The Plight of the Cotton workers. (1928)

From the March 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lancashire’s staple industry, the manufacture of cotton goods, has for some years felt the effects of Indian and Japanese competition in markets once their own. Taking "1913" as the pre-war basis, Lancashire’s total post-war production per year, of cotton piece goods, has never reached two-thirds of the pre-war figure. Lancashire has lost, in bulk, one-third of its export trade since 1913. The usual effects of this loss of trade have taken place. Millowners have become bankrupt and mills have been mortgaged to the banks.

Meanwhile the cotton workers have suffered successive decreases in wages, “short time,” and existed mainly on unemployment pay and outdoor relief. A century ago, Lancashire, with its advanced methods of production, could easily compete with other countries that were then backward, socially and economically. Now these countries have advanced into the capitalist economy, and are using modern methods of production, using textile machinery which Lancashire has exported, to compete with Lancashire.

Japan, India and China, by the aid of the low standard of life of the workers and the longer hours of work, are enabling the capitalists of those countries to undersell Lancashire in the marketing of cotton piece goods.

The conditions experienced by the Lancashire workers during the 19th century are now being undergone by the workers of Japan, India and China.

In the Manchester Guardian of November 13th, 1926, appeared the statement that

“The Japanese mills are mostly worked by women and girls, who enlist—’enlist’ is the most appropriate word—for three years, are housed in places like barracks for that period, and have to work ten hours a day —half of them on night shifts—for low wages.”

Even this appears favourable when compared with the conditions at one time endured by the English cotton worker. J. L. & B. Hammond, in their work “The Town Labourer,” p. 22, state

“That the normal working day in Manchester and neighbourhood in 1825 varied from twelve and a half to fourteen hours and mills, like mines, sometimes worked night and day.”

Children of seven and upwards were sent by various parish authorities to work in the mills. Describing the conditions endured by these children the “Hammonds” state (p. 145) that

“Next door to the mills prentice-houses were built, and in these two buildings their young lives were spent, at best in monotonous toil, at worst in a hell of human cruelty. If their masters failed in business their labours ceased and they were cast adrift into the world. A model mill at Styal, near Manchester, employed from seventy to eighty children procured from the Liverpool Workhouse, living in a small prentice-house near the mill. Here, where kindness was the rule, and the children’s education was supervised by members of the owner’s family noted for its benevolence, the working hours were seventy-four a week, or over twelve a day, Saturday included.”

At any rate the cotton masters have nothing to learn from the Asiatic in regard to industrial exploitation. Recently the Master Cotton Spinners’ Association opened negotiations with the operatives on the proposal to lengthen the normal working week of 48 hours to 52¼. The fact that the operatives are working short time, owing to the inability of the employers to sell the commodities that could be produced in a 48-hour week does not appear to bother the reasoning capacity of the cotton masters. The cotton workers are badly organised, and it is doubtful if they can put up much of a struggle against the continual lowering of their standard of life. The workers in the cotton industry have toiled to produce wealth for their masters’ benefit. What in return does the capitalist system offer them? Only worse conditions, if such are possible. The plight of the cotton workers is only an example of the general conditions of the working class in this social system. The Socialist Party of Great Britain claim that the reason the working class are unable to obtain a decent standard of life is that the wealth the workers produce is owned by the employing class.

The capitalists own the means of wealth production, land, factories, machinery, means of transportation, etc., and allow the workers to produce further wealth and give them in return just sufficient of the necessaries of life to keep them alive to produce more wealth. The masters will only allow the workers to use the means of production when they can sell the commodities the workers produce at a profit.

If the capitalist cannot sell these commodities they close the factories. The workers are then unable to sell their working power, and unless they can obtain relief from charity or insurance, they are forced to go without the necessaries of life.

If the working class could obtain access to the means of wealth production, they could produce more than sufficient to keep every member of the community in comfort. The working class by supporting Socialism would obtain control of the political machinery and use it to take the means of wealth production from the present owners. The community would then have the means to give every person the full benefit of the enormous amount of wealth that is produced by modern methods of production.

H. A.

Ideals and realities. (1924)

From the April 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

No doubt the upholders of this best of all worlds—the present Capitalist system—would like everything to appear coloured in the satisfaction of their own being. From the Duke of Northumberland to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, all are intensely satisfied, because they want for nothing. A rosy world it is for them, coloured in the light of their own satisfied needs. What matter that hunger and poverty stalk abroad unhampered among the working class ; the class that produces the necessities, as well as the luxuries of life upon which these people fatten. “Be reconciled to the present state of things,” they say to the working class “for fear worse things befall you.” “Look at Russia,” and they hold their breath at this spectre, not long enough, unfortunately, to cause internal disruption.

