The ’Bus Strike—and After by a 'Busman (1937)

From the July 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

On May 28th the London 'busmen returned to work. After four weeks of determined effort they resumed without having achieved their object—a 7½-hour working day.

Despite the fact that on May 25th a full delegate conference of the 'Bus Section of the Transport and General Workers’ Union had resolved by 40 votes to 9 to continue the strike for the 7½-hour day, the following day the Union Executive withdrew the powers granted to the Section and ordered a resumption of work. The ’busmen, somewhat taken unawares, and with no time to give detailed consideration to the position, returned unanimously. Dissatisfaction with the step taken by the Executive was expressed in most branches, and the E.C., fearful of a loss of membership, posted to the members of the ’Bus Section a comprehensive document explaining the reasons for its action. The reasons were that the strike could not be allowed to drift on to disaster, with the loss of the substance already obtained.

A few days later the Executive took the further step of suspending all Central ’Bus Committeemen, Garage Representatives, District Committeemen, Disciplinary Board Representatives and Schedule Sub-committee Officers pending an enquiry into the actions of certain members during the dispute.

Following this, the London ’busmen received by post a copy of a new agreement, which has been signed and accepted on their behalf by the Union President and General Secretary without reference to their wishes on the matter.

Next, members of the Central ’Bus Committee were summoned before a Union enquiry tribunal, charged with conduct which was not compatible with membership of the Union. Some branch officials were unable to obtain leave to attend to Union business, thus to a great extent suspending the local representative machinery and embarrassing the members who are on trial.

Although there may have been justification for the action taken by Union E.C., yet that E.C. cannot escape some of the responsibility for having brought about the conditions which made its action advisable. If, as was claimed on May 14th by the General Secretary, Mr. Bevin, the Transport Board had given its final reply and there was no possibility of gaining more than was offered then, even though the strike should be extended t« other sections of the Union, there appears to be no reason why the order to resume work should have been delayed for another fortnight. Unless, of course, the E.C. did not consider it possible to take such a step just then. On May 25th, when the number of garages which were prepared to consider a settlement on a basis which did not include the 7½-day, had grown from three to nine, then it was possible to order the resumption of work.

In the meantime, certain members of the Central ’Bus Committee, and some others, mostly members of the Rank and File Movement, had played into the hands of the E.C. by acting very indiscreetly in dealing with the dispute. So, fully armed, the Executive is in a position to purge the ’Bus Section of the so-called “ Red element ” within its ranks.

The cry has gone up, “Bevin must go!” We, of the Socialist Party, hold no brief for Mr. Bevin, but we must point out that merely to replace one General Secretary by another will not solve the difficulties. No matter who holds such a post, if he must negotiate agreements with employers the result may be less than is possible in the limits placed by capitalism, but it certainly cannot be more. The only remedy for getting less than is possible is an alert and understanding membership which keeps continuous control over Union policy.

Mr. Bevin has lost the confidence of many of the ’busmen, and in consequence his relations with the Transport Board are made awkward. Now he has made a desperate bid to consolidate his position, both by discrediting his critics and by withdrawing from the 'busmen their democratic control over their own Section.

This position is arrived at in Trade Unions, as has been pointed out, because the majority of Trade Union members do not understand the functions and limitations of Trade Unionism.

The struggle between employer and worker is inherent in the capitalist system. So is the discontent of the workers. Their discontent goads them on in the struggle, but until they are fully conscious of their class status they conduct the struggle blindly. Individuals in the Trade Unions who make extravagant promises frequently get elected to prominent positions, only to find that capitalism sets a limit beyond which they cannot go. Their promises unfulfilled, these individuals fall into disfavour, and they have to seek ways and means of maintaining their positions or alternatively they make way for new men.

If the workers fully realised that Trade Union activity can at the most serve only to defend the workers' wages and working conditions against the ceaseless pressure of capitalism, these promises would fall on deaf ears. It would then be understood that there are definite limits to what can be achieved and that loud-mouthed orators do not make any difference to the facts. It would be understood why, in one long procession, men have passed from the ranks to official positions, only to lose their “Red" ideas and to become either tame “yes ''-men or ardent reactionaries.

From such an understanding it is but a step to the recognition of our claim that the only way to solve the evils and problems of capitalism, and to end the class struggle, is to abolish class society altogether.

Whilst class society remains, the working class cannot help but struggle, and the degree of their success will be influenced by their understanding of their class position and the control which they maintain over their organisations.

Failure to recognise and act on this makes the task of spreading Socialist ideas more difficult. The workers become apathetic, and useful avenues for propaganda are closed.

W. Waters.

Living wages (1974)

From the June 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 70th anniversary issue of the Socialist Standard carried throughout its pages a series of snippets from old Socialist Standard articles highlighting the SPGB's unique position on issues of the day. Where possible, I've provided a link to the full article.

The evidence being given at the Industrial Court which is inquiring into the Dockers’ claim for a higher wage, and which, of course, is perfectly in order seeing that we, the workers, have been told so often by Lloyd George and his satellites that we were to have a “new world” on the cessation of hostilities, is exceedingly interesting. Take the following, for instance:

“Mr. Bevin asked what, assuming a docker worked . 44 hours a week, would be his present rate of earnings in Liverpool. 

Witness (Sir Alfred Booth): £3 4s. 6d. 

Do you really suggest that is a living wage?—Yes.

Could you maintain your family upon it?—No, I could not. 

Is it right to ask a man to maintain himself on what yon would not dream of maintaining yourself on?— It is not a question of what I ask him to live upon, but what economic conditions allow’”—Daily News, February 13th, 1920.

[From “By the Way”, Socialist Standard, March 1920]

Is this what Labour voters wanted? A world made safe for investors (1946)

From the March 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a country where the whole adult population have votes and where the overwhelming majority of the voters are workers, the art of administering capitalism is a delicate, tricky business. To attract and keep the support of a majority of voters the party in power must have a programme that promises to introduce improvements in the miserable conditions of the poor; but in order to make capitalism function at all the government must not at the same time frighten and antagonise the rich, whose investment and spending has to go on unless industry is to slacken towards a standstill. Until such time as the workers recognise that their interest demands Socialism, the party that succeeds in persuading the electors that it can both please the workers and conciliate the capitalist will be the party that wins elections. The Labour Party succeeded in doing this, and is now carrying out its pledges, or some of them; but how many of the Labour voters who were attracted by the promises of more work, higher wages, social security, houses, etc., studied and understood the other half of the programme, the half that was directed to the capitalist class? How many of them observed that if wages rise and other things remain unchanged, then profits must fall; and that if profits go on at the old level (or increase), wages can only be prevented from falling if the total output of industry is increased? There has been plenty of Labour Party propaganda designed to make the workers believe that a Labour Government would reduce the wealth of the rich in order to help the poor, though this was not stated explicitly in the literature got out for the purpose of the general election. Workers can already see what is happening. War-time earnings, enlarged by overtime and various temporary bonuses, are now falling, and the changes introduced in the income tax, while decreasing somewhat the amount knocked off wages, also reduced Excess Profits Tax levied on companies, and reduced the total amount of tax levied on surtax payers. Mr. Dalton, Chancellor of the Exchequer, made two revealing statements in his Budget speech. While declaring that many surtax payers are idlers, he went on to announce that his Budget reduced their income tax. 

“The truth, in fact, is . . . that a large number of the surtax payers do nothing at all. They subsist on very large investment interests. Many of these have been inherited through many generations in the past, sometimes along with noble names, sometimes not. As a consequence of this, there is, in the total surtax income, a great quantity of completely unearned income, conglomerated in huge lumps around people who have inherited it, obtained it by luck, or other means." —Hansard, 19 Nov., 1945. CoL 152.

“ I repeat . . . that in terms of income, next year everybody will be better off, including surtax’ payers . . ." —Hansard. 28 Nov., 1945. Col. 1358.

