Children in labour (1988)

From the October 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

The traditional view of child labour is summed up in a Low Pay Unit pamphlet:

"Child Labour" conjures up images of the pauper apprentices of Tudor times and the rag and dust sifters and mill children of the early industrial revolution. Its heyday was during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when industrialisation drew upon the labour of children in new and more wholesome ways than had been customary in the family economy of earlier years.

(Working Children 1985)

Newspaper reports in recent years however. suggest that child labour is neither a thing of the past nor confined to delivering newspapers, baby sitting or similar chores normally associated with children's work. "Scandal of pin money Pupils'' was the headline in the Daily Express on 12 December 1977; "Slave Labour ", screamed the Daily Mirror, 20 October 1982. In April 1973 The Times reported that three schoolboys, all aged thirteen, were employed in a factory operating highly dangerous, defective power presses for 17 pence an hour.

Child labour does of course have a long history. In an agrarian economy, where there was no distinction between employment in the home and other labour, men, women and children each had a task to perform tending crops and providing for everyday necessities. Children also played a role in industrial labour. The daughters and sons of artisans frequently helped in the manufacturing process or were apprenticed in the trade of their parents. Children of weavers had a staged career of tasks given to them according to their age and abilities, ranging from fetching and carrying to treading cotton, winding bobbins and spinning. Life for these children was hard and often involved long hours of work.

In the late sixteenth century children orphaned due to the death or poverty of their parents became the responsibility of the parish in which they lived. A system arose of apprenticing orphans to local craftsmen or placing them in special workshops to learn a trade. This was administered by local justices whose main concern was to rid the parish of any unwanted burden. The treatment of orphans varied from employer to employer but cases of cruelty and sadism were not unknown.

With the coming of the industrial revolution the parish workshops evolved into factories and the exploitation of children as slave labour was common. The practice of apprenticing orphans continued as late as the 1840s, when boards of guardians in Staffordshire, Yorkshire and Lancashire were found to be

. . . still getting rid of pauper boys of six. seven and eight by apprenticing them to colliers with a guinea thrown in "for clothes".

(E.P. Thompson: The Making of the English Working Class)

Child labour in modern times is seen as one of the unacceptable features of capitalism. Apologists for the system moralise about it but at the same time seek to convince us that a society in which a majority are economically coerced and treated as mere factors in the profit-making machine is the best the human race can hope to achieve. Workers are employed because they produce an economic surplus over and above their wages, which are inevitably very low for a large section of the workforce. According to the Low Pay Unit, figures for April 1986 show that 17 per cent of full-time workers were being paid less than £2.40 an hour, while over a third were receiving less than £3.00. Of the women who work part-time, 50 per cent were earning less than £2.40 an hour and 75 per cent received less than £3.00 an hour. In total, around 2 million women part-time workers and 1.6 million full-time workers. both men and women, received less than £2.40 an hour, including overtime pay. (Low Pay Unit: Britain's False Economy. 1987.)

When confronted by the exploitation of child labour socialists reply that the only answer is to end the system where a majority of men. women and, in many cases, children are treated as economic units. This can only be done by establishing, by democratic political means, a world-wide system where the means of production are owned in common and production takes place solely to meet the people's needs. In such a society the exploitation endemic in employment will be replaced by voluntary co-operation to produce the things people have democratically decided they need. All will have the right to take part in decisions about what is to be produced and how production is organised. Let's take a look at what the alternative — doing "something now" — has achieved in the last 180 years in the area of child labour.

One of the earliest pieces of legislation was the 1802 Health and Morale of Apprentices Act. Its aim was to limit children's working hours and its main concern was with pauper apprentices. It sought to abolish night work and limited the working day of apprentices in cotton mills to twelve hours. There were also provisions made for school on Sunday and proper clothing and sleeping arrangements. [To]  make sure that employers complied with the act, four independent factory inspectors were appointed to enforce the law among the 3,000 textile manufacturing establishments of the time.

Apart from the low standards set by the act, its major flaw was that enforcement depended on magistrates who were in most cases mill owners themselves. Similar problems affected another act passed in 1819 and sponsored by Sir Robert Peel, which outlawed employment in cotton mills for children under the age of nine. As it had no independent inspectorate it was largely ignored by mill owners.

Next came the Factory Act of 1833, which was based on the evidence of the Sadler Committee of 1832 and the Factory Commission of 1833. It outlawed the employment in all textile factories of children under the age of nine; between nine and thirteen no child was allowed to work more than 48 hours a week; for those aged thirteen to eighteen the limit was sixty-nine hours and anyone under twenty one years was prohibited from night work. Such was the concern to [missing text]

In 1840 a further factory commission investigated employment in the mines, discovering even worse conditions than those existing in the mills. Small children were used to operate ventilation traps which involved sitting in the dark, sometimes thirteen to fourteen hours. Other children were used to hurry coal down shafts, pushing great loads for miles with their heads while bent double. Soon after the commission published its report in 1842, the Mines Act was passed which prohibited the employment underground of children under ten and women. It also restricted the number of hours and types of work performed by children.

An important turning point in controlling child employment came with the Elementary Education Act of 1870. This provided elementary education on a national basis and set up an administration system of local school boards to keep track of attendance. The 1880 Education Act made school attendance compulsory for the first time and a child could only leave school at ten if he or she satisfied the attendance requirements. Children with poor attendance records were not allowed to leave until the age of thirteen. Prior to the 1880 act. the Factory and Workshops Act of 1878 had extended the 1833 Act to all factories and raised the minimum age of employment to ten. which also limited the hours children under fourteen could work to half the normal working day.

In 1920 the International Labour Organisation and the League of Nations met in Washington to draw up a convention on the employment of children binding on all ratifying nations. In Britain it was embodied in the Employment of Women. Young Persons and Children Act of 1920, which tied together past legislation and provided a list of types of employment which were prohibited to children under a minimum working age.

Subsequent acts such as the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, the Factory Act of 1961 and the Infants Children and Young Persons Act. 1963 form the basis of modern child labour law. The most important aspects of these acts are the prohibition of child employment in industrial undertakings, a minimum age of thirteen for part-time employment, restrictions on hour and times of work done by children and the provision for local authority bye-laws which can set higher standards than the minimum requirements. There exists a wide variation between local authorities as to the extent of provisions under these bye-laws and the degree of care that is taken to see that they are enforced.

As with the nineteenth century act the major problem with more recent legislation concerns enforcement, responsibility for which falls mainly on three bodies — the Health and Safety Inspectorate. Local Authority Health Officers and the Education Welfare services. All of these bodies have other tasks apart from discovering the illegal employment of children and all are massively understaffed. It is estimated that the Health and Safety Inspectorate has only 750 general factory inspectors to cover 730,000 manufacturing establishments. Much of the education and welfare surveillance work on child labour is done by educational welfare officers through voluntary overtime, patrolling the streets outside normal hours of work.

Due to this understaffing routine inspections are more frequent in large firms or those where the risk of accident is considered high (for example, chemical plants). Less visible firms may never see a factory inspector. As a result "back street firms" — most likely to employ child labour illegally are least likely to be visited. In addition, educational welfare staff have no specific right of entry. As the Inner London Education Authority states:

The more serious kinds of illegal employment in factories, restaurants and building sites tend not to be detected because educational welfare staff have no specific right of entry.

(Working Children, pp. 12-13)

In 1973 an attempt was made to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the legal protection given to working children. The Employment of Children Act received the Royal Assent on 23 May of that year but as yet it still remains on the statute book and has never been fully implemented.

