50 Years Ago: The Dispute At The London Docks (1999)

The 50 Years Ago column from the August 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The trouble at the London docks is an excellent illustration of the capitalist outlook of the Labour Government. The dockers are willing to unload all ships except the Beaverbrae and Argomont, the two Canadian ships which are involved in a Canadian trade union dispute. The dockers are also prepared to see troops unload the Canadian ships but are not willing to unload them themselves because they contend that these ships are “black ships”. The Dock Labour Board refuses to allow the dock workers to unload other ships unless they are prepared to unload the two Canadian ships. At the moment of writing the government has threatened to declare a state of emergency unless the Port of London is working fully on Monday, July 11th: thus the Labour Government, like all previous capitalist governments, is taking the side of the employers against the workers.

On July 10th Reynolds News contained the following:

“Mr Sam Watson, chairman of the Labour Party, said at Brandon (Co. Durham) yesterday that the dock strike was the work of foreign agencies, was purely political and could be solved if the members of the unions threw out the anti-British agitators.”

What a familiar ring this statement has. For a hundred years every strike of any size has been put down to the nefarious influence of “agitators” sometimes foreign, sometimes home-grown. Many of the Labour leaders who are fighting the dockers were included in this category long ago; now that they support the Labour administration of capitalism they take up the capitalists’ cudgels and sing his tune.

(From the Socialist Standard, August 1949)

Workers Beware—or the Withered Labour Party (1952)

From the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

As was to be expected the Labour Party in opposition is looking around for means and ways to regain power. Having put their programme into practise and been thrown out of office after six years they must find something new, or at least something that looks new. When in opposition there is no time to lose, preparations must begin at once for further wool pulling and political scheming in order to get back, and who should be first to see the necessity of this than that worthy journal with “Forward with the People ” as its slogan—the Daily Mirror. A month or so ago this paper drew attention to the fact that the Labour Party’s aims had been put into operation and they now needed a new plan to meet the challenge of the times. On Monday, 25th of February, a series of articles entitled “Whither Labour" began in the Daily Mirror. These were written by ex-ministers of the late Labour Government and Mr. Sam Watson, a member of the National Executive of the Labour Party. We will review these articles here to show how empty they really are and how unworthy of working class support First let us stress that the very need for a new programme shows the futility of the first one. But if nationalisation and all the other past reforms, designed to bring better times and upheld as the cure for all ills by the Labour Party, have proven fruitless, what indication is there that they can dream up something new to solve workers problems?

Mr. Morrison and “Social Justice.”

The first contributor was Mr. Herbert Morrison who made a great deal of play with “social justice” but skilfully avoided telling us what it is. He said social justice is as much part of our defence as "planes, warships and guns” so perhaps he had in mind the prosecution of the dockers last year by Sir Hartley Shawcross under order 1305 or the banishment of Seretse Kahma or may be he thinks the record-breaking profits under Labour rule alongside the wage freeze policy was socially justified. Mr. Morrison goes on to gloat about “publicly owned industries, the great health and social services,” but fails to mention that despite these things the mass of the workers still live in poverty. Unemployment is creeping back and wars are still going on in which Britain is involved. He then says something quite funny which he should know is not true:—“What we were doing was new” as if Britain was the first capitalist country to go in for nationalisation, in fact all of these things had been done years before in Germany or Denmark, Australia or New Zealand, Russia or Italy and in many other countries sometimes by avowedly capitalist governments but in not one instance did they alter the lot of the masses. Just like the Tories he stresses the need to export and “rearm to protect the freedom we have won over the centuries.” One might almost think Mr. Churchill had written this. The freedom such as it is has not been won by re-arming or going to war but by bitter battles between workers and capitalists here at home. The right to strike or even form trade unions, the right of free assembly, even the vote, were not obtained by bloody wars in other countries but in the class war in this one. The big “if” on which Mr. Morrison pins the Labour Party future is whether they can kid the workers to sink their differences with the capitalists and think of the nation “as a whole” a “socially inspired community,” the workers working as usual and the capitalists, state and private, playing their important rolls by hogging 90 per cent. of the accumulated wealth.