The principal feature of the Labour programme at the election was the pledge to nationalise certain industries. In some vague way never clearly explained this was supposed to benefit the workers. It will, however, be noticed that since the Government entered office, the theme of numerous speeches by Cabinet Ministers has been that the compensation terms would be "fair" or even "generous" to the capitalist investors, while to the workers the Labour leaders' reiterated appeal is for harder work, austerity, and greater production.

This contrasts oddly with some of their speeches and writings during the war. Two examples, both from Cabinet Ministers, illustrate this. In 1942, Mr. Bevin, now Foreign Secretary, but at that time Minister of Labour in the Coalition Government, made a speech in which he said:— 

"At the end of the war we should be able to buy goods only for goods. The rentier, comfortably living on interest, would certainly be gone. It will mean that we shall have a nation at work, and that will not be an unhealthy thing."

—Daily Herald, 16 July, 1942.

Then there is Mr. Shinwell, now Minister of Fuel and Power. In his book, “When the Men Come Home” (Gollanz, 1944, page 41), he laid down the principle “that any physically and mentally fit individual who fails to make a useful contribution to the work of the community shall not be fed, clothed and housed at the expense of those who do work."

How are Mr. Bevin and Mr. Shinwell, and their Cabinet colleagues, progressing with their healthy doctrine that there should be no non-workers, comfortably living on interest, clothed and housed by the labours of those who have to work? It is only necessary to look at the nationalisation schemes to see that, far from abolishing interest receivers, the principal achievements for which this Labour Government will be remembered is that the “rentier, comfortably living on interest,” is being vastly increased in number and their position consolidated. The so-called epoch-making change brought about by the Labour Government is merely the transformation of some capitalist investors holding company shares, into holders of Government bonds. It was a development already making headway under the Conservatives before Labour came into power. Here are some examples of that nationalisation or State capitalism, wrongly described as Socialism by the Labour Party. The Central Electricity Board has over £50 million of stock outstanding and pays interest each year to the stockholders amounting to over £2¼ million. Port of London Authority, £34 million of stock, paying £1⅓ million interest. Metropolitan Water Board, £58 million, interest £1,790,000 a year. London Passenger Transport Board, stock, £112 million, paying interest of about £4½ million a year.

Then there is the buying out of owners of coal royalties, just completed, with payments of £66 million, available for investment elsewhere. This was a measure backed by the Labour Party though not introduced by them.

Since the Labour Government came into office the Bank of England has been taken over and the stockholders are to receive £58 million of Government stock on which the interest at 3 per cent, will amount to £1¾ million a year.

The Daily Express City Editor (20 Nov., 1945) gave the following rough estimates of the total cost of the Labour Government’s nationalisation schemes:—

Taking interest at, say, 3 per cent., this will involve payments by the Government of about £60 millions a year to the stockholders in exchange for the dividends they are at present receiving on their shares in the various companies. They will on the whole receive a lower rate of interest than before, but will get in return the greater security of bonds backed by the Government. 

As far as the workers are concerned, their position as wage slaves, exploited to maintain a propertied class in luxurious idleness, will not be altered. The State to an ever increasing extent will be the medium through which the exploitation is carried on. The accumulated wealth of the country (the means of production and distribution) will still be concentrated in the hands of the same small minority of individuals, the capitalist class, who own it at present. 

Edgar Hardcastle

Britain’s Third Labour Government (1945)

From the September 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

“This time there can be no Alibis.”

For the third time Great Britain witnesses the spectacle of capitalism being administered by a Labour Government – though this time with a difference. The Labour Governments which entered office in January, 1924 (for eleven months) and in June 1929 (for two years) had only minority representation in the House of Commons, and were dependent on the support of Members of Parliament belonging to the Liberal Party. This time the Liberal Party is almost wiped out (only twelve M.P.s in a House of 640), and the Labour Party has an overwhelming majority. There are 390 Labour MPs, and with the support of three I.L.P. M.P.s, two Communists and some Independents and Liberals it can count on well over 400 votes as against about 210 Conservative M.P.s and others who will vote Conservative. As one of the Labour M.P.s writes “Labour has no alibi left. If it fails to produce the goods – full employment, all-round national prosperity, international concord, health, homes and happiness for the whole people – it can fall back on no excuse.” (Garry Allighan, M.P., Daily Mail, July 31st).

This time the Labour leaders have given away in advance the “alibi” they used in 1931 when they pleaded that their failure, and the secession of their leaders to form National Government, as the result of an “economic blizzard” – the world industrial crisis – and of a “Bankers’ ramp.” They are going to nationalise the Bank of England and are naively confident that through a National investment Board they can eliminate the normal capitalist trade cycle of expansion and depression. Nationalising the Bank merely means bringing this country into line with the rest of the capitalist world. As the Manchester Guardian points out “Great Britain is almost the only country in the world to have a privately owned central bank.” (Manchester Guardian, August 2nd)

In an Election broadcast Mr. Herbert Morrison, who occupies one of the most important Cabinet posts in the Labour Government, declared that the Employment Policy accepted by the late Government (in which, of course, the. Labour Party was strongly represented), “has quite a fair chance of smoothing out booms and slumps. The idea is very simple. It is one of Labour’s basic ideas. It is to make sure there is enough spending power to buy enough goods to keep everyone at work making them. The thing can be done. Whether it will be done depends on bow firm a grip the Government intends to keep on the spending policies of the great private industries.” (Daily Herald, June 30th, 1945)

The experience now being embarked upon is that of trying to run the capitalist system as if it were not a capitalist system. A Labour Government is going to try to straddle the class struggle and to represent at one and the same time the interests of the owning class, and of the class exploited by the owning class! Labour supporters expectantly and hopefully await the outcome. Socialists do not need to wait to prophesy failure.

After experiencing Labour attempts to run capitalism in Great Britain the workers will discover that Labour administrators cannot make capitalism function in any but the accustomed way.

The reasons for the Labour victory are many, though it must be admitted that hardly any observers expected the turnover of votes to be so large. “Working class mistrust of the Tories, who had been dominant since 1931 in all the National Governments; the discontent and impatience with slow demobilisation of men in the Armed Forces, most of whom voted Labour ; the usual desire of many electors to have a change; the feeling that the very acute housing shortage would best be tackled by a Labour Government – these are some of the factors.

How have the Capitalists taken the event of “Socialism”? Their attitude may, perhaps, be described as one of waiting on events, worried but not seriously alarmed. The avowedly Capitalist Press is disposed to assume that the cautious Labour leaders will prevent any very drastic demands of the rank and file from being pressed. This is illustrated by the attitude of the Conservative Daily Mail (August 2nd), which urges the Labour Government to take steps to let the Press and public in the U.S.A. know that their “ludicrous and dangerous doubts and fears” of the Labour Government are needless and misplaced. The Times (July 30th), accepts that the Labour Government may nationalise coal, at least part of the transport industry, and possibly electricity and gas supply, and is not greatly perturbed. It points out that “to bring public utilities under direct public control and possibly even outright public ownership, is not wholly revolutionary; and coal is politically a special case.” The Times goes on to plead that “with steel, or with manufacturing industries of any kind, the case is rather different,” and takes comfort in the view that “the responsible leaders were more hesitant” than the rank and file on nationalisation, and that they may seek a further mandate from the electors before converting any manufacturing industry into a State monopoly.

The Liberal Manchester Guardian (July 27th), declared that “Banking opinion expects the Bank of England to be ‘nationalised’ but does not turn a hair at the thought.” Mr. Herbert Morrison recalled during the Election campaign (Daily Express, June 18th), that in 1932 the Tory Lord Beaverbrook was advocating nationalisation of the Bank of England in his Daily Express, and likewise it was Mr. Morrison who stated in a speech on February 11th, 1944 ” that more Socialism ” (meaning State Capitalism) “was done by the Conservative Party, which opposed it, than by the Labour Party which was in favour of it.” Times, February 12th, 1944). Mr. Morrison had in mind, of course, the nationalisation of Telegraphs and Telephones and setting up of Public Utility Boards (which are the model the Labour Party will follow in its nationalisation schemes) such as the Metropolitan Water Board, the British Broadcasting Corporation and the London Passenger Transport Board. The last named was initiated by Mr. Morrison and completed by the succeeding Tory Government.

