The Trade Union Congress. (1911)

From the October 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. J. Webb

“Profit-sharing plans that increase efficiency”. (1911)

From the October 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

The above title appears over an article in the July issue of “System and Modern Business,” a journal published expressly to review and suggest ways and means of running business concerns at a minimum of cost, and, consequently, at a maximum of profit.

The article in question deals with the various co-partnership and bonus systems which have been very successful from the employers’ point of view, taking first the system inaugurated by the late Sir George Livesey at the South Metropolitan Gas Works.

The basis of the South Metropolitan Gas Co.’s system is an agreement with each workman entitling him to a share in the business, and at the same time, security of occupation for a certain period.

When the co-partnership scheme first came into use every man in regular employment was permitted to sign an agreement on the assumption that he was a good man ; but afterwards discretion was used.

The usual period is 12 months, but if a man shows little regard for his work, or is wasteful and neglectful of the Company’s interest, he may find that his agreement is not renewed at the end of the period, or, in some cases, it may be renewed for three, or even six months, to give him an opportunity to improve. If he does not improve he gets no agreement, and his ultimate fate is discharge.

The bonus is paid half in the ordinary shares of the Company and half in cash. The latter is payable at any time at a weeks’ notice, or may be left with the Company at, 3 or 4 percent. interest.

There is, however, a regulation which, to some extent, protects the men from themselves, in that it impresses upon the employees the fact that, while one half is withdrawable, the success of the scheme depends on them saving some part of it ; and in consequence, any employee who regularly draws all his cash moiety will in time find that his agreement is not renewed.

While the cost of carbonising labour to the South Metropolitan Gas Co. was less than the mean of the two other metropolitan companies in 1888, the formation of the Gas Workers Union in the following year caused it to increase until it passed the mean, where it stayed for two years.

In the second year, however, the first co-partnership or “profit sharing” bonus was distributed, and costs fell sufficiently to reduce the excess above mean by two thirds. The following year it dropped well below the mean again, and from that time gradually grew less, until it nearly halved the high cost of labour during the dispute.

In eight years £820,000 was paid for carbonising labour-power, which was £260,000 (or nearly 25 per cent.) less than it cost the two other companies chosen for comparison to make the same quantity of gas.

All this, of course, was not the direct result of co-partnership; but, directly or indirectly, the changed labour conditions had by far the most to do with it.

This very interesting information, coming whence it does, ought to show the working class that the employers, when floating bonus schemes, are not influenced in the least by any philanthropic notions. They are on a good thing and they know it. They sugar coat the pill for the workers to swallow, but the end in view, despite the sweet verbiage under which it is hidden, is always the same, i.e., to increase production and reduce the cost of it.

The co-partnership scheme of Lever Bros., of Port Sunlight, is also reviewed. Mr. W. H. Lever, M.P., who may well claim to be one of the pioneers of “profit-sharing,” holds strong views on this subject.

He held that while in many industries wages remained stationary, capital increased output and raised the value of the product, building up colossal fortunes without in any way giving extra remuneration to labour, through which the success of many of the great enterprises was due—to the volume of labour employed without which the money-earning capacity of machinery would have been nil. Profit-sharing was, he thought, the best way of drawing out intelligent labour.

On the initiation of the scheme Mr. Lever invited his new co-partners, who would receive the same rate of wages as before, and work the regular hours, to join hands with him in making the profits of the business sure and increasing. He held up as a motto “Waste not want not,” recommending them to work for the business, aiming at increasing the quantity and quality of the product. When working with machine and tool they should remember that they were handling, economically or otherwise, their own property ! The inefficient worker would cause his fellow co-partners to suffer, as well as his employers.

The foregoing are the salient points of the two schemes mentioned. The workers will find on examination that the underlying motives of co-partnership are always to increase his output, to weed him out like cattle breeders weed out their stock, and to make him more than ever a slave by giving him an infinitesimal holding in the shares of the firm which exploits him—shares which, by the way, he cannot sell, and which he forfeits if he leaves voluntarily.

So you see, fellow workers, that it is not to give that “extra remuneration to labour through which the success of many of the great enterprises was due,” but to make the worker work harder, and to make each man a spy upon his fellow “co-pards,” so that “discrimination may be used” and the inefficient may be weeded out. |

Another great boon is held out to the employee “shareholders” — voting power and eligibility for election as “employee director,” with a seat on the board. It would, indeed, be a picture for a post-card to see the “employee director” at a board meeting demanding a bigger dividend for the “co-paids” who do the work. It would look comical if it happened so, but it doesn’t. The “employee director” learns better manners and behaves himself like a good boy.

Let it be clearly understood that co-partnership precludes all possibility of a strike, for, say the employer partners to the employee “partners,” “You are members of the firm and you cannot strike against yourselves. You must work harder and waste less, and then we can increase your bonus 3d. a week, which bonus you can leave with us at 3 or 4 percent, interest. So, in the course of time, you will get enough to build a house.”

The Socialist does not regard the intelligent and economical application of brain and muscle as something to be condemned in itself, but he points out that so long as the means of life are owned and controlled by the capitalist class, the application of greater effort is of no avail in the bettering of the material position of the working class as a whole, notwithstanding all the honied words of the apostles of co-partnership and bonus systems.

A. J. G.

By the Way. (1916)

The By The Way Column from the October 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the past month several conferences have been held in various parts of the country, and the reports appearing in the Press of their deliberations, though brief, are somewhat interesting reading. For instance, I gather that at the closing meeting of the British Association at Newcastle the subject for consideration was that of industrial fatigue. On this occasion one, Dr. Hunter, declared that the question of fatigue had been very much exaggerated, and he went on to say that :

“In yards where they worked four and a half days a week of 37 hours there could not be any over-fatigue in the ordinary sense, but it was found that if men combined hard work with drinking whisky then over-fatigue might and did come in.

Men who did not take drink worked longer hours in his works and did not suffer in health or complain of over-fatigue.”

