the few shillings that can be raised by making charitable appeals to their fellow members of the working class, who have not sufficient for themselves.

***

For fourteen months out of the twenty there has been a “Labour” Party in the House of Commons, specially claiming to represent the Trade Unionists, of whom the Hemsworth colliers form a part. While the colliers and their wives and children have been suffering and starving, the “Labour” Party have been earning the encomiums of the capitalist party, and boasting of their “sensibility, adaptability, and respectability.” One of them (Ramsay MacDonald) moved the adjournment of the House to discuss the shooting of natives in Natal, but none (not even W. Thorne, S.D.F.) has risked his reputation for “sensibility, adaptability, and respectability” by denouncing the damnable system which produces such outrages as the Hemsworth evictions.

***

“Wrong Fount” may accuse me of vilification, but can he deny that what I have written is true and justifiable ?

***

Of course one can quite understand the reluctance of Keir Hardie and his friends to take action concerning such a glaring illustration of that class war which they declare is only a “shibboleth” and “a reactionary and whiggish precept, certain to lead the movement away from the real aims of Socialism.”

***

A formal report has been issued by the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the “probable economic effect of a limit of eight hours to the working day of coal mines.” Some interesting evidence has been given, particularly as to the effect of a reduction in other industries. Mr. H. F. Donaldson, M.I.C.E., chief superintendent of the Ordnance Factories, Woolwich, detailed how the hours in the factories had been reduced from 54 to 48. Their method of work was really piecework, and the production had been approximately the same as under the old regime. The attendance of the men had been more regular since the shortening of the hours. He did not think that the reduction had meant an increased intensity of labour, but it did mean “hustle,”

***

Mr. J. Lowrie, manager of the Royal Army Clothing Factory, Grosvenor Road, also gave evidence. He said that at his establishment there were employed 1,532 women and girls, of whom 1,385 were on piece work. Until 1894 they were working 55 hours per week, after which year they were reduced to 48. He did not think this reduction of seven hours had made any difference in the output: there was the same efficiency in the shorter hours. He considered it had been an economic success.

***

And there are some folks who talk of dealing with the unemployed problem by enacting an Eight Hours Day !

J. Kay

Editorial: The Fruit of "Victory." (1912)

Editorial from the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month comment was made in these columns on the permission by the miners’ leaders of the men to return to work too early, as well as on the impossibility of the “impartial” chairman being impartial. Within the short span of a month both points of criticism are borne out by the development of events.

Lord St Aldwyn, better known when Tory Chancellor as Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, was the “impartial” chairman for the South Welsh District Board set up by the Bill that settled the recent coal strike. He is reported by the miners’ leader, Mr. C. B. Stanton, to have surrendered the men to the coal owners.

Says Mr. Stanton : “Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, Sir. E. Grey and others, told our National Executive they considered 5s. per day very reasonable for any man who worked in the mine as a minimum wage. Lord St. Aldwyn has given us a 3s. minimum. This is not a living wage, but a measly, wretched surrender to the Welsh coal-owners, whose profits, greed, and obstinacy at all times are notorious. How any man could, upon the evidence, give such a verdict I cannot understand.”

But Mr. Stanton ought to know that the “independent” chairman, even with the collusion of the Government as he suggests, is quite capable of betraying the men and converting a promised increase of wages into a decrease. When did Mr. Stanton put any value upon a Liberal promise to the workers, or trust the “ impartiality ” of a Tory politician ? Why, exactly when it was least justified— when the strike had driven the master class and the political wire-pullers, Liberal and Tory alike, to an extremity.

It was easy for the Liberals to premise the “5 and 2” and to sympathise with the men in their “reasonable” demands. And very convenient to leave to the “impartiality” of a retired Tory politician, the execution of the premise.

Says Mr. Stanton further: “ The rank and file know where the mistake was made before ; we shall not repeat that mistake again.” But it seems to us that the mistake need never have been made at all. Mr. Stanton was among the leaders who advised the men to accept the Bill, with its machinery of "impartial” boards and “independent” chairmen, even against the better judgment of the men. It was the leaders who should have known what the masters and their political servants were likely to do once the men were back again at work.

We of course, can draw no satisfaction from the turn events have taken, except from the fact that in bearing out our prognostications they have given further proof of the existence of the class struggle and the solidarity of the capitalist class against the workers. Had the miners’ actions been guided by this knowledge they would not now be lamenting that they have been tricked by the masters and sold by—but the law of libel bolds us dumb.

