Mr. Dooley on Strikes. (1911)

 From the March 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

“I see the sthrike has been called off,” said Mr. Hennessy. “Which wan?” asked Mr. Dooley. “I can’t keep track iv thim. Somebody is sthrikin’ all th’ time. Th’ Brotherhood iv Molasses Candy Pullers sthrikes, an’ th’ Amalgamated Union iv Pickle Sorters quits in sympathy. Th’ carpinter that has bin puttin’ up a chicken coop f’r Hogan knocked off wurruk whin he found Hogan was shaviti’ himself without a card fr’m the Barbers’ Union. Hogan fixed it with th’ walkin’ dillygate iv th’ barbers, an’ the carpinter quit wurruk because he found Hogan was wearin’ a pair iv nonunion pants. Hogan wint down town an’ had his pants unionised an’ come home to find th’ carpinter had sthruck because Hogan’s hens were layin’ eggs without th’ union label. Hogan injooced th’ hens to jine th’ union. But wan iv thim laid an egg two days in succission, an’ th’ others sthruck.”

Blogger's Note:

"Mr. Dooley (or Martin J. Dooley) is a fictional Irish immigrant bartender created by American journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne . . . " For more information, keep reading . . . 

Labour and Wages. (1914)

From the August 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some Weird Statements dealt with.

In the second number of the “Candid, Quarterly Review,” conducted by Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles, appears an unsigned article with the above title. The writer raises the question of industrial disputes, proclaims the necessity for close and deep investigation, and yet throughout the article never once tackles any essential or goes below the surface.

According to him, “the doubts and difficulties that haunt society to-day are of foreign extraction, and were in danger of destruction when crossing the Channel, but survived.” That there was no necessity for “labour unrest” to cross the Channel is shown in his next paragraph, the customary reference to “England’s immunity from war during the early portion of the nineteenth century, and her consequent growth of manufacture,” conditions which, in themselves, breed the class struggle. “The industrial dispute threatens England’s supremacy ; yet perhaps a greater glory awaits her. Perhaps, amid a Europe weakened by class hatred and torn by labour convulsions, England may again show the world a way of social peace.” The writer forgets that the conditions that breed class hatred on the Continent exist here in the same degree and from the same cause. The capitalist can only wish that a way may be discovered. His time-server, whether he be economist, labour leader, Salvationist, or scientist, can only grope for a capitalist solution as the alchemist groped for the philosopher’s store. But while they flounder their time grown short. They may shirk the contest with the Marxian theory of value, or refer to the Socialist Party as an insignificant minority, but and here we quote from the “Review” : “In economics there is at least this merit about the truth—that, once proclaimed, it is sure in the end to prevail.”

In order to prove to the workers that the “Socialist claim that they are being exploited is false, they must be taught economics.” No longer can this be designated the dismal science, for we are assured : “It is a mistake to suppose that the working-men take no interest in economics. It would be more nearly the truth to say that, at this moment they take little interest in anything else.” If “the truth once proclaimed is sure to prevail,” then capitalism is indeed on its last legs, for economic truth is proclaimed in “Capital,” and it in only an interested working class we wait for.

The capilalist and his journalistic hacks will consequently wish and grope in vain for a way out. It is utterly futile, also, to write of the Socialist movement as “the sedulous propaga­tion of economic falsehood,” because a fallacy can be exploded, while this braggart can only dance round the supposed fallacy, and leave a record of his utter inability to even understand the subject.

“The whole industrial system is arraigned. Capitalism is cheating, exploitation,” says he, is the doctrine taught. “It is their business to prove it, yet this is exactly what they never do.” “They,” are, doubtless, the labour leaders who either cannot or will not expose the system that fosters them, being content to mouth beliefs, and empty appeals for “justice” and “fairness.” “What,” asks the writer, “is the fair share of labour in the product of any industry ? if the present wage, then there is no grievance. Then it must be something more. But how much more ? No answer to these questions is ever attempted,” he complains, “except by the full-blooded Socialist.” Of whom else would he expect an answer ?

Wealth, in the economic sense, has no existence until members of the working class have expended their energy on the different substances common to the earth’s crust. That these substances belong to a small class in society, does not necessarily raise the question, “what is a fair wage ?” but rather, why any class or section of society should own the means of life necessary to all ? The “full-blooded Socialist” knows the answer to this; that is why he is politically organised for the establishment of a system of society where the means of wealth production will be owned and democratically controlled by those who use them.

The “Review,” in common with all the anti-Socialist crowd, is particularly concerned that the workers, under Socialism, shall be treated with fairness—even as they are to-day. So they timorously advance certain “insoluble questions.”

“Is the whole product of a factory only to be shared between the workers in that factory ? or is it to be shared by all the workers in the land ? And is each workman to share equally, irrespective of merit, or unequally ? And if the latter, on what principle and by what authority are the shares to be assessed? ”

A five shilling review is dear at the price if it can serve up nothing better than this in defence of the class it caters for.

Ownership being in the hands of the people, there will the authority be, and the common in­terest of all, asserting itself, will speedily put an end to the anomalies of capitalist authority. “Fair” wages and low wages, soft jobs and speeding up, poverty in the midst of plenly, and all the other abuses that belong to capitalism in its normal state, will end when the working class cease to be mere articles of merchandise, picked and kicked about the labour market.

The “Candid” journalist has also many doubts and misgivings on the terms “The right to live” and “A living wage.” He discusses these from many points of view, his perhaps, most brilliant and original remark being, “for happiness and influence in truth, do not depend on gold.” After this and much more irrelevant matter on rights and duties, he delivers himself of the following : “Wages are neither fair nor unfair ; they are fixed either by personal benevolence or by mercantile bargain.” As he cannot possibly claim benevolence for the employer who pays low wages, it follows that those who receive high wages are the recipients of charity. “Wages are neither fair nor unfair,” is where he should have stopped, for, so far, he had not blundered.

Wage is the name for the price of labour power. Whether the wage be high or low there can be no question of fairness, because the employing class having the power, dictate wages and conditions. They first divorce the workers from the means of life, in order to compel them to sell their energy at the cost of living.

But what is the difference between the cost of living of the working class, as represented by wages, and the total wealth produced by them ? Whether wages represent one-third or one-ninth it is obvious that the employing class only pay wages in order to obtain this surplus over the cost of maintenance of the working class. How then can wages be fair or unfair ?

The wages system is one where the workers are threatened with starvation, either if they will not or cannot sell their only possession—the value-creating energy—for a mess of pottage ; and that too, adulterated.

“Let us probe a little more deeply the allegation that the workman is being cheated.” The reader need not fear getting out of his depth, Needless to say, the writer of the article merely emphasises certain inconsistencies and peculiarities of the capitalist system, without proving anything except its utter absurdity as a system for intelligent people to live under. Like the hysterical suffragette, he runs away from the question he raises, and flogs something else to hide his cowardice. “A universal proportion of wages to profits.” The wages bill in some industries is, he says, higher than the profits. “Moreover, inequalities exist side by side in the same industries in the amount of profit.” These observations are as old as they are shallow—examples of the poverty of argument against Socialism. The depths are not probed, for the total profits of every concern are not considered ; and this would have been the surest way to ascertain whether the working class is robbed.

It is easy to see that in a competitive system differences in methods and management will produce different results. All that is proved is the inability of the capitalist class—with the assistance of politicians, economists, and scientists—to eliminate anarchy among themselves, and establish for themselves proportionate division of the spoil, by means of an even method of exploitation.

Any article on labour questions would, of course, be incomplete without a reference to co-partnership. The “candid” writer is candid, besides being illuminating and instructive. He says:

“Co-partnership has been universally successful in achieving peace . . . and the striking thing is that it has achieved this peace without any great or even any noticeable increase in the wages paid. For it must be remembered that the income which a workman under such a scheme derives from his share in the profits is necessarily a very slight part of the whole wage, and that largely owing to the liability of that share to suffer in yield in bad times, his total effective wage is no greater than that of his fellows outside. But he is content because he has been convinced that he is not being robbed. How can he be when he elects a delegate to the board and has some actual voice in the management ? It is clear, therefore, that the achievement of industrial peace is less a matter of raising wages than of convincing the workman that he is not being robbed. But as the workman (quite properly) will never consent to share in losses, its application is only possible to steadily successful concerns ; it is never-the-less to be heartily welcomed as a temporary expedient of the highest value.”