Presumably Dr. Hunter would have us believe that the men engaged in the shipbuilding yards only work 37 hours per week, and that the main cause of the trouble in whisky drinking. How many more times is the drink gag to be trotted out as the first and last reason of the failure of capitalist production? One has only to recall the shortage of munitions in the early days of the war to recollect that then there was the same outcry of drinking and shirking. The concluding remarks of the speaker are exceedingly interesting. He continues:

“If men took a more intelligent interest in their work and worked harder they would feel very much less fatigue. The effort to work slowly was really very fatiguing.”—”Daily Chronicle,” Sept. 11, 1916.

Of course, all those wage slaves who have had the good fortune to write daily time sheets and the privilege of punching the clock when they start and finish a job will be able to appreciate to the fullest extent the reference to “a more intelligent interest in their work.” Delightfully funny, isn’t it ?

* * *

A reference to the foregoing conference in another paper states that “Dr. Oliver said that industrial fatigue did exist and played a very important part in the number of accidents that took place.” There you are, you pay your money and take your choice. This quotation is from the “Daily Mail,” same date.

* * *

The Chief Officer of the Board of Education has recently issued his annual report and has emphasised the value of open-air training for children. This is not in the least surprising when one takes into consideration the hovels that vast numbers of the working class have to inhabit from sheer compulsion. What with the dark and gloomy basements to the barrack-like “model dwellings” where the sun’s rays hardly ever penetrate, is it to be wondered at that our children require open-air treatment and social welfare centres !

That the subject is a serious one, and particularly so in view of the wastage of war, may be gathered from the fact the Chief Officer states:

“Not less than a million children of school age are so physically or mentally defective or diseased as to be unable to derive reasonable benefit from the education which the State provides.”

This in itself is a sufficient condemnation of capitalist society. Miss Margaret McMillan, commenting on the above, says: “That is a very low estimate. I should have said that the number of such children was two millions—rather more than less.” Think of it you who toil and slave and who consciously or unconsciously support modern capitalism, what your apathy means to your children and your class. You labour that others may have ease, you build houses but live in dens where your masters would not put their dogs. Such are the legacies resulting from the private ownership in the means of life.

The lady above referred to cites a fact from her own experience in Deptford as to the condition prevailing therein the following words :

“We once examined 147 children who were sent to our clinic to see if they were suffering from something other than the complaints for which they had come to be treated. And we found that 71 of them had weak backs and that 42 of these cases were so serious as to place the future lives of the children in jeopardy. Yet not one of these children had been sent to us as suffering from this complaint at all.”

We ask you to study these things for yourselves, to get at the why and the wherefore of them, to recognise the continual slaughter of the innocents, and when you understand the cause of these abominations to join with us that an end may be put to a system of society which means poverty, misery and want for the vast majority, and assist in ushering in a new society wherein these horrors may be eliminated. Isn’t this worth fighting for? (Quotations from “Daily News,” Sept. 16th, 1916.)

* * *

Reference to the above is also made in “Reynolds’s” (17.9.16) and may perhaps add further to the point. The writer asks: What are we going to do about it ? The importance of the question to our masters is not overlooked as may be judged by this reference.

“Time after time “Reynolds’s” has pointed out the menace to the future of the nation which the neglect of children and child-bearing mothers means. Perhaps now, when the flower of our young men is dying on the battlefield, we may find widespread recognition of the importance of making the best of our children. . . . But the greatest blame most be borne by the democracy, which has not insisted long ago on the sweeping away of many causes which make such a report as Sir George Newman’s possible. Some of the evils are not preventible, but many of them are, and it is only ignorance and apathy which have allowed us to remain quiet while so little has been done.”

Many of the “evils” are “preventible,” then, if so, why not prevent them ? Only the Socialist holds the remedy. Capitalist politicians and reformers have tinkered about with them, long enough, and in the words of Lloyd George stand condemned, for has he not stated that as soon as they heal one social sore another one breaks out. Thirty-bob at birth, sickness and unemployment benefit, and old age pensions at 70 fail to touch the spot. Arise, then, ye workers !

* * *

Still they come ! Another object lesson in the way patriotism is rewarded is to be found in a newspaper report to hand of a man who was in the 13th Essex Regiment and has been discharged “as being no longer physically fit for war service.” The report states that the man threw up a good job early in 1915 to enlist. He was not a conscript, and he sacrificed between £2 and £3 a week. Passed as medically fit for active service he eventually began training and at last took up the work of a cook. He said:

“We used to get our clothes soaking wet through at the field ovens, but there we had to stick, no matter what sort of weather it was. I have been at it … many times in rain, snow, and blizzards. At Northampton in January it was awful.”

The result was that his health broke down and ultimately he was discharged. The allowance his wife had been receiving was also stopped and he himself on the 10th of August received the following intimation:

“I am directed to acquaint you that the Commissioners of this Hospital [Chelsea], having fully considered your case, have decided that you have no claim to a pension.”—”Star,” August 25th, 1916.)

As this decision stands it serves to show the cold and callous indifference of those who in times past have framed the necessary regulations governing the grant of pensions. May it prove to be a means of opening the eyes of those who are used as cannon fodder to realise their true position in society.

* * *

The Trades Union Congress recently met at Birmingham, and an idea of the revolutionary nature of this body may be gauged from the fact that they were received by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, Mr. Neville Chamberlain. In his opening speech he “emphasised the need for effort all round, and made an eloquent plea for the preservation of that national unity which the war has brought us. He admitted the claim of working men to take a greater share in the organisation of industry than they have hitherto enjoyed, and did not attempt to gloss over the fact that the conditions in many trades in the past had been bad, and that every man who did his best deserved to obtain decent conditions of life and work and the opportunity of bringing up his children under cheerful and healthy conditions.” How nice and kind our masters are when it suits them for the purpose of swanking the workers. Tell them part of the truth, how in many trades in the past conditions had been bad (as if they were not now), but for heaven’s sake don’t let them realise how they are fleeced.

* * *

In the same article the writer tells us that “the secret of industrial peace lies not in attempts by labour to squeeze capital or by capital to squeeze labour, but in the working together of employer and employed against the competition of outside forces.” Here again we have the old bogey trotted out, the robbed and the robbers are to work amicably together in order to fight against “the competition of outside forces.” That there will be “competition” for jobs here is religiously omitted from the article in question, and the writer says that the fear of a flooded labour market with the disbanding of our great armies is very largely “illusory.” How simple all are !