“How silly to strike for better conditions, look at the loss in terms of pounds, and the harm you do to the community by so doing,” they inform the workers. How quickly these people can change their names.

Societies for the reconciliation of capitalists and workers have sprung up like mushrooms and have as quickly disappeared.

The attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable are more than they or their arch priest, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, with all his astuteness, can manage.

They may turn aside for the moment the efforts of the workers to raise their standard of life; an effort which can only be attained at first at the expense of the Capitalist class, but with irresistible force the dam of platitudes is broken down under the pressure of economic forces. The inherent contradictions in the present social system are such as to play havoc with all absolute ideals.

On the one hand the Capitalist desires as much profit as possible. To obtain this he must pay as little as possible for the worker’s commodity, “labour power.” It is always the Capitalist’s desire to keep the price of labour power at a minimum, compatible with its efficiency. On the other hand the worker desires to obtain as high a price as possible for his commodity, labour power. The result is an antagonism between the two, which is impossible in the present social system to prevent. The workers in Trade and Industrial Unions are so organised because they realise that by this method they can more effectively struggle for a better price for their labour power, which price they obtain in the form of wages.

In spite of the nebulous sitting on the fence attitude of many Trade Union officials they are forced to act in this struggle, for otherwise the workers would repudiate them.

During the last few months this conflict of interests has been shown by the Railmen and the Dockers, and now the Miners are proving the truth that this class antagonism cannot be prevented under this system.

The platitudes of Reconciliation. Pacifism, No More War, etc., are like feathers blown about in a gale. 

Not long ago we had the spectacle of professed pacifist Members of Parliament, including J. H. Hudson and A W. Haycock, Parliamentary Members for Huddersfield and West Salford respectively, both of whom had served long terms of imprisonment during the war in their stand against militarism, voting credits for five cruisers, while jingo liberal M.P.’s voted against the bill.

Thus we get the difference between pacifist platitudes and practice. War, and therefore the means for waging war, are almost inevitable in a system in which countries like Great Britain, America, France, Japan, etc., producing an enormous surplus of commodities, and desiring markets for these commodities, get in each other’s way in that desire. The main cause of the last war lies in this fact.

Very few now deny that the competition for markets between Germany, and Great Britain was a big factor in bringing about the last war. The camouflage phrases of the “Rights of Small Nations,” the “crushing of Prussian Militarism,” were but the poison gas behind which the real cause was concealed.

Thè working class by applying their energy to Nature’s materials produce all wealth, yet they do not own it. A small non-producing class owns the greater portion.

In the Manifesto of the S.P.G.B., page 22, a calculation of thé wealth produced in this country from a Capitalist source gave the workers share of this wealth in Great Britain as one-third. On page 23 a computation by Carol D. Wright, one-time Commissioner of Labour to the U.S.A. Government, gave the workers’ share in U.S.A. as an eighth of his product. What does the Capitalist Class do with the remaining portion?

However lavishly it expands this superfluity it is impossible for this class to rid itself of all this abundance very quickly by ordinary channels. Markets must be found to realise the profit on the goods produced. Otherwise these goods lie in the warehouses and become a burden instead of an asset. The fact that people need these goods does not form an effective demand. Workers may go about without boots, clothing, and starve, while the warehouses and shops will be overflowing with these essentials of life. This, simply because the worker has not the wherewithal to purchase them. The more overstocked with goods the warehouses are the greater generally is the misery and poverty of the working class. Such is the paradox of this social system. War is one method of finding an effective market for these goods. There was no unemployed during the war, when commodities produced were quickly destroyed. If only the Capitalist Class could find such an effective method now of ridding themselves of their superfluous goods, what a happy world it would be for them. Unfortunately for them war does not last for ever.

So we have a million and a half unemployed workers living from hand to mouth in the hope that their labour power may be required some time or other when the good god or some other divinity of chance helps the Capitalist Class to rid itself of this superfluous wealth which the workers have produced to their own detriment.