Quite a long paragraph, by the way, but reduced to simple language, it means that co-partnership workers, besides being robbed of the results of their labour—like other workers—are successfully bluffed as well.

Assuming that he has proved conclusively that the workers are not robbed, because some of them have been persuaded to believe so, the writer of the article next proceeds to show in what an Eldorado the worker really lives, according to his limited knowledge of actual conditions. Our author says :

“It is true that the individual workman without savings must sell his labour without undue delay ; he is not bound to sell it to the first bidder. His strength as a bargainer depends partly on his reputation and skill as a craftsman, but mainly upon that close competition among his possible employers, which will enable him to laugh at one who offers him too low a wage.”

A record of the number of such “laughs” would doubtless be interesting ; but if it is true that occasionally a worker “with savings” can afford to pass by a job, it is equally true that the vast majority cannot, and are compelled to resign themselves to the first situation that is vacant, without bargaining or discussion—which, to the capitalist, is impudence.

Next we have something that is profound and original. The real cause of strikes is the desire of the trade unionist to get back the money he has paid in contributions. “After wages,” he says, “have ruled high enough for long enough, a strike is nearly inevitable ; since only so can the men retouch their money.” What capacity for the detection of motives !

Then the scribe says : “In spite of all the theories of combination, one is always brought down to the individual workman. Is he or is he not to be forced, by the magistrate and the gaol, to work for wages which he himself does not approve ? If so it is slavery.”

This statement is clear and sweeping. It covers nearly the whole of the working class in every capitalist country on the globe. Discontent is universal. The workers in every occupation are slaves because at the bidding of the master class they must work for a mere subsist­ence—a wage they certainly do not “approve” of.

Throughout his long article the writer in the “Candid Review” has only succeeded in proving the incapacity of the capitalist class, with all their professional assistants, to run society on sane lines. Anarchy and poverty for the wealth producers, luxury and power for the idlers, are the nett result of capitalism. The only brilliant achievement of modern society is its marvellous productive and distributive power, developed by centuries of experiment and invention ; and these are due to the working class. It is they who have done everything useful. It is they who use energy and intelligence in the production of all social wealth.

The scribbler in the “Candid Review” says that the workingman should remember that the end of his discontent is not the improvement of wages, but the fall of society, and if at the end of it all society does fall he will be instantly buried in its ruins.

We know different. The intelligence and capacity displayed by the workers on the field of production can be utilised by them for other purposes. When they have added knowledge to their intelligence they will establish a system of society where they will consume what they produce. Production is difficult; to consume is easy. To establish Socialism, it is true, requires an effort, of which, however, an educated working class is easily capable. The fall of (capitalist) society—which cannot take place until the workers are educated—therefore, means the end of their slavery.

F. Foan

Recent books on trade unions (1973)

Book Reviews from the December 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

Strike at Pilkingtons by Tony Lane and Kenneth Roberts. Fontana. 50p.

Ford Strike by John Matthews. Panther. 40p.

Trade Unions ed. by W. E. J. McCarthy Penguin, 60p 

Marxism and the Sociology of Trade Unionism by Richard Hyman. Pluto Press.

Strikes by Richard Hyman. Fontana. 50p.

The New Militants by Paul Ferris. Penguin. 25p.

The increased trade union militancy of recent years has brought a rash of books on the subject. Of these listed above the one by Paul Ferris is a short and very readable journalistic account of meetings with various union leaders such as Scanlon, Jones and Daly.

The first two books describe two particular strikes, the unofficial seven-week strike at Pilkington glass works in St. Helens in 1970 and the official strike at Fords in 1971. Of the two Lane and Roberts’ is by far the better. Matthews sees only four parties involved: the unions, the rank and file, the employers and the government. In other words, he uncritically accepts the shop stewards’ claims that they represent the ‘rank and file’; indeed that they are the rank and file. In fact, however, though at times they may more faithfully represent the ordinary worker than the official union they too are just as much a minority leadership group. They are no more the rank and file than are the full-time union officials, but are essentially one of two rival groups seeking the leadership and support of the rank and file. This is fully recognised by Lane and Roberts.

The men at Pilkingtons were members of the General and Municipal Workers Union, one of the most bureaucratic and conservative unions. In April 1970 the men went on spontaneous unofficial strike, ostensibly over a wage miscalculation. The union told them to go back to work, but the strikers’ demands soon escalated to a claim, for a £10 wage increase. The union did in fact manage to get them a £3 increase (a sign of how it had failed in its job over the years of course). This wasn’t enough for the strikers, at least for some of them. A Rank and File Strike Committee (RFSC) kept the strike going in face of the opposition of the GMWU.

Lane and Roberts paint a sympathetic picture of the members of this Committee: they weren’t seasoned militants but ordinary workers who suddenly found themselves in the unexpected role of strike leaders. But the two authors don’t let this sympathy cloud their judgement. They recognised that after the union had negotiated the £3 increase a majority of the men, a small majority, but still a majority, wanted to return to work. Why then did the strike continue for another four weeks? Because, argue Lane and Roberts, those who wanted to continue the strike were better organised and led by the RFSC.

The GMWU would have been the natural organiser and leader of those who wanted to return to work, but it had been completely discredited by its role at the beginning of the strike. It was widely held to have let down its members. They, it was felt, had been paying dues to the union as a kind of insurance for just such a situation as happened at the beginning of the strike. “Something went wrong” but, instead of the union supporting its members, it told them to go back to work. The members, understandably felt betrayed; in fact they were betrayed. Hence the RSFC emerged as an alternative organisation which the workers turned to.

In the end the superior resources and skill of the GMWU leaders led to the defeat of the amateurs of the RFSC. The men went back to work for £3 a week extra, though with a pledge of no victimisation. The RSFC then made the mistake of organising a rival Glass and General Workers Union. This provided the GMWU with an excuse to deal with them. With the help of Pilkingtons the Glass Workers union was crushed and most of its members lost their jobs.

The Pilkingtons' strike, as can be seen, raised many issues of trade union tactics—democracy, strike ballots, unofficial committees, breakaway unions—all of which are intelligently discussed by Lane and Roberts. In fact it is an excellent book and essential reading for those who want to understand trade unionism, its uses and limitations.

Trade Unions, edited by W. E. J. McCarthy, is a collection of readings for management students, but it still contains material of interest to Socialists. The picture emerges of trade unions as bureaucratic organisations trying to defend the wages and working conditions of their members. "The aim of the union”, says one author, “is to primarily to benefit the group of workers concerned, rather than the workers as a whole or society as a whole”. Writes another, “Most unions seem to have come into being originally as defensive organisations to preserve a standard already enjoyed”. Both views we ourselves have often made. The unionization of an industry is estimated to have had a once-for-all effect of raising wages by 10 to 15 per cent, but thereafter to have maintained them at the same level. This would fit in with Marx’s view that at best all unions could do was to ensure that their members got paid the value of their labour power and that without unions employers would drive wages down below this level. The 10 to 15 per cent would presumably be the measure of the extent to which this had happened.

Marx’s views on unions, together with those of Lenin, Trotsky and Michels, is the subject of one of Hyman’s books. Apart from the conclusion—Hyman is a member of IS and seems to favour creeping ‘workers management of production’—this is a useful book which discusses the various different and contradictory (employers need unions to discipline and regulate their work force) roles played by the unions. Hyman’s book on strikes, however, is not so good. The obscure sociological jargon and hundreds of references make it difficult reading. Nevertheless, if you wade through it you’ll get a more accurate picture of strikes than you get in the press or on television.