The Scout

A New Capitalist Revolution? (1952)

From the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the passing of time and the acceleration of the tempo of events over the last few decades, there seems to be growing among the supporters of Capitalism a desire to see their system as young and virile as it was a century or more ago. In Britain this desire has lately found expression in the concept of a New Elizabethan era, with all its supposed opportunities for giving rein to those doubtful virtues of individualism and enterprise.

In America, however, there is no comparable period of history upon which to found such a mythology of a golden era to return. Instead of feeling that they have something approaching senility which can somehow be rejuvenated, propagandists for American Capitalism appear to be very concerned to create the impression that they have something completely new—an American Revolution, unique, progressive, and above all superior to a "Socialist” Britain or “Communist” Russia.

Let us take a closer look at some of the evidence that is brought forward to substantiate this theory of a new capitalist revolution. One of the most consistent media used to expound it in this country is the monthly "Reader's Digest.” In its August issue there appeared an article on “Humanising Industry—A New Revolution” (from “Time” magazine), and in September “The Unsystematic American System” (from “Harper’s Magazine”). Both are fairly representative of the sort of views that Americans are encouraged to hold about their country’s economic system in historical relation to the rest of the world.

Humanizing Industry

One of the chief effects of the Industrial Revolution upon workers as a class was their reduction to the status of appendages to a vast impersonal machine, caused by the development of mass production for a market. Socialists recognise that the nature of Capitalism is such that within it no basic change can be made in this subservient status of the workers. But, according to “Time” magazine:—

“Now a second Industrial Revolution, quieter but more profound, is sweeping through U.S. industry. Its name: Human Relations in Industry. Its purpose: to give the worker a sense of usefulness and importance. Its goal: to make life more fun by making work more meaningful.”

This, one may think at first glance, sounds just what the doctor ordered. But these otherwise admirable sentiments turn out to be only a build-up for a variant of that bugbear of regimented workers, time and motion studies. Pioneered in the 1880’s by Frederick Winslow Taylor, whose system caused managements to think of workers as little more than machines that had to eat, these studies facilitated speed-up on the factory assembly lines up to the point where greater “efficiency” no longer yielded greater output. Then in 1923 a sociologist, Elton Mayo, made the startling discovery that the men were poor producers (i.e., produced less than was felt could be squeezed out of them) because they were unhappy; so he prescribed four daily rest periods and brought in a nurse to whom workers could complain. Result: production for the first time reached the established quotas of efficiency.

The industrial psychologists were called upon to counteract the ill effects on production of the over-application of time and motion studies. But have these refinements in any way altered the workers' status as sellers of labour power? Obviously, the object of introducing welfare measures is to create more efficient workers, and not “to make life more fun.” It is certainly an adroit move on the part of employers to disguise their profit motive by talking about making workers happy, though this is not to suggest that they prefer unhappy ones. The proof, however, that the workers’ feelings are the by-product of the system and not its chief concern is the obstinate reluctance of employers to spread a little happiness by granting wage increases.

While on the subject of humanising industry it is interesting to note that some American observers dispute the view that any real change has taken place. Thus, in “Hollywood—The Dream Factory,” Hortense Powdermaker writes:—

“The technique of business and many other organizations in trying to personalize their selling relationships, such as by announcing the name of employees to customers, really fools no one. The fact that the name of the post office clerk, the bank teller or the person who handles complaints in the department store, is posted, does not really influence their relationship with customers."

There is no reason to suppose that the selling relationship between worker and capitalist has in fact changed, despite the propaganda to the contrary.

New Role of the Unions

In order to gain the fullest advantage from the introduction of expensive plant and machinery, industrialists in America have been obliged to find ways of overcoming the resistance of workers to intensive exploitation. Recognising the labour unions’ right to bargain collectively, the employers have turned what might have been defeat into victory by inviting them to co-operate in the task of exploiting the workers.

“Management began to learn that the once-feared unions themselves held keys to higher production. In Pittsburg the United Steel Workers challenged one management to name its most productive department. Then the union boosted production there by 210 per cent, in a month.

“In one Detroit metal tubing company, every attempt to boost production by special incentives had failed. The company offered the union a novel proposal: set a certain standard for labour costs and let workers and management share all the savings when increased output drove costs below that figure. Not only did production beat all records, but the workers themselves began prodding slackers.”

Perhaps the author of the above, in his enthusiasm, has not noticed the irony of using the phrase “a certain standard for labour costs” in an article on humanizing industry. It effectively explodes the myth that American capitalists regard their workers as something more than costs of production. A few extra dollars “profit-shared” seems to be a pretty high price to pay for the spectacle of workers prodding each other instead of the boss and his union-leader lackey.

The working class of America (and elsewhere) has yet to see that if its “share” of the profits becomes more than an insignificant fraction of the total profit, then this enables wages to be reduced, which in turn makes it harder to get a cut out of what the boss saves on labour costs. New production records become new standards, which the worker must exceed before he qualifies for his hand-out There is nothing revolutionary about this ingenious device—the carrot is perhaps a little juicier but is still out of reach of the straining donkey.

The Unsystematic System

According to the article in the September “Reader’s Digest” the word Capitalism no longer fits the present American system because "it stands for the primitive economic system of the 19th century.” Let us grant, for the purpose of argument, that another word may be used to denote the economic system of the 20th century to date. Have there been any fundamental changes to justify the assertion that a revolution has taken place comparable to that transforming Feudalism into Capitalism?

“A combination of patchwork revisions of the system—tax laws, minimum-wage laws, subsidies, guarantees and regulations, plus union pressures and new management attitudes—had brought about a redistribution of income, from the well-to-do to the less well-to-do.

”. . . the business system as a whole seemed to run better if some of the national income was ploughed into improvements in the income and status of the lower-income groups, enabling them to buy more goods and thus to expand the market for everybody. Americans had discovered a new frontier to open up: the purchasing power of the poor.”

The claim to have redistributed income must be treated with considerable scepticism. Every capitalist power describes its reform measures in this way; in this country Lord Beveridge may be credited with having reorganised poverty along similar lines. The most significant part of the argument concerns the purchasing power of the poor. Note that no reference is made to abolishing poverty—the poor are still to remain such, but with improved income and status.

