Holidays with Pay (1954)

From the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is indisputable that, since the war, an increasing number of people have annual holidays, but before we applaud this happy fact, let us examine the reasons. Twenty-five years ago few people enjoyed a regular break from their employment, except, of course, the idleness enforced by unemployment. To-day, however, an annual fortnight’s holiday is an accepted feature of their job. This is mainly due to recognition by the capitalist class that a refreshed working class makes for greater efficiency and higher productivity (e.g., contented cows yield more milk) and also organised working-class activity (i.e., shortage of labour-power giving the workers stronger bargaining powers).

Accompanying the development of capitalism we find machine production ever more complex, a higher division of labour and hence a growth of monotonous repetitive operations. The effect on employees of these factors is boredom, nervous strain and physical disorders, making a break from this drab existence imperative. Having tightened nuts, hammered rivets, checked invoices, and swept floors innumerable times, fifty weeks a year, the remaining two weeks must be spent forgetting nuts, rivets, invoices and floors. The working class, generally speaking, regard a holiday as a period in which to flee from the rut of normal existence. In other words, not to do those things one usually has to do, to do all those things one cannot normally do, and where either of these cannot be carried out, then to do them under more congenial surroundings and conditions.

Therefore, the manner in which various individuals spend their restricted release is determined largely by their particular job of work. Of course, the style of the holiday is conditioned by the financial resources, indeed, whether they have a holiday at all is dependent upon that factor.

Most workers will make as little physical exertion as possible, they will lie in bed until fully rested, a thing which is usually denied them. Frequent bouts of ice-cream, beer, sweets, fish and chips, and stomach powder are only too common. In fact, food and drink assume undue prominence as being luxuries which can only be fully indulged in after a year's self denial, after periods of overtime, and with the possible addition of a wife's wages. The worker will spend his limited cash on all manner of cheap, tawdry and very often useless things, his rate of spending being the measure of his enjoyment. He will saunter around amusement arcades to fire guns, shy at coconuts, visit haunted houses and ride in “dodg’ems" in an effort to exhilarate his normally uneventful existence.

Speculative members of the ruling class have not been slow in recognising the demand for this style of holiday. Hence the growth of holiday-camps, where instead of seeking these various amusements they are all laid out before you, to such an extent that you almost trip over them. Everything is organised, including the children, who are whisked away to allow the erstwhile harassed parents temporary relief from their offsprings* eternal cravings. The holiday-makers are even spared the tiresome process of thinking, and should they be caught in a contemplative mood a camp “scout” will quickly guide their thoughts into less serious veins.

For some members of the working-class, mainly the younger ones, whose jobs are of less manual character, holidays are spent in a more rigorous fashion. They discover for themselves the towns, villages and countryside by cycling, hiking, canoeing and mountaineering. For them the yardstick of their enjoyment is not the amount of money they have spent, but what they have seen and achieved.

Another section of the working-class go hop-picking and harvesting. This euphemistically termed holiday contains the same old facts behind a different facade, instead of the factory and foreman—the field and farmer.

Having summarised typical working-class holidays (where they can be afforded) let us now examine the vacations of the capitalist-class.

As the workers' concept of holidays arises from his employment and environment in everyday life, the capitalists' concept (since he is not employed, etc.) must be different. The dictionary defines a holiday as a period of leisure, in which one does what one likes when one likes, how one likes, but the life of the capitalist is almost continually within this definition. Since this life leaves little to be desired, a holiday for the capitalist usually means a change of location with attendant ostentation. Not for them the necessity of booking accommodation months in advance, nor the hazards of an English climate and certainly money presents no problems. He may indulge in his most capricious whims, be it winter sports or water spas, Palm Beach or Paris. This is the class that can scoff at the restricted foreign travel allowance. The playgrounds of the British Commonwealth (Bermuda, etc.) using pound sterling are open to him and other “sterling” ports are convenient places for him to revictual his yacht. On the other hand, in non-sterling areas he can stay with friends at their expense, which he reciprocates when they in turn holiday in Britain. Again, he may fancy a lengthy sea cruise, where, on a sun deck he may recline comfortably, attended by stewards, and gaze upon enchanting tropical islands beneath azure skies. For the more sober-minded captain of industry, he may simply motor about his homeland and tolerate the services offered by the first-class English hotels, but this of course lends little colour to his conversations when he returns to his club. For the more flamboyant, if the mood takes him, he may sit at the gaming tables of Monte Carlo with the gay abandon that wealth affords him. However, if wine, women and song is desired there is always the fashionable club of Paris, or better still an invitation to a swank soiree on the “ right ” side of the Seine. With the latter there is always the thrilling possibility of being mentioned in the gossip columns of sophisticated society magazines, advertising the elite company that one keeps.

But why should a small section of society enjoy not only the very best of holidays, but almost all material things ? What special power does this minority possess that enables them to enjoy this privileged position? Their powers rest not upon their mental or physical superiority but upon their ownership of the means of wealth production.

Under the present-day system of society, where the tools of production are privately owned, a large majority, through their lack of ownership of these tools, are economically forced to seek employment. That means that these people are exploited and as such, never receive the full fruits of their labour. This causes much discontent and gives rise to a common feeling that work is nauseating and a “ necessary evil ” and therefore this sharp division between employment and play. To a Socialist, this is just another ugly feature of capitalism, which will remain till the machinery of wealth production is converted to common ownership. Then man will be released from his wage slavery, and work will become regarded in its correct perspective, that is, there will be joy in creation. Society will be producing wealth for use and not for sale and profit as it is to-day.

De Norm.

A Poet of the People (1954)

From the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

How many people know that there really was a poem—and a mighty serious one, too—about Christmas Day in the workhouse ? Its author was George R. Sims. In the year when a king had the first appendix operation, when Phil May cashed his sketches for a fiver a time and Bernard Shaw was a St. Pancras Borough Councillor, he was the most popular Sunday journalist in England.

Sims had a page to himself every week in the Referee. Each of the Referee's contributors carried the name of a knight of the Round Table: the editor was “Pendragon,” and Sims was “Dagonet”—the name of King Arthur’s jester. His page was called “Mustard and Cress’’; his touch was sure and his influence tremendous.

Playwright, critic, gossip-writer, novelist, poet, business man and reformer—Sims was all of these. His life in the public eye began in 1874, when he was twenty-seven. He joined the Referee at its inception in 1877; he wrote to the Daily News about the housing of the London poor, and made a sensation with “How the Poor Live.” He could—and did popularize places, commodities and slogans. The first popular hair restorer, “Tatcho” (the word was Romany for “genuine”), owed its fame to him.

By 1900, Sim's name was a byword. He employed two secretaries and lived in a luxurious house facing Regents Park—his readers knew it as “Opposite-the-Ducks.” The house had an ‘“Arabian Nights” salon, a magnificent library where he wrote “Living London” and a “comic-opera” room where famous performers entertained Sims and his friends. He had a bulldog named Barney Barnato and a housekeeper whose malapropisms were—rather unkindly, one feels—recorded in “Mustard and Cress.”

The “Dagonet Ballads” first appeared in the Referee, and were quickly reprinted in book form. Sims was not a great poet, nor even a good one. He wrote with the unctuous matiness that is called “the common touch”—a sure winner, as Wilfred Pickles’ fans will tell you. Just as all rich people were blackhearted to some of the old radicals, all poor people were altruistic and good in the eyes of Sims the poet. He sentimentalized uninhibitedly over them—women and children first, of course; and what gave the Dagonet ballads their tremendous popularity was that Sims really meant it all.

