Public Safety V. Railway Profits. I. The Cleaner. (1913)

From the June 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

That Fateful Letter.

The workers in general, and railwaymen in particular, have heard a great deal respecting the “safety of the public” and the “welfare of the country” from the masters and their hangers-on just lately. We also saw the letter of Mr. A K. Butterworth (General Manager N.E.R.) to driver Knox; and, unfortunately, since then one or two “accidents” have taken place which might well make the man in the street wonder whether a train is altogether safe to ride in.

We have in front of us a very big and important question, and it would be impossible in a short article to treat it in all its branches. I propose to deal with a section of the railway workers and their conditions of service, about whom the people know very little ; and, as is always the case in like circumstances, a section that is lied about by the prostitute Press and orators of the master class, in the hope of turning public opinion against them. I refer to the men employed in what is known as the “Running Section” of the Locomotive Department of the lines. Let me explain.

The Loco. Dept. consists of all men connected with the Loco, shed work, and also the “running” section, but these latter are classed separately from the rest of the employees because they are employed to “run” the road. The men are doubtless better known as drivers, firemen, and cleaners.

A glance at the title of this article would seem to open up a question of safety in the mind of the thoughtful reader, and I have no hesitation in saying that, as at present run, safety is not the first consideration of the railway magnates. It is profit they think of first, and the services are not safe for many reasons, all of which have a direct bearing on the making of profit.

If safety was the first consideration of the companies, obviously the men who actually work the trains, viz., drivers and firemen, would be assured of a decent living so as to keep them fit for their perilous duties ; also the machines they work would be kept thoroughly roadworthy and in the pink of condition. This, however, I know from experience with two of the leading companies in this country, is not the case.

The men are sadly overworked ; their machines, many of them, are not properly road-worthy, and their wages, especially considering their responsibility, are low.

What We Shall See.

Before going any further it would, perhaps, be as well to look into the conditions of service of the men, as these conditions have a direct bearing on the safety of the services. In doing this we shall have to start with the lad who, after passing a medical examination at the hands of the railway doctor, and an eyesight test at the hands of the Loco. Superintendent or his deputy, starts in the service as an engine cleaner. This is the lad who will be a fireman at some future time, and then driver.

The safety question will not be greatly dealt with in looking at the conditions of the cleaner, for he is not yet “on the road.” Nevertheless it is necessary, I think, to examine the conditions under which he works, if only to see what qualifications he has for taking up the duties of fireman when his turn comes. We shall see that no provision is made to properly teach him the various parts of his engine, and that his daily work becomes a bore to him through the speeding up to which he is subjected.

On most of the trunk lines the lads start at 18 or older, so as to take their turn on night work. They begin by cleaning shunting engires. and are usually on for 10¼ working hours and start at 17s. a week as a rule. These engines are nearly always in a very bad condition, and the lads have to work hard—many such engines running a fortnight without having a “wiper” put on them.

An Irishman's Rise.

About twelve months of this, and then comes the first promotion—to local passenger engines, which are kept almost as dirty. The lads as a rule get 2d. a day rise then, and work in gangs, the work amounting to 1½ engines per man per night (very little or no day work is the rule when on these engines), so that the cleaners are no better off for their extra 1s. a week.

The lads then get another “promotion,” and go on tender engines. Further speeding-up is now resorted to by reducing the working hours to 9, in which time the lads have to clean the mammoth locomotives of to-day. A number of companies have the “contract” clearer, who has always the same engine to clean. It is, however, impossible to clean the biggest modern engines in 9 hours—indeed, they would in some cases take nearer 20. So a great deal of the engine is “left.”

The “contract” cleaner has no appointed time on duty. He has to vary with the “turn” of his engine, which means turning out at all hours of the day or night. A holiday is an unlooked for privilege, and even a day off in the summer is more than many dare ask for.

The man, having his regular engine, takes a pride in it, and would kick up a noise if he were barred going on his machine because it has only a “light” trip “on” it, which often is the case. It is a rule that if an engine looks anything like “respectable” it can “run round,” thus overworking the cleaner by making him “tear off” two or three trips instead of one.

I may say here that the wages of these men are the highest paid for cleaning (the G.N.R. in London district formerly paid 3s. 10d. per day) but they are rapidly disappearing, and are now almost a thing of the past.

Dirt and Dividends.

The directors and shareholders demanding a greater return on their investments, expenses have to be cut down, regardless of safety or anything else. So a number of companies clean their engines by piecework, at miserable rates, and the wages of the man then depends upon how be “stands” with the foreman. (This system has recently been introduced on the G.N.) Another system extensively employed is to have the work done by day work by gangs, the men getting different engines daily. Under this method no pride can be taken by the cleaners in the machines.