To sum up. Capitalism in America, far from having been revolutionised, is still immensely strong and resourceful. It has succeeded in gaining the acquiescence of the majority in ways that are remarkably similar to those used in Soviet Russia—allegedly new management attitudes, democracy in industry, raised purchasing power of the poor. But, even assuming that all these things have all the advantages claimed for them, the system based upon private property and exploitation has not disappeared. Neither the threat of war nor the poverty and insecurity of the majority has been removed.

To workers seeking a way out of their problems without understanding what causes them, the idea of a capitalist revolution may seem to be a kind of second best to a socialist one. To socialists, the word revolution has a precise meaning—a complete change in the structure of society. All imitations must be refused, since they bring inevitable disappointment and delay the coming of the real thing.

Stan Parker

Socialism on the slate? (1951)

Pamphlet Review from the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nationalisation has always figured prominently in the plans which Labour Party theorists formulate from time to time for the administration of British capitalism. Labour politicians out of office are full of schemes for the betterment of society, but when, as now, they have had ample time to put their ideas to the test they have to try to explain what went wrong. A good example of this stock-taking mood is a recent publication of the Parliamentary Socialist Christian Group entitled, “‘Dirty Coal' and Socialism,” which purports to be a statement on the true meaning of nationalisation.

Fifty-nine Labour M.P.s give their general support to the argument of this pamphlet. They are quite safe in so doing, since at no point does it touch, even lightly, upon issues which are of any concern to the working class. After some sanctimonious claptrap about the will of God, and men being by nature selfish there is a sort of recapitulation of capitalism over the last century or so, with special reference to the widespread acceptance, in his time, of Disraeli’s  "two nations.”

“To-day, the march of events, in which we may reverently discern the hand of God, has made such acceptance obsolete.

We therefore affirm that it is now a major task for Christians to find out how to reawaken in most people a sense of satisfaction and of responsibility in their duly work, without the loss of production which the breaking-up of industry into small units would mean." (p. 7)

How very anxious these Labourites are to convince us that every objection to capitalism, now its responsibility is theirs, is obsolete. Marx's ideas, according to them, are obsolete, poverty has been abolished, hunger is unknown, and now, apparently, the class division in society has been ushered out of existence by the helping hand of God.

The Christian task of reawakening satisfaction and responsibility, in a system that breeds their opposites, is really nothing new. How to reconcile the workers to their exploitation and to gain their support for its continuation have long been the aims of capitalist propagandists, and have given rise, among other things, to the gentle art (hardly science) of industrial psychology.

In order to obtain any sort of conscious support for a particular group to run capitalism it must first be shown that the proposed methods are different from, and superior to, those of rivals, past and present. The signatories of the pamphlet are of the opinion "that most Conservative industrialists would welcome consultation for negative reasons—as a trouble-shooting device, an insurance against unrest.” (p. 10). This implies that the Christian Socialists want consultation for a positive reason, which turns out to be the taking by all of some share of the responsibility for working out the policy of industry.

Let us try to understand what is meant by this much-publicised democracy in industry and how it affects the workers. We may take as an example the question of pay for a certain type of job. The workers say it is too low, and in a gentlemanly way their representatives sit round a table with those of the boss, the managers. The boss is not prepared to pay higher wages, and to support his decision he quotes die Government to the effect that increased wages lead to increased prices and the workers are then no better off. The latter won’t have this—they want a larger share of the cake they produce, but what choice have they? What fresh arguments can they produce to alter the decision, and what pressure can they bring to bear to back up their demands, except the threat or action of withdrawing their labour? There can be no advantage to them in relinquishing the right to strike, and thereby helping to make the “responsible” decision of rejecting their own wage demands.

It is true that many employers are willing to pay a little more for the services of reasonably contented workers in industries which require skilled and relatively permanent labour. This is done, not out of any abstract sense of fairness, but merely in order that the greatest profit may be realized from the use of expensive plant and machinery.

If workers were willing to work for a decreased real wage then no offer would be made by their employers to pay more. The standard of living of the working class is maintained or increased only as a result of their own efforts against the employing class whose interest is to buy the maximum energies of the workers as cheaply as possible.

So much for consultation in industry in general. We now come to the main theme of the pamphlet under discussion—the nationalisation of “our” basic industries. Having been flattered by the use of the first person—somewhat in the style of the valet asking his master "Which suit shall we be wearing to-day?”— we learn that

“Nationalisation is a long and ugly word. We prefer to speak of public or common ownership, which can include other forms of ownership than national ownership and administration through public corporations. Nor do we refer, as some do, to the 'socialised' industries: it seems to us that such a usage may cause confusion in the minds of those who already think, vaguely, that nationalisation is Socialism, instead of merely a necessary part of the machine or framework within which people can begin to learn the Socialist way of life.” (p. 11).

It is difficult to appreciate in what way the word “nationalisation” is ugly. "Demobilisation” is only one letter shorter, yet no stigma attaches to it on that account. The unpopularity of nationalisation lies not in the length of the word but in the reality to which it refers. We have always pointed out that nationalisation is not socialism, and we have also pointed out it has no connection with learning the socialist way of life either.

This notion of giving people a little taste of socialism, so that they will come back for more if they like it, is a typically reformist one. It always turns out that these dainty tit-bits contain the same old capitalist ingredients, and leave the same bad taste in the workers' mouths.

There is ample evidence to show that nationalisation is merely a particular form of capitalism. It is true that sections of the capitalist class oppose it when it threatens to reduce their income from the industries taken over by die state. However their show of resistance must in most cases be interpreted as an effort to obtain greater compensation. The groaning and grunting of the "dispossessed” capitalists in industries in the process of being nationalised is comparable to that of all-in wrestlers who are keen to show the customers how much punishment they are supposed to be taking from their opponents.

The group of fifty-nine who call themselves Christian Socialists also play down the angle of material prosperity, for the workers at any rate.

“Common ownership of the major industries does not lead us all at once to the good life by Act of Parliament; but it is a prerequisite of that end.” (p. 14).

