Why have seventy years of struggling against poverty, unemployment, insecurity and bad housing been a colossal waste of time as far as the working class is concerned? It is because such struggles have been directed along the lines of social reform and trade unionism. The elephant of social reform has given birth to the mouse of organized poverty. The trade unions are more conservative and muddled than ever. They have now become integrated with the capitalist system, with their investments in stocks and shares, and loans to local authorities. Their central body, the TUC, is nothing less than an extension of the Labour Party.
The mistakes made by the movement could not have come about through a shortage of political parties and movements claiming to represent their interests. In 1904 we had the Fabian Society; the ILP, the SDF, the Democratic Labour League (William Morris and Belford Bax), and the Labour Representation Committee, in addition to the SPGB. The Fabian Society, the oldest political organization in this country, really laid the basis in 1885 for the reform policies subsequently pursued by the Labour Party and its satellites. The principle of gradualism preached by Sidney Webb, H. G. Wells and others was based on the theory that whilst on the continent of Europe political struggles became violent affairs sometimes leading to bloody revolutions, the Britisher, whose temperament was different, could legislate his problems away piecemeal. The ostensible reasonableness of this proposition perhaps had an appeal but events have subsequently shown that capitalism creates problems faster than legislative measures introduced to combat them.
One of the proposals in the present Labour Government’s programme, the nationalization of land, was advocated in 1880 by sections of the Liberal Party. The experiment of nationalization, with the dazzling prospects presented by the Fabian Society in the 1880s, has turned sour. Nationalization of the coal and steel industries, the railways, road transport, gas & electrical undertakings, has merely altered the form of capitalist administration, but has done and could do. nothing to abate the class struggle in those industries. Strikes are on a bigger scale within those industries than ever before.
There is a tendency to believe that social reforms gained over the years in various fields (for example in housing, health, education and pensions) once having been granted are so much water under the bridge, and the reform movement can look for fresh fields to conquer. We would say in general that once a certain standard of living has been attained historically the workers will take this as their natural right and fight to keep or improve it. But this applies only to the wages struggle. The reforms introduced by the capitalists over the years can be taken away, or alternatively can be charged to the worker, and are in fact gradually being charged. For example, the government subsidies which were a basic part of local authority housing during the last fifty years are being removed under the Housing Finance Act, with the result that rents will rise to compensate for the loss of the subsidies. This is reform in reverse. The Labour Party’s concept of non-contributory pensions has also moved in reverse. All pensions are now contributory, and are becoming more so. The much vaunted “free” National Health Service is introducing charges over a whole range of its services. Government expenditure on universities is being cut back, and there are signs that eventually only those who are able to pay for a university education will receive one, as was the case in 1904. Should the capitalist class decide to turn students’ grants, meagre as they are, into repayable loans, there is nothing militant student action can do about it.
The struggle for reforms of any description is not part of the class struggle. Conversely, any struggle to prevent reformist legislation being repealed is not part of the class struggle. You cannot defeat the capitalist class by creating a mass of non-Socialist reform-hungry workers.
The problem of unemployment has persisted, apart from the two periods during 1914-18 (World War I) and 1939-47 (World War II and after). The percentage of unemployed has ranged between 2.5 per cent, in 1900; 7.8 per cent, in 1908; 10 per cent, in 1929-30 (3 million), the highest recorded figure. The figure for 1904— i.e. 6.0 per cent — represented 1,131,000 unemployed (London & Cambridge Economic Service estimate 1904). The number of workers (employed and unemployed) in 1904 was between 15-16 million, including 5,300,000 women nearly 2 million of whom were domestic servants (London & Cambridge Economic Service estimate 1904) The number of unemployed (registered) in March 1974 was approx. 600,000 out of a total labour force of 23,581,000, of whom 14,500,000 are male and 9 million female. A figure of 1 million has been forecast for 1974 (Sunday Times 21/4/74. London Business School estimate).
The problem has not gone away, and it has come as a nasty shock to numbers of young workers, and some not so young, who suddenly found themselves redundant at all levels of employment. This is capitalism. and unemployment is an organic part of its operation. When we consider the unemployed demonstrations and hunger marches of the thirties, the agitation for full employment by all political parties except the SPGB, we are entitled to say they have led nowhere.
Perhaps a more live issue in the shape of housing is occupying workers’ minds at the moment. There was no housing shortage in 1904, even of working class houses — the problem was rent. In 1974 approx. 8 million people own their own houses and no longer have to pay rent but mortgage interest. Given the choice, many workers would prefer to rent rather than have the constant worry of paying off the mortgage, which incontestably is considerably higher than average rents. The accolade of the property-owning democracy has descended upon them, and consequently their worries have increased. This is not social progress. The Shelter organization estimates that approx, three million people live in slums and substandard accommodation, in addition to the thousands who are homeless. We are told there is a housing shortage — and there is. High rents, high mortgage rates. The standard of housing has risen since 1904 — all we need are the houses to go with it.
On the industrial front the workers have gained a little more — statistically. It is not always possible to make accurate comparisons over a period of seventy years because there are so many changing factors. The luxuries of 1904 have become the necessities of today. The motor car and the telephone, to give two examples, are indispensable to the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of workers. Many regard them as liabilities. Entertainment no longer entertains, and it is now a social custom for workers to expect to be literally saturated by TV on every possible subject in which they have little interest. Social habits have changed considerably, and not always for the better.