None of these books state the attitude of the Socialist Party of Great Britain on trade unionism (though they do provide evidence to confirm its correctness): trade unions are essentially only defensive organisations whose actions should be supported insofar as they perform this job of defending working class living standards, but whose other activities in support of capitalism—co-operating with employers or governments or reformist parties—should be opposed along with any manifestations of the narrow sectionalism to which they are inevitably prone.

Adam Buick

Nods to the Blind . . . . (1912)

From the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 15th of the present month that famous scientific scheme of exploitation known as the National Insurance Act will come into operation. Most of its objections having been “overcome,” it only remains to apply the “technical adjustments,” then will the much-to-be-envied working class enjoy the fruits of “one of the greatest Socialistic measures that has ever been placed before the House,” as one Labour faker has it.

As to who will ultimately benefit by this “Socialistic” measure, it needs very little analysing to show. It will be the employing class and not the workers. In fact this is admitted, as one will find on reading the daily papers. Here is an instance. At the annual meeting of Messrs. Wilkins, fruit growers and preservers, Tiptree Heath, Essex, held in April, the announcement was made that the firm had decided to pay the whole of the contributions of the workpeople under the National Insurance Act. It was stated that this action would cost the firm £300 a year, but the directors considered they would be well repaid by the increased efficiency of their employees !

Both the I.L.P. and the Labour Party claim credit for having forced this “Socialistic” piece of legislation. If these parties are anxious to take the credit for having helped to impose a fraudulent Act upon the working class, then, I say, by all means let ’em have it !

* * *

At the time of writing these notes the transport workers’ strike is in a very precarious condition. As one followed the various phases one could not help being struck by the pitiful helplessness of the whole thing. The sudden order to “down tools” ; the hasty joining together of forces ; the procession of 100,000 men to demonstrate the “omnipotent power” of the workers ; the impassioned harangues of the “leaders” ; the negotiation that led to nothing ; the intervention of the Government; the stinging rebuff by the masters ; the final surrender of the strike leaders by offering to provide a monetary guarantee of their good behaviour if only they were permitted to return to work: all these go to show the utter futility of the versatile tactics of Tillett & Co. So long as the workers both inside and outside of the unions are led by the nose from one position to another and back again, so long will it spell disaster for them. Having regard to the increasing strength of the employers’ combinations, it follows that the workers will have to take a clearer and more comprehensive view of their position.

* * *

Sir E. Clarke was compelled to admit during the course of the negotiations that, whereas the men had broken agreements on two points—apparently through a misunderstanding—the masters had deliberately broken agreements on five points, and made a profit out of it !

He might have added that the masters will continue to make agreements, and break them as fast as they are made.

* * *

The hostility of the master class is directed against trade unionism, not because of its present ineffective policy, but because of the ultimate possibility of it becoming politically enlightened through the permeation in its ranks of class-conscious, revolutionary Socialism. The master class are already class conscious—that is, conscious of the interest of their class—and they will resist to the utmost any encroachment upon their privileges. Hence their fierce endeavour to crush all attempts at working-class organisation. Such attitude is exemplified in a speech, made by Dr. Harrison, J.P., at Garstang (5.6.12). In dealing with the Transport Workers strike he is reported to have said :

“I would use the police to the utmost limit and if they were not enough I would employ the armed forces of the Crown to shoot down the peaceful picketers like dogs ” !

There is a brutal frankness about it which should not be lost upon the workers. It is not surprising as it is typical of the class whose representative and mouthpiece he is. All the same it is useful in that it helps to point out what the S.P.G.B. has consistently pointed out for years,—that there can be no compromise or conciliation between the two classes—that it is war to the death.

* * *

Replying to Mr. H. G. Wells apropos of his article on “What Labour Wants” (quoted “Daily News” 5.6.12.), Mr. John Ward, MP remarks: “I am bound to say that I have never in all my experience met with any evidence of jealousy on the part of the working classes in reference to the employment (!) of the wealthy. All the elaborate pictures of envy, hatred, and uncharitableness are practically the outcome of the imagination. In their special way the working people get as much pleasure out of life as the wealthier classes.”

Of course they do ! The pleasure is all theirs, John. And believe me, they haven’t a bit of thought for the rich. Look what ingratitude they show when the rich come along and offer to share their profits with them, or take them into partnership. It really isn’t good enough John, and I’m glad you’ve had the courage to speak your mind. Look at the fun they’ve been having just lately—going on strike, fighting inoffensive bobbies, upsetting the equilibrium of trade, in fact, playing the very devil generally. Of course, it’s all a part of their pleasure “in their special way.” When they are not having fun of this description I suppose they are busy with motor-cars, their yachting trips and their racing stables, which they quite overlook the cares and responsibilities that the unfortunate rich are compelled to undergo. You see, John, the question of what to do with their income is such a serious one, they haven’t time to spare a thought for anyone but themselves. Selfishness, of course. But the time is coming, John, when the rich will be relieved of their “employment” and its consequent anxieties and responsibilities, and given a rest. In fact, I believe the need for them will be abolished altogether. So you can console yourself, John, with the thought that their woes will soon be over. I can assure you they’ll get all that’s coming to them.

* * *

An amusing feature of the recent bye-election in the Holmfirth Division was the similarity of the election addresses of the Liberal and the Labour candidates—both standing for practically the same thing. Amusement gives way to disgust, however, when we reflect that the Labour candidate was ostensibly there in the interest of the working class. But experience of this type of political representation only shows that it is the Liberals that they really represent and whose interests they serve.

Some of the items included in the programs were Home Rule, Free Trade, Welsh Disestablishment, no taxes on foodstuffs, Adult Suffrage and Nationalisation of Mines—none of which can affect the worker’s position, except, perhaps, to make it worse.

Unfortunately it is still possible to capture a large portion of the working-class vote by the dissemination of this labour-faking rubbish. Spread the light !

* * *

Owing to the monopoly by about two companies of the petrol supply of this country the price of petrol has risen 50 per cent. in twelve months, with the result that the small dealers and consumers are in a state of “unrest.” Various schemes have been suggested in order to prevent the big robbers from taking too much plunder. The “Autocar” suggests the question of petrol production “is now a matter of national importance and should therefore be undertaken by the nation.” The “Daily Mail” (11.6.12) says : “Even if it meant going into production, refining, transport, and distribution is not the great body of motorists rich enough to do this for its own profit ?”

The chameleon like “Daily Herald” refers to it editorially as “the latest trend towards Socialism,” but to me it seems only to show that when the interests of one section of the buccaneering class are threatened by another, they are prepared to adopt co-operation, nationalisation, or any other proposition providing only that it pays.

* * *

In the biography of the late King Edward by Sir Sidney See, just issued, there occurs the following passage:

“King Edward cannot be credited with the greatness that comes of Statesmanship and makes for the moulding of history. Neither the Constitutional checks on his power nor his discursive tastes and training left him much opportunity for influencing political affairs. No originating faculty can be assigned to him. For the most part he stood with Constitutional correctness aloof from the political arena at home. On questions involving large principles he held no very definite views. He preferred things to remain as they were. … A man of the world he lacked the intellectual equipment of a thinker, and showed on occasion an unwillingness to exert his mental powers.”

Yet this is the person whom Blatchford—on the occasion of his eulogy of King Edward VII. (“Clarion” 20.5.10)—had in mind when he said the nation needed a man !

* * *

At the recent conference of the Church Socialist League at Bristol a delegate defined Socialism as “the economics of God” ! Shade of Marx ! I always did think their policy was of the “Ignis fatuus” order !

Father Bernard Vaughan laments that under Socialism “there wouldn’t be enough money to go round.” The inference, of course, being that under the present beautiful system there is enough to go round. Well, I daresay there is, but it doesn’t go round. It doesn’t get the chance. The robbers are there first. Hence the priests and other parasites.

* * *

F. E. Smith, K.C., in the June number of the “Oxford and Cambridge Review,” bluntly admits that he has never believed that Tariff Reform would remedy present day evils. Neither have we.

Tom Sala

Behind the “Labour Unrest”. (1912)

From the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Cause and the Remedy. 