An attempt is made to show in what way such “common” ownership (nationalisation) is a prerequisite of the good life. We are told that the most important point is that the public interest should determine industrial policy.

We must be forgiven if we are a little sceptical about the significance of this statement. To our knowledge no government has ever admitted to acting against the public interest. Our own benevolent Labour government is resolutely facing a cut in our standard of living only because it will, they say, hurt the wage-earners less than unrestrained inflation, and is consequently “in the public interest.”

Lord Bruce of Melbourne, chairman of the Finance Corporation for Industry, had this to say on nationalisation:—

“The Socialists have blindly pursued the dogmatic theory of national ownership. Others have made almost a fetish of private enterprise. The result is that the nation is divided politically, as if this was a great fundamental issue. This is, of course, pure nonsense. Neither public ownership nor private enterprise is the sovereign remedy. Some industries may be suitable for public ownership. The overwhelming majority are not—the iron and steel is an outstanding example of this latter class."

(Manchester Guardian, 22.9.50).

We are not concerned with discussing the relative merits of state or private ownership in any particular industry, or in general. The basic features of capitalism remain the same in either case—the. relation of buyer of labour power to seller, with the propertyless and poverty condition of the latter.

Those workers who expected a better deal from the state than from private employers have been, and are being sadly disillusioned. In rejecting claims for pay increases for railway workers Mr. W. P. Allen, for the Railway Executive, recently told a Court of Inquiry “It is possible that far too many of those in our employ expect far too much from nationalisation far too quickly.” (The Star, 8.1.51).

As time goes by it is becoming increasingly clear that the interests of the majority of people cannot be served by any group of leaders who profess to be ‘‘on their side” any better than those who avowedly rule them. As Gordon Rattray Taylor puts it, "workers in nationalised industries are slowly waking up to the fact that they have only changed one kind of master for another.” (“Are Workers Human?” p. 18).

To those who voted Labour last time in the belief that state ownership holds out a solution, or even a step towards it, of their problems we say—profit from your mistake. The only prerequisite to a good life is your understanding its highest expression—a socialist world.

S. R. Parker

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

Editorial from the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At Home and Abroad . . . (1972)

The Home and Abroad Column from the October 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

Review September 72

At Home

There are signs that the government is preparing to retreat from its previous entrenched position on wages. If this happens it will need careful handling as far as publicity goes, which may explain the heavy caution with which the recent talks between the unions, employers and the government were treated. When they came into power Heath’s government were quite positive that they had the solution to the economic problems which have plagued British capitalism since the war. The unions, they said, must be brought to heel; in future they would be met head on in any industrial dispute. There would also be a special Act which would in effect weaken the unions’ bargaining powers. At the same time prices would, in some mysterious way which has eluded all other governments, be held in control. The promised result of this would be a steady rise in prosperity for everyone. In fact what the Tories were concerned about, as any capitalist government would be, was basically wages and the level of capital investment in British industry, which were affecting the competitive power of British goods on the world market. Every government since the war has come in with promises to tackle these problems and they have all had apparently simple solutions. Every one has had "new” ideas and policies; Wilson’s government, for example, had the Prices and Incomes Board and the Declaration of Intent from the employers and the unions. Who remembers them now? Every government, faced with the day to day realities of capitalism, has been compelled to change its line and to abandon the programme it put forward at the election, while the problem continued as bad as ever. Heath’s had the brief period of open conflict, as he promised and he has the Industrial Relations Act. Some workers have been gaoled, a union has had a massive fine. But British capitalism could not have carried on for long like that; it makes more sense, economically and politically, for the Tories to change their policy. To repeal the Industrial Relations Act would be too obvious a signal of defeat but there will probably be other signs in the near future of the government’s surrender to the intractability of capitalism’s chaos.

Abroad

Since it has never happened before, the killing of the Israeli Olympic athletes helped foster the idea that we are living in times of special cruelty and disarray, and that guerrilla tactics are something of an innovation. It needs only a little effort to recall many examples of similar tactics, sometimes by small bands of killers and sometimes by larger, more organised groups. If the Arabs showed great courage in their raid, it was not the first time that bravery has been used to murderous ends. Capitalist states are always organising the courage of their peoples in a massive effort of destruction. At such times they use any weapon they can, including that of the ultimatum. The famous demand for unconditional surrender in the last war was no more than a threat to murder and destroy on a savage scale, if the other side did not give way — and it was a threat which the Allies carried out. The men who plan and implement such ultimata are not called terrorists and murderers but there is nothing to choose between them and the men who did the killing at Munich, or indeed those Israeli nationalists who waged so ruthless a guerrilla campaign against British occupation in the years after the war. Capitalism is a mass of conflict, springing from the competing economic interests of many rival groups both national and international. In one way or another, force is always applied in these conflicts and capitalism continually conditions its people to accept the use of force, often of a terrifying scale and intensity. The Arabs at Munich acted as they have been conditioned to. The outcome of violence is never pleasant, whether it is eleven dead bodies at Munich or a hundred thousand at Hiroshima. But if the working class are not clear on the issue, if their ideas on it are confused by the illogicalities and the violence of nationalism, they can have no hope of ending a victory of which bloodshed is so integral a part.

Politics

When the Monday Club meet to protest against the Ugandan Asians, they thunder that the immigrants are being allowed in against the wishes of the people of this country. When Wedgewood Bonn talks about British capitalism’s entry of the Common Market, he whines that the voice of the people should be heard on the issue, in a referendum. We do not need to be too perceptive to realise that concern for a democratic society emerges only when policies are being pushed through which the speaker opposes. Tory M.P. Soref supports a government which, like the one of which Benn was a member, has imposed plenty of measures without asking what the majority of people thought or wanted. Democracy is a word for capitalist politicians to play with and to use if they see advantage in doing so. In fact capitalism cannot be a democratic society; it cannot take its people into its confidence, cannot make all its information freely available, cannot run itself as the majority wants, cannot involve everyone in the decision taking from top to bottom. Soref is no more interested in making available full information about race, about housing, population, social services and so on than Benn is in telling us everything about the economy of capitalism. Democracy needs knowledge and when the working class have that there will be no more capitalism with its irrelevant issues and politicians to exploit them.