Under both the last-mentioned systems the “contract” man is done away with because he is not cheap enough. Engines go out two, three, or four days without a clean, so it is impossible for a driver to make a minute inspection of the parts to see they are not broken. This, which is a very important matter affecting the “welfare of the public,” and the fact that an engine may “run hot” and delay several trains, besides causing a great inconvenience on and off the shed, and a host of other things, are thrown to the winds in the interest of increased dividends. If a machine fails and the driver cannot give a "satisfactory” explanation to the Loco. Superintendent, he can be fined and thus help to swell the coffers of the human vampires that live upon him.

To sum up, the highest standing wage a cleaner can depend upon is in the neighbour­hood of 19s. a week on the trunk lines, for which he puts in at least 54 hours. In the country the wages paid are much lower.

The state of the engines proves conclusively that there are not nearly enough men, and what men there are are immensely overworked, with plenty of dirt, night-work, inconvenience to self and family, bad smells on shed, and the lads often working feet deep in hot water. In addition there is a good deal of bullying from the foreman, who is generally a man who has failed on the footplate.

A Premium on Ignorance.

The average period a man does cleaning is about four years, and from the way he is overworked there is no chance for him to learn much about his engine. Nor is he given a rules-book order to enable him to make himself acquainted with the rules of the road (the Midland does give rules-books after six months). There are, however, “educational classes” on some companies (e.g., the G.N.), but they are not successful, and the attendance is small. The men have to attend in their own time, and with their state of overwork, and that great curse, overtime, it is not to be wondered at that very few attend the classes, the lecturers at which as a rule are drivers.

In working hours the lads are sent home or fined for trifling offences, and kept in abject slavery, so their mind is turned against their work. As a result of these conditions they can not take it up with the interest necessary to become good enginemen and to befit them to be in charge of trains. It is, therefore, little wonder that, at the end of four years or so, when the lad goes up to “pass” for a spare fireman, he often fails in the exam.—which means more shed slavery, or, what is the rule on a number of lines, the sack.

Those who get through, however, owing to the unscientific way they are trained and the low wages paid, are not fit, from the point of view of public safety, to be in charge of an engine—which, by the way, is quite in accordance with the standing orders of capitalism and the production of profit.

And the unscientific training of enginemen through their period as cleaners, is pretty well certain to last until the system that trains men for profit instead of for usefulness and safety is swept into oblivion.

J. Sevier

[To be Continued.]

Patriotism or Plunder? (1913)

From the June 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Significance of "Empire Day."

At the time of writing these lines preparations are being made to observe in a fitting manner, what has now come to he regarded as a fixed institution, viz, Empire Day. Each successive year sees an endeavour made to stimulate and extend the sentiment of “patriotism.” School children are paraded round the village, waving flags and singing patriotic airs under the direction of an enthusiastic teacher. Afterwards they are marshalled in front of the school, where they are treated to a speech on their “Responsibility, Duty, and Self sacrifice.” After giving vent to their feelings in three cheers for “The Empire” and singing “God Save the King,” they are marched into the school to the strains of "Soldiers of the Queen,” and their receptive minds are stuffed with stories of the valour of Nelson, Drake, and other butchers.

The churches are also to the front on this occasion. On the Sunday following May 24th special sermons are preached emphasising the importance of allowing themselves to be chloroformed for the national good. Advantage is taken by scaremongers and jingo politicians to point out the necessity for compulsory military service, and the need for supporting rifle clubs, and such institutions as the Boy Scouts, the Territorials, the National Service League, etc. The “Big Navy” party take pains not to let the occasion pass without trotting out once more the old cry of “adequate defence” so clear to the heart of Hyndman & Co.

It is safe to say that not one person in a thousand of those who are compelled to participate in these displays realises the significance underlying this noisy “appeal to patriotism.” They are requested to believe that it is for the “honour and integrity of our glorious empire.” OUR Empire! Let us see how much of the Empire is ours.

In the first place every schoolboy knows that before one country can assume control over another it must have recourse to force or threats, the people of the country which is to be brought under control must be subjugated and a footing established.

Various reasons are put forward from time to time to show the necessity for such steps being taken, but the ultimate analysis shows that in every case the fundamental and determining factor is economic advantage, or, to put it another way, plunder.