He had a genuine and deep sympathy for the poor. His stubby, aggressive figure was well-known in Deptford and the Borough. When his successful play ‘“The Lights o’ London” was shown, a crowd of real costermongers and barrow boys brought the street scenes to life. He was on terms of friendship with them; their children were taken for wonderful outings by Sims and his wife. And his verse, with all its cliches and gaucheries and its horrible sentimentality, was illuminated by flashes of real understanding of what it meant to be poor.

“In the Workhouse” was Sims’s masterpiece. It is melodramatic and tear-jerking, but through it there runs a vein of knowing, trenchant irony:

“It is Christmas Day in the Workhouse 

  And the cold bare walls are bright 

With garlands of green and holly,

  And the place is a pleasant sight:

For with clean-washed hands and faces 

  In a long and hungry line 

The paupers sit at the tables 

  For this is the hour they dine.

And the guardians and their ladies.

  Although the wind is east.

Have come in their furs and wrappers 

  To watch their charges feast:

To smile and be condescending.

   Put pudding on pauper plates.

To be hosts at the workhouse banquet


  They’ve paid for—with the rates.”

And the incredulous indignation when a militant pauper “declines the vulture’s feast”:

 “The guardians gazed in horror.

   The master’s face went white:

Did a pauper refuse their pudding?

  Could their ears believe aright ?

Then the ladies clutched their husbands.

  Thinking the man would die.

Struck by a bolt, or something.

  From the outraged One on high.”

So shrewdly is charity characterized, in all its proverbial coldness, that one would assume Sims to have known too much to indulge in it himself. One would be wrong. He was the mainspring of his paper’s “Poor Children’s Winter Dinner Fund”; he, too,

“Put pudding on pauper plates.”

At the height of his popularity—all his life, in fact—Sims campaigned vigorously for reforms which would improve the living conditions of the poor. He was never poor himself; he came from a comfortable home and finished his schooling on the continent. Because of his influence he was offered several Parliamentary candidatures, but never accepted.

Many of the problems with which Sims was concerned are not so apparent nowadays. Less is heard about the workhouse, because it is called by another name and not so many people go to it (they draw outdoor relief instead). The exploitation of young children in industry has practically ceased. Drunkenness and street fights are no longer familiar parts of the social scene. And it is easy to overlook that fifty or sixty years ago some courage was required to agitate for the world to he changed even a little. While Sims was pressing for better sanitation and housing, a noble earl was pronouncing: " . . . Experience has unfortunately shown that with no class is sanitary reform so unpopular as with the wage class.” Another contributor to The Nineteenth Century observed: “Had people taken the trouble to learn what kind of persons they were going to better, it is possible that some of our largest institutions would not have been started, and certainly no one would have been surprised at the number of failures that sadden the heart of a conscientious committee.” A Socialist was a ruffian in a red tie to most people then.

One of Sims’s favourite themes was the upper-class marriage market. With the same hand that painted a heart-rending picture of the working-class “fallen woman,” he pointed accusingly at the society betrothal. Plenty has been written on that subject, but nothing more forthright than Dagonet’s “Two Women”:

“She is crowned with the world’s fresh roses.

   no tongue has a word of blame:

But the woman who falls from hunger is a thing too foul to name.

She is blessed who barters her honour just for a prince’s smile;

The vice of the Court is charming, and the vice of the alley vile.

So, world, shall it be for ever—this hunting the street girl down.

While you honour the titled Phryne, and hold her in great renown:

But when, at the great uprising, they meet for the Judgement Day.

I’d rather be that drowned harlot than the beautiful Countess May.”

Sims never wanted to lead working people, nor to teach them: he wanted and tried to make things better for them. He “meant well,” to use a well-thumbed phrase; he “did a lot of good,” to use another. Many good things have been done for the working class by reformers—and how little has the life of the working class changed, in spite of it all. Housing has improved, and is still bad; in the industrial areas people still live in brick hutches that were flung up over a century ago. Working hours are shorter, factory conditions are better, and there are a thousand and one new strains and anxieties. More material comforts and better amenities are everywhere, and there are more frustrated and unsatisfied people than ever before.

It is a pity that most reformers never realise the implications of their good intentions. The person who does something for the poor—children’s dinners, free boots and so on—has accepted that they shall go on being poor, and is merely trying to make it a little more tolerable to them. In all Sims’s righteous indignation there is no suggestion that he thought the poor could be abolished altogether, and it probably never occurred to him. His solution was benevolence, just as it was Dickens’s; if all the employers and the guardians and the landlords were transformed like Scrooge into jolly, open-handed philanthropists, the world would be a fine place.

It is not people who are reformed, however (unless one believes the Salvation Army); it is the social system. Each reform is a patch on the system’s fabric —and not, as some people suppose, a nail in its coffin. That is why the thousands of large and small reforms cannot really change things very much—they leave the system unimpaired and even refurbished a little. Benevolence is one thing, the abolition of poverty another. The best of social reforms does not, and cannot, overturn the factor that gives some people low wages and others high profits, any more than it is able to control or predict economic crises.

Real improvement in living means creating the right conditions—and before that, doing away with the wrong ones. The Socialist’s unvarying answer to Reformers sounds unpalatable and even hard-hearted, but it is true. Either capitalism is abolished or it remains; and while it remains, the perennial difficulties of working-class life will be there too.

Let us, then, raise our hats a little to Dagonet; he tried to know the lives of the people and to be their poet. And let us replace them with a sigh, for him and for all the other good-natured, good-meaning people who have thought, and think still, that pails can drain a river.

Robert Barltrop

The Hitler film (1954)

Film Review from the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

The full title of the motion picture is The Eva Braun and Hitler Story. It is made up of actual photographs of people and events, and a large number of shots were taken in Hitler’s own domestic circle.

Why this picture was not brought out years ago is a trifle puzzling since all the filming took place up to 1945. Perhaps the answer is to be found in the warning tagged on the end of the title on the screen, “it must never happen again.”

One thing that stood out from start to finish of the film was that it was meant to spotlight the military aspects of Hitler Germany and to say as little as possible about working class conditions there. In the light of up-to-date events in Germany, the propaganda of the period of the picture shows the complete hypocrisy of capitalist propaganda. During the showing, when one had just got used to seeing German military uniforms, the scene suddenly switched to a conference of “Allied” war men, amongst them Eisenhower and Montgomery, and for a moment apart from knowing the faces, one could see no difference.

The scenes when Hitler drove through the streets lined on both sides with cheering, flag-waving workers, were quite similar to those witnessed when members of the Royal family and political leaders do the same thing here and elsewhere throughout the world. The spirit of nationalism and patriotism is built and fostered in all cases.

A lot was made of the privilege and comfort enjoyed by Eva Braun and the children, whilst other Germans faced privation and hardship, particularly after D-day and the air-raids on German cities. We are presumably supposed to think that the allied rulers were different in this respect.

The film tries to convince us that it was merely the dreams of Hiller and his “love of power” that drove Germany to war, as if the need to expand and find markets and resources in a capitalist world had had nothing to do with it. Under capitalism each nation grabs what it can in territories, resources, markets and trade-routes and although these things are the concern of the capitalist class they are a ways prepared to “grab” or “defend” them with working-class lives. After Germany’s defeat in the 1914-18 blood bath for profits, the pickings of Europe were taken. The idea of keeping Germany out of the game lasted until French capitalism showed signs of having ambitions of its own. Then the “balance of power” policy was reverted to. When Hitler came along he adapted himself to the prevailing conditions by promising work to the unemployed and revival to the thwarted industrialists. The war-machine and the State dictatorship were to be the means to expand. The fact that from the earliest days Hitler’s Germany was building warships and going ahead with rearmament far in excess of what was permitted under the treaties, was very well known. The slogan “expand or bust,” applies to all capitalist nations. That is why there are always new rivals, new line-ups, and new wars being planned.