Editorial: Fair shares in misery (1958)

Editorial from the September 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

If somewhere in the universe there were beings who had learned to run social affairs on a sensible, socialist, basis, and if some writer there offered to his readers a factual account of our trade union movement, they wouldn’t believe him. They would say that it just is not possible that men and women who possess such industrial skill, knowledge and capacity could behave as shortsightedly as they do.

This thought is prompted by the report of proceedings at the conference of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions on August 13th. We quote from the Evening News:—

“The two giant unions of the “Little TUC“—the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions— clashed to-day over what should be done about the ‘sack.’ 

“At the Confederation's annual conference at Paignton, the 1,300,000-strong Transport and General Workers' Union pressed a four-point plan to 'cushion' workers faced with dismissal.

“They demanded full consultation with the unions on the selection of workers to be sacked, plus cash compensation.

“The Amalgamated Engineering Union, Britain's second biggest union, took the opposite line. They demanded that nobody should be sacked unless alternative work was found and that work-sharing schemes should be introduced.

“The split widened when Mr. Les Kealey, national engineering officer of the transport union warned the 40 unions represented at the conference that workers generally are not willing to 'share the misery' when it comes to dismissals."

If the two propositions may be thought to represent the lowest possible level of what passes as thought in the trade union movement, the long discussion that followed was even worse; with such ancient fatuities as “getting down to the basic principle of the right to work” and “ work or maintenance.”

It was a relief and no surprise to read in the stop press news that it had ended with a typically pious and meaningless formula:—

“Announced at Paignton conference that TGWU and AEU had reached agreement on redundancy, with policy declaration that district committees and shop stewards would do all possible to ensure minimum of hardship”

Of course the trade union officials and delegates who drafted those statements and made those speeches will defend them. They will say that it is all very well to be theoretical but, things being what they are, trade unions have to be practical. They have to recognise that as the employers have more workers than they need the misery of unemployment in one form or another has to be accepted.

To which the socialist reply is that things don’t have to be what they are.

What is the problem the workers are facing? They have produced for the employers more than the latter can profitably sell at the present time, so many workers are threatened with the sack; which means that they will fall from the employed workers' standard of living to that of the unemployed. So they spend a day arguing whether the added misery should be spread evenly or in lumps. And to make even this ludicrous choice between evils they have to get the consent of the employers, who are masters of the situation. What makes the employers masters of the situation? The government does. How does the government come to be in this position? It was voted there by the elector?. Who form 90 per cent. of the electors? The workers do. In whose hands therefore does the remedy lie? In the hands of workers like those who sent delegates to the Paignton conference to waste their time with nonsense calculated to make the angels weep, and who send M.P.s to Parliament

What should be done? The answer is, or ought to be, obvious. The workers, who conduct all the processes of production from top to bottom, at present do so on behalf of the capitalist class who are the owners of the means of production and the products. This is capitalism and it exists all over the world, but it is not a necessity; it is a man-made arrangement that the working class can end when they will. When they choose to end it by introducing Socialism, production will be solely for the use of the population. Men’s livelihood will no longer be dependent on the willingness of employer to employ them. And the notion that, as production rises above a certain level (determined by profit) the standard of living of the wealth producers should be reduced will appear as absurd and irrelevant as the “remedies ” discussed at the Shipbuilding and Engineering Conference. ‘

The Bankruptcy of Liberalism. (1931)

Book Review from the February 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Liberal Economist on the Problems of Capitalism

In his book, “The Problem of Industrial Relations” (MacMillan & Co., 1929), Professor Clay maintains that the “problem of industrial relations” is how to secure harmonious relations between worker and employer, how to find “an adjustment of the interests of employers and employed, that will secure the co-operation of both in the work of production” (page 3). The present order of society riven into two conflicting classes, the owners of the means of living-and the non-owners, he accepts without question. He admits that industrial unrest arises from the conflict of interests between employer and employed, and he is concerned with reducing to a minimum the economic friction between these two classes.

His main thesis is that inequality of wage rates, intensified during the war period, as between one trade or industry and another, is largely responsible for industrial disputes, and that attention should therefore be directed towards “the equalisation of bargaining strength among all sections of wage-earners,” either by the lower-paid workers themselves organising in Trade Unions, or by Government regulations to prevent sweating, so that all sections of the working class can obtain a “fair wage.” He devotes several chapters to a discussion of the spread of Trade Unionism during the War, and the growth of arbitration and conciliation methods—Trade Boards, Whitley Councils, Joint Industrial Councils, Works Committees, Industrial Courts of Arbitration, and so forth—means of negotiation which enable a trial of strength between organised employers and employees to be made, or, as Clay says, “interpret the interplay of economic and social forces” (p. 231) and so enable wage disputes to be settled without strike or lock-out to interrupt the flow of profits to the capitalist.

To the Socialist, however, the problem is not one of ensuring that the lion and the lamb shall lie down together, but of waking the working class up to understand the economic and social forces which make them wage-slaves. So long as the means of wealth production and distribution are privately owned by the capitalist class, so long will the labour power of the propertyless worker be a commodity which he must sell for the best price he can get according to the fluctuations of supply and demand. Whether at any particular moment he gets “fair” wages or foul, the fierce competition arising from ever-present unemployment prevents wages in the long run from exceeding the cost of living a shoddy life. As stated in one of the reports of the Whitley Committee on the machinery of industrial conciliation, which Clay quotes, “. . . such machinery cannot be expected to furnish a settlement for the more serious conflicts of interest involved in the working of an economic system primarily governed and directed by motives of private profit” (p. 150). The remedy for this problem is for society to own the means of production, and to produce for use.

At some length, Professor Clay tries to show that “wage rates and unemployment are correlatives; if a wage rate is too high, it will cause unemployment” (p. 245), and that “it is no kindness to fix wage rates above the level set by an industry’s capacity to pay wages and still employ its labour” (p. 192). He holds that “normal” unemployment is mainly due to the wrong distribution of labour force; and the present abnormal unemployment he attributes to the War, which enhanced the maldistribution of labour force and removed a part of England’s markets. He therefore advocates that wages should, in some cases, be lowered, so that lost markets may be recovered from foreign competitors.