A factor of importance from the capitalist standpoint is that the Labour Party is wholly committed when taking over industries to do so “on a basis of fair compensation” (“Let us Face the Future,” Labour Party, 1945, p. 7). Some capitalists – those in declining industries – can welcome a change which guarantees their investments against further depreciation since they may receive Bonds with a Government guarantee in place of shares dependent on the ups and downs of fortune of a private company; which recalls a curious comment made by the Times (September 19th, 1942), in an article which urged its readers that “we must beware of the people who advocate Socialism in order to make the world safe for capitalists.”

Doubtless the Labour Government will do away with the restrictive clauses on trade unions introduced by the Tories in their Trade Union Act of 1927. This in itself may have little direct effect in the direction of encouraging strikes, but it is certain that the rule of the Labour Government will be accompanied by many and large industrial disputes. A Tory Government at this time would be faced with much industrial unrest, but with a Labour Government there is no doubt that the trade unions will feel encouraged to make large demands for higher wages and shorter hours. This was doubtless foreseen by Mr. Ernest Bevin, Minister of Labour in the Churchill Government, who has now become Foreign Secretary instead. The Daily Express (July 28th), published the following report from Stockholm of a statement made some time ago by Mr. Bevin to a Swedish trade unionist. Mr. Bevin is reported to have doubted a Labour Victory and to have said “Even if we win we shall have hard times before us. To convert industry to peace production with lower wages as a result will be an enormous problem.” Like other governments in this dilemma the Labour Government may be tempted to make the adjustment by allowing prices to rise instead of lowering wages.

In one field the Labour Government will be tackling a problem that many leading capitalists and capitalist politicians are agreed has to be tackled, in order to prevent the interests of the whole capitalist class from being damaged, that is the problem of monopolies. Here the language of the Tory Times and of Mr Churchill in his calmer pre-election frame of mind, is identical with the views advocated by Mr. Herbert Morrison in a series of speeches in recent years. Mr. Churchill in a broadcast in 1943 said – “There is a broadening field for State ownership and enterprise, especially in relation to monopolies of all kinds.” (Manchester Guardian, April 5th, 1943). And the Times put its view in words every one of which could have been lifted from one of Mr. Morrison’s speeches: “It is a sound principle that, whenever competition is ousted by monopoly, the monopoly must come under Government control – though certainly not under Government management – either through a public utility corporation or by other means appropriate to the differing circumstances of different businesses.” (Times, Editorial, September 19th, 1942)

On Foreign Affairs Mr. Bevin hastened to declare “British foreign policy will rot be altered in any way under the Labour Government.” (Evening News, July 26th). In this sphere and in handling India, Egypt, Palestine, etc., the Labour Government will be faced with many knotty problems, not of their own making or to any extent under their control, but arising inevitably out of the normal trade rivalry between the Powers. Here in a most glaring form is demonstrated the childishness of the Labour Party’s belief that Labour Governments, by exercising goodwill, can keep capitalism and yet suppress its tigerish propensities.

To conclude we may repeat the words published in the Socialist Standard in June, 1929, when the last Labour Government entered office:

“We deal elsewhere in this issue with the failure of Labour Government in Queensland. We prophesied that: failure, and with absolute confidence we prophesy the similar failure of Labour Government here. No matter how able, how sincere, and how sympathetic the Labour men and women may be who undertake to administer Capitalism, Capitalism will bring their undertaking to disaster. As in Queensland, those who administer Capitalism will find themselves, sooner or later, brought into conflict with the working class. Like their Australian colleagues, the Labour Party here will find themselves in a cleft stick. Raving no mandate to replace Capitalism by Socialism, they have pledged themselves to solve problems which cannot be solved except by doing the one thing for which they have no mandate.”

There is no need to add anything to that. It still stands, as those who have voted Labour will discover.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Role of the Church in Strikes (1946)

From the May 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

During strikes, as during wars, many significant details are obscured by more dramatic happenings. When considering the situation at a later date certain features are thrown into sharp relief, or a passing reference to some action may awaken interest and reconsideration of that fiction.

A radio programme of Thursday, February 7th, had this effect Speaking in a weekly programme, “What are the Churches Doing," the clergyman speaker related, with evident pride, the intervention of two Liverpool clergymen in the recent dock strike. Whether his claims for them were true or exaggerated, his attitude certainly showed a new aspect of the church's activities.

In the Times of November 2nd, 1945, the following account of the affair was given:—

“The Dock strike may be suspended tomorrow to give negotiating parties a period in which to make satisfactory progress. Mass meetings at affected ports will be asked for their decision tomorrow morning.

At a meeting here today the Rector of Liverpool, Canon R. Ambrose Reeves, who, with Father John Fitszsimons, has been mediating, told the dockers that last week he received a letter from Mr. Ernest Bevin which encouraged him, in spite of many rebuffs in other quarters, to persevere and try to help in the impasse. Since then, with Father Fitzsimons, he had met the Merseyside Strike Committee, the National Strike Committee, and Labour Members of Parliament for the Liverpool divisions. He had put before them as a basis for discussion a document in which he summarised the position as he saw it."

Then followed a summary of what the strike revealed, and an appeal to the workers to suspend the strike for 30 days in order that negotiations might take place. The interesting points to note are that the clergyman did not for one moment imagine that the masters should give way to the dockers’ grievances. To one inured in the tradition "the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate," the exploitation of the worker and the real nature of wages are a closed book. Instead of the usual efforts of the church to "reconcile man to God," the efforts are now to reconcile man to his employer’s interests. Another point worthy of notice is the joining forces of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, normally at daggers drawn, but willing in this dirty work to sink their differences. Lastly the approbation of Mr. Ernest Bevin was sweet to Canon Reeves and an encouragement to persist with the new form of blunting the edge of the workers’ strike weapon.

W. S.

White Papers and Black Records (1948)

From the April 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The White Paper on the threatened crisis should set Trade Unionists thinking hard.

Cutting out all frills, two main points emerge —Wage Pegging and Speeding Up.

As to the first point: “When it comes to a race between rising prices and personal incomes, prices will always win in the long run, so that conditions become progressively worse for the holders of all personal incomes, but particularly for Wage Earners.” (Daily Herald, February 5th, 1948.) Government apologists go so far as to use the ugly words “starvation" and “wide-spread unemployment.”

Here is a clear admission that a “Labour” Government administering its modified State Capitalism can no more prevent the evils arising for the worker than could Liberalism or Toryism.

Do you remember the ”beloved” Ramsay MacDonald? Unfortunately, the worker has such a short memory. Just to jog memories: ‘‘It is recorded on the authority of Lord Snowden that the Socialist Cabinet in 1931 unanimously approved heavier wage and salary reductions than the National Government afterwards imposed. Mr. Morrison was a member of that Cabinet." (Evening Standard, November 8th, 1935.)

The Daily Herald (February 5th, 1948) belatedly expresses in muddled terms what Marx wrote incisively 100 years ago, “Old ideas of relative value of occupations must be put aside,” adding inconsequentially, “the labourer is worthy of his hire.” This is what Marx wrote:—

‘‘Where the physique of the working class has deteriorated, the lower forms of labour, which demand great expenditure of muscle, are in general considered as skilled, compared with much more delicate forms of labour; the latter sink down to the level of unskilled labour.” (“Capital,” p. 179.)

The Daily Herald, wagging a warning finger at the pampered postman and the naughty factory lass, says with solemn air, “The relation which different personal incomes bear to one another must no longer be determined by historical development of the past.” Here a comparatively insignificant factor is raised to a position of first importance. We leave it to the psychologist to decide whether this piffle proffered to the worker arises from sheer ignorance or in more or less sub-conscious obedience to the interests; of its paymasters, or a loathsome mixture of both. The Fabian gang in the Government could at least have saved the Herald from its "economists.” Perhaps the Herald's editor, Percy Cudlipp, will find occasion to explain further on a ‘‘Brains Trust ” ; better still, the columns of the ‘‘Socialist Standard” are open to him.