To expand is to develop industry and production, which means the creation of vast surpluses of goods for which markets must be found—or bust, which means slump, crisis and depression. Since the markets and resources of Europe were already being exploited, to “expand” for Germany meant arming and marching. The film under review was really nothing more than a record of the process whereby Germany shook off the restraints of defeat and reasserted herself as an industrial power. Who was it that said “history repeats itself?”

The commentator, during a conference between Hitler and Mussolini, referred to them as these “Fascist” leaders, but no comment was made on Churchill’s one-time admiration for these figures (particularly Mussolini) in pre-war days.

Our case as Socialists is that capitalism is rotten and ugly wherever it may be, in that it rests on the exploitation of the many by the few and all the pacts and alliances are nothing but manoeuvres for position amongst the thieves. We said in 1936: “No frontier is worth the life of a single worker” (P. 4 “War and the Working Class”). Years before this at the outbreak of the 1914-18 war we made similar statements, and to-day we say exactly the same.

In spite of the denunciations of one Power by another, opposing groups are prepared to line up together if it suits their purpose. Did not the British and American capitalists, while affecting to despise one dictatorship, line up with another—Russia? We know it is claimed that this was only done to “smash Fascism,” but now the ex-allies are planning to smash one-another with half the ex-Fascists on each side. Surely the complete farce of capitalism is self-evident.

No film of Hitler's Germany would be complete without some reference being made to the persecution of the Jews. Let it be recognised, however, that racial discrimination is not something of which Germany alone was guilty. Though, of course, not to be compared with the mass brutalities perpetrated in Germany in the name of race, race prejudice exists everywhere. Even at the time of writing certain states in the U.S.A., for example, are talking of forcibly resisting the High Courts order to end segregation in American schools.

The conclusion we come to is that if any propaganda film tells the truth in full it will expose the foul deeds of its own side as well as those of its opponents. Truth then can never be the stock-in-trade of capitalist propagandists; the stories are always told with the slant of whatever national capitalist group puts them over.

As Socialists we do not merely find fault with this or that capitalist country. We say that where there is capitalism, i.e. class ownership of the means of living, buying and selling, wage-labour and profits, there is poverty, misery and drudgery, and in no country do the working class own anything to die for. The fight of the world’s workers is the fight to get the capitalist class off their backs by introducing Socialism—i.e.. a world system with no wages, profits, buying or selling, where all the means of living are held in common and war and war propaganda are things of the past.

Harry Baldwin

Blogger's Note:

I'm not actually sure what film this is that is being reviewed. The title listed above does not throw anything up on the internet. It could be the French language documentary 'Autant en emporte l'histoire - La vie privée d'Hitler et d'Eva Braun' from 1949, but don't quote me on it.

About Books (1954)

Book Reviews from the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

British Trade Unions can be divided, briefly into three categories: unions that cater for workers in one trade only, like the United Society of Boilermakers; unions that embrace all the workers in an industry, like the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Union of Railwaymen; and unions that enrol members from a wide variety of trades, jobs and industries, such as the Transport and General Workers’ Union and the National Union of General and Municipal Workers.

The tendency during the past few decades has been for federations and amalgamations to thin out the ranks of the smaller craft unions and to create, by a merging process, the large organisations that we know today.

This process has created problems of organisation. Unions with hundreds of thousands of members, many of them engaged in different trades and spread all over the country, have had to devise some complicated machinery for the management of their affairs, the formulating and carrying out of national policies. Most of them have constitutions that provide for control of policy by the membership, but in practice, this democratic control does not work out. The majority of trade unionists take no part in the formulation of their union’s policy. Of those that are active the larger number have little, if any, understanding of the society in which their organisation functions and, in consequence, have their ideas moulded by their trade union officials. Thus, the officials are able to impose a policy on the unions.

A book entitled Power in Trade Unions, A Study of their Organisation in Great Britain, by V. L. Allen, has recently been published by Longmans, Green and Co., at 25/-. Mr. Allen examines the constitutions of 127 unions and shows the policy-making process, the power of trade union executives and permanent officers and the disciplinary measures used to ensure obedience from the members.

A similar work was published, in 1952 by George Allen and Unwin, entitled The Government of British Trade Unions, by Joseph Goldstein. Mt. Goldstein limited his study almost exclusively to the Transport and General Workers’ Union and revealed how apathy destroys the application of democratic principles.

Both these authors have collected masses of figures and have compiled many charts to illustrate their revelations. For the student of Trade Unionism both books are worth reading, but if one had to be selected we would recommend Mr. Allen’s.

The History of Trade Unionism, by Sydney and Beatrice Webb, although it does not bring the picture right up to date, is still the classic history of the subject A useful little book that brings the subject right up to 1952, is British Trade Unionism, a Short History, by Allen Hutt, published by Lawrence and Wishart. for 12/6. Mr. Hutt’s political sentiments peep through in places, but his book is a good, interesting, short history.

A less useful, though very interesting book, is an illustrated volume in the Britain in Pictures series, published by William Collins. It is British Trade Unions, by Sir Walter Citrine.

Two books, useful to students, covering a wide study of Trade Unions in a limited number of pages are Trade Unions Today, by Henry Collins (Frederick Muller Ltd., 6/-), and British Trade Unions, by N. Barou. (Gollancz. Left Book Club).

This small collection of books should give a student a satisfactory grounding in the subject and should make him realise the limitations of trade union action in improving the lot of the working class. Capitalism sets the limits and the trade unions, products of that system cannot break outside it. Only by social revolution can the working class escape from the ills which they seek to palliate through trade union action.

W. Waters.

Editorial: No Freedom of the Air for S.P.G.B. (1954)

Editorial from the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the current argument between the Labour and Tory parties about the respective merits of commercial and non-commercial television both sides have something to say about the extent to which the one or other method will give a stranglehold to monopoly and crowd out small groups. The Labourites, in line with their general support for government control maintain that commercial T.V. would give a monopoly to large and wealthy commercial interests; to which their opponents retort that State monopoly has even less regard for weak independent views. The S.P.G.B., not being enamoured in the least of either private or State capitalism, can see no merit in either point of view. It is true that with commercial T.V. (or sound broadcasting) the capitalist rule prevails that the freedom of the air is for those who can afford to pay for it but it is also true that in all the 32 years of State controlled broadcasting in this country the S.P.G.B. case has never once been allowed to be heard.

This is not for want of trying. On numerous occasions application has been made but always some reason is found for refusing it. The latest application, made in August, 1953, has ended in the usual way. Not, of course, a blunt declaration that there is no intention to allow us to broadcast, merely polite reasons why it cannot be this time—but as these polite refusals extend over decades they add up to the same thing as a final no.

The first reason for refusal is that Party political broadcasts are reserved for parties represented in Parliament or putting forward a certain number of candidates at a general election. When we pointed out that this arrangement tests on an agreement of the large political parties and in effect gives them a monopoly to the exclusion of small organizations the B.B.C. replied saying that they resented this imputation. The exclusion of the small organizations from that series of political broadcasts did not, said the B.B.C. give a monopoly to the big organizations because there are other political broadcasts outside that series.

Fine, so we applied to come under one of them, as we have done before, and in order to fit in with the suggestion thrown out by the B.B.C. we related our proposed broadcast to the 50th anniversary of the founding of the S.P.G.B. To this we received the reply that our proposed statement does not offer a basis for a broadcast because there would not, in the opinion of the B.B.C. be sufficient public interest in the anniversary of the S.P.G.B.