The old story of more work and less wages to recapture lost markets! The standard of living in Germany is a little lower than in England, and there are 3,000,000 German workers unemployed ; the standard of living in America is a little higher than in England, and the number of unemployed American workers has been estimated at about 7,000,000. Unemployment is increasing in Holland, Belgium, France, Italy, and elsewhere. In all these countries the employers’ journalistic and academic servants are urging the workers to work harder for lower wages, in a world glutted with products which cannot find buyers, whilst in many branches of production desperate efforts are being made to restrict output !

Unemployment is an inevitable feature of capitalism, and its tendency is to increase. Dealing with American unemployment, The Times (August 8th, 1930) says:

“It is beginning to be realised at long last that even if a recovery in business on a scale no longer thought probable should occur, it would not go very far to solve the unemployment problem. Throughout the years of fabulous prosperity that preceded the crash of last autumn unemployment was steadily increasing. The same processes of technological change, including the rapid substitution of capital for labour in industrial and agricultural production, were going on before the crash, are going on now, and will continue.”

Professor Clay recognises the increasing insecurity of “the propertyless worker, whether unskilled labourer, responsible organiser, or scientific expert” (p. 270), but fails to suggest the logical remedy. Only when the means of production are commonly owned and democratically controlled by the whole community will the application of science to production cease to divide the vast majority of mankind into the over-worked and the unemployed. “Meantime,” says The Times (July 29th, 1930), “rationalisation and unemployment are both increasing.”

Clay’s attempt to show that the various forms of public relief and social insurance increase the real income of the working class is really funny. First, he says that since these social services are paid for with money provided by taxation, and practically all the wage-earners fall below the income-tax exemption limit, then “the aggregate expenditure on social services is in the main an addition to the real income of the class that draws wages” (p. 2i7). He forgets that these social services, by lowering the cost of living, also tend to lower the workers’ wages in a labour market where there are always more men than jobs. Lord MacMillan, in making his report on woollen wage reductions, pointed out that social services such as pensions, insurance, etc., should be taken into consideration in fixing present-day wages. And Lord MacMillan was only stating explicitly a principle already being put into operation by the employers generally.

Clay himself gives figures showing that during the period from 1880 to 1914 real wages were falling whilst expenditure on social services was increasing; and points out that “the increase in expenditure . . . has followed, and to a large extent compensated for, the check to the rise in real wages.” Finally, he concludes that the effect of these social services “was to change the form, without altering the amount of wages. They ordained that the worker, instead of getting all his earnings in weekly wages, should get a part in the form of rights to income in sickness and unemployment, . . . (they) secured a better distribution of the wage-earner’s income, reducing it when he was working, but insuring thai it did not cease when he was unable to work. Wage-earners could have made a similar provision for themselves, as some of them did, through Friendly Societies and Trade Unions” (p. 219).

His chapters on the distribution of property are a plea for the small property-owner, and he gives many useful facts and figures with regard to the distribution of wealth in this and other countries. He shows that the total value of the properly left by 97,000 rich people who died during the year ending March, 1921, was £431,000,000. an average of nearly £4,300 per person, whilst “five-sixths of the population may be presumed to have less than £100 property each.” He asks, “How many working-class homes would have fetched more than £20, if sold up, before the War?” (p. 286). He also shows that alongside the increasing inequality of wealth has proceeded a change in its composition, contractual rights to money payments taking the place of real property, and this to an increasing extent in larger estates. A rich man’s estate consists largely of stocks and shares.

Clay describes this change in the nature of the right of property, brought about by capitalism, as the change involved in “the separation of the ownership and use of wealth,” by which property comes to consist not of a concrete thing but of a right to income. Before the days of capitalism, the simple tools of peasant and craftsman were their individual properly. To-day a railway shareholder cannot point to a single nut or smut as his own; but he holds a right to share in the profits. Clay shows from the Estate Duty returns that whereas house and business premises represent about 16 per cent., and land only about 9 per cent, of the total property, nearly 45 per cent, is in Stock Exchange securities; or, in other words, the largest element in property to-day is simply the claim to a share in the profits of industry, i.e., a legal right to live on the back of the working class. Clay is right in regarding this revolution in the form of property as being based on the change from puny individual production to mass production and distribution on a large scale by machinery too vast for individual ownership; but he is wrong in speaking of it as having resulted from “the separation of the ownership from the use and administration of capital.” The tools of the mediaeval craftsman were not capital. He makes the common error of confusing “capital” with “instruments of production,” which only became capital as a result of this separation of ownership from operation, by which the capitalist class, owning the means of production, can live on the wealth produced by the propertyless working class, who alone organise and operate the whole vast and complex mechanism of production and distribution.

The Professor is distressed at “the inequality of incomes, which is a chief cause of social unrest and the chief cause of waste in the modern economic system”; but he desires “the maintenance of the present right of property.” He wants property more evenly distributed, so as to check the growing inequality of wealth which threatens to engulf the small property owner and crush his “personal independence” (p. 207). He wishes to alleviate effects without abolishing fundamental causes. He wishes especially to remove those effects which injure the “middle class,” by means of some scheme of taxation “to enforce a continual re-distribution of property” for “the creation of a large independent class of small owners.” He regrets that “it would hardly be possible to frame a (scheme) . . . that would reach any large proportion of the propertyless proletariat ; but it would be easy to frame a scheme that would do something to restore the fortunes of the non-commercial, small-propertied middle class, on whom, since the aristocracy was superseded by a plutocracy, the maintenance of the finer arts of life mainly depends” (p. 313).

Thus, “economic inequality remains to be redressed,” but “no revolutionary change … is needed” (p. 317). For the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little (professorial) child shall lead them.

In his last chapter. Clay defends the Liberal Party, a Liberal Party which stands for Free Trade and freedom of enterprise, as the only alternative to “a Conservative Party that is protectionist in principle, and a Labour Party that is socialist in principle.” He advocates “freedom of private enterprise” as contrasted with the State monopoly of industry (which he imagines is Socialism); “freedom of international trade as a safeguard of international peace” ; and “a wider diffusion of property” to correct the growing inequality of wealth.