In England, after 66 years of Free Trade, a century of Trade Unionism and of Social Reform, strikes and lock-outs are the order of the day. Cotton operatives, printers, seamen, railwaymen, carmen, miners, tailors, dockers and transport workers, are all struggling for betterment.

The “labour unrest” is “explained” by various politicians in various ways. Lloyd George tells the “Daily News” man that the cause is the low wage of agricultural labourers ; Bonar Law says it is the want of Tariff walls ; the Anti-Socialist Union hirelings fix the blame on the Socialists.

The first, playing the Cobden game of turning attention on the

SLEEPING PARTNER

—the landowner—in working-class robbery, is effectively answered by Chiozza Money (“The Star,” May 29) when he shows that agricultural workers’ real wages have suffered less than the town workers’ during the rise in prices. Mr. Bonar Law is silenced by the growing labour upheaval in Protectionist countries. Finally, the Anti Socialist Union may be reminded that the majority of those striking are, unfortunately, anti-Socialists.

Is it want of trade, Messrs. T. Reformer and F. Trader ? The Board of Trade returns show an enormous increase ! Is it want of wealth and power to produce, Mr. Malthusian ? Lloyd George told you during the “unrest” debate in the Commons that the wealth produced and the ability to make it was unparalleled in human history. Income Tax. returns have risen rapidly and recent wills prove that it is distribution, not production, at fault.

The two brothers Coats left 3½ millions ; the Duke of Fife a million, and it is reported in the “Telegraph” that Rockefeller’s income one year alone was

£27,000,000.

Mr. H. G. Wells may talk of the need for “high pressure service,” and Balfour babble of seeking “greater command over nature” : the one cause of the ferment around us is the growing pressure of poverty amidst stupendous wealth.

Said Lloyd George at Cardiff, December 2th 1911: “To-day you have greater poverty in the aggregate in the land than you have ever had. You have oppression of the weak by the strong. You have a more severe economic bondage than you probably have ever had ; for grinding labour to-day does not always guarantee sustenance or security. At any rate, that condition of things was foreign to the barbaric regime of the darker ages.” He had a few minutes before reminded us that “this is the richest empire under the sun. If there is poverty, misery and wretchedness it is not because the land is sterile and bare and does not provide enough for all.”

On the other side Mr. Bonar Law told us (Manchester Nov. 16, 1911) that: “During the last ten years there has been a considerable increase in the total wealth of the country, but in that time the condition of the working class has not improved. It has actually deteriorated. From information supplied by the Board of Trade we know that during that period

THE COST OF LIVING

has gone up 10 per cent. and wages remained stationary.”

Then at the National Conference on the Prevention of Destitution (Caxton Hall, May 31st, 1911) the Lord Mayor informed us that a hundred millions were spent on poor law relief and charity, and he asked : “Are we as a community getting the best return for that huge expenditure ? Are we making destitution any less? Are we stopping the perpetual creation of new clestitutition ? In spite of greatly improved Poor Law administration, in spite of momentary good trade, there was on the 1st of January, actually a larger number of people in the workhouses than at any previous period of our history. Moreover, the plague of vagrancy seemed to be actually increasing.”

Mark the words of the mental specialist, Sir J. Crichton Browne, at Tottenham Hospital on November 16, 1911: “We have in many of our industries adopted a policy of “speeding up,” whereby men do their work in less time than formerly, and with fewer intervals of rest allowed them in the workshops and therefore with more exacting and exhausting calls on their nerves, which probably in some measure accounts for the great increase of reputed injuries to workpeople which we have to deplore. We have been

BRINGING UP OUR BABIES

on anything but mother’s milk, and by the employment of women in factories and by giving them an unrestricted sphere of activity, have curtailed that family life in which the young nervous system thrives best.”

The result of this hustle is seen in the 65th Annual Report of the Lunacy Commissioners, which shows the number of inmates of lunatic Asylums to be 133,157, an increase of 2,604 in a year. The meaning of these terrible figures is driven home in the table showing that in 1859 the number of lunatics was only 36,762. Thus while the population increased but 85.8 per cent., the number of lunatics increased in the period 262.2 per cent.! How capitalism crushes the working class becomes plain from the fact that 121,172, or 91 per cent., of the total lunatics in 1911 were

PAUPER LUNATICS.

This was an increase of 2,271 over 1910, nearly all the year’s increase being pauper inmates !

Our teetotal fanatics often think the cause of increased lunacy is drink, but Sir J. Crichton Browne exploded that idea. He said : “Drinking is admittedly on the decrease. Sir Thomas Whittaker pointed out last year that £46,000,000 had been saved in the national drink bill, but it did not bring any diminution in the number of the mentally afflicted.” In the same speech he said that whereas in 1890 the number of suicides was 2,205, in 1910 there were 3,577, and he blames the stress of modern society. was 2,205, in 1910 there were 3,577, and he blames the stress of modern society.

The worsening of the workers’ lot is shown by the fact that the children of the toilers are driven, into the factories to a greater extent in order to “make both ends meet at home.” The Board of Education in their report quoted by Mr. Chiozza Money in the “Daily News” on May 29th, says that out of a total of 691,000 children aged 14, only 155,682, or 22 per cent., attend day school. As Mr. Money remarks, this system “compels two persons, and sometimes three persons, to work for the wage which

ONE PERSON OUGHT TO EARN.”

Schemes of social reform do not help matters. Says the Chairman of the West Ham Board of Guardians in the Annual Report just issued : “Although a large number of out relief recipients have been transferred to the Old Age Pension list, the number of applicants for out relief has been steadily ascending. One of the principal causes is said to be the disinclination of employers to engage or retain persons of advanced years or suspected of infimity.” As to indoor pauperism, the “Daily Chronicle” (Nov. 11th, 1911) said : “Indoor relief in London has risen enormously. For the year 1886-7 the average number of indoor paupers (excluding casuals) was 54,861, or 13.7 per 1,000 of the population; last year it was 78,114, or 17.3 per thousand.”

Millions never reach the Poor Law portals, but are murdered in the cradle. The National Liberal Federation says, in “A. Nation Insured” : “We have many large towns . . where 200 out of each 1,000 die within 12 months of birth. . . The wholesale sacrifice of infants is followed by the robbery of a great part of the life of those who survive. . . It is not pretended that the National Health Insurance can dispose of

THE DAMNING FACTS.”

Of course it cannot. The only remedy is our remedy—the institution of a new social system, not fiddling with the effects of the present one. The evils which give rise to the “labour unrest” which convulses society is a necessary concomitant of the present social system. They arise inevitably from its competitive institutions, and will continue to arise as long as those competitive conditions remain.

It is futile, therefore, for the master class to look for any cure for the “labour unrest,” or for the workers to seek industrial peace. Under the system the fight must go on, and battle follow battle. Let us prepare, then, to end the strife by ending the system.

Adolph Kohn

En passant. (1914)

From the June 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

An editorial in the “Daily Sketch” of May 7th runs as follows: “But a more dangerous sort of interference with parental authority will be confirmed by the passing of the Defective and Epileptic Children Bill. Defective children (of the poor people) are to be sent to residential schools, and Mr. Josiah Wedgwood moved an amendment for the purpose of making it clear that such children should not be removed from their homes without the consent of their parents. The amendment was negatived by a decisive vote.”

Leaflet No. 45 of the Anti-Socialist Union bears the following bright gem :

Infant Gatherer [who is the State Nurse existing under an impossible Socialist State]: “I’ve called to take your baby to the State Children’s Home.”

Mother : “But you will let him say ‘good-bye’ to his father ? ”

Infant Gatherer : “Father! There are no fathers now. The State’s his father.”

It has often been pointed out to the intellectuals of the Anti-Socialist Union that the bogey they attack is not Socialism but State capitalism. But it is easy to apologise for not hearing after you have stuffed your ears.

Today, under capitalism—”the best of all possible systems in the best of all possible worlds”—you must not be born without the State knowing; you must not “shuffle off this mortal coil” without the State being informed of the fact; if you are on the panel you cannot be ill without the State being aware of your malady. Under tyrannical Socialism the only added danger could be that the privacy of the bath-room might be invaded.