It is therefore not surprising that child labour is still widespread in modern Britain. A survey carried out by the Low Pay Unit and Open University in 1982-3 estimates its extent. Interviews of 1,700 children in the London, Luton and Bedfordshire areas found that, apart from newspaper delivering, children were employed in a wide range of jobs including retailing, catering and cleaning. Close to one in ten children in the survey had more than one job and half of these had more than two. While newspaper delivery accounted for one third of all children working, shop work accounted for one in five and farm work and cleaning both accounted for 13 per cent. A variety of other work performed by children included hotel and catering. painting and decorating, sewing machining. modelling, clerical work and work in street markets. More than one in five children were employed in manual jobs, cleaning, furniture removals, construction labour and garage work. The findings confirm that a majority of these children were in one way or another working illegally. An analysis of the data for London found that four out of five were illegally employed, either under age, working illegal hours or working in jobs they should not have been doing.

It does not require a degree in economics to appreciate that children are forced to work because of the financial position of their families. The survey indicated that there was a definite relationship between the socio-economic position of the families and child labour. The highest proportion of working children in the survey were from manual working class backgrounds (51 per cent) and the unemployed (52 per cent).

Neither is it any mystery why employers use child labour. It is of course a source of cheap and easily disposable labour power and savings can be made not only directly on wages but also indirectly. Children are invariably paid "cash in hand", do not appear on employers’ records and therefore are not subject to national insurance contributions. They are not members of a trade union even where the company is unionised. Neither have they any of the rights of adult workers, such as the right to claim unfair dismissal, the right to an itemised pay slip and, as they pay no national insurance, they have no right to sick pay. Furthermore they are not classified as employees under the Health and Safety at Work Act. If injured at work children have no right to compensation unless their parents can prove in court that the employer has been negligent in some respect. Since most children are employed illegally, taking such cases to court could result in the parents being deemed parties to such negligence.

Despite the large number of health and safety regulations applying to the employment of children, a large minority of those surveyed reported having accidents while in their current jobs. One third of all boys and 29 per cent of girls reported some accident or injury. The main causes were heavy weights, broken glass, slipping or falling and injuries from materials and machinery. Of all the children at work only 19 per cent of boys and 18 per cent of girls were given uniforms or any kind of protective clothing by their employers.

Apart from accidents, the health of working children suffers in other ways. In 1970 a group of teachers in Tynemouth conducted a survey of pupils to discover why so many were falling asleep in class. They discovered that of the 390 interviewed over one third were working illegally and many of them were being grossly overworked and underpaid. As the Low Pay Unit pamphlet suggests, these findings illustrate the fallacy of the view that employment is good for children's health and education. An official of the National Association of School Masters stated:

Children are late to school, fail to do their homework, fall asleep during lessons and are unable to take part in any out of school activities such as sports because they have to report to work.

(Working Children, p.32)

The exploitative use of child labour is not a thing of the distant past. Reform via legislation has failed. The enactment of new laws may give the illusion that something is being done but this is merely a surface appearance; the problem remains because its root cause has not been treated. Doing something now may sound appealing but the reality is that nothing changes because a system unfit for men. women and children remains firmly in operation.

Ray Carr

Blogger's Note:

Sadly, the original text was garbled in places. It looks like there was a typesetting/proof-reading mishap. I couldn't see any notices of corrections in later Standards.

Warning: capitalism can harm your health (1994)

From the August 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Part of the socialist case against capitalism is that in a society based on ruthless competition the control of economic costs will always take priority over the needs of human beings. Therefore plans to cut government and business costs by weakening health and safety regulations are of little surprise to socialists.

The government gave notice of its intentions last November when in the Queen’s Speech it announced a Deregulation Bill which many feared was directly aimed at diluting some of the Health and Safety laws. This Deregulation Bill would give government departments and ministers the power to abolish laws by parliamentary order (Labour Research, January 1994).

At the beginning of this year it was announced that the Health and Safety Executive, the body responsible for enforcing health and safety standards, was to make 230 cuts in jobs over the next two years because the government has reduced its grant. Its budget has been cut by £5 million for the period 1994-95. In 1995-96 it will get only £192 million which is £10 million less than it asked for. In the coal-mining industry the pit deputies union NACODS failed in an attempt in the High Court to prevent the introduction of new mine safety regulations which will weaken safety standards in the pits. The Management and Administration of Safety and Health in Mines Regulations Act of 1993 takes away the role of pit supervisors to monitor safety at pits. This role will now be given to safety inspectors who will have no legal powers and can be overruled by management (Labour Research, February 1994).

Lower standards

Despite improvement in conditions for most workers since the early stages of capitalist industrial production, many workers still suffer illness, injury and even loss of life due to avoidable accidents at work or through diseases directly related to their working environment. Statistics for 1993 show that 430 workers were killed through their employment and there were 88,536 injuries reported to the enforcing authorities (Labour Research, January 1994).

An example of the type of dangers still facing workers in their employment concerns people working with or coming into contact with asbestos.

The effects of inhaling asbestos dust have been known for decades. Asbestos causes asbestosis, a disabling and ultimately fatal scarring of the lungs, lung cancer which is almost always fatal, and mesothelioma, a painful and fatal cancer of the lining of the lung or stomach. Amongst the workers most affected are miners, dockers, those involved in the manufacturing of asbestos products, building workers using products containing asbestos and those who work in or maintain buildings which contain decorating asbestos products. It has been estimated by the Department of Employment that some six million tonnes of the three main types of the product crocidolite blue asbestos, amosite brown asbestos and chrysotile white asbestos had been imported into the UK by 1986.

The widespread use of asbestos left a legacy of almost 3,000 people dying of asbestos-related cancer last year. Asbestos is responsible for more cancers than any other industrial substance. According to recent research by Professor Peto of the Institute of Cancer Research and the Health and Safety Executive, death rates due to mesothelioma alone will increase from around 1,000 in 1991 to between 2,500 and 3,000 a year. As usual under a system designed to meet profit rather than human need, the victims of these avoidable diseases are very often not properly compensated particularly where they have been exposed to asbestos contained in the buildings they work in.

Obstacles to compensation

Various obstacles are put in the way of claiming so-called benefits. To be able to claim compensation workers have to have worked in certain prescribed industries. This generally means they would have to have had some direct contact with the substance via actual asbestos materials or the machinery or appliances used in the manufacture of asbestos products. Under these limitations for claiming compensation it is estimated that 43 percent of mesothelioma victims actually die before they receive their benefit (Labour Research, March 1994).

Despite all the evidence about the health hazards from working with asbestos there are few signs of a complete ban on all types of the substance. In fact William Bernard, president of the American asbestos workers’ union, at a recent conference on construction safety in the USA, gave the following warning:

"Asbestos manufacturers are once again on the assault. They are arguing that a particular type of asbestos chrysotile is not hazardous to health. They are asking the European Community and World Health Organisation to allow it to be used again, especially for use in third world countries" (Labour Research, March 1994).

The fact that workers still suffer illness, injury and death through their employment is yet another indictment of a system of production for profit. It is also an indictment of the failure of reformism. Not only have years of reformist political parties and trade unions campaigning on such issues failed to resolve the problems, at present we are seeing moves designed to weaken already inadequate health and safety legislation.

Profits first

As with other issues reformism cannot succeed as it fails to get to the root cause of the problem — a social system where human well-being must take secondary place to controlling economic cost for the sake of profit. The failure of reformism can also be seen by the fact that in arguing for, in this case, better health and safety provisions reformists accept a capitalist agenda. The TUC, for example argue for better health and safety on the basis that in the long run it will prove "cost effective". The TUC points out that an analysis of the costs and benefits of legislation such as those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive have shown the legislation involved to be "cost positive".

The economic cost benefit argument may or may not be correct but this is not the point. From the point of the majority of us who have to sell our ability to work to an employer in order to live, and so the potential victims of the profit system, our health and lives must come first and to hell with profit. In the short-term the best way to protect our health and ultimately our lives is to organise collectively and effectively at the point of production in order to assert our own interests as against those of our employer. This factor is more important than arguing for improved health and safety legislation.

