A Look Round. (1907)

From the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

John E. Williams has been elected a member of the West Ham Board of Guardians. Whilst avoiding in his election address many of the pitfalls usually associated with S.D.F. candidatures, he could not refrain from promising that which he knew he could not perform. “I say frankly,” he declared, ”that if elected I go to the Board to force my former colleague in the Dock, the Rt. Hon. John Burns, M.P., to do his duty to the countless poor of Canning Town.” Fiddlesticks ! J. B’s “duty” is to the folks who gave him his present job.

—++—

On the day following his election, Williams was congratulated at Tower Hill, and informed his hearers that one of his first steps would be to call a conference of all the Poor Law authorities with the object of pressing the Government to nationalise the Poor Rate. But if the working class do not pay the rates, and if, to quote Mr. W. Thome, M.P., it would make no difference to the working class if the rates went up to 20/- in the £, what concern is it to men who “have nothing to lose but their chains” whether the Poor Law is nationalised or not ?

—++—

There is one thing the advocates of this “reform” never mention—the question of control. If the central government will consent to the abolition of local rates, to the raising of all charges for the Poor Law, Education, etc., out of national funds, is it to be expected that they will permit such funds to be administered locally ? Not a bit of it. And so with the nationalisation of the Poor Rate must come the withdrawal of all local spending powers and the extension of the L.G.B. to deal with the funds. Is this what Mr. Williams is aiming at ?

—++—

Even if the Liberals have discharged men from Woolwich, say Liberal papers, the Tories were as bad and worse. What are the facts ? Between June 1st, 1902, and November 30th, 1905, 4,567 men were discharged, an average of about 108 per month. Between December 1st, 1906, and June 22nd, 1907, the discharges numbered 2.473, equal to about 370 per month ! There is no doubt that Codlin’s the friend, not Short.

—++—

In a statement issued by the committee “formed to protect the holders of Debentures secured upon Breweries and licensed properties,” Sir John. Ellerman, chairman of a large London Brewery Co. is reported to have said: “Capital is a shy bird and, if unduly oppressed, it has a knack of seeking employment in other countries where the capitalist is more fairly treated, to the benefit of the country where it is employed.” Now, why can’t the people whose security is threatened by the introduction of a time limit present their case without twaddle of this sort?

—++—

Imagine a Brewery Company, for example, shifting its Brewery and plant to, say, Germany, where the people are quite satisfied with the German brew. Of course the thing is impossible. Before they could withdraw their capital they would have to sell out and they could only sell out, at ruinous prices, to others, on whose behalf the businsss would be continued as before.

—++—

Mr. Lever, says “P.W.W.” in the Parliamentary column of the Daily News, “makes no pretence that the building of Port Sunlight was an act of benevolence or philanthropy. ‘A successful business,’ he explains, ‘must have physically efficient workpeople.'” Quite so, Mr. Lever is a cute capitalist.

—++—

A Blue Book has been issued giving the report of the Textile Factories (India) Labour Committee appointed in December, 1906. The Committee recommend that the hours of labour should be reduced to 72 per week !

—++—

The Liberal Press in particular is still booming our growing trade and alleged unprecedented prosperity, due to Free Trade. It is, therefore, somewhat unkind for Sir James Crichton Browne to declare that “except as an occasional luxury, meat is beyond the reach of the working class of this country and it is therefore necessary that they should be taught what is the best substitute for it.” He declared himself, at the Mansion House on June 26th, a firm believer in the value of the mutton chop, and would like to see a sirloin on the Sunday dinner table of every family in the land.

—++—

After this it is easy to understand why a movement to improve the health of the people by abolishing luxuries from the table is to be started in Bethnal Green. The Simple Life is somewhat of a chestnut there.

—++—

And now a par from London Opinion will not be amiss : —

“I see it stated that the keepers of City restaurants find their meat bills decreasing owing to the lighter luncheons which are being taken by the clerks and other office workers. The fashion for commercial men to take only the lightest of meals is alleged to be increasing. I do not believe a word of it. Whenever an Englishman has money in his pocket he is prepared to eat meat, and if City workers abandon it, that is simply because of the want of money. How some of the toilers manage to buy a lunch at all is a mystery to me.”