* * *

To turn from the Anti-Socialist Union to members of an Anti-Socialist Party, the appended statements are enlightening.

Mr. Philip Snowden, in the “Labour Leader” of April 30th: “If we take the Liberal Party at its best to-day and accept its professions at their apparent value, and if we compare its programme with that of a labour party which is not Socialist, then there is no doubt that Mr. Asquith’s statement that the differences are trivial and unimportant represents the actual facts.”

Mr. Jowett, in the “Labour Leader,” April 16th : “On one occasion the Labour Party had declined to introduce an Unemployment motion because the Government had to be kept in office, and often it had been difficult to defend the votes which the Labour members had given.”

Two minds with but a single thought; two mouths that bleat as one.

These extracts may be used as supporting an argument in re Philip sober. P. Snowden, “Labour Leader” 30.4.14.: “The irony of Social Reform within the present economic order is that every reform which improves the health and intelligence of the workers benefits the capitalist still more.”

The same Snowden—the summit of conceit— in the House of Commons (7.5 14), on Mr. L. George’s Budget: “The taxes on the rich provided revenue to be used for social reform purposes and must economically benefit the landlord and the employing class.”

Yet again, the same Philip, in the same speech: “If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to continue to use taxation not merely as a means of raising revenue but as a potent, if incomplete, method of social reform, he would be prepared to give him support.”

There, what base knave dare deny that one Philip, of Blackburn, is a Socialist. To all anti-Socialists he is a revolutionary of the most rabid type, because they do not understand Socialism.

* * *

This extract is not from an old file of the “Socialist Standard.” Mr. Arnold White writes a weekly article for the “Daily Express” entitled “Looking Round.” Sometimes he squints and sees “wisions,” yet on other occasions he sees things in their true perspective. In the issue of that organ of mal-education for 11 5.14, he says “Mr. Lloyd George’s scheme to provide aid from taxation for the feeding of necessitous school children appeals to warm hearts and soft heads. The plan is as old as Rome. To make the community help manufacturers to pay wages necessarily implied reduction of wages the limit to the fall of wages is automatically determined by the cost of bare maintenance of the labourer and his family. If the average subsistence rate of the lowest form of slum worker is £1 a week, and the average number of children is three, the labourer must be paid a pound a week, since he cannot exist on less. If, on the the other hand, the State steps in and helps to feed the children of unorganised labourers, the cost of subsistence will be less. Being subjected to unrestricted competition, the labourer, if he can live on less than £l a week, will take less.'” A Socialist could improve that very little.

Some people have heard of the London City Mission, a body, presumably of human beings, which held its 79th Annual Meeting on May 8th. During the course of the meeting, the Rev. T. S. Hutchison, M.A., must have felt relieved when he got the following off his chest: “Socialism, of a godless type, was said to be spreading rapidly among the working men, even to some extent among employees where the cooperative system had long existed, and where, but for the agitators, the men would be happy and contented. The result was the growth of discontent and unrest.” Dear readers, please shudder to oblige our dearly beloved vicar. Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the columns of the “Times,” that we, the feeble band, the few, are the cause of the great totality of wretchedness and discontent at present existent. Sir George Askwith is wrong when he attempts to settle strikes (in the masters’ interest) by haggling over wages and hours of labour. How much could he not learn, would he only sit at the feet of this far seeing disciple of the Prince of Peace ?

* * *

You have a working man earning a quid a week, and he is satisfied. His town house in Stepney and his country seat in Victoria Park provide delightful changes of scenery and atmosphere, guaranteed to revitalise any constitution accidentally undermined by the pure air of the sweat shop. So I could continue to describe the idyllic existence of the working man. To suggest any improvement would be to attempt to paint the lily. But stay, into the picture of contentment, slyly creeps the strife stirring Socialist. Without him all would be well. He can even surmount the protective barriers of co-operation and co-partnership. He seems all-powerful and he is of the godless type. If he believed in a god or worshipped a tram-ticket he might be tolerated. As he is, he is anathema.

Christian, Ragtime “Reynolds” here comes in useful. In its issue for 1.2.14 it said : “We should have thought that no man capable of two consecutive minutes’ thought still held the antiquated notion that strikes are due to the ‘agitator.’ The whole of the British unrest of the past three years has shown that the agitator is powerless where men have not genuine grievances.”

The missioner’s speech prompts me to ask, what was the cause of discontent before the godless Socialism existed? I could continue with questions, but the harrowing of Hutchison is too pitiful to contemplate. Besides, I might trouble him and make him discontented. And, I am a godless Socialist. Grrrh !

* * *

The manufacturer threw a belligerent chest. “arrest ’em,” he said. “If I had my way, I’d arrest every blighted Labour agitator.”

A gaunt figure, with a skull in place of the head, rose exultantly. “Then arrest me,” it cackled, capering. “I am the original stirrer up of those who do hard labour. I am the ancient breeder of discontent, the father of Socialists, the agitator of agitators. Arrest me.”

“But who are you?”

“I am Hunger.”

“Tut! tut!” said the manufacturer pleasantly, “Why should I arrest my best and chiefest Labour agent?”

Poor Hutch!

A. L. Cox.

What’s behind the current strike wave? (2002)

From the February 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

The media is desperate to discredit them, but what are the strikes by the railway and postal workers really about?

The media are trying to discredit the rail strikes by implying that it is just a cynical manoeuvre by rival pretenders to the crown of RMT general secretary. An internal TUC document was leaked to the London Evening Standard, in which one official opined that Bob Crow, the Leftist contender, “believes that strike action raises the class consciousness of the rank and file” (10 January), thus adding a “Red Scare” to their anti-striker arsenal. Unfortunately for the Evening Standard both they and “Red Bob” are wrong; workers do not go to the lengths of striking just to please machiavellian union bosses.

Sociologists studying unions have frequently commented upon how it is the type of industry that can determine the level of union organisation: the turnover in workers, the relations between workers in the workplace, the importance of an identifiable group of workers within the labour process.

Both the postal workers and the rail staff confirm this. They work in industries which involve mass co-operative human labour (relations in the workplace), which are technical enough to prevent them being easily casualised (turnover of staff), and which are social monopolies (key industries) which work stoppages are able to immediately shut down (being services, rather than commodity producing industries). Such factors put workers in a stronger bargaining position, which has itself caused the assaults on working conditions which have provoked the current wave of industrial struggles in reaction.

It is the essential nature of the services in these industries which has led to their being associated with state control. Arguments about state ownership and control over these areas can be traced back centuries (indeed, Adam Smith discusses this issue in his Wealth of Nations, and, indeed, favoured the “regulated market” approach which Blairites claim to be an innovation of the Third Way). These services have to be paid for somehow, but to allow them to be run on a totally free market basis would mean that their monopolistic power could lead to them charging at levels which would be detrimental to the interests of other capitalist firms. On the other hand, in order to attract investment they have to make sufficient return to make it worth investors’ while.

Failure of nationalisation

In 1945 the railways were nationalised, after twenty or thirty years of the capitalist class agonising over how to deal with the railways, and as a necessity of post-war reconstruction (See Socialist Standard, November 2000). This had the advantage of securing the existence of the railways, and bringing them within the system of “planning” that characterised immediate post-war capitalism. It also had the, unfortunate for the capitalist class, side-effect of concentrating the workforce into one huge unit. This effectively meant that the unions in those industries had the power to shut down the entire national system in support of their demands.

Along with two other factors, this led to “inefficiency” within the rail and postal industries. The first of these other factors was the nature of nationalised industries. Although they were in effect simply giant corporations in the usual mould, they had one significant difference. Unlike publicly quoted corporations, they were not subject to take-over. If a capitalist firm is run inefficiently, that is when the amount of profit it produces is low relative to its total capital, its share price falls, and other capitalists are able to buy its assets for a relative song. This spurs management on to keep the productivity of the workforce in line with its capital value and standard rates of industrial profit; and it also acts as a spur to investment in capital.