Ultimately this issue proves once again that the real choice facing us is a society' based on profit which dominates our lives at present as against that of one based on human need for which we need to organise to bring about. As with so many other issues capitalism has proved that it cannot safeguard our health and life in the production process. If capitalism cannot afford the economic cost of health and safety our answer must be that we cannot afford capitalism.

Ray Carr

SPGB Meetings (1992)

Party News from the March 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

I'm not sure if David Hines was a member of the SPGB but he was definitely a sympathiser. His play "Bondage" was adapted into the film the 'Whore', which starred Helen Mirren and was directed by Ken Russell.

Capitalism and the Illusion of Freedom (1995)

From the December 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

The right to vote may be taken for granted by many workers today but it should never be forgotten that we had to struggle for it in the past

In Britain ideas concerning freedom, liberty and democracy can be traced all back to the 17th century. Between the 1640s and 1688 the propertied classes struggled to free themselves from the economic constraints imposed upon them by an absolutist monarchy.

The English Civil War was a class war and despite the rhetoric of the leaders of the parliamentary army that they were fighting for the liberty of the individual against an unjust government their major purpose was to establish a measure of self-government for the propertied classes. It was the men of property who gained new freedoms in the 17th century . Christopher Hill states what these freedoms were and who most of them were at the expense of:

“The men of property won freedom freedom from arbitrary taxation and arbitrary arrest, freedom from religious prosecution, freedom to control the destinies of their country through their elected representatives, freedom to buy and sell. They also won freedom to evict copyholders and cottagers, to tyrannise over their villages, to hire unprotected labour in the open market ” (The Century of Restoration 1603-1714, p. 265).

The mass of the population failed to make any gains either political or economic. The Duke of Albermarle is quoted as saying that “the poorer and meaner people have not interest in the commonweal but the use of breath".

The capitalist class, their representatives and spokesmen in the 17th and 18th centuries at least made no pretence of applying liberty, freedom and the right to elect governments to the mass of the population. These rights were restricted to property-owners and a conscious link was recognised between property and the role of government. John Locke, for example, argued that the executive would forfeit its rights if it endangered the stability of property, for its very existence rested on its role to maintain property.

Glorious for some

The reforming political grouping of the late 17th and early 18th centuries was the Whigs, in opposition to the Tory ideology which argued for a monarchy standing above the law. The Whigs wanted government under the Rule of Law by a parliament consisting of Monarchy, Lords and Commons. They were not democrats and did not advocate political democracy for the mass of the population.

After the so-called “Glorious Revolution” of 1688, and the receding of the threat of an absolutist monarchy, the Whigs became less reforming. When confronted by the idea of an extension of the political franchise to the so-called lower classes the Whigs were quite clear as to who they considered had the right to decide on who formed die government: those who owned freehold property. Thus one Whig argued: “It is owned that all governments are made by man and ought to be made by those men who are owners of the territory over which the government extends. It must likewise be confessed that the FREEHOLDERS of England are the owners of the English territory, and therefore have a natural right to erect what government they please ” (Quoted in H.T. Dickinson, Liberty and Property, pp. 86- 90).

By the late 18th century', and following the French Revolution, the property-owning class showed what they thought of democratic movements. Both inside and outside parliament many favoured the imposition of repressive measures to prevent the spread of radical ideas. Several showed their contempt for ideas concerning the sovereignty of the people. Edmund Burke argued:

“The sovereignty of the people was the most false, wicked, and mischievous doctrine that ever could be preached to them . . .  The moment that equality and the sovereignty of the people was adopted as the rule of government, property would be at an end, and religion, morality and law, which grew out of property would fall with it."

The useful majority in society had a long time to wait before their struggle for democratic rights would make some progress. Until 1867 in fact, when the Reform Act added 400,000 borough voters nearly doubling the borough franchise (but women, paupers and farm labourers were still denied the vote).

Safe to extend the vote

The question is why was it at this point that the franchise was extended to a large section of the working class? The early part of the 19th century had seen militant working class agitation both industrially and politically. This period saw the Luddite risings and mass demonstrations seeking political reform, including the famous Peterloo massacre of 1819. Following several unsuccessful strikes by various groups of workers in the 1820s the idea of general unions also began to gain ground.

The failure of the 1832 Reform Act to give the working class the vote added further momentum to ideas about general militant industrial organisation. This movement culminated with the formation in 1834 of the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union. For Bronterre O’Brien the aim of general unions was to bring about: 

"an entire change in society—a change amounting to a complete subversion of the existing order of the world. The working classes aspire to be at the top instead of at the bottom of society—or rather that there should be no top or bottom at all."

The 1830s also saw the development of the largest and most important working class political movement up till then. Chartism. However the defeat of Chartism in the 1840s signalled the incorporation of militant organisation into the mainstream labour movement which was itself being integrated into capitalist society.

Thus the 1850s saw the development of the so-called “New Model Unions”, more centralised, bureaucratic and more eager to protect their funds than to engage in militant action. By the 1860s the leaders of several of these trade unions had set themselves up at the head of the movement. This group, known as the “Junta”, sought acceptance for the trade unions into the capitalist order. In 1862 they formed the Manhood Suffrage and Vote by Ballot Association declaring: 

“Let our advocacy be firm, intelligent and persistent, not a sowing of the seeds of discord, but a promotion of the growth of union; not an exciting of class against class; but an endeavour to extend the welfare of all."

Therefore by 1867 the extension of the franchise to sections of the working class was no longer fraught with danger. In fact with fresh agitation breaking out in 1866 for parliamentary reform many members of the ruling class felt that denying the working class the franchise was providing workers with an issue to unite around. A further consideration was that granting the franchise to a section only of the working class would divide and weaken them.

Real democracy

Political democracy and the law developed from the seventeenth century according to the needs of a property and developing market economy. In other words, they developed in line with the interests of the property-owning class and had nothing to do with anything like the moral superiority of democracy over dictatorship.

The extension of the vote to the working class was not “given” but was won by years of struggle. It was conceded, even if only partially, only at a point when it would probably have been more dangerous for the ruling class to continue to deny it and at a time when large sections of the working class had been integrated into capitalist society.

Extending the vote to workers under capitalism is not the same thing as establishing real democracy. Meaningful democracy in a world where the means of producing and distributing the things we need to live are owned and controlled by a tiny minority is at best a sick joke. Real democracy under capitalism is an illusion. The limited democracy we do have can however be used as a tool to bring about a worldwide system where the Earth’s resources are owned and controlled by its inhabitants. When that goal is achieved, and only when it is achieved, can we start to talk about living in a true democracy.

Ray Carr

Capitalism: incompatible with democracy (2020)

From the October 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

We continue from Part One, our explanation as to why capitalism is not and cannot be democratic

The ownership of the mass media is merely the start of the problem. Another way of constraining democracy is by limiting what is seen as being suitable for discussion. Liberal Democracy (LD) does not normally limit discussion by outlawing ideas and throwing people who fail to conform into gaol or worse, although this may happen in certain circumstances. Instead it falls more into the category expressed by Marx that the dominant ideas in society are those of the ruling class. The dominant mode of thinking is instilled in people gradually from a young age via institutions such as the family, education system and cemented by the mass media. What this encourages is a limited range of permissible opinions which are, to a large extent, an endorsement of capitalism and its system of market ‘democracy’ so that in general such opinions are held as being natural common sense whilst ideas and opinions that fall outside of this remit are seen as being illegitimate, illogical and irrational and perhaps even dangerous. Try to discuss an alternative which fundamentally challenges the major features of capitalism and you are likely to be ridiculed or considered as a dangerous subversive. In any event getting a serious discussion of them on to the mass agenda is as difficult as running through a brick wall.