The Lot of the Miner (1961)

From the April 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Deep down in the efficient modernised, mechanised and electrified mines men still grovel, sweat and inhale black dust. But they should not grumble; the wages are high, the hospitals that treat their special diseases are bigger and better. They have all the public's sympathy for any small inconveniences met with while extracting Our Coal. What more could a miner ask? The gentlemen of the Board have done everything. In their clean trim offices where the supporting beams never collapse, they think mining has reached the millenium.

The miners apparently do not. In spite of fantastic changes, pit head baths and the like; in the face of every improvement, free coal, and more pay, the fellows still complain. There are better jobs outside the pit they think—which only shows the extent of their ingratitude. For just who saw salvation in bureaucracy and clamoured for a Coal Board?

In an age that reaches for the moon, the mining of coal a mile under our feet, without turning men into moles, would seem rather a small order. But ours is a paradoxical society; aspiring to dizzy heights we plumb the depths of human exploitation. At the end of the last century after a life-time of study that saved untold millions, Louis Pasteur commented regretfully on this terrible and characteristic feature of our advanced civilization. Just as large numbers of medical workers all over the world are busy curing diseases and wiping out plagues and fevers while other men are devoting all their skills to designing bombs which can shrivel whole cities, so also in the field of commerce as one interested group tries to solve problems which may free men from degrading toil, another section of the industry sees profits threatened and resists progress. The complexity of the antagonisms and contradictions in any one trade would fill a book.

The miners' employer, anonymous shareholder though he is, views the goose as coldly and dispassionately as the former mine-owner did; he levels the machine against the worker as keenly as his nineteenth century counterpart did, when he secs the possibility of increasing profits. What! with this steel navvy at his beck and call surely the miner's life is easier? Surely the old. back-breaking toil is gone? But the machine, simply because it is a machine does not tire. To tend it the man must go at the machine’s speed and this proves a great strain, physically and mentally. He may work fewer hours but the pace during those hours has become fiercer. The man now works for the machine, he has become the appendage of a machine.

Delving in dark places, the miner has at last seen a glimmer of light; like the rabbit in the trap he longs to be free. And in these boom-times jobs are waiting for men. Here then is freedom. What strange freedom though! Freedom to work; freedom to work overtime: freedom to do exactly what the boss says; freedom to draw national assistance when job-less; freedom to send wives out to work to pay for things men's wages cannot buy. The miner is free to change his occupation and let us admit he is the best judge of whether the change is a good one. But it is a sad, as well as a safe thing to say, he has only thrown off some of his shackles. A sensitive ear can still detect above the din of the bright and busy factory, a rattle and clink of chains.

M. B.

Coal Face-offs (2024)

Joseph Skipsey

From the April 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Conflict has always been integral to capitalism. The contradictory relationship between employers and employed erupts periodically into often bitter, at times deadly, conflict. Workers have banded together to fight for their mutual interests only to be met by intimidation and even physical force on behalf of employers, often by the forces of the state.

2024 is the 40th anniversary of the most recent protracted struggle against a blatantly determined government bent on nothing less than breaking the power of trade unions in general, the National Union of Mineworkers in particular.

Miners have long been at the forefront of struggles for better wages and working conditions. An industry bedevilled by very obvious dangers benefitted from the close communities generated. However, such social, and political, solidarity was always perceived to be a threat by mine owners and state alike.

One hundred and fifty years previous to the Great Strike, in 1832, the Durham and Northumberland coalfields were riven by collier strikes and belligerent responses to those industrial actions. An instance of this was the Battle of Goose Green in Gateshead. A strike by miners was met by a direct attempt to break it by employers bringing in unemployed lead miners from other areas of the country. They needed to be housed, so the owners resorted to evicting the striking miners and their families from their tied housing. Unsurprisingly there was determined resistance which resulted in armed special constables being deployed to enforce the evictions.

When some of that force were disarmed by miners, who then had weapons they could use, they became a significant threat. This resulted in troops from a barracks in Newcastle being sent to extinguish this act of rebellion. A clear example of the state deploying its forces to protect the interests of capital, in this case, mine owners.

In the same year, Cuthbert Skipsey, a pitman at Percy main colliery, near Tynemouth, was shot and killed outside The Pineapple, a pub in the village of Chirton, North Shields. It was an incident highlighting the difference in treatment a miner might expect from the authorities, compared with when a victim was of the authorities, such as a magistrate.