This lack of stimulus was linked to the nature of political control of the nationalised industries. Given that all parties were chasing working class votes, to hoodwink them into supporting capitalism, the political masters of these industries were reluctant to overtly lay-off workers from the nationalised industries. The tendency was, rather than increase the rates of exploitation, or attack workers conditions, to opt for the more politically expedient way and close down rails, coal mines, etc. when they became “uneconomic” (i.e. capitalistically inefficient).

What this meant was that, over time, whereas it had been expedient for capital to hand these industries to the state, eventually nationalised industry became a detriment to their interests. Firstly because inefficiencies due to inadequate investment in new capital in transport and mail were cutting into the profits of other sectors of the economy. Secondly, because the relative strength of the workers and their conditions had wider consequences of working conditions and labour discipline throughout the whole of the economy. Finally, these asset-rich industries were ripe for someone to make a profit from.

When privatisation did come, as a part of the Tories’ turning away from the “post-war consensus”, they moved to undo the disadvantages for capital of national pay bargaining. Part and parcel of the break-up of nationalised industries, was the introduction of trade union legislation banning support strikes in firms not directly involved in negotiations. This was necessary from the capitalist point of view, so that the huge unions which had amalgamated due to necessity faced with the concentrated power of national employers, could not strike across firms in order to protect their members. This was coupled with the deliberate breaking-up of national institutions (including the NHS) into smaller bargaining units, effectively paving the way for long term attacks on workers conditions.

Get rich quick

The other consequence of privatisation, especially in the rails, was the asset stripping of the industry. Since the amount of capital in the industry (especially land) had not been used “efficiently”, it proved to be a cheap source of profits for the new investors. Indeed, for the first few years, the amount given out in share dividends to the owners of Railtrack et al. were equal the amounts realised in sales of land and stock. Rather than realising profits from improved service provision and investment, the new owners sought profit in the easiest form they could (much in the same manner as the asset stripping of the former Soviet Union’s industries).

Alongside this, “overmanning” was attacked, that is, the new management tried to increase the rate of exploitation. Mostly, this involved laying off staff wholesale, leading to a big decrease in the number of signalling staff, as well as drivers. Many of the staff were transferred into subcontracting firms, which subsequently clouded the chain of command with regards to maintenance, but which in the short term allowed workers’ conditions to deteriorate.

These cutbacks have led to a desperate situation. Arriva trains in the Northeast have found themselves short of sufficient drivers to meet their commitments. As has been shown in Scotland, a simple overtime ban has been sufficient to cripple service there. Across the country, the rising wages of drivers relative to other rail staff has been the immediate cause of the South West Trains dispute (leaving aside the disciplinary grievances). It is hardly surprising, then, that the state is offering to come to the industry’s aid, by subsiding the training of drivers with a new academy, to take this cost of their labour off their shoulders, and restore the level of drivers needed.

This short sighted increase in the rate of exploitation did not, for several reasons, lead to an immediate increase in profits. Firstly, the big bulk freight contracts declined along with the demise of the coal and steel industries, a situation not helped by the second factor, which is that successive governments have consciously followed a policy of preferring roads to rail (after all, the car industry needs propping up). Rails need more maintenance and manpower to keep running that do ordinary roads, so in competition between the two the latter comes out better (especially when its costs are disguised into general taxation).

Transporting labour-power

The most important commodity carried by rail at present is labour power, in the form of commuting workers. This aspect remains vital for many capitalists, particularly in London, since housing prices within the city prevent workers from dwelling near their workplaces. What this does mean, however, is that transport prices feed directly into the price of labour in many areas, and any rises in transport prices cut the profitability of the firms who rely on the rails for labour delivery. Hence why transport becomes such a key issue, and the capitalist class is so willing to countenance state intervention in the rail industry.

The fact remains, though, that the unions remain strong enough within these sectors to resist attacks to a certain extent. Despite being hampered by law and the break-up of the industry, the big unions can co-ordinate their campaigns, and exploit political embarrassment to try and get their way. The problems are such that the rail operators may soon decide it is worthwhile giving national bargaining another try as a way of keeping workers under control. Likewise, the Post Office, now ridiculously renamed “Consignia”, may have to think again about their proposed mass sackings of workers, in the face of a concerted union resistance.

Given, though, that the capitalists have used the issue of nationalisation or privatisation as the grounds for their alteration of policy over industrial relations and an attack on working conditions, it is understandable as to why many workers will see the debate in those terms, and their own interest lying with nationalisation. Hence they may be willing to believe that people calling for nationalisation represent their interests. The nationalisation debate, however, is simply one that occurs due to the incapacity of the market system to contain the contradiction between the need for ever more integrated social labour, with private property and market relations. Re-nationalisation will not remove the question of investment costs and running of the railways that have led it into such a parlous state, and will just lead to a repeat of the centuries old story.

Likewise, success through striking may well encourage other workers to stand up for their rights in the workplace more. A group of workers’ strength, however, will continue to be determined by their position within the capitalist economy, and their victory a partial one within the market system. Only by looking to the political situation, the reality of class ownership and power within capitalism, and organising to make themselves a party to the political battle in the name of common ownership for their mutual needs, will a general gain come to workers, and an end wrought to the need for these sectional battles. Otherwise, the ultimate result of the strikes will be the need to strike again in the future.

Pik Smeet

The London Bus Strike (By A Busman) (1954)

From the November 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

On October 18th, London was in the grip of an ever spreading bus strike. As each issue of daily and evening newspapers reported more and more garages affected and more services withdrawn, so the streets of London became increasingly crowded with motor cars and other vehicles and extra police had to be detailed for traffic control.

The strike, which by October 18th embraced 43 out of 84 Central London bus garages was the boiling over of a feeling of resentment that has been simmering amongst busmen for a long time. An understanding of the position requires a review of bus worker's history over the past 15 years.

Before the 1939-1945 war London busmen received a wage above the average paid to workers in other industries throughout Great Britain. They attained this position by their ready willingness to struggle and the favourable position of their industry. A passenger transport strike represents a dead loss of income to the employers. A stock of passenger rides cannot be built up in preparation for a strike and travellers do not take two rides in the place of one after the strike in order to recoup the employers for the loss. Further, it has a damaging effect on other industries.

During the war busmen were urged to sacrifice some of their working conditions in favour of the war effort. They anticipated that, after the war, they would not only regain the things they had sacrificed but receive many improvements in addition. They formulated a programme of demands which became known as the “Post War Policy,” to be achieved when the time was opportune. The time has never been opportune. With other workers, they were told that the country had to be put back on its feet, export markets had to be captured, the dollar gap had to be closed and the London Transport undertaking was financially “in the red.” There were no end of reasons advanced in favour of wage freeze and wage restraint and why the time was not opportune. A number of minor concessions were gained, an extra quarter time for Sunday work, 9d. per hour for Saturday afternoon work (see Socialist Standard, February, 1949), plus a few pay increases of 7/- or 8/-, the last of which was awarded at the beginning of this year. With the ever increasing cost of living the busmen have found that, despite their pay increases, they have been getting poorer and poorer.

This has resulted in a heavy staff wastage which the employment of more women conductors has failed to reduce. The wastage has become accelerated during recent years. British Transport Commission reports show that during a four year period ending 1952, 25.485 drivers and conductors left their jobs and from January 1st, 1952, to January 1st, 1953, there was a net decline in staff 1,012. In a sellers' market the opportunity was present for busmen to gain a higher price for their labour power.

The gaps in the bus services caused by this staff shortage have been partially filled by busmen working excessive overtime, an opportunity which many of them seized to build up their meagre pay packets. Early this year the busmen began to realise that they were missing a favourable opportunity and that whilst they contented themselves with getting extra pay for working seven days a week plus other forms of overtime, they were solving the London Transport Executive's staff problem and missing the boat that could provide them with improved wages and working conditions.

A ban on rest day and extra duty work was imposed at a few garages and gradually spread throughout the London bus fleet until it embraced almost 90 per cent. of the 114 garages and trolley bus depots. A demand for a £10 10s. weekly wage for all sections (Country Service sections now get a much lower wage than Central London busmen), a five day 40 hour working week and payment during periods of sickness became a rallying point.