When capitalism is seen to be failing in some way as, for example, in the 2008 financial crisis then the system is often subject to a more critical examination and questions may be raised about its future. However, such an examination will be extremely limited as in the instance of the events of 2008 there had to be scapegoats – certain individuals got out of control; it was due to a minority of greedy people, and the like. The system itself will not be subject to a serious critique. The alternatives put forward will be something like increased economic regulation or perhaps more state intervention in the economy whilst the core features of the system, production for profit, capital accumulation, employment (wage slavery), the market economy, these, if discussed at all, will only be in the margins, not on the main agenda.

On that main or mass agenda the only alternative to capitalism is a reformed version of that same system. The process of limiting the discussion to a pre-set agenda is undemocratic as it places restrictions on the alternatives open to us in solving ongoing problems. So this is part of the process of constructing reality. We have all come across terms such as ‘we have to live in the real world’ or ‘there is no alternative’. The nonsense being peddled here is that the ‘real world’ equals capitalism to which there is no ‘alternative’. It is almost as if the capital system has always existed and will always exist, as if it is the one and only reality.

It is continually the case that political language is used to obfuscate the real meanings of concepts. For example take the word ‘free’, we are very often confronted with the terms ‘Free World’, ‘Free Trade’, ‘Free Markets’, ‘Free Enterprise’. These terms most definitely hide more than they reveal. What the word ’free’ means in the face of capitalism has nothing to do with the majority of the people in the so-called ‘Free World’ being free. In fact the opposite is the case. The world-wide capitalist system presents a situation where the mass of people are at the best tied to the dictatorship of capital. The other so-called ‘freedoms’ (trade, markets, enterprise), whilst presented in the rhetoric as a system where small businesses or the self-employed operate via their own hard work to exchange their goods (commodities) via ‘free’ mechanisms, are in reality part of a process which is dominated by a few major corporations and the world market. Capitalism is a world-wide capitalist economic system, a system that leaves millions throughout the world not only far from ‘free’ but in poverty or even starving. This of course includes people living in the major power of this illusionary ‘Free World’, the United States of America. In addition, this is the system that results in wars all around the planet but never mind because capitalism gives you the ‘Freedom’ to die for your country, meaning the part of the world you were born in.

Profits – capitalism’s main priority

Real democracy is not possible under capitalism. However, democracy is continually used by countries which operate under the banner of ‘Liberal Democracy’ as a propaganda tool. A country under this heading will enter into trade agreements, providing they are profitable, with totalitarian regimes, who are known to have appalling records in areas such as human rights. Western capitalist countries have therefore entered into such agreements with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and China. They do so with no scruple whatsoever as the opportunity to trade and make profits is of far more importance than concepts such as human rights or democracy.

In addition, major economic powers operating under this banner have not been slow in acting to remove from power democratically-elected governments when their economic interests are threatened. Iran in the early 1950s and Chile in the early 1970s are major examples, though there are many others. In the latter case, whilst the election of the Popular Front government had nothing to do with establishing socialism, which would require an entirely different set of circumstances, it is nevertheless difficult to recognise as democratic a system that overthrows democratically-elected (in their terms) governments and replaces them with dictatorships. As indicated, there are many other cases of similar actions and this is a subject that deserves more attention.

It is also the case that an LD such as Britain has a rather dubious internal record in certain areas of human rights. Since the end of the 1970s there have been countless Acts passed on the industrial relations front, all designed to hinder workers taking collective industrial action to defend their terms and conditions of employment; so much so that we reached the point some years ago where it is almost impossible to organise collective action which can be both legal and effective. This applies as much to Labour governments as it does to Conservative ones. In addition, there has been a series of Acts over the same period that make it extremely difficult for protest movements to stay within the law whilst organising meaningful campaigns.

A democratic society requires a democratic base

Dictionary.com defines democracy as: ‘A form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system’. It describes the United States of America and Canada as examples of democratic countries. The Cambridge English Dictionary states that democracy is ‘The belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves’. It then states that the early 1990s saw the spread of democracy to Eastern Europe. There are many other similar definitions to these and it is not really surprising that in the current environment they relate to LDs.

Such definitions limit democracy to political systems of government but remain silent on the most basic and important feature in society, namely, how the means of production and distribution are organised. Concentrating on the political system limits the concept of democracy because it is constructed on the base of present-day society and the political system operates to defend that society’s structure. So, where there is a lack of control for the vast majority at its most fundamental level, no political system can overcome that undemocratic nature and it is not designed to do so (but this does not mean that it cannot be made to contribute to this purpose under the right conditions). This is the main reason why the so-called democracies that operate within capitalism are not democracies.

The type of definitions of democracy outlined above are just defending capitalism. For example, Dictionary.com talks of a ‘free electoral system’ but it is only free in a very limited sense, most people have the right to vote for the political party of their choice, but as we have pointed out it is not free from bias in the realm of acceptable ideas. How can it be when it is constructed on an economic dictatorship at the base of society? Likewise the Cambridge English Dictionary definition speaks of ‘a belief in freedom and equality between people’ but freedom and equality between people is completely absent in terms of the organisation and ownership of wealth production and distribution.

In fact this is where the inequalities within society stems from and they cannot be healed by the political system, especially one which is designed to perpetuate such fundamental divisions. Both definitions have reference to power being held directly by the people but this is quickly diluted to elected agents or representatives acting on their behalf, the capitalist reality is that those agents or representatives are acting in the interests of capital accumulation and definitely not in the interests of the majority.

Socialism and the use of the political process

If socialists regard the political process on offer in LD as undemocratic, then why do we advocate that it is possible to use it in order to replace minority control with common ownership? Should we not logically reject the empty rhetoric of capitalist democracy entirely and favour something similar to a modern system of workers’ councils? Should we not recognise the limitations of the political process and the possibility that, if the socialist movement grows to an extent that it forms a large minority, that the right to use the limited democratic system might be closed off to us?

In addressing this, two points need to be considered. Firstly, it would be a mistake to dismiss a process that, for now at least, gives us the opportunity to put forward the socialist case as an alternative to the capitalist system. This process offers us an opportunity to put forward that perspective and is therefore an important way of winning more people over to the socialist movement. If it offers this advantage then why not use it? Secondly, just because we advocate using the political process does not mean we rule out using other democratic methods alongside it and which would supplement the political process. In fact we never have ruled it out.

There is a common misconception amongst many that the World Socialist Movement (WSM) advocates using political means alone to bring about socialism and rules out all other forms of organisation. For example, some years ago Leftcom when reviewing our pamphlet What’s Wrong with using Parliament? suggested that the reason for the pamphlet was to ‘restate their belief that socialism can only come about via parliament’. There is a lot of difference in saying that parliament can be used in bringing about socialism to saying either that it would have to be used or must be used in all circumstances. What we in the WSM insist on is the need to organise on a democratic basis.

If you wish to achieve a free and democratic society you have to use democratic methods, as the means for achieving something will determine the end result. So we oppose as utopian and dangerous the idea that a well-organised and conscious minority can lead a majority who lack socialist understanding to the freedom of socialism/communism. We of course do not know what precisely will happen in the lead-up to socialism but would think it highly likely that, as socialist consciousness develops in various parts of the world, workers will create several different forms of organisation. One would be a movement to represent them at the political level. This would probably vary depending on the differing circumstances in various parts of the world. But there would be other forms of organisation, perhaps something like workplace and neighbourhood councils. Industrial organisation such as unions would take different forms to those around today, reflecting an increased socialist awareness. Lastly, we might even see people in some places creating their own parliament, a ‘peoples’ parliament’, more advanced and effective than what exists today. Whilst we do not want to engage in too much crystal–ball gazing the point is that socialists accept that, when workers begin to engage with socialist ideas in far greater numbers than we have today, they will form various types of organisations to help achieve their goals. What must also be pointed out is that in such changed circumstances parliament would not be the dung heap that it is at present. For us the key is democratic means, whatever the differing forms of organisation that may develop.