Apart from the absurd suggestion that the Labour Party is Socialist (their only service to the Socialist movement is their refusal to allow official Labour candidates to label themselves Socialist), it is very clear that Clay confuses Socialism with Nationalisation. He says: “None of the numerous varieties of Socialism could have any effect except still further to concentrate authority and subject the workers to a more detailed and complete subordination. All alike involve the establishment of legal monopolies, and are based on the subordination of the economic organisation to the State. The extinction of free enterprise by the competition and legalisation of monopoly would result in a bureaucratic inequality as oppressive as, and more difficult to control than, the present inequality” (p. 311). This is true enough if the word “Nationalisation” is substituted for “Socialism.” The nationalisation of an industry means that it is controlled, not by individual capitalists, but by the capitalist class as a whole through the Government, which is its “board of directors.” Thus Clay, thinking he is discrediting Socialism, only condemns the latest and most complete form of capitalist organisation.

He has to recognise, however, that “the extension of the State’s economic activities is necessary and will continue” although he desires “to keep the political and the economic organisation of society distinct” and “to develop international trade as a safeguard of international peace” (p. 306) ; for, he says, “we are members of an economic community . . . the boundaries of which do not coincide with those of any State.” He falls to grasp that the political division of the world into antagonistic States, when all its parts are economically dependent one upon another, is the political reflection of the contradiction inherent in capitalism; the contradiction of the social use and operation of the tools of production by the working class of the world, alongside the private ownership of these tools by competing groups of capitalists in the Great and Minor Powers.

This contradiction between social production and private ownership is the rock upon which capitalism splits. It has been the historical function of the capitalist class to bring about social production, with its enormous possibilities for human comfort and culture; it is the historical function of the working class to bring social ownership and control into line with social operation, and make these possibilities a glorious reality.

Frank Evans

Rationalisation or Socialism. (1928)

From the October 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

The capitalist system of society is based upon the private ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution, by a minority of the population. The majority of the population, being property-less, are compelled to offer their services for sale to the capitalists, and receive in return sufficient to enable them to live and keep on working. Only the working class engage in the work necessary to production, but the wealth that results from the workers’ labour-power belongs to the capitalists, and therefore the system is an excellent one—for the capitalists.

This being so, any proposals which have for their object the smoother working of the present system should be welcomed— by the capitalists.

The system is essentially a competitive one, and though the capitalists’ interests are identical as against working-class interests, they are not identical in the struggle to secure the greater proportion of the profit accruing from the workers’ labour-power. This results in a tremendous waste. In most industries there is more plant and machinery in being than is necessary to produce sufficient to supply the markets; consequently many works are on short time, not working to their full capacity, or are actually closed down.

Thoroughly up-to-date and efficient methods of production exist side by side with inefficient, almost obsolete, methods.

These facts are fairly obvious, and attempts are being made to meet the problem, but we are concerned about it being clearly understood whose problem it is.

To increase the difference between the total wealth the workers produce and the amount they receive in the form of wages has always been the object of the capitalists, and what is referred to as rationalisation is only a phase of that estimable object.

In an article in the Daily Herald (August 24th), Mr. Citrine attempts to justify the action of the T.U.C. in acting in conjunction with a group of employers to secure “the maximum efficiency of labour with the minimum of effort,” to avoid “waste of raw materials and power” and “unnecessary transport, burdensome financial charges, and the useless interposition of middlemen.” As the General Council of the T.U.C. is supposed to represent the interests of the wage workers, it was up to Mr. Citrine to demonstrate that the object of these proposals is not to increase the difference between total wages and total profits.

Instead of doing this he proceeds to ignore the class division in society and indulge in vague talk about the “community,” and increasing the standard of living of the “people.”

As the article was a reply to a previous one by Mr. Hicks, he brings forward evidence to show that his attitude is quite in accordance with Trade Union policy both here and abroad, instancing a report published by the T.U.C. and the Labour Party in 1924 on the Waste of Capitalism, which, as he says, “was, in effect, a demand for the rational organisation of industry.” He also points out that the German Trade Union movement took the initiative in demanding the institution of Rationalisation in 1926.

To be able to give evidence of other suicidal policies is regarded as sufficient justification of the present one. We have some indication of how Rationalisation works in Germany in an article in the Manchester Guardian Industrial Relations Supplement (30/11/27), by C. W. Guillebaud. One of the “concessions” to the workers is the institution of Works Councils, on which both workers and employers sit; and the writer points out that

“One most significant feature of the development of the Works Councils has been the great decline in the number of those willing to submit themselves for election or re-election. . . . The chief causes of this tendency are, first, the power of employers to get rid of Works Councillors, . . . despite the protective provisions of the Act.”

It should be obvious that a worker with orthodox views will be a useful man for the employers, but one who realises the direct cleavage of interests between the two sides, and says so, will be given his cards and shown the gate.

Although the Trade Unions arose from the antagonism of interests between the property-owning employers and the property-less wage workers, they frequently function in the interests of the capitalists. The railway workers’ unions have recently successfully negotiated a 2½ per cent. reduction in their members’ wages, without the trouble and expense of a lock-out. While having a clear idea of the purpose of “rationalisation,” it is necessary to point out to the self-styled “left-wingers” that it is not something to be fought separately. At the annual conference of the National Minority Movement, Mr. Harry Pollitt moved a resolution which declared that “the chief issue before the working class was to fight Rationalisation” (Daily Herald, August 27).

Certain phrases seem to knock these shallow pates off their balance; “Mondism” and “Imperialism” are manifestations of capitalism. One is reminded of 1914, when the counterparts of the present left-wingers considered it “progressive” to fight against Prussianism.

The opening paragraph of this article being correct, the only problem the workers need concern themselves about is their non-possession of the means of wealth production, the solution of which is in their own hands, by organising as a class, politically, to take possession of them. The Socialist Party is the only organisation which concentrates the workers’ attention on that problem. Labour right-wingers, who urge the workers to take an interest in their masters’ problems, and left-wingers, who urge them to attack separate features of capitalism, are equally side-tracking them from the thing that matters.

J. L.