The London Transport Executive claimed that this demand was far in excess of anything that they could concede and, although they made certain proposals for a longer working day with increases in overtime pay, they would not negotiate whilst the overtime ban was in operation. Then, without consultation with the men's Trade Union representatives and in a most provocative manner, they introduced into a few garages, a set of schedules that made drastic cuts in a number of bus services. This put the spark to the tinder and garage after garage came out on strike, many without the new emergency schedules coming out in support of those which had them.

The busmen are now claiming that workers in other industries have forged ahead of them and that the inconveniences of their job are not compensated for by the wages they receive. For getting out of bed during the small hours of the morning one week and getting home during the small hours of the morning the following week, for having irregular meal reliefs and a disrupted home life a bus conductor receives a basic wage of £7 14s. 6d. for a 44 hour week—a driver gets 4s. extra. Only by working on Saturday afternoons, on Sundays and national holidays and by performing irksome spreadover duties, can a man get his wage over the £8 mark. A high physical standard is demanded of new recruits but sickness is not catered for—no work, no pay, is the principle. A new contributor pension scheme, recently introduced, is so meagre that it is a matter for ridicule. Annual holidays must frequently be taken during the least pleasant months of the year. The system of rest days makes it necessary to work seven consecutive days before a busman gets a day off except when he has a series of Sundays free from work.

That was the case the London busmen were making on October 18th. A conference was called that day and the delegates from the garages decided by a heavy majority vote to call for a resumption of work and the lifting of the overtime ban in order to have the emergency schedules withdrawn and to allow negotiations to commence with the submission of a claim for higher wages, regulated overtime, to level up the rates of pay between the Central and the Country Services (the Red and the Green) and a number of other items.

The overtime ban had been welded into a strong weapon and it gave the busmen the initiative in the struggle. The introduction of the emergency schedules, by precipitating a strike put the busmen on the defensive and gave the L.T.E. the initiative. Whether it was consciously devised by the L.T.E. or not, it was an astute move and the busmen were snared. Now they impatiently await the outcome of the negotiation.

As with every other commodity, the price of labour power fluctuates with variations in supply and demand, but the fluctuations are not automatic. They are brought about by the efforts of employers to obtain cheap labour power when the supply is plentiful and by the struggles of workers to get more when the demand exceeds the supply. London busmen are working on sound lines in using the present high demand for their particular brand of labour power to force up its price.

As usual there are no end of well wishers and advisers who have cures for the case. Harry Pollitt and Arthur Deakin are for once in agreement in expounding a cure. They both accept that the financial position of the London Transport Executive precludes a satisfactory settlement to the busmen's claims. Some means must be found to improve this financial position and they both speak for a reduction in the fuel tax which would free the L.T.E. from a heavy burden of taxation and release a large sum of money which could be utilised to reduce bus fares and increase busmen's pay. This is an old, old, stinking red herring that dates back to the days of the agitation for the repeal of the Corn Laws. One section of the capitalist class considers itself unjustly treated in relation to another section and enlists the aid of the workers to secure advantages for itself. In the early days of the 19th century it was the heavy tax on com that was supposed to weigh heavily on the workers by keeping up the price of bread. Repeal the Com Laws, they were told, and bread will be cheaper and your wages will buy more. They fell for it. The Com Laws were repealed after years of effort and the workers had to fight against the drive to reduce their wages as soon as there was a tendency for the cost of living to fall. The position will be no different for London busmen. If a reduction in the fuel tax was achieved they would still have to fight to get higher wages.

Incidentally, the London Transport Executive have indicated that they are not interested in a reduction in the fuel tax. When a proposal was made to them by the Transport and General Workers' Union to use the backs of bus tickets to publicise a campaign for fuel tax reduction, they replied that they were a section of the British Transport Commission which relied mainly on railways for its revenue. A fuel tax reduction would assist their competitors, the road haulage companies, to more successfully compete with the railways.

A reduction in the amount of interest paid to bondholders by the Government and collected by them from the British Transport Commission is another proposal to put money into the Commission's coffers and so make higher wages for its employees possible. It is not unknown for a Government in such a case to waive part of the interest charge payable by a nationalised industry, but this would mean higher taxation so that the Government could continue to meet its own legal obligations to the former shareholders now holding Government stock. It would, however, not in the least lessen the efforts of the Board and the Government to keep wages down as much as possible. The general body of capitalists paying the increased taxation would press for lower fares and freight charges not higher transport wages.

The Press has been mildly sympathetic to the busmen. There are many who say that the busmen have a good case, but . . and the “but” evolves into a variety of schemes to get more out of them. One scheme in the forefront is to introduce one-man-operated buses on a wider scale. They have already been introduced in places on the outskirts of London and in the provinces. One man only is required to drive the vehicle and to collect fares, attend to the safety and comfort of passengers and, in general, conduct the bus. Some development of this nature is to be expected for it has ever been a rule of capitalism that, when the employers are forced to pay higher wages they look around for ways and means to reduce their total wage-bill by the introduction of labour saving machinery. That ultimately means, not less labour for all workers, but more labour for some and enforced idleness for others popularly known as a slump.

It may seem to busmen and all other workers that the position is impossible of improvement. Not so. There may be improvements for some of the workers for a long time and for all the workers for a short time, but the range of all improvements is very limited within capitalist society. Not a reduction in the amount of interest paid on investments but the abolition of investment; not struggles for higher wages but the end of the wages system; not joint consultation between employers and employees, but the elimination of employment and unemployment, a world wherein everyone produces to his best ability and has access to the wealth produced, in a word—Socialism. That is the only alternative to an indefinite continuation of the struggle to get enough to live on for those millions who constitute the working class.

Busmen have always had one weakness in their struggles—inter-garage rivalries, inter-section suspicions, inter-service jealousies and a lack of close communication to allow of concerted action. The overtime ban did much to overcome those difficulties and give a common purpose. The strike, as it was not complete, has recreated the difficulties. To achieve Socialism there must be a breaking down of the rivalries and antagonisms between all workers in all industries and a unification, on the political field, on the basis of a clear understanding and awareness of their interests—AS A CLASS.

W. Waters.

Notes by the Way: What goes on in Abyssinia (1954)

The Notes by the Way Column from the November 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

What goes on in Abyssinia

Outwardly the visit to Britain of Haile Selassie, King of Kings and Emperor of Ethiopia, may have the appearance of a courtesy call between two of the few remaining monarchies of the world. But it is an open secret that there are matters of more serious interest than renewing old acquaintance and revisiting Bath, where the Emperor lived during his exile after the Italian conquest of his homeland. The Sunday Express (17/10/54) reports that behind the scenes “a new treaty of friendship and alliance” is being negotiated. More information is given by the Manchester Guardian (12/10/54). According to this report the economic and political situation in Abyssinia is critical and the visits to Washington and now London are designed to obtain financial aid for development of resources in return for which strategic advantages can be offered to the Western Powers.

“The future of Eritrea and the Somalilands is the most important question affecting Great Britain and Ethiopia. Eritrea, uneasily federated to Ethiopia for a temporary period, has Red Sea ports of strategic significance for the Western Powers, faced with a revolutionary Middle East and an unpredictable East Africa. French Somaliland remains the only rail outlet to the sea. Italian Somaliland is under United Nations trusteeship until 1959. For the Emperor these lands with their large Somali, Dankali and Tigrean populations are a source of danger, and their future is of great importance. In 1953 an American military mission arrived to replace the Swedish mission training the Ethiopian army.”

“There is oil in the northern provinces and the American Sinclair Oil Company is prospecting in the Somali desert in the east. The existence of uranium was confirmed in 1947. Ethiopia urgently needs loans, aid and capital investment. In return she can offer oil and mineral concessions.”

In the meantime the Emperor, who is “at once king, dictator and government,” has such problems to face in maintaining his rule that it was at first thought that he could not safely leave the country.