So this latest attempt to get on the air meets the fate of the several earlier applications—a number of different ways of saying no.

We would add, for the information of Labour Party supporters who may think that things are different under Labour Government, that we received the same treatment under Labour Government as under the present and pre-war Conservative Governments

In the recent correspondence we reminded the B.B.C. that in 1949 the Broadcasting Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Beveridge, had recommended the B.B.C. to consider the possibility of a kind of “Hyde Park of the Air,” in order to give all minorities which had a message, “religious or otherwise," some time to broadcast. (Report Para. 257). They also expressed the view (Para 259) that the allocation of opportunities to ventilate controversial views “should not be guided either by simple calculations of the numbers who already hold such views or by fear of giving offence to particular groups of listeners."

Those recommendations evidently fell on deaf ears at Broadcasting House.

September Special Number (1954)

Party News from the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

We would again remind members and sympathisers that we urgently require donations to cover the extra cost of the September Special Number of the “Socialist Standard,” Unless sufficient money comes in quickly we will have to be more modest in our proposals. We urge those who are interested in seeing this Special Number a worthy commemoration of fifty years of our paper to do their best to see that we can accomplish this object. So far the response has not been what it should be and the time is getting short.

Party News Briefs (1954)

Party News from the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ealing Branch. In spite of the bad weather, Ealing Branch's special May canvassing drive was extremely successful. Thirty-four dozen Socialist Standards were sold in all, a record for the Branch. Members taking part were only sorry that two wet Sundays at the beginning of the month prevented more from being sold.

It is interesting to note that on the first follow-up, i.e., on the canvass following the first excursion into a new area, the percentage of people taking a second copy works out at about 50%. This proportion shows a slight tendency to fall in later months, but the number of “ regular” readers usually evens itself out at about 2 in 5 of those first taking the “S.S.” Most encouraging of all is the interest and eagerness shown by those taking the second and subsequent copies. Whether they agree with our case or not, it is quite obvious that they are politically interested and are prepared to consider our point of view. As one member of the i canvassing team put it—“It seems to show that the apathy is not in the public, but in the members.” 

Preparations are now being made for another special drive to sell the “celebration issue” of the Standard in September. Will all members please note and contact the Branch Literary Secretary. Further members are also required, not to do the “preliminary spadework,” which many of them for some reason think is hard and intimidating work, but to deliver the “S.S.” to regular readers already established Again, will they please contact the Branch Literature Secretary.

West Ham Branch are also carrying on a canvassing campaign. Thirty-four copies of the May “S.S.” Figures are not yet complete for the June sales, but up to date results indicate that the figure should exceed that of May. These figures are an encouraging start to our campaign but compared with the splendid achievement of Ealing Branch canvassing, the Branch's effort seems modest. However, it is not so long ago that West Ham Branch topped the thirty-two dozen mark and what has been done before can be done again. The Branch appeals to members to join with Ealing Branch and show the Party that canvassing is not only an extremely useful method of propaganda, but also a medium to which every member can apply time and energy.

Outdoor propaganda meetings at Station Road, Ilford, have met with great success. This is partly due to the attendance of several Branch members assisting with literature and general support. The same story cannot be told about the new station in East Ham, South. If members make every effort to support this new venture, good results will surely be the outcome.

Attempts are being made to secure a debate with the Peace Pledge Union and the prospects seem likely.

Any Branch member who is out of contact with the Branch and requires any information regarding Branch activity is invited to telephone ILF 2884. He (or she) is bound to be talked into doing something useful for the Party!

Fiftieth Anniversary Meeting.—An audience of about three hundred and fifty members and sympathisers attended St. Pancras Town Hall on Sunday, June 13th, when speakers told of the Party’s activity over the years.

News Items from Abroad.—The Literature Committee report that a request for a copy of “Questions of the Day” has been made from Singapore.

Our Irish Comrades report that during the recent elections in Dublin, a newspaper reported the fact that “one voter in the constituency drew a pencil through all the candidates names and wrote—‘Socialism is the only hope of the world* at the bottom of the paper.” This same item of news was broadcast from Radio Eirean.

Central Branch Secretary would be pleased to have news of Comrades E. Clarke and O. Gelder (both of Hornsey Rise) and Comrade A. H. Marquis. These members have apparently changed their addresses without forwarding their new ones.

Dartford Branch, in spite of local conditions which, at present, make outdoor propaganda impossible, is nevertheless making solid progress in other directions.

A fresh attempt is being made to arouse interest in local T.U. Branches, and the Branch Organiser is making every effort to arrange debates with other political parties.

To stimulate interest among Branch members a programme of monthly discussions has been drawn up with both Branch members and those of other Branches leading the discussions. A start was made to this programme in May when Com. A. Botterill of Dartford Branch opened a discussion on “Production, Past, Present and Future.” This aroused considerable interest among Branch members and augurs well for the future discussions. These discussions will all be advertised in the Socialist Standard. Party members and sympathisers, living in the North West Kent area, are cordially invited to attend the discussions which arc held on the second Friday of each month at Dartford Labour Club, Lowfield Street, Dartford. The club is seven minutes walk from Dartford Station and two minutes walk from the Green Line coaches, alighting point Dartford Market Place.

On June 11th, Com. A. Turner addressed the Branch, taking as his subject “The Declaration of Principles.” There was a lively discussion until well after the normal branch closing time.

Dartford members are urged to support the Beresford Square. Woolwich, meetings, held Thursdays at 8 p.m.

Phyllis Howard

No Alternative to Socialism (1954)

From the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is often stated by opponents of the S.P.G.B. that, after 50 years of propaganda, we have been unable to obtain the support of more than a few thousand members of the working class; that none of the social conditions which the present system has produced so far has led to anything remotely approaching the big change in the majority’s outlook. They therefore argue that we must be expecting some new circumstances which we think will lead to this big change of outlook, or that we have no reasons for hoping for it. It is pertinent criticism which can be answered.

Firstly what the S.P.G.B. does claim is that the material conditions, that is the development of the productive forces and the knowledge of how to produce enough to satisfy men’s needs, have been established with the development of capitalism. That there are certain countries which have yet to become industrialised on a large scale is true, but the industrial revolution is going on at a rapid pace in most of these countries. What is lacking is not the objective conditions but the subjective, that is the mass understanding and desire to establish Socialism. It is to propagate the idea of Socialism and to organise to establish it that is the task of the S.P.G.B. and of other Socialist Parties in the world.

The Class Struggle

The importance of the class struggle to Socialists is that it is the mechanism through the operation of which social changes are produced. The class struggle under capitalism arises from the relations of production, that is between the workers who have no means of living except by the sale of their labour power and the capitalist class who own either as individuals or collectively the means of production and distribution.

While capitalism continues, this struggle between the two classes will continue: there is no alternative: it is a struggle for existence. The largest organisations of the working class are the trade unions which attempt to maintain and improve the social conditions of their members, but they are limited by the economic laws of the capitalist system. Struggle as they may their members remain wage workers, they remain an exploited class and suffer the effects of the continuance of capitalism.

There is no way out except Socialism. Now as in 1904, when the S.P.G.B. was formed Socialism is the only answer. No developments have occurred, no tendencies have been produced to show that there can possibly be any other alternative. Until Socialism has been established capitalism will continue and with it the effects of the capitalist system—world wars, slumps, booms, poverty, riches, frustration and social antagonisms, rivalry between national capitalist states. No-one, no organisation, has shown any way of maintaining capitalism without the conditions which arise out of the social system of to-day. The reason is simple: if the conditions arise out of the social system of society, only the abolition of that system will remove the conditions.