Cuthbert Skipsey was generally regarded as quiet and inoffensive. A meeting of striking miners taking place in Chirton was confronted by special constables and what was described as an affray ensued.

It seems that Cuthbert stepped forward intending to diffuse an explosive situation. Whether his action was genuinely misunderstood or there was malice, one of the constables, George Weddle drew a pistol and shot Skipsey.

The death of the respected collier, and the subsequent plight of his wife and eight (or 6, accounts vary) children was, unsurprisingly, the cause of outrage in the community. This resulted in Weddle’s arrest. His trial, on 3 August, and conviction for manslaughter lasted 12 hours and led to a sentence of six months imprisonment with hard labour.

Previously, on 1 August, another collier, William Jobling, was found guilty of killing Nicholas Fairless, a magistrate. He was sentenced to death, his body to be hung in chains near the location of the crime.

The death of Cuthbert Skipsey had a rather unlikely outcome. His family was plunged into poverty, his children being expected to do whatever they could to ease their dire circumstances, such as gathering nettles for the cooking pot.

Newly born around the time of his father’s death, Joseph Skipsey, aged 7, became employed, in what had been his father’s workplace, Percy Main Colliery, as a trapper. Twelve hour shifts underground opening and closing trapdoors used to control air flow to, hopefully, prevent the build-up of gases.

As it was just hewers digging the coal, the only work activity that was actually directly paid, at the face who had any light. So a trapper would spend his or her shift in complete darkness. A situation from which a phrase was coined that is still in use; ‘so-and-so’ is not worth the candle.

From such an unpromising beginning Joseph went on to become a poet, friend of Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Edward Burne-Jones, Oscar Wilde and others of the literary world. He became secretary of the Newcastle Literary and Philosophical Society, Custodian of Shakespeare’s Birthplace in Stratford upon Avon and recipient of an annual pension awarded by Queen Victoria.

There was a somewhat tenuous link between Joseph and the Queen. On 16 January 1862 at Hartley Colliery, near Whitley Bay, the huge arm of the steam pumping engine sheared off and fell into the single shaft of the pit, effectively sealing it.

204 men and boys were trapped and perished. Joseph Skipsey marked this tragedy by writing The Hartley Calamity, a 25 stanza ballad poem. He toured the area giving readings to raise money for the widows and orphans. Queen Victoria, on learning of this tragedy, pressed her ministers to legislate to outlaw single shaft pits. From then all mines had to have at least two ways in and, more importantly two ways out.

A life that began in tragedy commemorated one tragedy amongst so many in that industry. Coal mining serves as an exemplar of the impact of capitalism on working class lives, too often the premature losing of those lives.

Of course, the situation in mining changed from the nineteenth century to the twentieth, as it did in wider society. Engels had recognised when he wrote about the condition of the labouring masses that the state would have to intervene to bring some stability to capitalism by curbing its worst excesses.

While the depredations of capitalism were mitigated they have not been, and cannot be, erased altogether. The nationalisation of coal mining did a great deal to improve the conditions in which miners laboured. However, the portrayal of nationalisation as a socialist act was and is grievously mistaken. It could not be possible for miners to take strike action in 1972, ’74 and then 1984-5 if they, as workers, were the owners of the industry. They would have been striking against themselves.

Even if miners had become the mine owners, the rest of the working class would have been excluded from that ownership, which would have been effectively private. A non-mine worker wanting coal to meet a need for fuel would not have had free access to it.

The miners’ strike laid bare how the state and its legal system will always be stacked against the working class acting on its own behalf. Until that is workers realise that only by dispossessing capital of the means of wealth production and deploying those means mutually to meet their own needs.

Until that happens then, in the words of Joseph Skipsey:

Not rest or peace, but toil and strife,

Do there the soul enthral;

And turn the precious cup of life

Into a cup of gall.

(From The Stars are Twinkling)

Dave Alton

An Open Letter to Dave Douglass (1972)

From the December 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Dave,

I see from the News of the World for November 15th that you are the editor of the Trotskyist magazine ‘Mineworkers Internationale’, and that you have published articles addressing the miners on union policy.

You appear to have upset the editor of the News of the World, and the officials of the Communist Party, who say that you are getting the “sane militants” (the C.P.) a bad name.

You wrote (apparently) in one issue of your magazine

“The only long-term justice for the workers will be under a system which they themselves control—a Socialist system.”

and

“Launch the General Strike immediately and occupy the factories, docks, railways without charging, capture the supermarkets and food wholesalers and distribute the food free.”