—++—

Sir Jas. Crichton Browne also said that he would like to see all proved adulterators of food electrocuted. One of these days the working class may remember his words. But if a Socialist were to advise that those who are battening and fattening upon the misery of the poor should be shot, or hanged, or electrocuted, he would be charged with inciting to murder and sedition.

—++—

As a property-owner, writes Mr. George Cadbury in the Daily News for July 16th, I have no fear whatever of the success of Labour men . . . I believe that so far as this country is concerned the stability of the Throne and of the institutions of our country will be secured, not by resistance to ameliorative measures, but by doing justice to those who produce its wealth.

—++—

In these sentiments Mr. Cadbury, who is a member of the I.L.P., expresses the feelings of many of the members of that body. The “institutions of our country” are the State, the Church, the Law, etc. These capitalist institutions are not to be abolished, but secured, if only the other capitalists will become as cute as Mr. Cadbury and Mr. Lever and introduce “ameliorative measures.” Instead of working for the establishment of a community of free citizens, co-operating as social equals, contributing, according to their ability, to the necessary work and enjoying, according to their needs, the good things of life, many of those posing as Socialists are merely striving after the establishment of the rule of a benevolent plutocracy, under which the workers may be well-fed, well-housed, and well-clothed, but will still be wage-slaves, subject to a master class.

—++—

That such a state of affairs may develope out of existing capitalist conditions is not at all improbable. The persistent advocacy of palliatives by the S.D.F., I.L.P., and other reform parties, the growth of the Garden City movement, the increasing number of capitalists who recognise that it pays to take “an interest” in their wage-slaves, the establishment of “model” factories, “model” villages, etc., all tend in this direction, and unless the issue is kept clear, the workers will be side-tracked again. Hence the need for the S.P.G.B.

—++—

The merchant princes of the Cardiff Docks, says the Evening News correspondent, have decided to inaugurate a fund for the purchase of an annuity for the “Labour” Knight, and have subscribed £1000. Mr Clifford Cory, M.P., being at the head of the movement, which is certain to succeed, Sir William Crossman being a most popular man by reason of his moderation as an advocate of labour. . . . The idea now is to get sufficient money invested to ensure him a reasonable annuity. The new knight does not fear going back to work, but, naturally, he would prefer an annuity. What ho!

—++—

"The great political struggle of the future will be a struggle in which the Radical party will have no place. The issues will be fought out between the principles of Socialism on the one hand and Imperialism on the other."—Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Campbell, K.C., M.P., at United Club banquet.

—++—

Mr. Churchill, replying to Mr. Myer in the House of Commons, said in April last there were in the Transvaal mines 17,886 whites, 114,470 coloured labourers, and 53,114 Chinese. For April, 1906, the figures were 18,035 whites, 93,793 coloured, and 49,832 Chinese, showing a decrease of 149 whites, an increase of 20,731 coloured labourers, and of 3,282 Chinese.

And this is eighteen mouths since Sir H. C. Bannerman declared “we have abolished Chinese labour” !

—++—

The industrious, steady working man, who works hard through a long life, and brings up his family with affection and care, is a real national asset, he is, indeed, among the most valued possessions of any country, and since it is almost impossible for him to put by enough money to ensure his livelihood when work is no longer possible, he has a moral right to demand from the community comfort and sustenance in the evening of his days.

—++—

Thus the Pearson Paralyser. But what becomes of their argument that the Post Office, Building Society, Co-operative Society and other deposits represent working-class thrift, if it is almost impossible for the industrious, steady working man, who works hard through a long life, to put by etc. ?

—++—

A few months ago capitalist politicians and writers were holding up their hands in pious horror at the revelations with regard to “graft” in America, declaring that English politics were so pure, you know.

—++—

Yet the letter of Mr. C. H. Lea, Liberal member for East St. Pancras, compelled some of them to make admissions. Mr. Lea accused the Government of selling peerages and other “honours” for contributions to the Party war chest. This war chest was used to help poor candidates whose votes, if elected, are looked upon as secure, “no matter what the issue, or what pledges may have been given to the constituents.” To us it was no wonder that these practices of the Liberals should have been defended by the Tories, whose mouthpiece was Lord Robert Cecil.