To maintain that Socialism is not inevitable means to maintain that the working class do not learn from their experiences of the effects of capitalism. It can be agreed that some people learn more quickly than others, that some have been more fortunate in that they have made contact with Socialist ideas and have obtained a knowledge of Socialism earlier than others. The S.P.G.B. never stated in 1904 that Socialism would be established in 50 years; the foundation members stated that Socialism would come when the majority understood and desired it. We in 1954 state the same thing.

Events have not stood still, the productive forces have developed still further, capitalism has spread throughout the world and its effects on countries like Russia and China have been tremendous. Two world wars in 50 years have shaken the system to its foundations. No one can maintain that these events have not produced an effect on the working class. Likewise the experience of nationalisation. For years we had to explain that nationalisation would not make any real difference to the working class; in a few years practical experience of the effects of nationalisation has proved our case. The political party which advocated nationalisation as the cure has now no. other solution. It has been tried and found wanting.

Admittedly the growth of Socialist knowledge has been slow, but once again we ask what other alternative is there? The fact that there is no other alternative makes the situation clear; either we have Socialism or Capitalism will continue and we the working class will continue to suffer the effects of capitalism. Since we don’t like things as they are we work to propagate and organise for Socialism. Those outside our ranks who are dissatisfied with the conditions of capitalism have yet to learn that Socialism is the only alternative and the only remedy; but the fact that they are dissatisfied, the fact that the class struggle exists due to the property relations of production, means that they are for ever seeking a way out.

Only those who consider that the working class is incapable of understanding Socialism and will never learn can deny that Socialism is inevitable. To such people we state that a class who produce all and provide for the needs and desires of the capitalist class are quite capable of changing the property relations and, by expropriating the parasite class, abolishing class society. The working class are not only capable but will be compelled to take this step in due course: there is no other alternative

D. W. Lock

Cry Over Spilt Milk (1954)

From the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

   “Villagers blinked in surprise when a 3.000-gallon milk tanker drew up at their disused coal mine. They wondered why. But they were not left wondering long—for the milk was poured to the bottom of the pit.”
   “The tanker came again and again and the people of Tunley. near Bath, found that their pit had been turned into a 60,000-gallon ‘milk bottle' ”—Daily Herald, (2.6.54.)

The milk was skimmed and had been left over from butter-making. “Transport and other difficulties” allegedly prevented the farmers having it for animal fattening, yet the tankers could make 20-mile trips just to dump it. The Milk Marketing Board offered the explanation that when sold at 3½d. or 4d. a pint was hardly economical. Milk, of course, is today produced to sell, and if it can’t be sold then the cows are just wasting their time.

Ironically enough, on the same day the Manchester Guardian carried a report that a record number of one million cows were artificially inseminated in the year ended last March. These dumb animals had better realise that, along with their human counterparts, they are in grave danger of working themselves out of a job. Not only that—their work seems to have been deprived of pleasure, too.

STAN.

Leaders and Led (1954)

From the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

In capitalist society the workers may find themselves short of many things but they are never short of “leaders.” The business of becoming a leader is an art which is followed by many for reasons which range from a mistaken sense of service and guidance to those who desire power solely and consciously in their own interest. Whichever the category to which the prospective leader belongs, his actions have the same result as far as the working class is concerned. The quest for places in professional leadership circles is a cunning and often ruthless task, the accent being on the cunning and ruthless method in countries openly dictatorial in form, while in the more democratic countries the method is more varied and subtle but none the less successful. In any case, we get our leaders either born great, having achieved greatness, or having greatness thrust upon them.

Our educational system is a vital part of the machinery for maintaining the idea of the desirability of leadership. The recent conference of the National Association of Head Teachers was treated to an address by its president. Miss Armstrong, in which she waxed eloquent on the leadership idea. She states that leaders are chosen for their “ability to lead” and she extolls democracy as being a situation that opens a way for the “humblest born to attain high prominence in the State as leaders.” We cannot but deplore and condemn such a view on democracy.

Miss Armstrong believes that one of the duties of teachers is to produce leaders though she does qualify this by saying that some teachers may disagree with this view. She, however, is full of hope that “brilliant children in Grammar Schools should be educated for leadership.”

In conformity with her leadership views she clinches her argument with reference to the teaching of religion in schools and its importance in bringing about the kind of society she wants to see (obviously, the leaders and the led). In this context she does not mention those teachers who disagree.
While on the subject of leadership in the religious sense, one finds that it has gone to extraordinary lengths in that home of strange causes, the U.S.A. where, we are told, the 1936 Convention of the followers of a Mr. George Baker, alias “Father Divine,” established by unanimous vote, that he (George Baker) was God Incarnate. Since 1936 this particular God enterprise has gone on from strength to strength and is now a full scale profit making enterprise. Perhaps “Father Divine” had the good fortune to have been educated by one of Miss Armstrong’s “teachers of faith and sound conviction" ?

Finally, to come to a more “earthly” kind of conference—that of the British Legion, held recently, where once more the question of pensions arose.

Disabled ex-servicemen know more about leaders and leadership than most; they have their medals and their disablement to prove it. Sir Ian Fraser, Tory leader of the disabled, as usual raises his voice on their behalf, supported by other “lesser leaders" of Churches, T.U. branches, Co-ops’, etc.

Examples, given in the press, of the budgets of some of our disabled, are indeed heart rending. It is more so to the Socialist who finds the aim of the “great attack" against a niggardly government is to increase the present miserable amount of pension to something only a little less miserable. Our view, of course, is that workers, fit and unfit, would be better employed in struggling for a world where everyone—barring accident and natural causes—will be able to keep his health and limbs intact during his natural span of life.

To sum up: Socialists have no use for leaders; leaders imply the led. Socialists are people capable of doing their own thinking. Thinking people will not require leaders rather than administrators. Just as at the moment sons and daughters of the workers are bought and employed as administrators for Capitalist enterprises both State and privately run. This is the meaning of the Head Teachers’ leader’s plea for education in leadership—to perpetuate the prevailing system. Socialists want to change the prevailing system.

The chief reason for people supporting the continuation of Capital, even whilst grumbling at its deficiencies (as the Disabled Men’s Organizations are doing) is because they are led to believe that there is no alternative. Socialists know otherwise and want others to know too.

W. Brain

Notes on Party History: The Trade Union Question (1954)

From the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Trade Union question was a very thorny one in the early years of the Party. Some of those who founded the Party had a leaning towards industrial unionism, whilst others were inclined to regard the trade unions as only another facet of Capitalism. These conflicting views were reflected in disagreements over policy that were brought to a head in 1906 when a number of meetings were arranged to discuss the Party’s attitude to Trade Unionism..

Before reaching this discussion we will relate some of the events that led up to it.

At the Inaugural Meeting a motion had been carried instructing the E.C. to convene a special meeting of members as soon as possible “to discuss and determine the attitude of the Party towards trade unions.” The E.C. arranged for this special meeting to be held on the 9th July at the Food Reform Restaurant in Furnival Street. Lehane, Anderson and Neumann, were appointed as a sub-committee to draft a resolution on trade unions to be submitted to the meeting.

The sub-committee reported that they were unable to come to agreement. The following resolution and amendment were then submitted to the Executive Committee meeting. We are giving them fully because they became the motions discussed at the special meeting. 