If the working class would only realise that there is no way out of this rut in the present system. If pacifists and other sentimentalists would realise that the cause of war, unemployment, poverty, lies in the Capitalist system, and that the only way to deal effectively with these problems is to abolish this system of the private ownership of the means of production and establish Socialism ; if instead of plaintively attacking the evil results of this system by means of shallow platitudes which, on coming up against reality, they find necessary to throw overboard ; if, in short, they would attack the root instead of the branches, then, and then only, would they have some hope of realising a new and better world.

H. A.

The Struggle for Markets. (1924)

From the March 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

In January, 1924, the Manchester Guardian quoted an Exchange Washington message as saying, “Following a Conference with oil owners, President Coolidge has ordered two battleships to proceed to Mexico.”

It has been stated that the United States of America came into the great war to fight for, besides other things, the rights of small nations. The knowledge obtained in the great war about such rights, as can be seen from the above telegram, has now been put to practical use by President Coolidge. That the U.S.A. President has consulted American owners of oil wells in Mexico, instead of representatives of the Mexican people, is probably not an oversight on the President’s part, A person so high up as the U.S.A. President, cannot be expected to consult a low down greaser as to what is good for him. Other messages from the same source as the above telegram, state:

“A squadron of the U.S.A. Navy has been sent to scare the rebels from blockading the oil port of Tampico,” and again, “ It is understood that American troops are destined for the Gulf and oilfields, where extensive foreign interests were recently invaded by Huertaists.”

That these foreign interests happen to coincide with the interests of the American Standard Oil Co. is probably a happy accident. One more phase in the struggle between the Standard Oil Co. of America and the. Royal Dutch Shell is being fought out in this struggle for the exploitation rights of the Mexican oil wells.

Further Exchange Washington messages state: “That the U.S.A. have allowed armaments to be sold to Gen. Obregon’s troops, and have placed an embargo on the supply of munitions to the enemy,” who is in this case Gen. de la Huerta. “Gen. Obregon’s troops have been allowed to march on American soil in order to outmanoeuvre the enemy.” The violation of American soil by foreign troops does not seem to Have scared America’s patriots. Patriotism and the large dividends which the American Standard Oil Co. have given to its investors, evidently in this case, go hand in hand. This, however, is in the U.S.A., where, as every Englishman knows, graft, big business and Government go together. In England there has been a change of Government. The late Tory Government persistently refused to recognise Soviet Russia. The first plank in the new Labour Government’s programme, and which they have already carried out, was the recognition of Soviet Russia. That Russia has possession of oilfields, which, if concessions could be obtained for their exploitation, would be the means of obtaining a monopoly in the future, as well as huge profits which follow; that Russia is a possible huge market for British textile goods; that Russia has an abundance of raw materials which could be manufactured in Great Britain is only incidental to the fact that though leading members of the present Government have denounced Soviet rule in the past, they have now condescended to shake hands with murder, as the Daily Mail once had it.

The Manchester Guardian, the organ of the British textile industrialists, has for months past advocated the full recognition of Russia. It advised the Liberal and Labour Parties to come together for this end. This has come about. Leslie Urquhart, Chairman of the Russian Asiatic Corporation, has, as was pointed out in the Leader, of our November issue, largely blamed the late Tory Government for his failure to obtain favourable concessions from Russia, for his Company. England has beaten other countries in the diplomatic recognition of Russia, in its haste to obtain first chance in the Russian market.

The prospect of a large market for British goods and the possibility of concessions to exploit the Russian workers and mineral wealth of Russia has been too much for the cupidity of the Capitalist class.

Can it be that big business does influence Government policy in England?

The scramble for markets is becoming ever keener. For the markets that now exist are becoming less able to swallow the gigantic output of modern industrial production. More, and more, countries are becoming competitors for the markets that at present exist. In the East, India and China are gradually becoming sufficiently industrialised to produce enough goods for their own needs. Japan, having a superabundance of goods, which it desires to get rid of has long since begun a policy of annexing suitable territories in which it can dump its goods. In the Chinese market Japan has come up against other countries on the same game, namely America and England. A consortium of powers had to be formed in order to prevent war, and if possible, to divide the spoils equally.

Force will soon be the only method by which these countries can dominate markets.

To use force means war; on the other hand, unless markets are found under the present system, it means greater unemployment and poverty for you English fellow worker. Out of the two evils which are you to choose? Choose neither of them, fellow worker; instead, study the principles of the Socialist Party on the back page. If you understand and approve of them join the Party and help us to eliminate war, unemployment and other evils which are the result of the Capitalist system in which we live.   

H. A.