The path towards a genuine democracy is a path leading away from capitalism whether of the state or so-called private variety and towards a society run by people for people, using the most advanced productive capacity and technology available to directly satisfy human needs whilst giving regard to protecting and nurturing our planet which is the source of life itself. The time to act towards that goal is now. We do not suggest that the road towards this alternative society will be easy but it is necessary and urgent.

RDC

What now for trade unions? (1987)

From the September 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are no doubt thousands of trade unionists throughout the country who believe that the third term of office achieved by the Conservatives will spell disaster for the trade union movement.

Since the Conservatives were returned to office in 1979 they have introduced legislation to restrict the ability of trade unionists to take action to defend and improve their living standards. This has occurred when the economic recession has already limited the unions' effectiveness.

The 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts restricted the right to strike, made individual workers and their unions liable for damages arising from disruption caused by striking and picketing, placed further limitations on picketing and made closed shop agreements still more difficult to achieve. The 1984 Trade Union Act made it compulsory to hold secret ballots for union elections, strike decisions and political funds. The new Conservative administration is committed to further repressive union legislation which will follow proposals outlined in a Green Paper produced earlier this year. If, as is likely, these proposals become law protection for the closed shop will be ended and industrial action to enforce one will be unlawful. Unions will be unable to discipline members who refuse to take part in industrial action. Members will be able to prevent unions calling for industrial action unless they have won majority support in a ballot. Union ballots will have to be fully postal, independently supervised and will apply to the election of union presidents and general secretaries. Trustees of union funds will be bound not to allow funds to be used in contravention of court orders. This will be enforced by a new commissioner for union affairs to help members bring court actions against their unions and there will be new powers for the certification officer.

Effects of economic depression

In the 1970s trade unions seemed to be in a fairly healthy condition. They had been largely able to frustrate attempts by the Heath government to weaken the trade union movement through the Industrial Relations Act of 1971. The miners twice gained major victories over that same government over pay claims in 1972 and 1974. The election of a Labour government in 1974 resulted in the Social Contract 1975-8 but with the breakdown of that agreement a new wave of industrial action broke out in 1978, culminating in strike action by low paid public sector workers in the winter of discontent in 1979. That year saw the victory of the first Thatcher administration from which point the influence of the trade union movement has been in decline. In 1979 trade union membership in Britain stood at 13.5 million; by 1984 it had fallen to just over 11 million and it is now estimated to be around 10 million. The 1980s have seen the defeat in prolonged strikes of what were previously seen to be the most powerful groups of workers, most notably the miners and printers.

In looking at the future prospects for the trade union movement it would be wrong to conclude that the problems of trade unionists are simply due to recent Conservative legislation. As the decline in membership indicates, much of their present weak state is due to the economic depression and this can be shown by looking at previous periods of trade depression. For example in the great depression in the latter part of the nineteenth century membership of TUC affiliated unions fell from 1,192,000 in 1874 to 464,000 in 1881. In the depression between the two world wars union membership fell from 8,337,000 in 1920 to 4,387,000 in 1933. As at the present time, in these periods the working class suffered major defeats, the most notable examples being the collapse of the 1926 General Strike and the subsequent defeat of the seven month coal strike in the same year.

Under capitalism labour power is a commodity. bought and sold on the market and as with all commodities it is subject to economic laws such as demand and supply. At times like the present, when the demand for labour power is low the weapon of industrial action to improve wages and conditions is blunted. The year 1980 saw the lowest number of strikes since 1941. Out of the 11,910,000 working days lost in industrial disputes 8.954,000 were in the metal manufacturing sector and these were almost entirely due to the national steel strike, which accounted for 74 per cent of all working days lost during that year. The return of mass unemployment has meant that workers are unlikely to win strikes particularly long ones. It has also affected the willingness of workers to engage in strike action as those still in work feel insecure. Whereas in the 1950s and 1960s between one in 20 and one in 30 workers were out of a job the proportion since 1982 has been around one in eight.

Divide and rule

These conditions also create divisions in the working class. In the normal respect competition in the labour market is divisive and so hinders working class unity. With the effects of an economic depression this division is further heightened. Unemployment and increased competition for scarce jobs divides workers on the basis of gender since, owing to socialised patterns of belief, a woman's role in the labour market is regarded as secondary and employment of female labour is seen as being at the expense of male employment. The division of workers along the lines of race also gets worse as black workers are seen to be taking "British jobs" (even though they are most probably "British” themselves). Workers are also divided on the basis of where they live as some regions are worse hit than others. Such an example is the so-called North-South divide. That such a divide exists in the minds of workers was clearly shown in the June election. The major point is that economic conditions reduce the effectiveness of trade union action and in the end these factors are even more important than anti-union legislation.

Popular misconceptions

There can be little doubt that the Conservative policy of reform of the trade union movement was an important factor in their election victory as even after eight years of repressive legislation unions still remain unpopular with much of the electorate. This unpopularity of trade unions is based on three misconceptions — that unions are too powerful and are capable of bringing down elected governments; that part of British capitalism's economic decline was due to a high level of strike activity; that unions are undemocratic and operate against the interests of their members.

On the first point it is impossible for a government to be brought down by industrial action on its own. even a general strike. In such a situation the repressive and ideological apparatus of the state will remain in control of the government and such action would soon be crushed. In reality strikes are almost entirely due to workers seeking to defend and improve their living standards. For example in the period 1965-74 pay was the dominant reason for strikes; 83.3 per cent of the working days lost due to disputes in that period were due to conflicts over wage related issues. The conflict of the late 1970s after the breakdown of the Social Contract showed a similar pattern. In 1979 3,804,700 out of the 4,120,800 workers involved in strikes were in dispute over issues connected with pay.

Official figures also indicate that Britain is not particularly strike prone. The Department of Employment paper no 15, 1978 Strikes in Britain, showed that on average only two per cent of UK manufacturing plants, employing only 20 per cent of manufacturing workers, experience strikes long enough to be recorded by the department. As far as comparison with other countries is concerned different analysis shows that in the recent past Britain's strike record is far from being the worst in the industrialised world. Depending on the data used Britain is sixth or seventh among countries for which adequate information is available.

The third claim is that unions are undemocratic and that members need protection from them. While trade unions may not be perfect models of democratic organisations the Conservative Party and business leaders have nothing to teach them in terms of democratic procedure as an examination of the structure of industrial and financial organisations would soon reveal. Trade unions are organisations of the working class which as long as capitalism exists are needed if workers are not to be completely degraded, even though their ability to protect workers is subject to limitations in times of economic recession.

If workers are to make full use of these organisations of self defence they cannot afford to rely on the so-called democracy imposed from outside. The idea behind the latest Conservative proposals is to weaken working class organisation. What should also be rejected is the new type of unionism — the no strike deals preached by leaders like Hammond — or any moves to divert unions away from their class role. Members do need to gain more control over their unions but this can only come about through participation. involvement and a developing political class consciousness. Pressure for increased union democracy must come from members themselves. Decision making at all levels including decisions regarding industrial action need to be based on democratic discussion and a freeing of information so that members can make decisions on a knowledge of the facts. The election of union officers at all levels requires that members have knowledge of who they are voting for and what the candidates stand for.

Trade unions and capitalism

Workers should join trade unions, take an active role in them. However this defensive battle is one where workers have to run ever faster in order to remain in the same place. History has shown us that these same battles have to be fought over and over again. Instead of simply organising to get the best out of a system where the majority are economically coerced to spend much of their lives in unfulfilling and soul destroying employment, a system where they are treated not as human beings but as economic units who are simply to be used to create values over and above that of their labour power, workers must set themselves a higher goal — creation of a society where the differing skills of the people can be used to benefit society as a whole rather than only a small minority.