—++—

Commenting on the debate the Daily Graphic said : it is an open secret that those who want titles must contribute to the Party funds. . . Any respectable citizen who contributes handsomely to the fundsof one or other of the political parties may, in the fulness of time, claim a title and get it. … We have established what we call democratic institutions, and we can only keep the machine running by the sale of aristocratic titles.

—++—

The Daily News also said: The practice of rewarding those who pay heavily to the party funds by giving them honours is not confined to one party. It is a recognised and rather squalid phase of the normal political game.

Work, You Workers, Work (1948)

From the April 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bonus systems, payment by results, co-partnerships, piece work, profit sharing, all these and other schemes we have known. Each and every one has the same objective—to get a little more effort out of the workers, to encourage them to expend their utmost on the job.

Of the co-partnership and profit sharing schemes we hear little these days. Some years ago they were quite popular propositions. Probably one of the largest and most widely publicised of these schemes was the one introduced by Lever Bros, at Port Sunlight. The idea was to share a portion of the profits produced in the industry amongst the workers. This should give them an interest in the business and encourage them to serve it more zealously.

The American journal “Fortune,” which, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be considered a working class magazine, in its December, 1947, issue, deals with this Lever profit sharing scheme and its failure. On page 204:

“But he (W. H. Lever) seemed obsessed with sharing profits. He concluded that profit sharing was fine provided it resulted in better production . . .” 

and on page 207:

“The idea of direct profit sharing continued to obsess him even after Port Sunlight was built, and he decided to make qualified employees 'co-partners' with whom he shared some of the amount available for ordinary (common) dividends. For a while his scheme worked. The dividends, however, amounted to so little per capita that their effect on production and efficiency over a long time was debatable, and the practice was discontinued after Lever died.”

For the employer it was a matter of an additional investment. The workers were induced to consider that they had an identity of interest with him. The greater the increase in profits resulting from their better production and increased efficiency, the greater would be their dividend—and the dividend of the employers. Unless the amount of increased profit to the employer was greater than the amount he paid out in dividends to his employees, then it was a bad investment for him. Also to be taken into account, of course, was the fact that the “identity of interest” idea is a fine deterrent to strikes and is a means of persuading workers to soft pedal their wage demands. Labour disputes and high wages would tend to affect profits and the co-partner would fear that he might not get a good ”divi.” In practise, the amount received by the worker was so infinitesimal, that the scheme failed in its object At least, the Lever one did.

As we have said, not much is heard of these profit sharing schemes these days and in the collapse of the Lever scheme we see the reason. But a new method has arisen to encourage the workers to foster this idea of an identity of interest with their exploiters. A cheaper method, too. It does not even require that the employer shall disgorge the small amount of wealth that the profit sharing proposition necessitated.

Listen-in at Trade Union branch meetings, Trades Council meetings and other places where workers gather to talk about their wages and conditions. You will hear some one get on his feet and trot out this kind of thing: “ Now that it is 'OUR' industry, we must moderate our demands. We must work to get it on its feet. We must increase our production and efficiency. We are all share-holders now, we must work to make the industry pay. We must not ask for too much . . .” And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

That is how it is put over today. Old man Lever allotted a portion of his dividends to get the utmost out of his workers. Today we find working class supporters and defenders of the Labour Party (they are all on the defensive now) falling over themselves to give of their damnedest without even the meagre dividend that Port Sunlight workers collected as an inducement.

If nationalised industry were engaged in producing goods or services for use, this point of view would be understandable. Then, better production and increased efficiency would result in more goods and better services for the workers themselves. But nationalised industry, as with all forms of capitalist industry, is engaged in the production of goods and services for sale with a view to a profit being made in the process. This fact is not disguised, not even by the advocates of nationalisation. The workers produce a quantity of wealth in excess of the amount they receive in the form of wages, salaries, etc. This surplus goes into State coffers and forms the fund out of which is shared the dividends to the investors in Government bonds.