The Catechism some of us were taught in our early youth solemnly counselled us to be content with that state of life into which it shall please God to call us. Substitute ‘‘Capitalist Class” for ‘‘God” and you have the true intent of wage-pegging. Sir Stafford Cripps’ fervent belief in Christianity the perfect cure for all crises is quite consistent with his mixture of frantic appeals and threats to the worker to “produce” more and ever more; Attlee and Morrison, the other two Persons of an Unholy Trinity, must find it difficult to hide their sardonic smiles.

As to the second main point of the White Paper: Speeding up is a very ancient device for the squeezing till the pips squeak of the slave, chattel or wage variety. A claim is put out that a benevolent government, oozing concern at every pore for the worker, is forced to propose measures which it believes will be of a temporary nature. Much the same sort of plea was put forward after the first World War; humbugs of the Lloyd George variety are replaced on the political stage by an astuter crowd of actors, smart Alecs who have raised the art of political thimble-rigging to the high degree demanded by a rather more politically alert working class that was so easily taken in formerly.

It is worth noting that a Party coloured with crypto-Communists has learnt something from Soviet Russia in the direction of speeding up in the mining industry. Stakhanovism is being quietly but firmly-infiltrated; the more than platonic flirtation of the Government and the Trade Unions with Miss Piece Work should open the eyes of disinterested Unionists and spur rank-and-file to action.

“Go to it” was the perfect expression of the super-driving Government foreman. How long do you propose letting these highly paid tools of plutocracy, who have climbed on your back to power, alternatively wheedle and bully you, greeting you as "heroes" when you cannon-fodder for them, and yelping the ancient insult, "Ye are idle; ye are idle," when you humbly ask for straw to make bricks for the stately homes of England? While your wife is looking old before her time engaged in a hopeless struggle to make ends meet in a “home" which lacks the most elementary essentials of comfort, let alone common decency.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always recognised the importance of Trade Unionism as a factor in the working-class struggle, but is only too conscious of its limitations as a weapon of emancipation. Its "bargaining" function is useful if only for keeping alive a determination not to be driven to mere serfdom. To delegates on the floor of the next T.U.C. Conference, we offer a few points for their earnest consideration: -

First of all, read this: "Mr. J. A. Hall, president of the Yorkshire Mineworkers' Association, told strikers at Hemsworth that they had stabbed him in the back, and said that Mr. Bevin was their best friend in the Cabinet. The Porter Award, with its £5 a week minimum, was the finest piece of mining legislation ever produced. Among the miners was a greedy section who were never satisfied." (News Chronicle, April 10th, 1944.) This is typical talk of the "Leaders" who will be ecstatically cheered when they deign to beam upon you from the platform, snugly ensconced behind a beautiful barbed-wire of Standing Orders.

A member of our Party wrote to the editor: "I sincerely hope there will be a big increase of "greedy miners" who fail to see how they can live anywhere near the standard of life enjoyed by their 'leaders.' I find £6 a week pension barely adequate to run a modest cottage, and make due provision for a possible widow. As one Government (ex) employee to another performing crisis-saving work, I shake hands with the "greedy miner.' "

On October 1st, 1935, at the Brighton Labour Conference, Bevin set about George Lansbury, and properly debunked the Saint of Bow. (See “Guilty Men," p. 33, by Michael Foot; Gollancz.) Is it beyond hope (alas) that one single humble delegate will do something in the direction of debunking both Hall and the Miners' Best Friend?

If space permitted, the sorry history of Trade Union "leadership" told at adequate length, would surely convince the Floor that their sickening adulation of leaders, and patient bearing of whip-cracking needed severe revision.

Just a brief indication of the kind of weapons you forge against yourselves by giving your brains in pawn to the Halls, the Lawthers, the Bevins, the Horners.

G. N. Barnes was once secretary of the A.E.U. He was Minister of Pensions during the first World War. There were 100.000 men "many who ought never to have been taken into the army, and are now physical wrecks " (Daily News, 7/3/16). Pensions were asked (Tories like Hogge warmly assenting) for these hopelessly broken tools. Barnes replied, "They will not get it while I am in office." Comment is needless.

Have you older men forgotten Trade Union Leader Hodge, who, as Minister of Labour in that war, was one of Lloyd Georges' most efficient snarling dogs? We hope your Public Library has "Workman's Cottage to Windsor Castle." Read it—take the chance if you have a delicate stomach. Just one quotation: “In the summer of 1930, Mr. John Baker was entertaining a lady friend and myself to tea on the terrace, when Lady Astor came out of the House, in that vivacious way of hers which makes other women jealous, put her arm round my neck, and said, "It's real nice to see your face again. How are you?' She peered at me and asked 'Why doesn’t MacDonald make you a peer?' 'There he is. Lady Astor,' said I, pointing to MacDonald, 'ask him!' "

Well, to quote Sterne on another sad occasion, "Shall I go on . . . No."

Augustus Snellgrove

Notes by the Way: Cock-eyed Trade Unionism (1950)

The Notes by the Way Column from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Cock-eyed Trade Unionism

Before the Labour Party became the Government, when Labour propaganda was more exuberant and unrestrained, trade unionists were always told that a Labour Government would push up wages at the expense of profits.

But Labour in power is very different from Labour in opposition, and now the Government devotes its principal efforts to persuading the workers not to make wage claims. This turnabout reached the peak of the fantastic late in December, 1949, when the Government held parallel meetings, with the T.U.C. on the one side and with the British Employers’ Confederation on the other.

The purpose was first to persuade the T.U.C. to accept wage-freezing and recommend it to its constituent unions. The T.U.C. agreed. The Government then appealed to the employers and we are told that they also pledged their support to Government policy on wages, production and profits. Here are some Press reports of the pledge given by the employers' spokesman to Mr. Bevin:—

“The Foreign Secretary gave a review of the present national situation, and asked for the co-operation of employers in the necessary efforts to secure stabilisation and increased production.

“Sir Greville Maginess (president), on behalf of the Confederation, gave the assurance that the employers would co-operate fully in the national interest.” (Daily Herald 22/12/49).

The Herald went on to explain:—

“The mention of “stabilisation” is believed to refer to the continued need for restraint on personal incomes, including wage rates, profits and dividends.”

The Times (22/12/49) added a few points, under the charming heading

"Employers promise support for wage stabilisation.”

Lastly, Mr. Ernest Bevin appealed to representatives of 50 employers' federations for their help in securing stabilisation and increased production. The last meeting was remarkable in that it found Mr. Bevin, the old trade union leader, appealing, among other things, to employers for their co-operation in stabilizing wages. . . . Sir Greville Maginess, on behalf of the confederation assured him of the employers* support.” (Times 22/12/49).

So we have reached the ironical position that the Labour Government (which promised higher wages) asks for and receives the backing of the T.U.C. (which exists to press for higher wages) for a policy of wage-freezing; and as if that isn't funny enough, the Government then appeals to the employers (whose interest it is to resist wage claims anyway) to promise in effect that they will go on resisting them.

The supporters of Labour Government, of course, defend themselves by saying that circumstances compel the Government to act in this way.

We agree up to the hilt; with, however, the slight amplification that the “circumstances" referred to are that the Labour Government has taken on the job of keeping Capitalism going.

Mr. Horner and the “Daily Worker”

In its issue for 30th December. 1949, the Communist Daily Worker reported that the miners’ national delegate conference had voted in favour of “wage-freezing” by passing a resolution endorsing the policy of the Trades Union Congress General Council. The resolution read: —

“Having regard to the serious economic situation of the country, we approve the terms of the report of the General Council in relation to T.U.C. wages policy.”