Lehane and Jackson moved:

   “Whereas the private ownership by the master-class of the means whereby the people live produces in the field of industry, as the inevitable outcome of the very conditions of modern society, an unceasing conflict between the propertied idlers and the propertyless workers, a conflict manifesting itself in the form of strikes, lock-outs and general social disturbance, and
  “Whereas the workers in their endeavour to resist the encroachments of the exploiting class, or to secure higher wages, shorter hours, better conditions of labour, have largely organised themselves into Trade Unions, and,
   “Whereas, the capitalist class in its desire to wring more profits, rent, and interest out off the labour of the workers, has for years been organised into rings, combines, and trusts with the object of controlling markets, raising prices, limiting production, reducing wages and intensifying labour, and,
   “Whereas, the capitalist class through its judges has recently seized Trade Union Funds and shows its intention to further confiscate the property of the Trade Union organisations, thereby forcing members of the latter to turn their attention to political action.
  “The Socialist Party of Great Britain, in General Meeting assembled, realising that this twofold organisation of the hostile classes in society is preparing the way for the transformation of capitalist property into common ownership by limiting competition among the workers on the one hand and by combining and concentrating capital on the other, recommends its members to join the unions in their respective trades in order that by the spread of socialist enlightenment the members of the working class organised in Trade Unions may be enabled to prosecute the class struggle with the efficiency which results alone from clearly defined class-conscious action and taught to translate the industrial conflict into the field of politics, calls upon the Trade Unionists and all other wage workers in this country to join the Socialist Party in order that they may proceed to the conquest of the powers of Government as the indispensable preliminary to the overthrow and dispossession of the capitalist class and the establishment of a society in which the means and instruments for producing the necessaries, comforts and luxuries of life will be the common and democratically controlled property of the whole people."

To this resolution Anderson and Neumann moved the following amendment:

  “Whereas the Declaration of Principles of the Socialist Party of Great Britain is one of hostility to all other parties in the political field, and,
  “Whereas the Trade Unions have definitely taken up a position other than that of the Socialist in that field.
 “The Socialist Party in General Meeting assembled declares that while through other circumstances its members may be compelled to belong to such organisations, such members and any others who may deem it advisable to be in Trade Unions shall simply use their position therein to reiterate the Socialist position, but shall in no case accept any official position where their actions would be controlled by the Trade Unions instead of by Socialist convictions.” 

At the Executive Committee the Anderson amendment was carried by six votes to two. It was submitted to the General Meeting and Lebane’s motion was moved as an amendment. After considerable discussion the General Meeting carried Lehane’s amendment by twenty votes to nineteen and it then became the resolution. An amendment to it was proposed, but as it was too late to take it. the meeting adjourned with the request that the Executive Committee arrange another meeting.

The adjourned meeting on Trade Unions was continued on the 7th August. The following amendment to the Lehane's resolution was moved by Hawkins and Jacobs:

  “The Socialist Party of Great Britain, recognising that the working class must be organised both politically and economically for the safe-guarding of working class interests and the overthrow of Capitalism, declares nevertheless the ultimate uselessness of any economic organisation not based on the principle of working-class solidarity and recognition of the class-struggle.
  “The Socialist Party of Great Britain, seeing that the trade unions of this country are sectional in character and unconscious of the historic mission of the working-class, cannot give unreserved support to these organisations, which have been frequently manipulated to suit capitalist interests. Members of the Socialist Party who belong to non-Socialist Trade Unions are therefore required not to accept any political office whatever in their Trade Unions, nor any office or position in the execution of the duties of which they may be required to take political action. They are, further, advised to form Socialist groups inside their unions for the purpose of common counsel and joint action to counteract any abandonment of working-class interests and to educate their fellow members in the principles of the class-struggle.
  “The Socialist Party recognises that the Trade Unions are essentially economic organisations and that when based upon and informed by correct principles they are capable of fulfilling their function as such. It demands from the Trade Unions a similar recognition that the political action of the working-class must be revolutionary, and the function of, and can only be taken by, the Socialist Party.
  "The political and economic organisations of the working-class should work together, in harmonious cooperation, and the Socialist Party desires, to this end, the affiliation of such unions as shall recognise the necessity for ending the wage-system and establishing the Socialist Republic.”

This amendment was lost by twenty-five votes to ten.

Auger and Fitzgerald then moved that the following addendum be incorporated with the Lehane resolution:—

  "That this meeting is of opinion that the only solution of the Trade Union problem will be found by forming within each union, in which we have members, groups which shall consider such unions constituencies for propaganda and electoral purposes and be under the full control of the Executive Committee of the Party, and resolves that the Rules of the Party shall incorporate this principle.”

This addendum was carried by seventeen votes to nine, and was followed by a further amendment moved. by Hawkins and Anderson:—

  “That the Socialist Party of Great Britain, recognising that the Trade Union movement as at present constituted is organised on an unsound basis, declines to take part in its action until such time as these organisations shall be brought into line with the Socialist principle. In the meantime, members are permitted to join Trade Unions where compelled by economic circumstances, pending the organisation of Socialist Trade Unions.”

The amendment was lost by nineteen votes to sixteen.

The meeting had now reached closing time without it being possible to put the Resolution on account of the many amendments. It was obvious that the disagreements were too sharp to enable a useful conclusion being reached. The meeting adjourned after passing the following curious resolution, which is some reflection of the nature of the discussion:—

  "That this meeting adjourn until a decision is arrived at as to whether Trade Unions are political organisations and therefore if our relations thereto are covered by our Declaration of Principles.”

The E.C. appointed a sub-committee to report on this resolution. The sub-committee submitted a statement which they suggested should be recommended as a preamble to the Lehane resolution. This statement pointed out that organisations of workers in various trades being primarily formed for economic action were not covered by that section of our Declaration of Principles which declares hostility to all other political parties. The suggestion was carried by six votes to five.

At the September General Meeting Lehane’s resolution was replaced by an amendment which was carried and then carried as the substantive Resolution with only a few dissentients. This resolution, moved by Hawkins and McNicol, was as follows:

  "The Socialist Party of Great Britain declares that Trade Unionism is a necessary form of working-class organisation, but also declares that unless such unions are based upon the class-struggle they become useless and reactionary. Therefore members of the Socialist Party, as Trade Unionists, must work for the conversion of their trade organisations to the sound economic position which alone fits the Trade Union to co-operate with the Socialist Party for the overthrow of capitalism.
  "As a matter of tactics the Party considers it advisable that Socialists should not hold office in non-Socialist trade societies where such office involves political action, and in all cases members of the Party must resign office whenever continuance' therein would require deviation from the political action or policy of the Socialist Party.”

It is worth noticing that this resolution was put and carried after the members had been discussing the question for seven or eight hours and most of them must have been too weary to realize the full import of what they were voting on.

At the following E.C. meeting a resolution, moved by Anderson and Crump, was carried, which stated that as the resolution on trade unions carried at the General Meeting was in conflict with the Declaration of Principles it be held in abeyance until the whole party has been consulted on the question.

On September 25th a Special General Meeting was held to discuss the Trade Union question. At this meeting the resolution at the previous General Meeting, by Hawkins and McNicol,, was rescinded. After some motions had been put forward and rejected the meeting finally adjourned without coming to any decision.

At the General Meeting on 3rd December a resolution was carried that our Declaration of Principles is sufficiently clear to be a guide to members of the Party under any possible contingency and therefore no resolutions explanatory of our principles are necessary.