As almost every nation is engaged in the race for economic advantages, it resolves itself into a sort of running fight, in which the weaker succumbs to the strongest. England herself has annexed nearly a third of the earth and is still unsatisfied. Her “greatness” lies, not in that she stands for “Justice, good government, and liberty,” as Lord Rosebery would say, but in the fact that, up to now, she has been the biggest plunderer.

Her “interests,” and the machinery necessary for maintaining the same, are not operated for the benefit of her people, as is claimed, but only for the benefit of a small section of her people —the capitalists. Hence the need for armies, navies, and other murderous institutions, to guarantee the security of that class, and incidentally to capture more plunder whenever the opportunity presents itself.

It cannot be said that we have done badly, for in whichever direction we turn we are sure to let on a piece of “our” Empire.

It is an old saying that trade follows the flag, but what follows trade? Ask the people of the different nations that comprise “our Empire.” You will find the same conditions obtaining there as here—that is, poverty, misery, degradation. and all the other evils which follow in the wake of capitalism. Who among us has not felt his blood surge when reading of “our” conquests in various parts of the world ? Take, for instance, the occupation of India—that vast land of untold wealth (and poverty) which the native is debarred from developing only in the interests of the “Great White Raj," otherwise the capitalist class. Are we to suppose that India was acquired solely for the purpose of doing good to the “poor benighted heathen” ? At least this is the impression they gave us at school. Was it in their interests the Government paid four million pounds to the Khedive of Egypt for his shares in the Suez Canal in order to obtain complete control of the highway to India ? Not much !

Ever since the occupancy of India advantage has been taken of the diversity of the races to set race against race, creed against creed, caste against caste in order to preserve the security of the invaders. It was this circumstance which was in great part responsible for the historic Mutiny, the suppression of which involved such fiendishly horrible cruelty as to hardly bear relation.

What applies to India applies also to every other land where the British have asserted themselves.

Since New Zealand was “purchased” from the chiefs the Maoris have become practically extinct through the introduction of war, liquor, and other vices which follow close upon the heels of “civilisation.”

The same country is at the present time in a state of serbonian anxiety, the colonists being faced with the same problems of capitalism as confound the people here.

It is the same with Australia, where wild endeavour is being made to exclude the coloured races and to establish a “White Australia”— which policy has the support of the imperialistic “Labour” Party at present in power. This proposition stands some chance of success, since it has been discovered that white labour is more productive than coloured, hence the profits resulting from the exploitation of the former are greater.

The acquisition of Hong Kong was due to the resistance of the Chinese to the introduction of opium by the British, who forced them at the cannon’s mouth to accept it. Only recently a cargo worth some six millions was dumped at Shanghai. The Chinese refused it, so the British gunboat “Flora” was sent to overawe them into submission.

British interests in China, as elsewhere, are wholly commercial, though very often tbe Christianising of the natives is put forward as an excuse for meddling.

The conversion of China into a republic has somewhat upset Britain’s calculations, for now it may mean that the United States and Germany will stand a better chance of a look in—to English capitalists’ detriment. Their commercial interests are threatened, and the opening of the Panama Canal will not add to their peace of mind.

The alacrity with which the Churches responded to the Chinese politicians’ appeal for prayers on behalf of the new republic only recently, gave the game away entirely. Their predatory instincts are once more aroused, and their strong point is to get a foothold in China ahead of the other European nations, especially as that country may yet become a formidable competitor in the Eastern markets.

I point out these things to show that it is solely the material interests of the ruling class that produce wars and other international troubles—that all the piffle about the “glory of our world Empire,” and our “mission of justice and mercy” is only so much bunkum, intended to deceive the mass of the people who comprise “our” Empire—that it is in reality only part of the unscrupulous tactics adopted by those thievish swindlers of every nationality who are running the “British” Empire.

Who does not remember the envious eyes cast upon the Transvaal when it was announced that gold had been discovered by the Dutch farmers ? Almost immediately the “British” gentlemen who run the Empire for “us” tried to persuade the Boers to part with their find. Failing in this they had recourse to other persuasive methods, which cost a little matter of 250 million pounds and the lives of many thousands of members of the working class. When, after having conquered (!) the republic it was declared that the country would be opened up to the British worker it was found to be a delusion, for, instead, the “whites” found themselves displaced by the Kaffir, the Chinese, and the Indian. And now we find the “British" patriots who own South Africa, and in whose interest war was made, going around with bulging waistcoats and equally bulging pocket-books, preaching loyalty to the Empire.

This, then, is the significance underlying the institution known as “Empire Day.” It can be summed up in one word — plunder.

Knowing that the workers are not yet wise enough to see through their game, the capitalists are prepared to go to any length to prevent their enlightenment.