On June 11 last the overwhelming majority of the working class, both trade unionists and non-trade unionists, voted for parties committed to maintaining the present system. As expected this election showed that the working class remained down on their knees asking leaders to do their thinking for them. At present the prospects for the trade unions look bleak. With an economic upturn they could improve but at best we can look forward to a continuation of this vicious circle. Only when the working class develop a political awareness of the need to establish a different society that ends minority control of the means of producing the things we need to live, will we begin to see workers creating a different kind of trade union movement. We shall see unions that are democratically controlled by their members, able to defend workers in their struggles within capitalism.

Ray Carr

SPGB Meetings and Debates (1995)

Party News from the July 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The result of the Littleborough & Saddleworth by-election can be found here. A word of warning though; only click on the link if you have a strong stomach.

Single union deals (1988)

From the June 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ford's decision not to go ahead with a new plant in Dundee was based, so most of the media would have us believe, on the controversy that surrounded the single union deal they had agreed with the AEU. The guilty party we were told was the TGWU who opposed the deal. So here we have the unlikely picture presented to us of the big bad TGWU scaring off the little Ford corporation who only had the good intentions of "creating employment" in the Dundee area. Of course the more likely truth is that Ford withdrew because investment in Dundee was less advantageous than it had previously seemed. What the issue did do was to bring the discussion of single union deals out into the open once again.

However as usual under capitalism, misrepresentation has replaced clear information and the debate surrounding this issue has tended to be distorted. To discuss single union deals in a clear light we need to look beneath the surface arguments. By doing this we will find that it is not so much single union deals that are in dispute as the contents of some of these agreements. Secondly we need to analyse the type of environment in which employers have found it more advantageous to sign agreements with a single union. The point here is that the issue cannot be isolated from conditions that exist within modern capitalism.

The first point to be made is that a single union having sole negotiating rights with a particular company is not something which is without precedent. Nevertheless it is true that in British industrial relations multi-union recognition, with each union representing a separate grade of workers, has been the norm. However in the past few years we have seen the growth of single union agreements and many of these have included provisions which have brought about a changed union-management relationship. Some of the earliest single union deals included the ones signed by the EETPU with Hitachi and Toshiba and the AEU's agreement with Nissan. More recently the EETPU have reached a similar agreement with Brother Industries, a Japanese-owned company based in North Wales, whilst the AEU have signed such a deal with Dunlop on Tyneside and the GMB have agreed to a single union deal with British Cable Services owned by Robert Maxwell. In 1985 the TGWU was manoeuvred into accepting a single union agreements at the Norsk Hydro Plant at Immingham on Humberside where the company had previously recognised the EETPU, AEU and ASTMS. [1] 

Ford in Dundee

The growth of single union deals is thus undeniable. But the controversy over them is not, as the media would have us believe, merely over the concept of single unionism but has more to do with the contents of some of these agreements and the way in which they are concluded. This fact stands out particularly in relation to the AEU's agreement with Ford at the proposed plant for Dundee. What precisely was it about the deal that the TGWU objected to? Whilst of course it could be pointed out that had the TGWU been the union chosen their attitude might have been different there is evidence to suggest that the TGWU would not have accepted the agreement as it stood. Firstly, the leadership of the two unions stand far apart on the issue of single union deals and also with the current balance on the TGWU national executive favouring the left it is unlikely that such an agreement could or would have been accepted. Secondly it seems likely that Ford chose the AEU because they were more likely to agree to a package that undercut the existing national agreement between the company and the unions covering pay and conditions for 44,000 workers at 22 plants. Furthermore the leadership of the AEU and the EETPU have been the most willing to organise plants and companies not by recruiting members but by approaching top management of the companies concerned. For example in the deal agreed to between the EETPU and Brother Industries, whilst the TGWU were attempting to recruit workers at that company the EETPU negotiated a deal with the company to gain sole negotiating rights for all employees at the company's electronic typewriter plant at Wrexham and its microwave oven plant at Ruabon, seemingly without the agreement of the employees concerned.

Certainly the TGWU's criticism of the AEU 's deal with Ford seems justified from a trade union point of view. Ron Todd, General Secretary of the TGWU, highlighted the dangers of the deal in the following way.

Ford planned to exploit Dundee's need for investment by setting up a low pay wedge there.

The point of this was to undermine the pay and conditions won through years of struggle. The danger was, Todd continued:

That the company would close down their plants and transfer their work to Dundee at sub standard wages.

Once Ford had been allowed to locate the plant without honouring national agreements how long would it be. Todd asked, before it "decides to try the same trick again?" The point is. then, that the content of the agreement is the stumbling block and not the fact that only a single union is involved. Furthermore one of the most important aspects is how the company or plant is organised. Is it to be on the basis of recruitment of the workers concerned or by negotiations with the company over the heads of the employees? The latter is no basis for solid trade union organisation.

No-strike agreements 

Several single union deals contain "no-strike" provisions. For example most, if not all, of the agreements involving the EETPU include no-strike clauses and several of these make use of pendulum arbitration. Under this method if the two sides reach deadlock on a certain issue then it is resolved by an outside and so-called independent arbitrator who is bound to decide in favour of either the company or the union there being no possibility of a compromise solution. The argument in favour of such a method is that the two sides will be encouraged to reach a negotiated settlement due to the danger that the arbitrator may decide against them. The problem from a trade union viewpoint is that being unable to take any industrial action they will be unable to put any pressure on the arbitrator. In a situation where the company is determined to force through a change it is unlikely that the arbitrator's decision will be reached on the basis of neutrality. Whilst this system may provide some benefit to workers' organisations when they are in a weak bargaining position, unions tied to such agreements will be unable to use their full might when they are in a stronger bargaining position. It is this longer term goal, the ability to constrain union bargaining power when it is at its height, that lies behind the desire of employers for no-strike agreements as part of single union deals. It could of course be pointed out that such agreements are not as yet legally binding but action could be taken against any employees who engage in industrial action on an individual basis in breach of contract.

Not all of the single union deals signed in recent years include no-strike provisions. For example the agreements between the GMB and British Cable Services and between Dunlop's Tyneside plant and the AEU do not include such a clause. The agreement involving the GMB stipulates that both sides should not take any industrial action while a dispute is in procedure. The AEU's deal with Dunlop states that if management and the union cannot resolve a dispute they will mutually accept ACAS conciliation. The agreement between the TGWU and Norsk includes a six stage procedure for the resolution of collective issues. Stage six. if reached, allows for the matter to be put to a secret ballot, with the wording on the ballot form subject to joint agreement. The clause relating to the overall dispute procedure states that during all stages of the procedure:

  It is clearly understood that there will be no deviation from normal working by way of coercion or disruptive action by individuals or groups etc. in any circumstances . . . The company in return will not invoke any form of lockout.

It goes on to warn workers that.

should any individual or group of employees wish to challenge this practice he/she or they will be severely disciplined 

Trade union representation 

Some single union deals also include the type of communication mechanisms that exist in many of the more sophisticated non-union companies. For example, in many of the EETPU deals and in the TGWU's agreement with Norsk, there exists a Company Advisory Board or in the latter case a council. The agreement between the EETPU and Toshiba includes a provision for the establishment of a Company Advisory Board (CoAB). In many ways the function of this body limits the traditional role of the trade unions. The CoAB at Toshiba includes the following provisions. Regarding the election of employee representatives to sit on this body it states that in areas where trade union representation exists the candidate may be either a unionist or non-unionist. Regarding the role of a CoAB member it stipulates that a person should come to a meeting with an open mind and should not be mandated. In addition the member must not be committed to a trade union line. Furthermore the rules accepted by the EETPU state:

  The EETPU. recognises that all collective issues will be raised at CoAB in the first instance and will only be taken up by the trade union if they cannot be resolved by CoAB advice. [3]

The CoAB thus reduces trade union involvement; union representation is not welcomed and where it has trade union representatives on it they are constrained in representing either the interests of their members or union policy.