No further progress was made on the Trade Union question until the Annual Conference on the 20th April, 1905. At the Conference the following resolution by Watts and Harris was carried:—

  "Whereas the Trade Unions, while being essentially economic organisations are nevertheless in many instances taking political action either to safeguard their economic existence or for other purposes, and
   "Whereas any basis of working class political action other than that laid down in the Declaration of Principles of the Socialist Party of Great Britain must lead the workers into the bog of confusion and disappointment, be it therefore
   "Resolved that this Conference of the Socialist Party of Great Britain recommends that all members of the Party within Trade Unions be instructed to actively oppose all action of the Unions that is not based on the principles of this Party.”

There the discussion ended for the time being. It was brought up again as a result of a controversy over the action of the Bexley Heath Branch of the Party and a series of discussions were held from May, 1906, onwards, which were fully reported in the Socialist Standard at the time. Before considering these discussions we will explain the Bexley Heath controversy as it had a bearing on the discussions.

Gilmac.

Backwaters of History - 9 (1954)

From the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Knights of Labour

America in 1869. Abraham Lincoln had been deal four years and Andrew Johnson was president, to be ousted in that year by the famous General Ulysses Simpson Grant. Brigham Young, who had proclaimed the doctrine of polygamy in 1852, was prophet and president of the Mormon state of Utah, to which he had led his persecuted followers five years earlier. In San Francisco the infamous Barbary Coast was at the height of its notoriety. Indian wars were being fought in Colorado. There was gold in Nevada. The westward flowing traffic on the Oregon trail was passing to the newly built Union Pacific Railway. Gun-slingers were rampant on Kansas. In the southern states, recently devastated by the civil war, the negroes, released from their chattel slavery, were being coerced into a form of serfdom through the medium of "protective legislation" and vagrancy laws. "Carpet-baggers" from the north and "Scallywags" from the south, were muscling-in on the war-torn states and creating the rackets that furnished the foundations for more than a few American family fortunes. In the northern states industry was flourishing. The European agents of American manufacturers were gathering together hundreds of thousands of willing worker emigrants, making contracts with them and herding them across the Atlantic to satisfy the hungry maw of the American labour market for cheap labour power.

Philadelphia—"city of brotherly love"—founded by William Penn, the Quaker, in 1682 as a city in which men of all races might live, each following, unpersecuted, his own religion. Philadelphia, with its growing industries, received its share of immigrants. Amongst them were many Germans, some of whom were political exiles and refugees and had experience with the International Working Men's Association.

The condition of the American workers in 1869 was vile. Tens of thousands of women and children were working eleven and twelve hours a day. Overcrowded, ill ventilated, damp, insalubrious tenements and dwelling houses were a prolific cause of disease. Wages were kept low and strikes were smashed by the importation of more and more cheap labourers from Europe and Asia. Workers were imported from China for $100 each and paid wages of from $8 to $12 a month.

"A shoe manufacturer in North Adams, Massachusetts imported 75 Chinese to displace striking members of the Knights of St. Crispin in 1870"— (The Workers in American History, James Oneal, p. 175.)

It required courage to stand up to the persecution and the outlawing black-list that threatened every worker who attempted to organise with his fellows, yet, despite these conditions, there arose some powerful working class organisations.

Amongst the garment workers of Philadelphia were some courageous men, including some of the German exiles. They were organised by Uriah S. Stephens into a secret society the name of which was not written but indicated by five stars whenever it was necessary to refer to it in print or writing. For nine years it preserved its secrecy with its passwords, handgrips and queer cabalistic signs chalked on the sidewalks and fences. Its ritual declared that,

" . . . open and public association having failed after a struggle of centuries to protect or advance the interests of labour, we have lawfully constituted this assembly and in using this power of organised effort and co-operation we but imitate the example of capital, for in all the multifarious branches of trade, capital has its combinations and whether intended or not it crushes the manly hopes of labour and tramples poor humanity into the dust."— (Quoted by Mary Beard in A Short History of the American Labour Movement. pp. 116-117.)

In 1878 this society came into the open as the Noble Order of the Knights of Labour, called its first general assembly and elected its founder as Grand Master Workman. Stephens resigned shortly afterwards and was succeeded by Terrence V. Powderley.  

The Knights of Labour proclaimed a concern for all workers regardless of skill, sex or race. It took as its slogan, "An injury to one is the concern of all." It refused to countenance craft exclusiveness, claiming that the solidarity of the workers could bridge all differences and secure "the physical well-being, the mental development and the moral elevation of mankind." Anyone who worked for wages could become a member. Only saloon keepers, lawyers, doctors and bankers were prohibited from joining.

The organisation spread all over the United States. It was organised into locals of two kinds; trade locals comprising members of one trade only, and mixed locals with membership available to all. Delegates from five locals constituted a district assembly and delegates from the districts formed the general assembly which had the over-riding authority.

The aims of the K. of L. were not revolutionary and it did not recognise the class struggle. Amongst its aims were these: —

" . . . no conflict with legitimate enterprise, no antagonism to necessary capital . . . "
"We shall with all our strength support laws made to harmonise the interests of labour and capital and also those laws which tend to lighten the exhaustiveness of toil." — (Quoted by A. Bimba in The History of the American Working Class. pp. 173-174.)

The Knights did not start out to encourage strikes and the leaders frequently tried to suppress them. They aimed to replace a competitive society by a co-operative one which would give the workers the opportunity to enjoy fully the wealth they created. This was to be done by reducing the "money power" of the banks. They also aimed to secure the eight hour day, equal pay for equal work by women, abolition of child and convict labour, public ownership of mines, railways and other utilities, and the establishment of co-operatives.

The religious fervour with which the campaign for the eight hour day was conducted drew thousands of workers to the ranks of K. of L. Despite its original aims it was forced to participate in strikes and it entered into wage agreements with employers. Its locals organised stay-in strikes amongst miners, boycotts and sent funds to strikers.

On February 26th, 1886, the shopmen on the Wabash Railroad suffered a 10 per cent. cut in pay. The following day they were out on strike and were joined on March 9th by the shopmen of the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway, who had received a wage cut the previous October. Shortly there were 4,500 workers on strike. The Knights sent their Union Pacific Railroad man, Buckman, with $30,000 to lead and finance the strike and locomotives were immobilised by the removal of vital parts. The railway companies gave in but later that year they tried to break the power of the K. of L. by dismissing them from their employ. They were immediately faced with a threat of strike action by 20,000 workers, and Jay Gould, the owner of the south west railway system, surrendered.

Successes like this caused workers to flock to the K. of L. and its membership increased seven-fold in one year reaching the peak of 700,000, almost 10 per cent. of the industrial wage workers.

Later strike efforts were sabotaged by the Knight's leaders on the plea that prolonged strikes caused suffering to the workers and their families. Strikes were even called off when they had been waged to the point of success. There was an instance in Chicago. In October, 1886, 20,000 butchers were locked out by the owners of the meat packing industry in an effort to re-establish the ten hour working day, the workers having achieved an eight hour day some time previously. Two regiments of militia were sent by the State governor to force the workers into submission and the packers association employed hundreds of Pinkerton agents and provocateurs to the same end. Organised by District Assemblies 27 and 54 of the K. of L., the men held firm till the employers weakened and offered concessions. On the eve of victory Terrence V. Powderley sent a telegram ordering the men back to work and so demoralised the ranks that the workers finally submitted to the employers' demands.