The Daily Worker condemned the resolution and urged the miners to reject it; and described the “wage-freezing” policy as one "foisted on the Trades Union Congress by the Government.” The Daily Worker reporter, Mr. George Sinfield, stated that "several leaders” of the miners told him that if the policy of withdrawal of wage-claims is pursued there will be serious repercussions in the pits.

It will be noticed that Mr. Sinfield talked about the matter with several miners’ leaders, but one of them he does not mention. That one is Mr. Arthur Horner who is General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, and is a year-long member of the Communist Party. The Daily Worker said nothing at all about their esteemed Communist Party colleague, but the omission is made good by the Manchester Guardian. The latter, on the same day, reported that the resolution which the Daily Worker found so obnoxious and which was presented to the delegate meeting by the Union's Executive, was “moved by Mr. Arthur Homer," secretary of the Union.

Ask the Basutos to come and help us

The following are recent news items: —

“Professor G. I. Jones, lecturer in anthropology at Cambridge University, has been sent to South Africa by the Colonial Office in an attempt to trace to its psychological source the wave of ritual murders which is sweeping Basutoland” (E. Standard 26/11/49).

The other items refer not to Basutoland, but to crime in Britain:—

”Except for the year 1946 there has been an annual increase since 1938 in the number of indictable offences. The 1938 figure of 283,220 rose to 522,634 in 10 years.

The 1948 figure of 40 murders was the highest in the 10-year period. The lowest was 20 in 1944.” (D. Telegraph 6/1/1950).

“Number in gaol, highest for 38 years.” (D. Telegraph 29/9/49).

The Professor seems to be travelling in the wrong direction.

The Catch in the "Welfare State"

The Labour Government claims credit for having introduced or extended various social services, and tries to give the impression that they represent a clear gain for the workers. This is only half the story. In the first place part of the expenditure on unemployment pay, sickness benefits, etc., is met from the workers’ own national insurance contributions.

Secondly, as was pointed out by the S.P.G.B. when the Labour Party campaign for social reforms was in its infancy, when the workers are relieved of the need to pay for certain necessities, they have to struggle against pressure by the employers to reduce wages correspondingly.

Bodies responsible for arbitrating on wage claims, even when they do not put it down in black and white, take these factors into account in their awards.

And to put the matter beyond any possibility of dispute we have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, stating the position in set terms in Parliament.

He was explaining the Government’s insistence that there should be no departures from the wage-freezing policy except in the case of very low wages, and he made it clear that when you are considering whether a wage comes under this heading it is necessary not only to consider the wage itself but also the benefits provided under the social service schemes.

“The White Paper must, therefore, be observed strictly, and it is only in the exceptional and genuine cases where some wage survives which, together with all the subsidies and social services, is insufficient to provide a family with a minimum reasonable standard of living, that there can be any possible excuse for going forward with a claim for an increase.” (Cripps, Hansard, 27/9/49. Col. 26).

Old Age Pensions in the U.S.A.

The same issue is arising in U.S.A. in a slightly different form. There is an old-age pension scheme covering 35 million workers, the fund being financed by equal contributions from employers and workers, supplemented by additional income raised by taxation. The old-age pension is 26 dollars a month for a single man and 41 dollars for a married couple.

But in recent months workers in some big industries have, by strikes, forced the employers to agree to pay a non-contributory old-age pension in addition to the Government old-age pension. According to the Manchester Guardian, from which the above details are taken, the steel employers and the Ford Motor Co. have agreed to pay whatever amount is required to make up the old-age pension to 100 dollars a month. Workers in other industries are threatening strikes for similar agreements, and “it is likely that this system of industrial pensions, to which the employees do not contribute, will spread widely through American industry.” (Manchester Guardian, 5/1/50.)

Just at this moment the Truman Government, with its eye on forthcoming elections, is proposing to extend the Government old-age pension scheme both by bringing in millions of workers now outside and by increasing the amount of the pension, which at present is small by American standards.

The cost of the scheme will of course go up but the interesting point is that the American employers have an obvious financial motive for supporting the increase in the amount of Government old age pensions because the larger the Government pension the smaller will be the amount the steel and other employers will need to bring the total up to 100 dollars a month.

“Industrialists have therefore a strong motive for supporting, or at least accepting, a liberalisation of the Federal scheme. It will put some additional weight on their shoulders, both in taxes and in levies on wages; but it will relieve them of the threat of a much greater weight" (M. Guardian 5/1/1950).

It will be seen that capitalism works in much the same way whether it be called a Labour “Welfare State” or a Truman “New Deal ”.

No Wage-freeze here

The Government's attempts to get the workers voluntarily to refrain from demanding wage increases to compensate for the rising cost of living are meeting with more resistance and there is no doubt that one of the reasons is that trade unionists note and resent the way in which lucky individuals vastly improve their own position by being appointed to highly paid jobs on the Boards of nationalised industries.

In the issue of the House of Commons Hansard for 8 December, 1949, the Prime Minister gave a complete list of all the members of the Boards and all their salaries and allowances. The full-time posts range up to £8,500 (plus allowances), which is the amount paid to Viscount Hyndley, Chairman of the Coal Board, to Lord Citrine, Chairman of British Electricity Authority, and to Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Chairman of the British Transport Commission.

Other full-time members mostly receive £3,100 or £5,000, and part-time members £500, £750 or £1,000.

Many are former trade union officials and the large difference between what they were paid for that job and what they get on the Boards sufficiently explains the competition for appointments. The Labour Correspondent of The Times (31/12/49) points out that about a quarter of the members of the T.U.C. General Council in 1945-6 are now on State Boards. He writes:— 

“In addition to Lord Citrine, then T.U.C. general secretary, the list includes seven general secretaries of important unions—Mr. Ebby Edwards, of the miners; Mr. Jack Benstead, of the railwaymen; Sir Joseph Hallsworth, of the distributive workers; Mr. E. W. Bussey, of the electrical workers; Mr. W. P. Allen, of the locomotive engineers and firemen; Mr. George Gibson, of the mental hospital workers (who later resigned), and Mr. C. N. Gallie, of the railway clerks, who has a part-time appointment."

Apart from these ex-members of the T.U.C. General Council many other T.U. officials have been appointed to National and Regional Boards.

The Times Labour Correspondent also, for comparison, summarises the position in the trade union world:—

“One striking feature is the difference in the salary levels of members of boards and of trade union officials, who have often increased their earnings by four or five times by the change. Salaries of trade union officials probably average less than £800 a year. They vary from £400 or £500 a year up to about £1,500, or in one or two cases may be as high as £2,000. There are still chief officers who earn less than £1,000, though actual salaries are often augmented by such things as a free house and expenses arrangements." (Times 31/12/49).

Wisdom from Nigeria

To protect themselves and their dependants against destitution in old age people who can afford it take out life assurance policies and do so voluntarily. The Labour Government boasts that its national insurance and old age pension schemes are a very good thing, yet so little do the workers want to be compelled to contribute that the Government has to threaten them with legal penalties if they fail to do so. The purpose behind it is to even out the poverty of the working-class by taking contributions from the young to be returned when they are old; and from the more healthy to be paid out to the less healthy; and from those who are working to those who are unemployed. Some individuals can say that they gain out of this and welcome it, but in the final analysis the capitalist class anticipate that it is cheaper for them than was the old arrangement when the sick, unemployed and aged had to be given State relief and charity.

It appears from evidence given to the official inquiry into the troubles at the Nigerian mines that the miners have seen that there is a catch in the social reform argument. The following is from a report in The Times (19/1/50):—

"Mr. L. P. Ojukwu, one of the three I.B.O. members of the colliery board . . . told the Commission that steps had been taken to induce the workers to resume normal work when information of the go-slow strike had been received. On each occasion that he spoke to the men the reply was always that they wanted money. When he explained proposals for the extension of housing schemes, hospitals, and maternity homes and for the provision of other amenities he had been met with the argument: ‘Give us more money and we will provide these things ourselves.' "

They have something there and it is a pity we do not know what kind of answer they were given. It is an aspect on which our Labour Party defenders of reformed capitalism are always silent or obscure. 