Then Mr. Gaitskell

Mr. Gaitskell wrote the second article which appeared the next day. He right away declared himself to be in favour of increased efficiency. Workers must scrap “all restrictive methods and practices” if we are to achieve “a peaceful world, a steady job, a decent house and rising living standards:” these are “the things that really count.” Weird indeed is the fact that six years of Labour government have not removed the need for these things. Who says the Labour Party was once really anti-war? Mr. Gaitskell declares he “supported rearmament in the 30’s” and he maintains that arms are the way to lasting peace.

This Labour leader also urges us “to work together for the common good.” At the end of his article he shows that he knows the Labour Party is sunk “unless we first win over a million doubtful voters:” he might well explain what made them doubtful in the first place.

Bevan the “Rebel"

The third writer was that bloodcurdling rebel Mr. Aneurin Bevan. From him, the “leftest of left,” many workers may have looked for something different, but no it was the same old song being sung, only off-key. Political parties must be ready with the right “kind of action required in the national interests at any time.”

He engages in the usual mock battles with the Tories and private enterprise, though Mr. Gaitskell had said the day before “smaller businesses will need help in finding capital,” so perhaps they should have got together to see which it is to be.

Mr. Bevan makes an observation made by the S.P.G.B. years ago that we are “faced with the prospects of semi-starvation, if not actual hunger, at a time when the physical sciences dazzle us with their achievements.”

He stated that “the pursuit of profit failed to ensure the provision of essentials first and secondary things afterwards,” but how empty all this vote-catching becomes when we read on—“ If the community is to survive, then investment must be compelled to follow the discipline of long-term planning.”

Capital must be controlled, for capitalists when on the loose compete and in time of crisis this does harm to "national interests,” so they must be collectively looked after.

The Labour Party only left office in October last after six years of power, yet Mr. Bevan tells us “Private enterprise has failed to make sure that our manufacturing capacity is matched by a flow of the necessary raw materials. Thus unemployment and short time working are once more showing themselves in our midst, and this has been aggravated by a rearmament programme of impracticable proportions and unrealisable speed.”

He forgot that he was a member of the Government which brought in the arms programme, but then he only objects to its “proportions” and “speed,” not to its existence. The rest of the article shows his deep concern for the welfare of British capitalism. He challenges the Americans’ right to world leadership on the ground that Britain is looked to to provide those counsels “for which she is fitted by her experiences and her sacrifices.”

Labour Supporters are not Socialists.

The miners’ secretary in Durham, Mr. Sam Watson, came next and although this gentleman is also a member of the Labour Party National Executive, we must bear in mind when reading what he says the fact that trade unions came into existence to fight the capitalist class in the economic field. Like those who wrote the previous articles, Mr. Watson starts with the Nation and ignores class divisions, but what he says further on must come as a shock for all who expected or expect great things of the Labour Party. It drives home full-swing the accuracy of the Socialist Party’s claim that there can be no Socialism without mass-understanding. After forty-five years of the Labour Party in and out of office he says, “It is wishful thinking to believe that there are millions of people in the country, especially in the trade union movement, who are 'raring’ to go forward for the kind of society Labour wants, and are held back like dogs on a leash only by right-wing leaders in the union or in the Labour Party.” And again: “We deceive ourselves if we refuse to face up to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people in the Labour movement have either no knowledge, or only limited knowledge, of the causes of the present grave situation.” Surely Mr. Watson can understand their ignorance, for when has the Labour Party ever made any effort to teach them?