Hard Enough

And you claim to work for the overthrow of Capitalism.

One can sympathise with your indignation with your exploitation and the fact, as you say, “that Capitalists are making a fortune out of my sweat, discomfort and forfeiture of human dignity”. Fair enough!

But, Dave boy, indignation is not enough! In this business (the class struggle) brains are more important than heart, because our enemy, the Capitalist, is immensely powerful, and helped by a large staff of cunning labour leaders and T.U. Officials.

And I’m going to tell you straight out, that your stuff is doing more harm than good.

First “seize the pits” or “the Supermarkets”, or “the railways”, is rubbish. The workers have a difficult enough job trying seize half-a-pound of steak on a Friday night, without you try to feed them this baloney.

You must begin to learn that the control of the public apparatus of production and distribution is political, not industrial. It is maintained by the Government of the day, if necessary by armed force, although the workers don’t show much evidence of doing any “seizing”, do they? Could it be they’ve too much sense?

The Wrong Interests

Neither are you doing any good trying to cod the miners into taking action for “workers’ control”. The workers will never control Capitalism. What determines class control is ownership, and that ownership is legalised and maintained through Parliament, by the Government of the day, backed by an electoral majority.

It is no business of trade unions to try to usurp the job of a political party. Control of the whole of industry is a political matter concerning the whole capitalist class. The strongest, most militant trade union in the world can do nothing about it and won’t want to, anyway, because people join unions to look after the trade interests, not class interests.

Dave, I’m sorry, but your other stuff urging the miners on strike last year to do as much damage as possible is nonsense too. This is a hang-over from early Russian days when the isolated Bolsheviks sought to create as much dissension abroad as possible, for political propaganda materials.

Strike What For?

I now come to what, for me, is the most stupid and ridiculous nonsense of all. “Launch the General Strike and occupy the factories”. Are you really in your right mind, mate? Don’t you know that whenever the workers have occupied factories, after a few weeks with the wives bringing meals and drinks, they have unoccupied them again?

The capitalists will always beat you at this game; they own everything; they can retire to the Hilton or the country, and starve you out. In fact, the French authorities have said they approve of the strikers occupying the factory because “It keeps the place clean”.

And lastly, the General Strike! What stupid bloody rubbish. First of all, General Strikes for industrial ends are difficult enough, because workers’ action on such a scale concerns the whole capitalist class who have shown repeatedly, all over the world, that they will not hesitate if necessary, to crush strikes by armed force.

But even worse, you are urging a General Strike for “Workers’ Control”, which because you are not clear about it, you call a “Socialist system”.

A Socialist system will and must abolish classes! What are you on about? Will there be wage-workers under Trotskyist “Socialism” then ?

But, worst of all, you are trying to control trade unionists in General Strikes for political purposes — and this is disastrous.

If you claim that all the workers (or a lot of them) are militants, anxious to overthrow Capitalism, why have they got to lose their wages (and some of them, their personal freedom) in General Strikes?

Consciousness Wanted

If they want a General Strike why do they vote for Tory and Labour parties?

If the workers are Socialists, they have a perfectly safe and sane method of abolishing Capitalism, which also happens (as time will show) to be the only possible method — the ballot box.

It is for this reason that the Socialist Party of Great Britain will never support calls for General Strikes for political purposes. People like you, Dave, may feel very strongly, but you haven’t thought very much.

Socialists, in their capacity as trade unionists, because we are exploited like you, and have to join them, say to their fellow workers : Political action is for political parties! Trade union political independence at all costs!

Socialism will be established by a class political party, not the T.U.C., or any trade union.

It Can be Done

Let trade unions mind their own business, the interests of their members.

Let the affairs of the union be run democratically, by the rank-and-file vote, make strikes short and sharp. Procrastination is the death of strikes.

And, lastly, some advice to you, by one who has been right through the Leninist mill himself.

Forget all your Trotskyist dreamworld; it never was right. Look where the Leninist “boring from within” the trade unions has landed the C.P. The very nominees the Communist factions have got “elected” as officials have at times been the first to kick out Communists.

Study Socialism! Get clear on the necessity of conscious political actions by the workers, organised in a political party to take political power, to abolish capitalist control; and replace it by “democratic control”.

This is the road of Success, to Victory.

What you are doing now will only spread apathy as a result of bitter disappointment.

Forget Trotsky, and remember Marx!

Yours for Socialism,

Horatio

11 November 1972.