Edgar Hardcastle

Political Notes: It’s an honour (1983)

The Political Notes Column from the August 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

It’s an honour

There has never been any reason to believe that Harold Wilson had designs to abolish himself so there must be some other explanation for the fact that, although when he was prime minister he announced that no more hereditary peers would be created, now that he is out of parliament he is reported to have accepted — to have wanted — such an honour for himself.

Of course this may be yet another — if especially obscure — example of Labour Party gradualism, of the theory that capitalism will eventually find itself ended through a succession of near-imperceptible steps. It is something over fifty years since the Labour Party announced that one such step would be the abolition of the House of Lords and Wilson's stated preference for the creation of life, as opposed to hereditary, lords was greeted as a gradualist move in the process of abolition sometime.

This enthusiasm — Labour supporters starved of real progress, have had to learn to exist on such contemptible crumbs — must have been dented when the police began to take a deep interest in several of the eminences so recently ennobled by Wilson.

Capitalism can do very nicely — as it does in places like America, France and Russia — without the tradition of dressing people up in funny clothes, pinning bits of ribbon and metal on them and giving them funny titles. Which is not to say that the system does not have some picturesque rewards for those who have given it special service.

Harold Wilson was one of these. He came to power through a skilfully worded pledge that working class problems could easily be conjured away through something called the technological revolution; that the micro chip would alter the basic nature of capitalism. Predictably, he and his government were soon bogged down in crisis. Their fine promises were forgotten as they grappled to deplete workers’ living standards. When they lost power they were thoroughly exposed and discredited and since then no more is heard of the harvest to be reaped from the white hot technological revolution. By any standards, a notable achievement by Wilson. He fully deserves his honour; capitalism has looked on him and found him to be good.

Head count

The debate over the restoration of the death penalty was loaded with moral considerations and much talk about the ethics of the judicial taking of life and the right of society to respond to a murder by itself murdering the killer. Almost everyone who took part agreed that this was a very important issue because with human lives at stake a careful and informed discussion was necessary. When it was over and the votes had been counted everyone could go home congratulating themselves for playing their part in such a highly charged occasion with full regard to their grave responsibility.

But what sort of problem were they talking about? If the death penally is restored so that it applies as it did before the Homicide Act of 1957 — before the introduction of degrees of murder — there will be about one execution a week in Britain. If a Bill goes through in this form, something like 60 people will die who would otherwise survive to serve a life sentence.

Now there is no denying that the death penalty is a disfiguring barbarity. There is no denying that the vast majority of murders can be said to be some sort of response to the inhumanities which capitalism imposes on its people, and which it expects them to survive with patience and conformity. But in comparison to the tens of millions who die each year through the simple fact that capitalism can’t meet the needs of the human race, the numbers who might be despatched by the hangman in Britain are insignificant. If MPs. and others who were convinced that they were arguing about moral issues, about the sanctity of human life, were sincere why are they so consistently able to ignore this massively greater death toll?

The answer is simple. The apologists for capitalism can discuss an issue like the death penalty, with its strictly limited scope, without ever needing to consider the wider and deeper responsibility of this social system for the problem. The whole thing can be talked out in terms of ethics, religion, insignificant reforms; when it is over capitalism is left undisturbed.

This is a much more comfortable way of approaching an issue, than one which might call into question the basics of society, their effect on people and the fact that this social system must degrade the people who keep it in existence. As so often happens, the debate on the death penalty was really about granting capitalism yet another reprieve.

Up school

Margaret Thatcher has not made her name as a political tactician of historic subtlety so perhaps she was unaware that, by sacking Francis Pym, she was depriving some of her opponents of one of their most cherished illusions. Pym's departure from the government meant that, with the exception of the increasingly ridiculous Lord Hailsham, there is now not one Old Etonian in the Cabinet — to say the least, an unusual situation for a Tory government and one to cause consternation in London's clubland.

It has always been a favourite left-wing pastime to tot up the numbers of Tory ministers who spent their schooldays at Eton and Harrow and to produce the result as proof that a Conservative government is in the hands of a small, privileged, self-perpetuating clique. At times, there seemed to be something to be said for this theory. Harold Macmillan, for example, seemed to go out of his way to give some top jobs, not just to Old Etonians but to those who were related to him. The lesson we were invited by the left wing to draw from this was that a government full of such high born people could not possibly understand, and deal with, the problems of the “ordinary” people and that we should therefore vote for a party with a less exclusive background.

Unhappily for this theory, we had the experience of Labour governments, many of whose ministers had not only not been to public school but had sometimes had very little formal schooling at all. Some of them were fond of reminding us of this, by applying an eccentric pronunciation which removed aitches from where they should be and stuck them back on where they should not be.

Jimmy Thomas was one such eminence; another was Ernie Bevin. Their place in political history is assured; they were zealous workers for the interests of the British capitalist class at no matter what cost to the class of their origin, the class which can't send its children to Eton or Roedean and which suffers the effects of the social system which Thomas and Bevin helped to administer.

Thomas, after a spell drunkenly contemplating the deepening misery of British workers in the slump of the late twenties, saved his miserable skin by joining the National government with the Tories and the Liberals. His aristocratic friends were much amused by his comical terminology. Bevin, among his many other achievements, saw British workers committed to the slaughter of the Korean war and the start of the British nuclear weapon programme.

The familial and social beginnings of the people who run capitalism is of absolutely no account. It is working class acquiescence in the system which is important. Without that the leaders would be impotent and redundant and we would have a society free of conflict and privilege.

Blogger's Note:

On the subject of capital punishment, this issue of the Socialist Standard also had a longer article on the subject: British rope trick

The Coal Crisis, Conscription and the Future (1943)

From the November 1943 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).

During the last two years another serious situation has developed, but this time the Government is seeking maximum production for war purposes, as coal production has failed to reach the figures estimated to be necessary. The severe winters of 1940 and 1941 exposed an acute coal shortage, and quickly the Government’s past policy received caustic criticism. The Economist stated : “It was assumed, far too easily, that, for the duration of the war, supply would be in excess of demand. Miners below the age of 30 were recruited into the Forces, and pits were assisted to close down. This is where the failure of foresight occurred.” (11/4/42). The national press demanded the return of skilled miners from the Armed Forces. Some were returned, but insufficient to stem the fall in production. Then in September, 1942, a district bonus scheme was instituted, which it was hoped would stimulate the miner to emulate the Russian Stakhanov. A weekly standard tonnage based on previous output, was fixed for each district and those districts reaching at least 1 per cent. above this, target qualify for bonuses. While this had some initial success, only a few districts have regularly qualified for bonus, and in recent months production has again declined.

It is this latest decline that has led to widespread accusations of indiscipline and absenteeism, and a call for speedier disciplinary action against the “culprits.” The Daily Telegraph, in a series of articles, suggested that the decline arose from “The pervading indiscipline which is at the root of the trouble”; and while the Economist states that this is not the main factor, it calls for “speedier and more direct measures to deal with offenders” (26/6/43). Previously it had pointed out that: “The main reasons for the decline in productivity . . . are probably the increasing age composition of the labour force . . . and the wastage of trained men.” (15/5/43).

We will not deal here with the charges of absenteeism and indiscipline, except to put on record the careful analysis by the Minister of Fuel, Major G. Ll. George, in the House of Commons : —

“Many Members may not know, however, that the number of absences reported each year involving absence for three days or more is between 150,000 and 160,000—that is, on an average, one man in four suffers injury involving absence of three days or more at least once in the year. There are in a year 135,000 cases involving absence for eight days or more. The industry has a very high rate of occupational sickness, while the miner is more prone than people in most other industries to rheumatism.” (House of Commons report, 23/6/43.)

Those who criticise the miners rarely use this information—they are interested only in the “avoidable” absentee figures (4½ per cent.) given by the Minister of Fuel. Analysis and truth, they are not primarily concerned with—abuse is good enough when threatening the “indisciplined” wage-slave of the mine.