He is typical of the people who sneer at the S.P.G.B. because it is small and insists on understanding. Perhaps this is a good lesson in where mass membership without understanding leads to. Socialists have always said that votes cast for something other than Socialism cannot bring it about. Mr. Watson, just coming to, says, “We had the largest vote in the history of the party in 1951, but it was not secured on a basis of fundamentally changing our economy, but in the belief that if the Tories won they would immediately proceed in principle to cut down the standard of living and might even increase the danger of war.” Votes cast out of fear and ignorance will never solve anything, yet throughout the election this is exactly the kind of vote the Labour Party sought. It is now an established fact also that the late Labour Government made preparations for atom bombs here in this country. How they must blush when they call the Tories “warmongers”! Like those who wrote earlier Mr. Watson hopes for the sinking of class differences, greater efficiency and cheaper production to keep or capture “the markets of the world.” “Fair shares for all” is still to be Labour’s call and those words echo down the corridors of time as Labour Governments come and go without effecting any change in the distribution of wealth.

The “Daily Mirror’s” Contribution.

Having heard from the brains of the Labour Party on Friday, 29.2.52, the Daily Mirror made its own contribution for our enlightenment. Their writers notice that the number of skilled workers is “going down,” which they say is a “disastrous trend.” They first claim credit for having “supported the Labour Party in its struggle to achieve certain declared aims— fair play and fair shares for everybody,” and then they have the nerve to ask “why at the last election the people of Britain rejected a Labour Government”! The answer is simple: they didn’t bring home the bacon. The Daily Mirror can talk about a greater say in industry for the workers and advocate a greater sharing of the wealth produced, but while Capitalism remains, profit making is the motive for production, and the more workers get the less there is for the capitalists, and this would never do. If all the old men in responsible positions in the Labour Party were replaced by younger men the capitalist class would still own the means of living and workers would still be subjected to this as wage slaves, for, high wages or low, the people who pay wages still live on profits sweated for by those who receive wages.

By facing storms the Daily Mirror thinks that “Labour can become a really great NATIONAL party.”

We already have one National Party, but if what this newspaper is getting at is the fact that there is nothing to choose from, we agree. The history of Capitalism has been one of crises, yet the Labour Party have not learnt to do otherwise than to try and patch it up.

A little later on (March 11th) an article entitled “Short Time” appeared in the same paper. Remembering all the social reforms and the “benefits” of six years’ Labour rule this article tells us of the 8,000 workers on short time in Oldham where a family of six exists on £5 13s. a week and have only 18s. 9d. to spend on “milk, meat, fish, gas, electricity, fares and clothing.” They are on short time, says the writer, Claud Morris. After being used to working overtime they work for three days a week at £3 10s., and make it up with unemployment money and family allowances if they have children.

The mill went on short time “because of lack of orders.” All the “industrial efficiency” and “economic planning ” in the world cannot abolish the problems of Capitalism. While politicians here are cooking up schemes to extend trade and capture markets, the politicians of Japan, China, Russia, America and the rest of the world are doing the same. In the final throw, trade routes like the Suez Canal, raw materials such as Malayan rubber, and Persian oil, and the markets of the world have to be retained or obtained by force. The wars of Capitalism, past, present and future, are not in the interest of the working class because they own neither the raw materials, the trade routes, nor the markets.

During the same week that saw publication of the articles, Mr. Attlee, Prime Minister of the late Labour Government, was writing a series of articles in Labour’s own, the Daily Herald. These were on the same lines as the others mentioned, and equally empty.

“The positive remedy is to increase our exports.” We have already seen where this leads. “We must cut down our imports, especially from dollar countries. This means going without some things, but we shall have to put up with this.” We don’t have to re-elect Labour to be told this; the Tories are already doing it. To draw any loose ends together it might be as well to bring to our reader’s attention that the whole lot of articles in both newspapers never once mentioned the phrases “working class,” “capitalist class,” “Socialism,” “fellow workers,” or “workers of the world, unite.” They are concerned with running Capitalism and all their ideas, old and “new,” are in line with that basic fact. One final stunning blow to Labour leaders who brag of their achievements while in office and who are trying hard to trick their way back, is their contribution to the housing problem, the building of the Festival of Britain. As a party which alleges concern over workers' problems and affects to blame shortages of materials for their failings, they stand indicted.