True, an increase in production and efficiency in State industries does not mean an increase in the amount paid out as interests to bondholders. Neither does it mean an increase in wages. It may possibly result in an increase in the salary of the chairman of the “Board” or the “Executive," or in a fine, fat, five-figure pension to these "high” officials when they retire. It may also, by increasing the amount flowing into the State coffers, be a means of defraying national expenditure, and so help to alleviate the burden of taxation borne by the exploiting class. We know that finally it will result in an excess of commodities over and above the amount that the markets can absorb. Then we shall get from the Labour Party the same nauseating idea trotted out in slightly different words. “Sorry, fellows—an economic blizzard—tighten your belts and pull 'YOUR’ industry through.” Probably the blame will be put on to the Russians or maybe, the “Yanks,” It will be difficult for them to apportion the blame to the bankers as has been done in the past. It would sound rather puerile to tell us that it was “OUR” nationalised Bank of England that is holding up credit, or doing something or other to cause a financial and economic crisis. Anyway, it will be the workers who will be cajoled to make sacrifices to help "THEIR" industry through the difficult times. The rate of interest to the investor is guaranteed. He will not be worried. It is no longer his headache. He is the holder of “gilt edged.”

There are all sorts of things in store for the working class whilst Capitalism remains. There are no end to the reasons why they should work harder, more efficiently and be patient. Another war will make it necessary for the workers to make sacrifices to pull "THEIR” country through. After a war or after a trade depression there will be the need to produce more to recapture the foreign markets. It will always be possible to concoct some excuse for cracking the whip.

It is interesting to watch how this increased efficiency idea works out. For example, London’s nationalised transport. An agreement has recently been signed by the London Transport Executive and the Transport and General Workers Union adjusting the rates of pay of drivers and conductors of buses, coaches and trolley buses. At the same time, these contracting parties have agreed upon a letter to the effect that they will jointly recommend to the Minister of Transport that the existing rule shall be relaxed to enable eight standing passengers to be carried, instead of five as at present. This, so the letter says, is with the object of increasing the efficiency of the service to the public.

London Transport’s new 70-seat, eight feet wide trolley bus is now in operation in areas on the west Side of London. The Surrey Comet, reporting on the inaugural run of the first of these new vehicles, says (21/2/48):

"The extra width of six inches on the new buses is taken up by having the gangways four inches wider with an additional inch on each seat This should give greater comfort to the standing passenger . . .”

So better production and increased efficiency in this nationalised industry will mean that, (1) Drivers will drive bigger buses; (2) Conductors will pack in a few more passengers; (3) Passenger will be able to enjoy the increased standing comfort, or should we say more passengers will be able to enjoy the decreased discomfort, and (4) last, but by no means least, all passengers will pay their fares, thus increasing the takings per bus when the additional standing passengers are carried.

There is no advantage here that would make it advisable for the workers to moderate their demands for increased wages or better working conditions. We suggest to all workers that they should regard the State in the same way as they should regard any other employer, as an opponent who is out to get as much energy from his employees for the price that he pays, as is possible. The workers, in turn, should endeavour to get the highest price (wage) and best conditions of sale for the energy that they sell, as they possibly can. All increased efficiency should be directed to this end, and to the struggle to abolish the system of Capitalist exploitation.

To paraphrase Prime Minister Attlee :

"This year, let us all put into our struggle that spirit that will make our class free.”

W. Waters

Sunlight. (1922)

From the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

You know, fellow-workers, that we live in a democratic age. The great ones of the earth walk without ceremony amongst men. You have perhaps heard, and in part believed, how the Prince of Wales at the Royal Garden Party did not wear, but merely carried his gloves ; how the Queen permitted two amateurs to take her photograph, and Prince George laughed at a Punch and Judy show. It may be, too, that at your annual beano you have rubbed shoulders with that aristocracy of wealth which, except at these hallowed seasons, you apprehend but dimly as the beneficent power that feeds, clothes, and shelters you —sometimes; have been privileged to return a respectful answer to a man-to-man query, and to cheer when the gentry departed in its car. But with all this I wonder if you quite realise how democratic we have grown? Do you know that several thousands of our brothers in toil, by the scheme of co-partnership which operates at Port Sunlight, are knit with both the plutocracy and the royal family—united in the exalted purpose of serving human need and a pressing need at that—soap! Well, they are.