New technology

The movement in recent years to single union deals is in many ways connected to the demands and possibilities that new technology makes on, and offers to, the representatives of capital. Implicit in the following is the limitations of trade unionism as it is pulled along with, and can only respond in a defensive manner to. the dictates of capital. Here we can also see how technology under capitalism is used not to free but to chain workers to the demands of capital. For one of the most important issues for management in the 1980s is the need to be able to use labour in a flexible way so as to keep expensive production systems flowing and to meet rapid changes in market demand. Many companies who have negotiated single union deals and many others who have pursued a non-union strategy, operate in high technology industries where the need to have a flexible labour force is especially important. Where a union does exist it is obviously easier to move people from job to job in an environment where there are not separate unions representing different crafts and occupations. A flexible labour force means workers being trained in a variety of skills (cross skill training) so they can be moved around as the productive needs of the company dictate. Thus, in many high technology companies, there is a movement to single status employment conditions, common wages and conditions for both blue and white collar workers. Flexibility of labour and single status objectives, two concepts that go hand in hand, are included in most single union deals. It has in fact been noted that one of the major reasons why Nissan rejected a multi-union deal was because it was felt that this would have led to an erosion of the company's flexibility and single status objectives.

The section in the agreement between Norsk and the TGWU on flexibility states that it is the company's policy that workers will have no rigid job demarcations. It goes on to state:

  The whole objective is to achieve a level of flexibility on site so that any employee will, when the need arises, be prepared and willing to do any job regardless of status, function or position provided that the work to be done is within the individual's ability and competence level. In order to achieve this degree of flexibility the company acknowledges the need for extra training to which all employees are expected to be committed, whether it be to be trained themselves or to train others. [4]

The above objective is obviously easier in a single union rather than a multi-union environment.

The point should also be made that new technology not only creates new demands on employers which are passed on to the workforce, it also creates new opportunities for the representatives of capital in their struggle with organised labour. In the environment of the 1980s changes in technology, combined with anti-union legislation and an economic recession, have enabled employers to curtail or even end craft control and to initiate procedures to curb union bargaining power. A prime example of this was the print industry. In this situation unions have been powerless to offer much resistance.

The socialist view

What should be the attitude of a socialist or trade unionist to the type of issues we have focused on here? Firstly a pessimistic view of the future of the trade union movement in Britain can be over-emphasised. As indicated. even if single union deals continue to grow as many argue they will, it is the content of the deal that needs to be examined. One vital feature is that trade union organisation needs to be based on recruitment of employees not on agreements with top management over workers' heads. Secondly such setbacks that have occurred for unions have taken place in a hostile environment that the history of capitalism indicates will not last forever. Thirdly the type of setbacks suffered by trade unions in America where trade union density has declined to somewhere around 18 per cent from a figure of over 35 per cent in 1945, seems unlikely to be repeated in Britain. Unions in Britain in many industries have become too deeply enmeshed in the collective bargaining mechanisms to be easily removed. This factor and the new found ability of well organised groups to use secret ballots to their own advantage was evident in the recent Ford dispute as well as in other recent disputes in the motor industry in particular.

On the other hand there are many problems to overcome. The anti-democratic antiunion laws of the present government are still causing major problems as the NUS's dispute with P&O has indicated. In response to changes in new technology, a change in union structure and tactics may be required. This could perhaps develop at workplace level. For example unions at Shell have accepted more flexible working arrangements but have been able to maintain a multi-union situation. To help achieve this they have reformed their shop steward representative constituencies.

Unions are, of course, necessary and vital organisations for the working class so long as capitalism remains in operation. Any member of the working class who believes that his or her interests can be served by company consultative committees or the like has little understanding of the class struggle that takes place daily within capitalism, based as it is on the irreconcilable interests of those who produce but do not possess and those who possess but do not produce. Certainly what makes a person a socialist is an understanding of the history of working class struggle against a class with opposing interests. A reading and understanding of that history shows us that the only solution is the building of a movement which is capable of creating a society which is not divided into employers and employed or state versus people. Furthermore the society that replaces capitalism will not be based on production for exchange by means of economically coerced labour, but on production for use through understanding and voluntary co-operation. The basis of such a society is the common ownership of the means of production which will replace private or state ownership. With no class divisions based on a clash of economic interest, trade unions will no longer be necessary.

However whilst current divisions remain it is in the interests of the working class to organise themselves in trade unions, become active in them and undertake the defensive struggle within capitalism. Furthermore trade unionists should campaign for a movement free from any attachments to a political party that stands for capitalism and this of course includes the Labour Party. But trade unions have their limitations — they can only react to capitalism; they cannot end it. So trade unionists, and indeed all members of the working class, need to go further and help build a movement capable of ending the capitalist system.

Ray Carr

[1] Details of this can be found in a pamphlet produced by Northern College in co-operation with TGWU Region 10 — I. Linn. Single Union Deals. This is a case study of the Norsk Hydro Plant, at Immingham. Humberside.

[2]  I. Linn — Single Union Deals, p. 16

[3] Agreement between EETPU and Toshiba on CoAB

[4]  Linn, op. cit. p. 16

Letter: Democracy (2020)

Letter to the Editors from the October 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

Democracy

Dear Comrades

The September issue of The Socialist Standard creates the unfortunate impression of a sharp division of opinion within the SPGB and the WSM on the vital issue of democracy within capitalism. The editorial in the September issue of The Socialist Standard states that ‘we must not [conclude] that capitalist political democracy is a sham,’ while RDC writes: ‘It can be argued that even the limited democracy allowed … is a sham’ (p. 10). The apparent discrepancy is bound to confuse readers.

I do not think that any real division of opinion exists on this issue. At most there may be differences of emphasis. RDC acknowledges that voting and the freedom to protest are ‘important rights,’ so clearly he does not regard capitalist democracy as a complete sham. At the same time, the author(s) of the editorial concur with RDC in stressing the limits of capitalist democracy.

I suggest that we formulate our position as follows.

‘No political system under capitalism is correctly described as democratic. However, the political systems of many (though far from all) countries do contain certain democratic elements. These democratic elements have arisen in the course of historical development, often – as the editorial notes – as a result of working class struggle. It is extremely important to socialists that these democratic elements be preserved and (to the extent possible) strengthened and extended, even though they can never neutralize the essentially undemocratic nature of capitalism. The stronger and more extensive the democratic elements in political systems, the greater the scope for the spread of socialist ideas and the surer the prospect of a smooth and peaceful transition to socialism. ‘

Stephen D. Shenfield 

(WSPUS)

Capitalism and Democracy : Part 1 (2020)

From the September 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism: incompatible with democracy

Capitalism’s relationship to democracy is similar to a conversation in a film set in apartheid South Africa, where a lawyer addressing a client described the relationship between the law and justice in general as being similar to distant cousins who were not on speaking terms. Capitalism, as we know, is a world-wide system. However, the type of political system that underpins it differs in various parts of the world. In many places it operates on the basis of what are clearly totalitarian regimes, although even here terms such as ‘Peoples’ Assembly’, as in China, try to create the illusion that it contains democratic features. The dominant political system for organising capitalism is the mostly Western mode of liberal democracy (LD). It is this system that we will focus on here as it claims to be the only democratic system on offer, and organisations such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and National Endowment for Democracy attempt to export and promote this model to other parts of the world.

It seems that there is a widely held belief that capitalism and democracy go together almost as well as bread and butter and that therefore totalitarian regimes are seen as something other than capitalist. China and similar systems are labelled, quite incorrectly of course, as ‘Communist’. This linking of capitalism with democracy seems to be contradictory when one considers that it is based on the minority ownership and control of the means of producing and distributing wealth; meaning of course that the majority are separated from those means and therefore from any real control over their lives. So immediately the system of LD defines democracy in very limited terms. It is clearly undemocratic in terms of wealth production and distribution but claims to be democratic on the basis that on the political level it allows for a multi-party political system where a majority of the population, restricted generally only by age qualification, can vote political parties in and out of government, which normally occurs every four or five years. So the general opinion is that this is more democratic than the parts of the world that are governed by one-party states.