Nobody can say we are being wise after the event, for we state that their future programmes will fail and we know why. There is no way of running Capitalism beneficially to the masses and without war, slumps and crises. To abolish Capitalism is the only way to peace, plenty, happiness and security. Socialism is the solution, common ownership of the means of life and production for use the world over. Socialism is the solution and the urgency for its establishment is now. So don’t be fooled, fellow workers. It's your votes they are after. Socialism requires your understanding. It may be a long road, that depends on you, but until you bring about Socialism you have nothing to look forward to save a fate worse than death and lots and lots of promises.

Harry Baldwin

Two of a Kind (1957)

From the October 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Khrushchev, in Prague in mid-July, made some sneering remarks about the British Labour leaders. A month earlier one of the Labour M.P.s, Mr. John Strachey, had been writing derisively about the Russian Communist leaders in the American Saturday Review. It appears that when a British Labour delegation passed through Moscow in 1954 one of the members, Mr. Sam Watson, had protested to Khrushchev about the abuse the Russians directed against the British Labour leaders.

Khrushchev recalled this in a speech he made in Prague on 11th July, 1957, and went on to say that he refused to withdraw:—

  “I do not deny that I myself call you lackeys of capitalists. I consider that this is correct because you are not against capitalists.” (Daily Mail, 12/7/1957.)

He added nastily (a little brazenly, in view of his own reputation for gutting and guzzling) that the visiting delegation “ate and drank a lot.”

Across the Atlantic the Saturday Review (8/6/57) had published an article “Communism and Socialism,” in which Mr. John Strachey. Labour M-P. for Dundee West, a former Minister of Food and Secretary of State for War, dealt with the present beliefs of the Communists and Labourites in comparison with what they used to believe.

This is what Mr. Strachey had to say about how the Communist Party has betrayed Communism:—

    “We ought, of course, at the same time to notice, that . . .  the word Communism has been made to stand for something which is almost opposite to the original meaning of the word. The word Communism, traditionally, means a state of society in which the element of coercion has been eliminated instead of vastly increased. To More, as to Marx, it meant the vision of a society which was stateless as well as classless: in which all associations of citizens both for productive purposes and for all other purposes were purely voluntary, and in which equalitarianitm had been taken to the point where the distribution of the national income could be based upon the principle of' from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs ’." 

Then Mr. Strachey told the readers of the Saturday Review what the British Labour Party now believes. It was a masterpiece of vagueness. The Labour Party, according to Mr. Strachey, seeks “the extension of the public ownership, in one form or another, to many large-scale industrial and productive enterprises within the community; but no one knows . .. how far it will prove useful and beneficial to push that process.” There is to be change in the direction of moving nearer to equality of income, but “not, of course, equalization of earned income.”

He excuses the vagueness by saying that “most democratic Socialists would, I think, attach less importance to particular objectives than to the principle of making the economy and the policy of their countries conform to what turned out to be the real desires of the majority of the electorate . . ."

It is not at all easy to gather from Strachey what the British Labour Party actually does now stand for. One thing only is certain that nothing in his article could justify his claim that the Labour Party’s aim is Socialism.

The Pot and the Kettle both justified

As Socialists ourselves we can heartily endorse the abuse Khrushchev and Strachey level at their respective parties. Of course, Strachey and Co. are hacks for “managed capitalism,” and, of course, Strachey is right when he says that what nowadays is popularly (and ignorantly) labelled Communism is the direct opposite of what Communism meant to Marx and still means to the S.P.G.B.

But what about Strachey’s own betrayal? He himself once subscribed to the Marxist aim of a Communist system of society (as, long before, did Keir Hardie, one of the founders of the Labour Party). Strachey could, of course, say that be has changed his mind, but at least he might be expected to give reasons why he supports Labour Party tinkering with capitalism and finds it more deserving of support than the movement to establish Socialism. And what has happened to the former fervid equalitarianism of Attlee and other Labour leaders ?