Thus it is we have members of the master class financing such things as rifle corps, Boy Scouts, and other potential warriors. The Boy Scouts in particular demand special mention as being looked upon as a great national asset, whose “usefulness,” both at home and abroad, will some day be apparent.

King Edward VII shortly before his death sent a message to a big review of scouts in which be said : “Tell the boys that the King takes great interest in them; and tell them also that if he calls upon them later in life to take up the defence of their country, the patriotic responsibility and discipline they are now acquiring as boys, will enable them to do their duty as men, should any danger threaten the Empire.”

Plain, isn’t it ?

We find that by fostering a feeling of animosity against the people of other nations, our rulers succeed in keeping the workers divided, and increased security in their tenure of existence is secured. It is significant to note how in this they receive the blessing of the'Church. To the student of history this is not surprising, for the Church throughout history has stood for militarism and slavery.

Patriotism, then, means simply the acquisition of power for the maintenance and conquest of market a in the interests of the ruling class. Capital being international, and not troubled by any sort of sentiment, it follows that it will make its way wherever its operations are likely to be successful. Consequently its owners are patriotic or anti-patriotic according as their interests are affected.

Only a few weeks ago an order for the construction of four British steamers, amounting to half a million sterling was placed in France. The reason given for sending the order abroad was that the cost would be leas than if the vessels were built in this country. Material interests first—patriotism nowhere!

An examination of the economic status of that small portion of the British Empire known as the British Isles, reveals the dismal fact that thirteen millions of its population are on the very verge of destitution. It also reveals the fact that the thirty-eight millions who represent the people who are asked to display their patriotic feelings on the 24th of May, who build the palaces, the motor-cars, and the yachts their Empire-loving masters gad about in; who provide them with bread, clothes, and boots—who, in fact, produce everything— possess nothing!

Where does the patriotism come in ? What have they to be patriotic about?

We also find the income of the rich has increased by millions, whilst a million married women are compelled out of sheer necessity to work in the factories and shops.

No wonder that paupers have increased by 70,000 since 1900, and lunatics by 20,000, despite the “benefits” of the Old Age Pensions Act and the like!

Was it a feeling of patriotism that prompted 290,000 workers with their families to depart from these shores last year ? They tell us there is no room for them in this country, yet some millions of acres are set apart for deer shooting alone! Why is this ?

It is simply because a handful of privileged pirates are allowed to own all the wealth which we produce. This is the “Secret of England’s Greatness ”! It is for this we are asked to cultivate a feeling of “patriotic responsibility,” and later on to “ take up the defence of ’’!

What do you think about it ? Do you think it is for us this “great and glorious” Empire is being run ? Do you think it is on our account that the squabbles in Parliament take place? Do you honestly believe that any party represented in Parliament to-day can legislate in our favour whilst all the time they are sucking our very life’s blood and exploiting us for all they are worth? Do not be led astray.

If an end is to be put to this rotten system it must be by the efforts of the workers themselves. This effort can only be exerted by a revolutionary organisation, conscious of its class mission. This organisation is already in existence in the Socialist Party of Great Britain. It is the only Socialist party in this country, and only by enrolling yourselves in this party can the abolition of the present system of robbery and corruption be made certain.

It was the end of this that the terrified Lord Rosebery foresaw when he wailed: "Socialism means the end of Empire" a few years ago. And Lord Rosebery was right for once!

Tom Sala

Why We Must Organise Politically and Industrially. (1913)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

M. Geeson (Toronto) writes:—

  “In reading the editorial of the S.S. for February 1913, I came across a statement which I would like you to explain a little fuller. The statement is this: ‘In regard to the revolutionary economic organisation the Socialist position is identical. That such an organisation will be called for as part of the organisation of the working class for the achievement of their emancipation must be admitted by every Socialist.' The question I would like to ask is, does not the political organisation exterminate the economic organisation, or vice versa, as the case may be, for one or the other must be incorrect for the emancipation of the working class, and if that is so a person accepting the double position must, consciously or unconsciously, deny the class struggle.”

Reply:
It would have been much easier to deal with this matter had Mr. Geeson attempted to support his statements with arguments. As life is too short, and energy, at the present price of provisions, too valuable, to permit one or the other to be wasted in slogging at ideas which perhaps exist neither in Mr. Geeson’s mind nor in anybody else’s, the present penman is forced back on to the request for a fuller explanation.

The emancipation of the working class must not be conceived as a simple, single step to be taken either on the political or the industrial field. It is nothing of the kind. On the contrary it is to be a process, and an elaborate process at that, carried out upon both the political field and the industrial.