One of the chief factors in the crisis is the fact that coal, like all other commodities, is produced not solely for use but for profit, and will not be produced unless the owners consider that there is a reasonable chance of profit. After June 1940 production was curtailed because the markets of France and Italy were closed to Britain. Many of the pits that supplied these markets either worked short time or closed down. The reservation age of the miners was raised, miners went to other industries or faced once more the crisis they had known for 20 years—unemployment. Again there was too much coal in Britain, and as it could not be sold it was not produced. That this curtailment of production in 1940 is the basis of the present crisis in the industry is contended by Mr. D. Grenfell, M.P. (former Parliamentary Secretary for Mines), who in the House of Commons stated recently : —

“We had more than enough men. We had more than enough production. Pits were closing down and our men were standing idle just over three years ago. . . . There was no shortage. … I warned everybody concerned that we would want these idle pits brought into production; that we should not disperse the men who were standing idle.” (House of Commons report, 23/6/43.)

Note the Labour Leader enunciating the expedient of keeping the unemployed in reserve until production can start again. Another factor is that some coal-owners are concentrating on the poorer seams and are leaving the better seams until the end of the war, or until more favourable selling conditions prevail. This has been denied, but the statement of Mr. T. Fraser, Labour M.P. for Hamilton, indicated that this practice does exist : —

“Men and materials are being directed to this mine but in such small quantity as to ensure the coal will not be in production for some time to come, but will probably be in time for a competitive market after the war. We have two other cases of mine-driving that we allege have been deliberately impeded for years so that good quality, good selling seams may be reached at another time.” (Forward, 31/7/43.)

Even in war the interests of particular groups of capitalists will cut across the interest of the capitalists as a class. Profit is the motive of capitalism—patriotism is for the miners only.

With the recognition that little increase can be expected from the present labour force, the Government have made proposals to attract others to the industry. Mr. Bevin at the Miners’ Federation Conference (20/7/43) and Major LI. George in Parliament (29/7/43) suggested conscripting lads of 16—18 for the mines. This has been met with some opposition, and it has not yet been proceeded with. Few of those who opposed the proposed measure realised that the 70,000 lads between the ages of 14—18 who worked in the mines in pre-war days (1938) were also conscripts, hunger-conscripts. Their property-less position, their poverty and the social conditions around them forced them into the mines. To-day they are able to find work less dangerous and arduous than coal-hewing, so Mr. Bevin is preparing to drive them back to the mine.

Recently a campaign for 30,000 volunteers has been launched; Mr. Bevin has spoken on the radio extolling the industry, and Trade Union leaders promised their help in boosting this campaign. But a blow has been struck that may sever the miners’ leaders from the intended “boost.” The decision of the National Tribunal on miners’ wages to award young miners wages considerably below those demanded was received by Mr. W. Lawther, President of the Miners’ Federation, with “angry amazement.” Mr. Lawther decided, in view of this decision, to cancel his intended broadcast in support of the campaign (Daily Herald, 7/9/43).

May we ask Mr. Lawther the question, “Upon what premises or promises did you lend your aid to this campaign ?” The miners have had lock-outs, wage-cuts and broken promises for 20 years, and this latest “award” is by no means the “unkindest cut.” The events of the past did not prevent labour leaders from co-operating with the ruling class in its handling of labour problems, did not prevent them from popularising the Essential Work Order; in other words, despite the lessons of the past, the labour leaders gave unstinted support to the ruling class to enable them to conscript and regiment members of the working class in the defence of capitalist interests. Where is the difference in principle that precludes co-operation now? Three years ago ample opportunity existed to force concessions from the capitalists; instead, sacrifices were asked from the workers on the plea of “national unity.” We would suggest that it is a little late to bemoan a “disgraceful award.”

Like all other capitalist industry, mining has no joyous and hopeful future for its workers. Mr. Grenfell in the Daily Herald (3/5/43) says, “there should be co-operation between managements and workers. . . . The miner must be allowed to take part in the day-to-day production of the pits. Our pits can be made to work better. . . .” His intention is to secure for the miners “better living and working conditions.” How the proposals will improve conditions is not shown. Apparently it is believed that increased production is the key to improved conditions. A glance at some production figures related to the average wages earned will explode the idea that working-class prosperity is dependent upon output.

 Year Coal produced per man. Average wage 

1920 (10 day’s stoppage) 187 tons £4 6s 11

1922 217 tons £2 8s 1d

1932 255 tons £2 2s 1d

— (Appendices IV. and VI., “The Coal Problem.” Dickie.)

In an article on the “Coal Question,” the Economist took a similar view to Mr. Grenfell, stressing the need for more men now, and arguing that in the first stage after the war 850.000—900,000 may be needed to supply Europe with coal. But in the second stage :—

“Europe’s coalfields will return to full work again ; . . . . Then the British coal industry operating with a contracted labour force (say of 600,000) will have to stand on its own feet in competition with other coal-producing countries, and rely on productivity rather than on abundant labour.” (7/8/43.)

What will happen to the 300,000 excluded from the “contracted” labour force? On this the Economist remains silent. Their simple solution to the coal problem is more mechanisation, improved efficiency and unified national control. The Secretary of a South Wales Miners’ Federation lodge showed what mechanisation means to the miner : “Mechanisation employed from a profit motive has made mining into an inferno of dust—the horror of dust sweeping into your lungs until they are solid lumps and you die slowly and painfully.” (Reynolds News, 5/9/43.) More mechanisation—more silicosis.

We can see that the future that capitalism offers to the miners is poverty, high incidence of silicosis, nystagmus (the eye disease prevalent in the mines) fatal accidents at the rate of 1,000 a year, and increasing unemployment. The perpetuation of capitalism means the perpetuation of these evils. The reforms advocated would leave capitalism intact, while nationalisation and public ownership are only different forms of capitalist ownership. The miner’s problem cannot be solved in isolation—it can be solved only when the workers unite for Socialism. Common ownership of the means of wealth production is the only solution of the workers problems. Our message to the miners and all other workers is to study the Socialist case and organise politically for the capture of the political machinery in order to establish Socialism. That alone will ensure the workers’ future.

Lew Jones

Editorial: The Post Office Workers and the Trade Disputes Act (1943)

Editorial from the September 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

By the time these words are in print the question of the affiliation of the Post Office Workers’ Union to the Trades Union Congress will probably have been settled temporarily—by being shelved; but the consequences of the campaign will not end there. The Post Office workers have done good work by bringing the issue to the fore, and have made it certain that the whole question of the 1927 Trade Disputes Act will be a live issue after the war, even if, in the meantime, the Government makes or promises to make some concession over the single issue of the affiliation of lower grade Civil Service unions to the T.U.C.

The 1927 Act was ostensibly introduced because in 1920 some millions of workers came out on strike to help the miners. Actually its causes went much further back than that. The employing class were badly frightened by what happened in 1926, but some at least of them realised that that spontaneous demonstration was a symptom of a slow change that was taking place in the outlook of the workers. The workers were gradually becoming more conscious of the fact that as a class, irrespective of occupation, they have a common interest, to be expressed politically as well as industrially, against the employing class. Mr. Churchill, at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, put it as follows :

“The development of trade unionism, particularly in the present century and particularly in the last decade, has produced a very great change in the situation. We have seen the trade unions become great political factors, actively engaged in party politics, in endeavouring to secure the return to Parliament or to office of one particular set of politicians, and to oppose the interests of the others.” (Quoted in Parliamentary Report May 30, 1927, col. 55.)

The 1927 Act sought to hinder or undo this development by making any strike (or lock-out) illegal “if it has any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute within the trade or industry in which the strikers are engaged, and is a strike designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting hardship upon the community.”

The Act curtailed the legal right of picketing, made it necessary for trade unionists to give individual consent, in writing, before contributions to the political fund could be collected from them, forbad Local Authorities to make compulsory Union membership a condition of employment, and forbad Civil Service Unions to have outside trade union or political affiliations or to have political objects.