And what about Khrushchev? Why doesn’t he include himself in the capitalist hacks? He and his clique who rule Russia are fond of abusing British Labour leaders, but it would seem to be from them that the Russians have learned their own political trickery. Starting off with the proclaimed intention of establishing Socialism (or Communism) they quickly borrowed the old double-talk of the British Labour Party and give the name Socialism to the Russian State capitalism. It is indeed a case of one group of apologists for capitalism quarreling with another, and only the Socialist, looking on can see the real nature of the confidence trick both groups are playing on the working class.

Edgar Hardcastle

Tragic Comedians (1950)

From the November 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reading the Labour Party’s Margate delegate conference, prompts the question—"Are such conferences really necessary?” For all the effect it had in shaping governmental policy the delegates might as well have stayed at home; or spent their time making sandpies on Margate’s beach.

The burning of mid-night oil in local Labour Party branches had produced much paper in the way of resolutions. A lot of it was waste paper. Right from the start of the conference there was "a wholesale slaughter of the innocents.” Numbers of resolutions were merged together into a composite form. Out of 300 resolutions and 80 amendments only 30 proposals were left on the agenda after the axe of the conference arrangement committee had been wielded ruthlessly. Many of these resolutions were, it is true, but vague and somewhat innocuous expressions of discontent with the Labour Government. Their partial and emasculated reappearance in the condensed form of composite resolutions made them even more vague and innocuous. Little wonder that the platform could accept them not only without embarrassment but even with composure.

The conference itself was writ large in startling inconsistencies and rich in unconscious comedy. Mr. Sam Watson, in his chairman's address, strove to substitute in place of the dull, utility existence of the vast majority a techni-coloured picture of life under a Labour Government. He said: "Poverty has been abolished. Hunger is unknown. The sick arc tended, the old folk cherished. Our children are growing up in a land of opportunity.” This record is one that has been played ad nauseam by the gramophones of all political parties. In fact it was a badly scratched one long before the Labour Party came to power.

Speaking on conscription and the Labour Party's rearmament programme, he declared, "We have no animosity towards the Russian people. All we ask is to be left in peace to finish our task.” These words are, how ever, the very ones that Stalin is never weary of repeating on behalf of Russian Capitalism. Mr, Watson could not promise peace. He offered instead security through the time-honoured, or dishonoured, methods of building up ever greater means of death and destruction.

He also said, "The common people have more to defend here than any other part of the globe.” He might with greater accuracy have said that the "common people” here have more parts of the globe to defend for their masters than the common people in any other part of the globe. Significantly he added: "The last five years of the Labour Party, the trade unions and co-operatives have given us even more to defend.” The role of recruiting sergeants is no new role for Labour politicians. Nor for that matter drummer boys for British imperialism.

Mr. Silverman, M.P., then threw a hefty spanner into Mr. Watson’s techni-coloured works by declaring: “It was an overstatement to say that poverty had been abolished. There were hundreds of thousands of workers whose wages made an utter mockery of the Government’s claims to be applying fair shares.” He added the warning that "the workers could not be expected to go on practising restraint out of sheer loyalty to the Government.” He also said "that if the hopes of those who suffered most was being continually frustrated they would look for leadership elsewhere.”

There was irony in the fact that this Party of planning through the Civil Service should hear a delegate, himself a civil servant, declare that "Civil Service clerical workers have had a wage increase of less than one-third since 1938.” He then made a nasty splotch on Mr. Watson’s pretty picture by saying, “Many people to-day are not even able to buy their rations.”

How remotely the Labour Party’s "Socialism” has to do with the elimination of the profit system can be gathered from a statement by another delegate, a Mr. Denning (A.E.U.), who asserted "that the average profit on each worker in the engineering industry was £3 per week.”