“The Marquis of Carisbrooke” (the Star told us one evening), “eldest son of Princess Beatrice and cousin to the King, has joined the Board of Lever Brothers, Limited. . . It is not generally known that many members of the Royal Family have very substantial holdings in Lever Brothers.” Now then !

See what advantage there is in being born in the era of capitalism. Formerly you might as well have sought admission to the circle of seraphim as to the royal circle. There are records of such things, of course, but the terms were much harder: wounds, hunger, and more than a sporting chance of death. You remember Henry the Fifth’s words to his army :

  “For he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition.”

But nowadays, bless you, you have only to get a job at Port Sunlight, and you automatically become a partaker in glory, although, as our friend Uriah would say, “only a very ‘umble one.”

Oh, the ennobled ones appreciate the honour ! Indeed yes ; and some other things even more than the honour. For example, there was an enthusiastic meeting in July of the ‘umble partners of Lever Bros., to hear presented by Lord Leverhulme a new scheme of benefits intended to be introduced on October 1st. The arrangement, briefly, provides half-pay when there is no work, the same during four weeks of sickness or longer at the discretion of the company, and a free life insurance. And the Star, reporting, and rubbing its hands over the excellence of the scheme, declared: “Labour and capital together can produce the means for these and greater benefits if we can once eliminate the theory that they are antagonistic. Pulling together they could make the whole world one huge Port Sunlight.”

Be sure they could ! One slight alteration will render the Star quite correct. For “eliminate the theory” you must read “disguise the fact”; for the theory of the class-war has a way of realising itself in everyday experience. With this reservation, its truth is evident. Given the present great and potential greater productivity of labour; if the capitalist will only be a little patient for his dividends, and the worker will overcome his foolish prejudice against going on half-rations during sickness and slack trade, the thing is done. You can have a docile and industrious proletariat, a rich and unharassed master-class, an absence of trade disputes, a smoothly, running industrial machine; in short, an ideal capitalist world—a huge Port Sunlight.

And if that is what you want, fellow-workers, well and good. But—I wonder just why you should select for yourselves a life of labour and for your co-partners a life of ease: for yourselves a modest level of comfort and culture, for them the utmost of luxury: for you the cheap cap and the ready-made suit, for them the silk hat and the coronet. In what does Leverhulme or Carisbrooke differ from you? They look much like you; sleeker, perhaps, but not so handsome as many a workman at Port Sunlight. Can they be more brainy than the men who planned the factories and designed the plant? Put them down in the wilderness : could they any better than you preserve and provide for themselves? Only by virtue of one advantage do they enjoy the best of what the partnership produces: they are the owners of the factories, of the machines, of the product. Such a collaboration resembles that of the fox and the wolf. You recall the wolf’s daily chant? “Red Fox, get me something to eat, or I will eat you.” But the fox had an eye to his own interest. When the opportunity came he took it—and good-bye wolf; whereas Lord Leverhulme’s scheme, the Evening Standard tells us, was “enthusiastically adopted.” Ah, but the wolf was less wise than Leverhulme. Instead of “Get me something to eat or I will eat you,” he should have said: “Brother fox, little partner, to provide you with meals is the first aim of our enterprise. I am the director of it. Feed me well, therefore, that I may the better discharge my beneficent mission.” He might then have been able, like Leverhulme, to say: “I have always had the good fortune to be supported.”

Here the prince of soap, candles, margarine, fish, and several other things, may certainly congratulate himself: for without: the support of the employees of his many companies, he would stand no higher than they stand themselves. Their support it is that has lifted him above them, placed him in luxury and increased his power. “I was supported,” he tells us, “by a sweet lady who consented to be my wife . . . all through her life she supported me. I am now supported by my son and my colleagues on the board.”