The process commences on the political field, and ends on the economic. That, at all events, is the Socialist position. The Anarchist position is that it commences on the economic field and ends there. A certain party in this country (the S.L.P.) has taken up the position that it commences upon the economic field and ends on the political. It is left for Mr. Geeson, however, to complete the round in the implication that the process of emancipation begins and ends in the political arena.

Now the Socialist and the Anarchist argue that the end aimed at is economic transformation. The former says that, under present conditions, this transformation must be preceded by the capture of the machinery of Government, while the latter cries out upon political action. The S.L.P. man stands upon his head and does his thinking with his feet, for the implication of his position is that we must bring about Socialism in order to capture the political machinery. But Mr. Geeson—ah! courtesy forbids.

The Anarchist thinks that the machinery of government is to be overthrown by merely ramming the people’s heads against it. They would oppose the rifle and bayonet, the prison and the hangman’s noose, with the petard that so often goes off in its maker’s pocket, and the hunger-strike that so effectively prevents its devotees doing any mischief. Such people, logically enough, have no use for political action, and hence no use for a political organisation.

The Socialist, on the other hand, holds that the process of emancipation involves, first of all, the disarming of the master class. This must be the fruit of a political struggle, and therefore renders political organisation necessary at all events up to the time of its achievement.

But would Mr. Geeson have matters stop there? Does he think that the emancipation of the working class is completed with the disarmament of the master class and the decreeing of common ownership in the means of life? It is quite a while now since food came down from heaven. It is because we can only feed, clothe, and shelter ourselves through the means and instruments of production and distribution that we are going to so much trouble to obtain possession of these means and instruments. But they will no more operate themselves as the common property of society than they do as the private property of a class. On the contrary, their economical operation will, for obvious reasons, call for far more perfect organisation than exists to-day.

Such organisation is, of course, economic, not political. It is economic from the very nature of things—from the very fact that it is organisation on the economic field for an economic purpose. Whatever the organisation may call itself, or whatever its members may think themselves, directly it takes concerted action on the economic field, the action is necessarily economic action and the result of organised economic effort. Such action becomes imperative for the simple reason that when the political organisation has shot its bolt, or, if you like it better, when the revolutionary working-class organisation has shot its political bolt, it has not by any means emancipated the working class. It has only, by destroying the State, made it possible for the workers to complete their emancipation. This they must do by taking possession of the means by which alone they can live, and operating them intelligently and collectively so that they may live.

This, then, is what we mean when we say that the workers must organise both politically and economically. The emancipation of the working class necessitating organised action upon both the political and the economic plane, obviously necessitates both political and economic organisation.

A. E. Jacomb

Where Rockfeller Rules. (1913)

Book Review from the June 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Poverty," by Robert Hunter. London : The Macmillan Co. 2s. net.

This is a cheap reprint of a work that originally appeared in 1904 in America. It is written by a member of that body of reformers known as the Socialist Party of America. The author defines the main object of the volume as an estimate of the extent of poverty in the United States of America, and a description of "some of its evils."

A further object of the book, we are told, is to point out certain remedial actions which society may wisely prosecute.

To one who is familiar with the investigations in this country of Mr. Charles Booth, Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, and Dr. H. H. Mann, the method of this work is certainly disappointing. As the author himself admits : "The poor of the rural districts have hardly been mentioned and the working woman and the mother are left almost entirely out of consideration."

Little information, if any, can be gleaned beyond that already to be obtained in the works of Jacob A. Riis and Mrs. Van Vorst, etc.

The estimate given by the author of this book on poverty in America is sufficient to show of how little use the work is to the serious student. "I have not the slightest doubt," he says, "that there are in the United States ten millions in precisely these conditions of poverty, but I am largely guessing at it, and there may be as many as fifteen or twenty millions."

The condition which Mr. Hunter takes for his standard of poverty he defines as the lack of those necessaries sufficient to maintain a state of physical efficiency.

The real remedy for the poverty of the workers amidst the luxury of the idlers is not shown, and the preventive measures advocated by our author are worthy of the moat zealous supporter of the present system.

Sanitary laws and shorter hours for women and children. Laws to "make industry pay the necessary and legitimate coat of producing and maintaining efficient labourers." Compensation and Insurance Acts and Anti-Immigration laws. In short, all those measures which are in operation in many lands, where they dismally fail to improve the workers' conditions. Our author shrinks from the true position, viz., that as the poverty of the working class is due to robbery the remedy is to stop the robbers by ousting them, first from political, and then from economic power. 

Adolph Kohn