The trade unions (mainly skilled workers) in the early stages of the working-class movement were withdrawn from politics except when legislation affecting their interests was proposed. Then they lobbied individual members of Parliament, mainly Liberals. Then, as now, the trade unions were only concerned in the interest of their members, although they paid lip-service to the idea of international working class solidarity. Marx deprecated their “conservatism”. The formation of the Labour Representation Committee (later the Labour Party) in 1900, was to bring the Trade Unions into politics. Up to 1918 it was a condition of membership of the Labour Party that you held a TU card.
In 1904 there was a total of 1,211 Unions with a total membership of 1,901,674 (HMSO Abstract of Labour Statistics, p.193). Of these, 212 unions were affiliated to the TUC with a total membership of 1,422,518 (TUC Report 1971, p.698) out of a labour force of 15-16 million. At the moment there are about 11 million trade unionists; about 10 million in the TUC out of a total labour force of 23½ million. The great majority of the smaller unions are not, nor ever have been, affiliated to the TUC. This means that there are three times the number of workers in trade unions today compared with 1904. Wages varied over a wide range, as today, and it is not possible to give a true average. Skilled building workers (carpenters, bricklayers, masons) received 10½d. per hour (1904) in London (Abstract of Labour Statistics 1912, p.7l) for a working week of 50 hours. The basic wage today of a skilled building worker is £25 for a 40-hour week, plus a bonus of £2 (approx. 11 times that of 1904). These are the official figures, but skilled building workers’ earnings are about £40 per week.
The price-level estimate allowing for inflation in 1974 is given as 10 times that of 1904 (London & Cambridge Economic Service). On this basis, building workers' wages have moved ahead of prices. The same is true of engineering workers (fitters, London 1904 — £2 per week of 54 hours; 1974 basic £25 per week of 40 hours. Same source). Skilled fitters earn much more than this with bonus, piecework, overtime, etc. (AEU). Agricultural workers were the lowest paid of any section of the working class. Average wage in 1907 was 17s.6d. per week, excluding perquisites (How the Labourer lives — Rowntree). Today the basic wage is £21.80 plus housing at low rent or nil rent (National Union of Agricultural Workers). Railwaymen in 1904 (excluding clerical grades, etc.) earned 25s.7d. per week (London & Cambridge Economic Service). Basic wage today for the lowest grade is £21.80 per week of 41 hours. Railwaymen (National Union of Railwaymen) obviously earn much more than this.
The same story could be repeated throughout industry, and it is not part of the Socialist case to show that worsening conditions will produce the spur to social revolution. The struggle to maintain living standards has to be waged constantly, and unfortunately has come to be regarded as an end in itself. Relating one era to a former era in order to show progress is an old trick of capitalism. They cannot logically defend the system, but try to show that it works statistically. Half a loaf is better than none, or for that matter, than one slice of bread. But one loaf is better still, and so we go on with these trite and nonsensical equations so dearly beloved of reformers and their tame economists. The point is that we shall not be too interested in the statistics of poverty and wealth, but rather in changing the social basis of private ownership upon which these statistics are based.
As an agent of revolution, the trade union movement has played no part, neither has it any part to play. Its function cannot be developed to include a revolutionary Socialist policy because the unions are open to everybody, Socialist and non-Socialist alike. Socialism cannot be established by non-Socialists. Trade unions, however militant on the wages front, are born of capitalism. It is inevitable that as creatures of capitalism they follow the fashion; they become respectable, that is they actually participate in helping the capitalist class to run industry. Co-operation does not end there. They subsidize the pro-capitalist Labour Party, paying the very people whose job it is to maintain the basis of working-class exploitation. If the SPGB could have relied on the same degree of help from them over the years as that given to our class enemies, there is no doubt that the Socialist movement would be stronger in influence and membership today. We welcome any assistance from trade unions, but on our terms.
To summarize these few aspects of working-class history, we would say that so much time has been wasted. So many permutations of failed policies — not new lamps for old but old lamps refurbished. Lord Shinwell. a very muddled counsellor in his day, summed up the success of his own Party — “It seemed to be that nothing we have done in politics had brought about any fundamental change. Thousands of people still live on the poverty line. Although some of the poor are more affluent there has been no fundamental change. The disparity between the rich and the poor remains. This is in spite of all our pronouncements and all our resolutions at conferences. They have not made any difference at all”. (The Times 19th June 1973 — “Why things never get any better”). Lord Shinwell has certainly come late to realization, if he has come at all. We condemned their policies at the time, and we are not speaking with the benefit of hindsight.
In 1904 we were told that 90 per cent, of the wealth was owned by 10 per cent, of the population. The SPGB’s case does not depend on the degree of wealth ownership. We propose to abolish the rich not tax them — we propose to abolish the poor not subsidize them. We propose a classless society. The working-class movement can thank the SPGB that Socialism is still an issue; that the body of thought represented in Socialist ideas has not been shown to be wrong or inapplicable to the present situations. The basic cause of poverty in 1904 was due to the fact that the means of production themselves were not owned or controlled by those in society who operated them. That condition still obtains. The problem is the same, the remedy is the same — Socialism. Only when the working class in the majority understand and implement the policies of the SPGB will they be able to say politics is not a waste of time after all.
Jim D'Arcy