Excellent, my lord: and you, your amiable wife, your son, and your colleagues (royalty included), have all been supported by whom? . . . The pillars of the glittering edifice are they from whose profitable labour your fortunes are drawn. Fifty years ago you were able to gather your father’s whole staff in the room above his grocery shop in Bolton. From that gathering to this at Port Sunlight in July last, your career is a business romance ; and what has been your rôle in it all ? You have been the bringer together of human labour power and means of production: you have also been the appropriator of the product. To your employees you have allotted, first, the cost of their keep and reproduction, that you may have a plentiful supply of workers always at call; second, a fraction of your profits, that they may have an interest in keeping them high; and now such provisions as, making away to some extent with the insecurity of their modest livelihood, shall further bind them to you in content and loyalty. The first for your own sake you must do; for the two last the resulting high level of production amply recompenses you. In this you are the type of the far-seeing capitalist.

In so far as you have personally directed your concerns, you have done useful work, you have produced value: but you will not pretend that your fortune represents the value of your services alone. It has been built by the unpaid labour of those whom you employ. The worker may not blame you. So long as we leave the organisation of production in private hands, we can look for no other kind of co-partnership. But we are slowly learning that the “captain of industry” can do nothing which we cannot do better ourselves. A little while now, and “Sceptre and crown will tumble down,” and many an immaculate “topper” with them. When that day comes, my lord, directive genius will be used in the service of the people, and rewarded by the people, not allowed as yours is to-day, to reward itself. Make the most of your time !

A.

Blogger's Note:

I'm not sure why but I still just sign these articles as 'A.' (as they appeared in the Socialist Standard) when it is plainly obvious now that 'A.' was Alex Anderson. I do now have Anderson included in the labels and when I'm not such a lazy git, I will at some point go through all the 'A' articles and relabel/re-sign them as Alex Anderson. He should be properly remembered. 

Exhibition Review: Port Sunlight (2018)

Based on ‘The New Frock’ by William Powell Frith

Exhibition Review from the October 2018 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is a truism to say that art and commerce are closely related: under capitalism, artists have to earn enough to live, commercial galleries have to survive, and other galleries often need to attract sponsorship from companies. Rarely, though, is the relationship quite as close as that involving William Lever (1851–1925).

Lever was the son of a wholesale grocer, and he expanded the family business by having soap manufactured in pre-wrapped bars. Then he set up the firm of Lever Brothers, which made the soap itself, initially in Warrington but then at a larger purpose-built factory on the Wirral. He used the brand name Sunlight, and the area where the factory was situated was termed Port Sunlight. As his company expanded, both in Britain and overseas, employing 85,000 workers at its height, he became immensely rich.

His initial interest in art was to buy paintings that could be copied and have the word ‘Sunlight’ and an advertising slogan added, so that they could be used as posters. One of the best-known was based on the painting ‘The New Frock’ by William Powell Frith (who objected to the use of his art for commercial purposes). Later Lever acquired a taste for collecting, and built up a substantial collection of paintings, sculptures, furniture, textiles and porcelain. Much of this can be seen at the Lady Lever Art Gallery, which opened in 1922. There are many portraits, such as one of Emma Hamilton as a Bacchante, and a number of works by Pre-Raphaelites such as Rossetti and Burne-Jones (both associates of William Morris).

Many of Lever’s workers were housed in the specially-built Port Sunlight village. A few minutes’ walk from the art gallery are the Port Sunlight Museum and a worker’s cottage. It is often described as ‘an original garden village’, but it was run in a very authoritarian way: for instance, all the houses had gardens but tenants were not allowed to keep chickens in them, and there were strict rules on taking in lodgers. Houses were rented from Lever Brothers, and losing your job meant losing your home. The ideas behind the village were not just philanthropic, as Lever believed that children who lived in a slum would grow up to be ‘a danger and terror to the State’.

Lever Brothers became part of the giant Unilever company in 1930, and from 1979 houses in Port Sunlight were sold when they became vacant, as Lever’s paternalistic approach to housing his employees had long been unfashionable. The village now looks like a rather anachronistic settlement, though both art gallery and museum are well worth visiting.

Paul Bennett