Where the other capitalist Powers are busy furthering their interests Russia is not missing and would have its opportunity if the present regime collapsed.

“Soviet Russia, with an Embassy, a very fine information service, the best-equipped hospital in Addis Ababa and the ear of some of the best-educated men in the country would not be slow to build a bridge to Africa. Poverty and ignorance are widespread and the Coptic Church, the official Church with great temporal power, has old ties with the orthodox Church in Russia.”

Those who have wondered why the allegedly anti-Christian Russian rulers have propped up the Church in Russia will see here one of the reasons. The religious link has already been useful to them as a means of approach and influence in the Balkans and may now prove to be useful for getting a foothold in Africa. For Russian capitalism as for the others trade and the gun may follow the Bible.

Are Strikes due to Communists ?

Scoffing at the idea that the bus and dock strikes are caused by Communist agitation, the Sunday Express, always pleased to turn the attack against the Transport and General Workers Union, lays responsibility on the latter.

“The fact is that Mr. Deakin’s huge union, nearly a million and a quarter strong, is totally unmanageable. Contact between its leadership and the rank and file seems almost non-existent even at local level.” (Sunday Express, 17/10/54.)

Be that as it may the Express have an unanswerable point when they ask: “does Mr. Deakin really believe that ordinary working-folk with family responsibilities will risk their whole livelihood simply because hot words are spilt by a handful of agitators?”

Another point is overlooked when this charge is levelled at the Communists. They do not always support and encourage strikes. When the Russian Government’s policy requires no strikes the Communist parties all over the world fall into line. After 1941, when the Russian Government was forced into the second world war, the British Communists were at the forefront of the drive to get the workers to work harder, and to refrain from striking. Strikes were denounced by the Communists as sabotage “against the nation”—just the same sort of language that is now directed against the Communists. The interesting point to notice is, however, that the number of strikes and strikers in the years when the Communists were the loudest mouthed patriots and were telling the workers not to strike were just as high as when the Communists changed to the new line of encouraging strikes.

In 1951, 1952 and 1953, there were just over 1,700 strikes each year and the number of days work lost by strikers rose from 1,710,000 days in 1951 to 1,797,000 in 1952 and to 2,142,000 in 1953.

This was a period when Communists were supporting strikes. But in the years 1943-1946, when the Communists were denouncing strikers, the number of strikes each year was greater than in any of the years 1951-1953, as also was the number of days work lost each year through strikes.

From which it may be concluded, as we might expect, that the workers strike against the effects of capitalism and it does not make much difference to their actions whether the Communists are for or against.

Troops and Dock Strikes

The following is from an article in the Daily Mail (19/10/54) in which Mr. Roland Hurman explains why the Tory Government has been able to avoid the hasty use of troops in dock strikes.

“Three times during the reign of the Socialist Government, under Mr. Attlee, the Cabinet sent troops into the London docks. Now, for the first time in three years of Sir Winston Churchill’s Administration, the Government are pondering the problem of how long they can wait before ordering the men of the Armed Forces into action in defence of our peace-time front line.

“That Sir Winston has been able to wait for more than a fortnight before deciding on this drastic step is itself silent testimony to the growth of the country’s prosperity since he took office.

“In the immediate post-war period of shortages, controls, and rationing, most cargoes had to be moved quickly to keep the nation fed and occupied. To-day we are much belter off, but a trading country like Britain cannot continue indefinitely in the vacuum created by the dock strike.”

The Motive behind Capitalism

Economists and City editors have a double line of propaganda against Socialism. One is that you can’t do without the profit-motive because that is what makes the wheels go round. The other is that it is unfair to charge the capitalists with being money-grabbers for their real incentive is disinterested service in the community.

But last month the Chancellor of the Exchequer told business men that they should pay out less profit in dividends and devote more of it to developing their factories to meet foreign competition. This stung the City Editor of the Daily Express to the following:—

“Nonsense, Mr. Butler. Dividends are the life-blood of a free-enterprise economy.

“It was the promise of dividends that led the Adventurers of England to Trade Into Hudson’s Bay. To-day it is a national asset worth £29,000,000.

“It was the promise of dividends that brought Mr. Rolls and Mr. Royce together. And it is the hope of dividends that encourages the investors of Britain to risk their money in industry.

"There is nothing wrong with high dividends provided they come from justifiable profits. Any more than higher wages are wrong if the workers deserve them.

"Both are high-degree marks on the barometer of a nation’s prosperity.” (Daily Express, 16/10/54.)

Mr. Morgan Phillips on Russia

Mr. Morgan Phillips, Secretary of the Labour Party, wrote for the Daily Telegraph about his impressions during the recent Labour Party delegation’s visit to Moscow on its way to China. From the article in the Daily Telegraph of August 21, 1954, we discover that Mr. Phillips still holds the view he has expressed in the past, that British Labourism and the Russian Government have a common objective but differ about methods. He writes:—

“It may provide food for thought that the apparently sterner Stalin said to us in 1946 that both Britain and the Soviet Union were moving in the direction of Socialism— the Russian road shorter and more difficult, the British longer and involving no bloodshed. It can hardly be said that under a Conservative Government Britain is still on the road to Socialism; yet Malenkov was at least no less friendly.”

Writing further of the difference between his talks with Malenkov and the talks in 1946 with Stalin, Mr. Phillips says of the earlier talks:—

“As I have said, we talked then of the two roads to Socialism—the Communist way and the Democratic way to which we in the British Labour Party are committed and irrevocably dedicated. Wc gained the impression that notwithstanding ideological and other differences, it might be possible for the Communist and non-Communist world to live peacefully and prosperously side by side."

Mr. Phillips gives us a fascinating example of the way one confusion of thought is bound to lead to others and make understanding impossible. He early imbibed two ideas, one true the other false; the first that the Socialist idea involves international co-operation and harmony, the second that Socialism means State control of industry or State capitalism.

Having taken this initial leap in the dark Mr. Phillips' further progress in error and confusion was as certain as the sunrise. As both the Russian and the British Labour Governments had leanings to State capitalism they must, thought Mr. Phillips, have a common goal; they must be fellow-travellers on the way to Socialism. They ought also to be able to live in mutual peace and harmony. Since, however, they were not in harmony but in a state of cold war the cause might be, perhaps, a difference about method, the long and the short, the bloody and the peaceful roads to Socialism. Happy in his explanation of the problem Mr. Phillips is now convinced "that there are grounds for a renewal of optimism" in the matter of Anglo-Russian relations.

The cold truth is that Russia and Britain are parts of the capitalist world, trying to survive and expand in the cut-throat scramble. They do indeed differ about method, Russia relying more, and Britain less, on State capitalist methods of organising industry.

The reasons for their rivalries and hostilities now have no more to do with controversies about Socialism than the Crimean War of 100 years ago had to do with Russian and British controversies about who were the proper guardians of Christians of the Greek Church under Turkish rule.

Mr. Morrison dissents

Mr. Herbert Morrison evidently does not share Mr. Phillips' illusions about mutual harmony between Britain and Russia and he wrote caustically in the June “Socialist Commentary" about those who think they can see Socialism in Russia :—

“We cannot delude ourselves into thinking that revolutions in other countries are deserving of our sympathy and support just because they are revolutions. . . . The idea still prevails that Russia has a Socialist economic system simply because so much is nationalised and planned; the existence of a dictatorship and the loss of individual freedom are regarded as unfortunate but irrelevant. As a result her every action—and the same now applies to China—is viewed with special indulgence.”

 

New Naval War

Nearly 50 years ago the growth of the German navy led to the campaign in Britain to build more battleships to counter the threat. It is different today. Germany is only just about to begin re-armament and this time, so the British Government hopes, Germany will be an ally. But the British Government is still building warships, and three new cruisers are to be completed. But against Russia not Germany!

Mr. Noel Monks writes in the Daily Mail (16/10/54):—

“They will be the navy's answer to Russia's Sverdlov-class cruiser. This was revealed last night by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. J. P. L. Thomas, in a speech at the R.N.V.R. club in London.”

Edgar Hardcastle