In 1881 there had been formed the Federation of Organised Trades and Labour which in 1886 gave way to the American Federation of Labour with Samuel Gompers of the Cigarmakers; Union as its first president. It set out to organise the skilled workers on a craft basis based on ideas directly opposite to those held by the Knights. The A. F. of L. began to draw members from the K. of L. and a struggle began between the two organisations. At the height of its strength a rot set in in the Knights of Labour. It became the victim of that most destructive element, the labour fakir and job-seeker. When the American capitalist class was getting its biggest fright from the K. of L., that body began to crack. It had attracted to its ranks all kinds of cranks, reformers, careerists, anarchists, professional people and even a few employers. It became a battleground for all sorts of ideas. When the eight hour campaign fizzled out and the opposition of the A. F. of L. had to be met the Knights declined rapidly. The employers took advantage of their plight and with blacklist, ironclad and Pinkerton detectives set out to smash them. As the Knights crumbled the A. F. of L. rose on its ruins.

By 1900 the Knights of Labour had ceased to exist as a national organisation with any influence, although it continued in some localities until 1917. So the all inclusive "grand national union of industrial workers" passed into the limbo of dead experiments. Such is the fate of all organisations that set themselves a political objective and try to solve the problems of capitalism without aiming at its abolition. They have their day of popularity, gathering support from all kinds of people with varying ideas who will either divert it from its object or desert it, or both.

Books to read:

Class Struggles in America, by A. M. Simons.

The Workers in American History, by James Oneal.

The History of the American Working Class, by Anthony Bimba.

History of Trade Unionism in the United States, by Selig Perlman.

A Short History of the American Labour Movement, by Mary Beard.

Brief History of the American Labour Movement, by the United States Department of Labour.

W. Waters

Work and human nature (1954)

Book Review from the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

Confirmation of the Socialist Attitude

Every Socialist has, at some time or another, met the "human nature argument." He has almost certainly had to do verbal battle with those who insist that work is distasteful to man, that he is naturally lazy and solely motivated by fear or greed. Such beliefs, we have maintained, correspond to no fundamental human traits, but arise from a confusion of human nature with behaviour under certain social circumstances.

Now along comes a book by a psychologist whose purpose in writing is obviously very far from advocating Socialism—but who nevertheless succeeds in demolishing most of the long-cherished ideas that have been put up against it. The Social Psychology of Industry, by J. A. C. Brown (Pelican, 2/6d.) is one of the best pieces of grist to come to the Socialist mill for a long time.

Dr. Brown packs his book with facts, quotations and sources of information, yet contrives also not to ignore the more personal side of his subject. In a critical survey of the history of industrial psychology he notes the reminiscences of Frederick Winslow Taylor, pioneer of Time and Motion Study: "It's a horrid life for any man to live not being able to look any workman in the face without seeing hostility there, and a feeling that every man around you is your virtual enemy." It is scarcely surprising that "Speedy" Taylor (as he was known to his colleagues) should have encountered such hostility, since he accepted without question the fact that every capitalist workshop exists first, last and all the time for the purpose of paying dividends to its owners.

Brown is critical of the old theory that human nature is unchanging and explicable solely in terms of biological instincts. He contrasts that with the new view that "does not accept instinct as an adequate explanation of human behaviour, and is more interested in how the biological drives are socially modified than in their mere existence; i.e. its explanations are in social rather than biological terms."

He elaborates this view in an analysis of the formal organisations of (capitalist) industry: 

" (1) It is deliberately impersonal.
" (2) It is based on ideal relationships.
" (3) It is based on the ' rabble hypothesis' of the nature of man (i.e. it is assumed that competition leads to maximum efficiency, that when each man fights for himself the best interests of the group are served, and that men are isolated units who may be moved about from one job to another depending only on their ability to do the job)."

Brown rightly points out that such organisation produces harmful effects on people, particularly on the workers who are shifted about from one department to another like so much cattle. It is refreshing to note that he does not think that vast improvements have been made in workers' conditions under the "welfare state," which he likens to a model cowhouse with the workers as the milch cows.

Recognition for Effort

It is often said that it is human nature to want to "get on" (meaning promotion in the sense of higher formal status). Brown shows that this is just another popular fallacy. "What people do want is a position in which it is possible to increase in prestige. Thus the average skilled craftsman does not want to become a supervisor or a factory manager—he wants to become a better craftsman and recognised as such."

Brown quotes Gordon Rattray Taylor's comment that "the best dentist in the community is not the less respected because someone else is the best ploughman", and adds "functional status leads to less rivalry and more satisfaction than derived status based on power or wealth." It is good to realise that, despite capitalist society which habitually defines status in terms of power or wealth, there are other and better ways of recognising the contributions of one's fellows to the social wellbeing.

The critics of Socialism who ask "who is going to do the dirty work?" can also learn something from this book:

". . . the lowliness or nastiness of a job are subjective estimates ... A doctor or nurse, for example, or a sanitary inspector, have to do some things which would disgust the most unskilled casual labourer who did not see these actions in their social context. Yet the status and prestige of such people is generally high.
". . . although few people object to work which is unavoidably dirty or dangerous, they will certainly not forgive the sort of unpleasantness which indicates neglect of their interests on the part of management.
" Above all, it is the prestige of his working group and his position in it which will influence the worker's attitude to such jobs. If the prestige of his group is high and he is satisfied in his membership of it, the type of work he has to do becomes a minor consideration."

Hitherto, Socialists have frequently met the criticism that, with freedom from economic compulsion, no one will want to do certain necessary but dirty or dangerous jobs. If such explanations as Brown's become widely known and accepted, Socialists can expect less of these "dirty work" objections. In any case we have given the answer that people will not be called upon to do such work against their wishes, and that society as a whole will be prepared to do without any products obtainable only at the cost of harmful work.

It is clear that the system of society we advocate fulfils all the requirements considered desirable by Brown—namely, people who hold Socialist ideas see all actions in their social context; management will not exist as a body of individuals over and above the people who actually do the work; and the "working group," being the whole of society, will give the worker the best possible satisfaction in his membership of it. The "problem" of dirty work in fact resolves itself and is merged into the wider problem of wage-labour-capital society.

A Common Task

Dealing with the more positive question of desirable social conditions, Brown again makes statements that back up the Socialist case: "People do not like to be ordered about like automatons; they like to participate in a common task." Explaining this, he writes:

" Ordinarily men and women like their work, and at most periods of history always have done so. When they do not like it, the fault lies in the psychological and social conditions of the job rather than in the worker. Furthermore, work is a social activity . . . Even when their security and that of their children is assured, they continue to labour. Obviously this is so because the rewards they get from their work are social, such as respect and admiration from their fellow-men."

Brown effectively shows that Freud and others were wrong in believing that human nature is naturally aggressive, in the sense of a tendency to sadism or deliberate cruelty. "Aggression" as the need to master painful or unpleasant circumstances is, of course, quite natural. Similarly, the concept of leadership is reduced in the book to the view that "every man should be capable of some degree of leadership—influencing others towards a satisfying participation in collective effort." No Socialist would quarrel with such a concept and practice—because it is obviously very far removed from the prejudices we usually meet about "great men."

To Socialists, Brown's conclusions are both encouraging and disappointing. Recognising that present society, more than any previous one, stimulates people's desires without being able to satisfy them, he believes that "the future approach to health is likely to be primarily in terms of the sick society rather than the sick individual." Yet he misses the significance of all he writes in suggesting that "it is necessary for the politician to bring about a state of affairs in which it is possible for the industrial worker to feel that his own interests and, those of management coincide."

In the last paragraph of the book he tells us that it is up to us to decide whether society develops within a framework of fascist barbarism, communist intolerance, or Social Democratic humanitarianism. He leaves us in no doubt that he is strongly in favour of the latter. It would be a pity if this meant nothing more than a continuation in some form of capitalist society, when the book as a whole is so obviously pointing in the direction of new social relationships based, not on property, but on co-operative endeavour.

S. R. P.