Mr. Griffiths, for the executive, spoke of his “appreciation of the depth of feeling and concern over the question of profits.” He offered the lame defence "that 90 per cent. of the industrial companies had between March and November last year disclosed a dividend no higher than the previous year." He also said that "far too much of the nation’s wealth is owned by far too few people.” Mr. Griffiths, however, urged that "wage restraint should be continued as far as possible.” Vague mutinous mutterings from the rank and file led to the platform agreeing they would take the most energetic action to stem the upward trend in prices and to bring about a reduction and to control and reduce profits. What chance of success the Labour Government has of controlling price levels was made evident by Mr. C. A. R. Crosland, M.P., who said, "As a result of rearmament, prices were rising all over the world in a way impossible to control. It was known that the cost of living was likely to rise in the next few weeks.” Thus the inflationary tendencies, in spite of the efforts of the Labour Government have increased. The rearmament programme will further accentuate it. As a result of rising prices workers, in spite of Labour and T.U. leaders’ pleas of wage restraint, will demand higher wages. This may well lead to an increase of incidents such as that of the gas workers. The employers, of course, will seek to maintain their profits. As a result of this scramble the Labour Government may be forced to take measures in an attempt to control prices, wages and profits. That is it may have to reimpose many of the controls and restrictions associated with war-time. All of which shows that although the Labour Party is running Capitalism, in actual fact it is Capitalism which is running the Labour Party.

The discussion on Nationalisation revealed disappointment and even a certain disillusionment over its results. Mr. E. Roberts said: "Men employed by the British Railways are becoming disgusted with Nationalisation. Unless we can get better representation hundreds of thousands of those at present voting Labour will not do so at the next election.” Because the delegates did not realise that Nationalisation is not in the interest of the working class they dealt with effects not causes; such as the large salaries of those at the top, bureaucratic maladministration and the necessity of workers’ representatives on the various boards.

Mr. Morrison once again proved himself an arch opportunist. In the discussion on that vague platitudinous document, "Labour and the New Society,” he was even more platitudinous and vague. On any concrete issues on which the Labour Party will fight the next election he said little or nothing. He contended that the time for making decisions is when the election manifesto is drawn up. On the question of further Nationalisation he side-stepped the issue with the formula that sugar, cement, and insurance were still eligible for consideration.

Mr. Bevan made some wild oratorical cavalry charges and scattered imaginary foes. On the question of Nationalisation he said, "Of course everything is not all right.” He asserted that "a miasma of private enterprise was surrounding the public sector everywhere.” "World Capitalism had broken down,” he assured the delegates, although he admitted that "this is not a Socialist country.” He also forgot to add that a part of this broken-down, world Capitalism was supplying Britain with Marshall Aid. He even told them that he was opposed to the Schuman Plan because British steelworkers would be at the mercy of Ruhr magnates. Apparently a broken-down Capitalism can still support Ruhr steel magnates. Mr. Attlee also indulged in a number of vague idealistic utterances after the manner of a punch-drunk parson. On one thing the executive was emphatic. That is that the workers must work harder and harder.

One thing the conference clearly revealed was that the Labour Party has lost its initial advantage over the Tories. In the past. Nationalisation could be presented as something different from private enterprise. It could even be pointed to as a social goal. The Labour Party, having now given the workers the substance of Nationalisation, many workers are beginning to realise they have been chasing a shadow. It is going to become harder and harder for Labour politicians to convince workers that the Labour way of doing things is in essentials different from that of the Tories or Liberals. Just as it is going to become harder for the Labour Party to pose as being different from the traditional parties. A spell of power has been sufficient to exhaust the claims of the Labour Party that it can run Capitalism in a different way. In the arid soil of Capitalist administration the delicate plant of Fabian ideals has withered and died. They themselves have become the gradual and inevitable victims of their own "inevitability of gradualness.”

Perhaps Fabian ingenuity and resourcefulness will be applied to making the Labour Party a more highly efficient vote-catching machine. Having lost the advantage of political novelty it will be compelled to enter into the fiercest rivalry with the Tories, by all sorts of expedients, red herrings and vote capturing slogans. More and more will it have to play up to the hopes and prejudices of sections of the working class in order to keep political power.

We shall have the spectacle of Labour and Tories competing like two second-hand clothes shops on the same side of the street. The political salesmen of both concerns will try to persuade the electors that their shoddy misfits are an adequate covering for the body politic.

One day a politically conscious working class will close them both down and declare their stock to be bankrupt and worthless.

Ted Wilmott