However, it can also be argued that this multi-party system does have advantages for a smoother running of capitalism. To begin with, the state can be described as little more than an executive committee to ensure the overall interests of the minority who monopolise the means of living. If a particular government is seen to be failing in this respect, normally due to some problem with the economy, those who hold economic power have at their disposal an alternative to take its place, and generally they have enough control over the prevailing ideas in existence to persuade the majority to vote in line with their thinking. So a multi-party system is a good arrangement for the minority capitalist class. Secondly, it is probably less costly in economic terms not to have to resort to maintaining the kind of state apparatus needed to support a totalitarian state. As the majority are convinced that they live in a free and democratic society, control over the population is easier.

Illusion of Political Democracy

However, it can be argued that even the limited democracy allowed for in the LD system is a sham. Whilst LD does allow for multiple political parties for the electorate to choose between, perhaps there is less difference than many might think between a one-party state and a situation where multiple political parties exist but stand for more or less the same thing. For example, there is little difference in real terms between the Democrats or Republicans in the United States or between the parties who might reasonably be expected to compete for government in places such as Germany, France or Italy. Here we are merely considering differences limited to the running of capitalism and not anything more radical. In the years running up to the election in December 2019 the situation in Britain was arguably somewhat different and so is worthy of examination.

Margaret Thatcher once suggested that one of her major accomplishments had been Tony Blair. It seemed that the Labour Party had been moving rightwards prior to Blair but it was under his leadership that the concept of New Labour really began to take shape. The policies advocated by this seemingly new version of the Labour Party meant that it was now in a position to challenge and perhaps end the Conservative Party’s long reign of political power in Britain. It was now seen by those who mattered most to be a party fit to take power and run capitalism in the right way. Things radically changed in 2015 when, after Labour’s defeat in the general election of that year, a subsequent leadership election led, much to the surprise of most people, to the election of Jeremy Corbyn, a long standing left-winger.

Whilst the background to these events is of interest, the relevant point to be teased out here is that the Labour Party under a left reformist programme was a rather different animal and definitely not one the capitalist class would be willing to accept as suitable for forming a government. From almost the moment he was elected there were moves to discredit his leadership abilities and most definitely his suitability to be a prospective Prime Minister; that was apart from personal attacks and for good measure his dress sense. The anti-Corbyn campaign was mainly administered by the mass media but was also supported by many of those close to the top of Corbyn’s own party including a substantial number of Labour MPs, so much so that after only about a year as leader Corbyn had to seek re-election. Despite all of this the Labour Party gave the Conservative Party a good run for their money in the snap general election called by Theresa May in 2017.

If a fairly recently leaked report into the internal strife in the Labour Party is anywhere near accurate, the surprisingly good showing of the 2017 Labour election campaign was the last thing that many near the top of the Labour Party wanted. Those who were totally opposed to the elected leader of their own party had to wait until the end of 2019 to achieve their goal when a disastrous election result for Labour signalled the end for Corbyn and led to another leadership election early in 2020. The election of Sir Keir Starmer who has been described as ‘soft left’ is probably seen as the beginning of the process to return the Labour Party to a situation where it can be viewed by those who matter in the capitalist system as a party fit to form an alternative government if the need arises.

This points out something about the level of democracy within capitalism. LD may be a multi-party system but to have much or even any chance of gaining political power the policies put forward have to be inside a very limited framework. A party needs to operate in very narrow confines even when it is only concerned with running capitalism. Take for example the Labour Party’s slogan for the 2019 General election ’For the many not the few’. That slogan, along with the way in which the Labour Party under Corbyn thought they could administer capitalism, not only sounded the alarm bells for much of the capitalist class but also caused dissent for many in the hierarchy of the Labour Party who saw even this kind of mild reformist programme for running capitalism as meaning they would very likely be unelectable despite the fact that they performed quite well in 2017.

By 2019 the Brexit issue was more at the forefront of the campaigns. Some have argued that the programme put forward in 2019 was much less radical then those of the 1960s and 70s. Following on from the Blair governments the dominant attitude of many in the Labour Party was that to win an election they had to advocate policies that either mirrored or were at least not that far removed from those on offer by the Conservative Party. The important issue now was not even trying to represent the many but who could run capitalism to the benefit of the minority who really mattered. After all, the only time that Labour had been in power in over forty years was the Blair administrations. Elected in 1997, the prime ministerial role was passed over to Gordon Brown in 2007 who was then defeated by Cameron’s Conservatives in 2010, following another periodic capitalist economic crisis in 2008. To be blunt, the Blair governments were more or less conservative in everything but name. So the last Labour government that was elected with something close to a traditional Labour programme was way back in 1974. Many of course will blame this on neo-liberalism but that is just capitalism operating in the only way it can.

As pointed out previously, LD has advantages over more authoritarian systems for running a society based on the rule by and for a privileged minority. As it is based on a multi-party political system it manages to create the impression that people live in a free and democratic society, thus making it easier to manage any opposition to it. For people have little to object to as they seemingly have the right to vote governments in and out of power and the right to protest and there exists a media which is seen as being independent of the state.

However, the right to vote on its own is no guarantee of democracy. As for the freedom to protest, whilst as with voting it is an important right, history has tended to show that whilst there have been many protests on many issues they have changed very little and fundamental change needs more than just protest movements, especially as they normally focus on single issues campaigns. As for the media such as television and the press, whilst it is, in theory, free from the state it is a powerful weapon in the hands of capitalism.

Managing Democracy

As capitalism operating under LD permits a limited form of democracy it needs to find a way of making sure that it can control the majority who are divorced from ownership, It needs a mechanism to replace the outward repressive state apparatus generally found in totalitarian societies, in order to maintain a compliant society; otherwise the democratic practices it does allow could be used by a politically conscious population to overturn the rule of capital. This is where the work of Chomsky (Manufacturing Consent) or more recently a book entitled Managing Democracy, Managing Consent edited by Rebecca Fisher come in very useful. This process could also be termed as the Construction of Reality. This is not a form of conspiracy theory where a group of powerful individuals meet and make certain plans to hold the population in check but is the natural outcome of a system of minority control operating with limited democratic rights which need to be controlled within.

To begin with, it is stating the obvious to say that in a capitalist society the means of communication are owned and controlled by members of the capitalist class who have no interest whatsoever in undermining their system. Not surprisingly as in capitalism the tendency to monopoly is an unstoppable force the media is owned and controlled by very few companies. This is highlighted by a report published in 2019 by the Media Reform Coalition on the ownership of the media in the UK. This states that just three companies, Rupert Murdoch’s News UK, Daily Mail Group and Reach, the publisher of the Mirror titles, dominate 83 percent of the national newspaper market. This is up from the figure of 71 percent only four years earlier. When online readership is included it means that five companies – News UK, Daily Mail Group, Reach, the Guardian and Telegraph control nearly 80 percent of the market. To quote from the Media Reform Coalition:

  ‘We believe that concentration in news and information markets in particular has reached endemic levels in the UK and that we urgently need effective remedies. Concentrated ownership creates conditions in which wealthy individuals and organisations can amass vast political and economic power and distort the media landscape to suit their interests.’

From time to time media outlets may question the way that capitalism is operating or favour one particular political party over the rest but any criticism it makes is within the boundaries which suggest that capitalism is the only game in town. In line with all capitalist companies, the corporations who own the mass media exist on a profit priority basis and much of their revenue comes from selling advertising space to their fellow wealthy corporations. The income from this source is estimated to be around 75 percent of a newspaper’s total income, even for the so-called quality press such as the Guardian or Independent. So there is no wish to bite the hands that feed them. (The source for much of the information on the media is Media Lens).

RDC

(continued next month.)