While the employing class and their instrument, the Tory Party, may be induced to make some concession to Civil Service Unions, they will do so with understandable reluctance. They know quite well that to concede something now on one clause of the Act will only be followed by demands for concessions on other clauses, and if they have to give way on the whole Act, that will be a definite set-back for them. Actually Civil Service unions in this country are more restricted than in the U.S.A. or the British Dominions. Generally speaking, the unions there can and do affiliate with outside trade unions, support political parties and affiliate with the International Postal Workers’ trade union movement, so that the Tories cannot argue that concession to the Civil Service unions is impracticable in itself.

The Sanctity of the Law

The campaign has had its interesting features. For 16 years the Civil Service Unions and the T.U.C. have protested against the 1927 Act, but nobody took any notice. All they got from the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain early in the war was a sort of promise that if they behaved themselves the matter might be considered after victory. Then the Post Office workers decided to carry on in defiance of the law. With startling suddenness the Press and the politicians woke up and broke into an almost unanimous chorus of protest. “Perhaps there is a case for changing the law,” they said— though they had usually been silent about it hitherto—”but no Government can ignore, or act under, a threat of law-breaking. This is Fascism, not democracy.”

(It may be remarked here that the Post Office workers did not take the only possible line. They could have tried quietly encroaching on the Act on the assumption that the Government, being fully occupied with the war, might ignore it.)

The Government, which includes three Labour Members, Messrs. Bevin, Attlee and Morrison, then issued a pompous warning to Post Office workers that if they persisted they would cease to be eligible for employment as established (i.e., permanent and pensionable) Civil Servants.

This talk about democracy and law-breaking sounds rather unconvincing in the light of certain facts. First, it is worth remembering that it was in 1927, when the Act was passed, that Mr. Churchill was praising Italian Fascism, and leading Fascist newspapers were returning the compliment by claiming that the Act was on Fascist lines. It should also be recalled that some of the leading members of the 1927 Tory Government had themselves in the past been active preachers and organisers of defiance against the Government. Lord Birkenhead and Sir William Joynson-Hicks were among those responsible for the 1927 Act, who had distinguished themselves by backing the Ulster preparations for rebellion (with German arms) against the Liberal Government of 1912-14 on the issue of Irish Home Rule. It was Lord Birkenhead who had said (January 22, 1912, at Liverpool) : “There is no length to which Ulster will not be entitled to go—however desperate or unconstitutional—in carrying the quarrel,” and again (at Ballyclare on September 20, 1913), “we shall stand side by side with you, refusing to recognise any law, and prepared with you to risk the collapse of the whole body politic to prevent this monstrous crime.”

The above quotations are taken from a leaflet issued by the Labour Party and T.U.C. in 1927. At that time Mr. Ernest Bevin was even talking of defying the law himself. In a speech at a Trade Union Conference called to oppose the 1927 Bill he touched on the possibility of members of his Union being ordered by the Courts to work with blacklegs, and said, “I am afraid that all the illegality and all the decisions would not influence us very much.”

Just as the poachers of 1912 turned into gamekeepers in 1927, so it seems that Messrs. Bevin, Attlee and Morrison have had their heads turned in 1943. The curious feature about this is that Mr. Attlee long ago knew and wrote about what happens in such a situation as the present one. His present plea is that he and the other Labour members are in the Government to fight foreign Fascism and must stand by the Government and see the law is enforced. In 1937, in “The Labour Party in Perspective,” he discussed what the Labour Party ought to do about coalitions to fight Fascism, and strongly urged that the Labour Party ought not to support Capitalist Governments. This is what he wrote :

“There are those who, realising the danger of menace of the Fascist Powers, tend to take up an attitude of supporting a Capitalist Government at home as the least of two evils. They tend to under-estimate the reality of the struggle between Capitalism and Socialism, and to magnify the differences between democratic Capitalist States and Fascist States. The danger of this attitude is that in fighting foreign Fascism they may encourage the subtle introduction of Fascism at home. (Labour Party in Perspective, p. 220.)

When the Labour members entered the Government in 1940, Mr. Attlee gave as one of the reasons, “To maintain the unity of the nation.” It should by now be apparent to Mr. Attlee that by taking on joint responsibility with Tories and Liberals for running Capitalism at war he has put himself in the position of directly opposing a. demand made by the Trade Unions and hitherto supported by himself. In other words, he is dividing himself from the trade union movement in the name of “national unity.” Thus does the reality of the class struggle break through. All of which points unmistakeably to the acute struggles which will up on the home front after the war ends, when the capitalist politicians—now stridently calling for liberty in foreign parts—will return to the old job of keeping the workers in subjection at home. Even members of the Labour Party who favoured the entry of their leaders into the National Government in 1940 may wonder why they did not have the foresight to insist beforehand on explicit concessions from the Tories, including legislation to amend the 1927 Act.

One lesson the incident drives home once more is the certainty that those who control the political machinery, the Government, can withstand and suppress efforts by trade unions or others to force their hand. The road to emancipation for the workers lies through gaining control of the political machinery.

The Trade Union Movement must face the issue (1944)

From the August 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Recent legislation sponsored by the Minister of Labour —who, incidentally, remains General Secretary of the numerically powerful Transport and General Workers’ Union—has caused much fluttering in the Trade Union dovecotes.

As it can safely be assumed that most readers are, as members of the working class, members of their appropriate trade union, with more than a casual interest in the day to day problems which affect the propertyless class, forced to sell its labour power for wages to the capitalist class, we need not concern ourselves with the details of the legislation at this stage.

As Socialists, however, we give thought to the effects that will be forthcoming in the future. One sure indication is that the split between the industrial and political wings of the so-called “Labour movement” becomes wider with the passage of time. There is a definite struggle within the Trade Union movement for control of the movement. Until quite recent years most Trade Union officials were elderly men who did not assume office until they were well advanced in years. Their days of tackling a proposition in a speedy and energetic manner had passed before assuming office. In most cases they had reached a period of elderly complacency and sought to tackle problems with the minimum of effort or hard work. The psychological result is, of course, that these elderly officials become—consciously or sub-consciously—bureaucrats, who dampen the ardour of active members of less mature years, possessing energy, enthusiasm and a desire to tackle the job. A considerable number of these elderly Trade Union officials also have a profitable sideline. In addition to the salaries and emoluments they receive from their respective Trade Unions, they also draw an additional £600 as members of the House of Commons. Many of them have been placed on pensions by their Trade Unions—having reached the age of 65 years—but still continue to sit in the House of Commons until death intervenes. Little more than a sheep-like obedience to the Party Whips can be expected from these ageing Isaiahs.

Whilst there will be little opposition to the newly introduced legislation from the rank and file of the two big General Unions, whose docility to and support of its officials at all times and in all matters has for long past been painfully apparent, the rank and file of the craft Unions are not being so docile. Despite the exhortations of the Arthur Homers and Jack Tanners, the rank and file of the South Wales Miners’ Federation and the Amalgamated Engineering Union have already expressed in no uncertain terms their opposition to the new legislation. The rank and file of other Unions—despite official support for Bevin’s ordinances—are no less opposed.

This is by no means the first of a series of legislative acts that will reduce the Trade Union movement, even as a field for collective bargaining within capitalist society, to a state bordering on impotency.

Any airy platitudes to the effect that the Trades Union movement will be a midwife in attendance at the birth of Socialism will be sheer wind chewing and humbug, unless the Trades Union movement can direct its own destiny in the first place.

All Socialists who are members of their Trade Union work within the structure of their Union to make their fellow-workers understand and appreciate the position of the only Socialist party—the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

With this understanding clearly fixed in the minds of the majority of Trade Unionists, their Unions will become live, fearless and potent bodies in the class struggle, and will play their part in the birth of a new society in which the means of wealth production and distribution will be commonly owned and democratically administered in the interests of the community as a whole. Socialism is the only hope of the working class, of which the Trade Unionist is a part.

Lewis Lee